Loading...
Backup Documents 03/13/2012 Item #16I1611 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE March 13, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Public Meeting Notice: Amend the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Overlay Land Development Code Regulations 1/25/12 161 A EC EIVED Amend the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle DES o 12012 Overlay Land Development Code Regulations koard of County Commissioners Wednesday January 25, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA, 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 Community Meeting The neighborhood informational meeting to amend the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Overlay Land Development Code Regulations was held at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency in Naples Florida on January 25, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. Including staff 10 people were in attendance. Staff included, Caroline Cilek representing Collier County Land Development Services, Jean Jourdan and Dave Jackson representing the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA and Patrick Vanasse of RWA Inc. Jean Jourdan gave the presentation and Patrick Vanasse assisted in responding to questions. An auto tape of the meeting was made. Jean Jourdan opened the meeting by providing staff introductions and a general overview of the purpose of the meeting. Caroline Cilek addressed the audience and explained her role as Land Development Coordinator. Jean told the audience that in coordination with RWA the CRA reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of the current LDC regulations to identify any deficiencies. She further explained that some of the main objectives were to reorganize, rewrite and improve the format of the document, ensure the overlays respond to the current market conditions and they are consistent with the CRA's goals and objectives. Jean further explained that although the document appears to be very different most of the changes are formatting changes. Jean provided the audience a handout that outlined the substantive changes for their review and a question and answer session between the audience and staff ensued. After all questions had been addressed staff discussed the public hearing process and informed the audience that the entire LDC amendment submittal package was available and could be viewed on the CRA's website. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 Misc. Corres: Date: '� S 1 'b ► 2 Item #:.x U-- X NC�v 1 Copies to: lJ J�I G{ Y C L 1 �� l la Misc. Corres: Date: '� S 1 'b ► 2 Item #:.x U-- X NC�v 1 Copies to: BAYSHORE GATEW,,,,Y ! 1 A � t TRIANGLE t i. M® p i `� BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Neighborhood Informational Meeting Wednesday January 25, 2012, 5:30 PM 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples FL, 34112 AMEND THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE OVERLAY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS Agenda 1. Welcome and introductions Jean Jourdan, Project Manager, Bayshore /Gateway Triangle, CRA Caroline Cilek, LDC Coordinator, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulations, Land Development Services Patrick Vanasse, Director of Planning, RWA 2. Staff comments 3. Proposed amendment overview 4. General questions, answers and discussion Note: All meetings are publicly noticed in the Harmon Turner Building (Administration Building). Please call the Bayshore/Triangle office at (239) 643 -1115 if you have any questions about the meeting. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, 34112, (239) 774 -8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. SIGN IN SHEET 16 1 11 A! I PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING THE OFFICES OF THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA LOCATED AT 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES FL., 34112, 5:30 P.M.., JANUARY 25, 2012 BY JEAN JOURDAN, PROJECT MANAGER, COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS AS A RECORD OF YOUR ATTENDANCE. THANK YOU. O '(4 0 I ADDRESS`^ EM AIL PHONE (NAME //j( �✓} u GSS � nn �i`� S 17 vULlC% �C' 'r 4�z 2u1'_ross or) cast;rl'R Nei --? ��' ✓i`�� Chit -. it �, Gr I// e.-✓ 2 % God jQpS ld coG9��1.�ell " nr IV �C S4 ��CC iu5 �'a� ��'�'' /(0 C" !l L I/Z O '(4 0 I Welcome January 25, 2012 Land Development Code Regulations Neighborhood Informational Meeting Introductions: Jean Jourdan, Project Manager Bays h ore/Gateway Triangle CRA Caroline Cilek, LDC Coordinator Growth Management Division /Planning Regulations Patrick Vanasse, Director of Planning RWA, Inc. O1#4 _w. Land Development Code (LDC) Regulations Revisions In 2009 a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued and awarded to_... RWA, Inc., to evaluate the effectiveness of the current LDC regulations and identify deficiencies. TASKS ➢Review Current Overlay in relation to the LDC ➢Identify current development patterns ➢Analyze effectiveness of Overlays ➢Review Mixed -Use Project & administrative deviation process ➢Draft updated Overlay Regulations d the amendment and adoption hearings MAIN OBJECTIVES Reorganization and rewrite to remove redundancies and improve formatting.y , Ensure the CRA Overlays respond to the current market conditions and are consistent with the goals and objectives of the CRA. ➢Address minor technical issues ➢Consolidate design standards �.�. ➢Establish a simplified table of uses 0` ➢Revise lot and dimensional standards ➢Revise parking requirements ➢Revise landscaping and buffer requirements �r ➢Revise architectural standards ➢Introduce nonconforming provisions Substantive Changes ,/Reformatting ✓Addition of Uses to Definition ✓Addition of galleries, artist's studios, live /work & community gardens ✓Single family minimum floor area reduced 1300 to 1100 ✓Guest house maximum area increased from 570 to 750 ✓Mixed Use Project Open Space deviation ✓Glazing requirement reduced ✓Exterior building & awning color deviation ✓Buffer and tree spacing ,/Right away buffers coordinate with streetscape guidelines ✓Water management located within buffer ✓On Street Parking ✓Addition of Murals ✓Non- conforming language Live approval CT n Important Public Hearing Dates ➢County Planning Commission: April 2012 ➢Board of County Commissioners: June 2012 LETS TALK 1 • FA 1612 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES March 13, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Affordable Housing Commission: Minutes of4 /11 /11; 9/12/11; 11/15/11 2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of 114/11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12 3) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of 10/4/11; 11 /l /11; 12/6/11; 1/3/12 4) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 8/16/11 Minutes of 8/16/11 5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 5/17/10 (Wiggins Pass Subcommittee); 11/10/11; 12/19/11 (Wiggins Pass Subcommittee); 1/12/12 6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 9/22/11; 11 /1 /11 (Special Magistrate); 11/18/11; 12/2/11 (Special Magistrate); 1/6/12 (Special Magistrate) 7) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of 10/20/11; 11/3/11; 11/17/11; 12/1/11; 12/15/11 8) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 10/19/11; 12/21/11 9) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of 7 /20/11; 9/21/11; 10/19/11 Minutes of 7 /20/11; 9/21/11; 10/19/11 1612 10) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of Minutes of 11/2/11; 11/14/11 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee); 11/28/11 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee); 12/6/11 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee); 12/7/11; 12/14/11 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee); 12/21 /11 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee); 1/4/12 11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board: Minutes of 11/4/11; 11/18/11 (Emergency Meeting) 12) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 11/2/11 13) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 11/9/11; 12/14/11; 1/11/12 Minutes of 9/14/11; 11/9/11; 12/14/11 14) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of 10/3/11; 11/7/11 15) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 10/19/11; 11/16/11 16) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 6/10/11; 10/24/11; 11/22/11; 12/15/11; 12/22/11 17) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of 10 /10 /11; 12/12/11 18) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 11/17/11; 12/15/11 Minutes of 10/20/11; 11/17/11 19) Library Advisory Board: Minutes of 9/21/11 20) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 10/26/11 (Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 11/2/11; 12/7/11; 12/14/11; 1/4/12; 1/10/12 (Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 1/17/12 (Budget Subcommittee); 2/1/12 Minutes of 10/26/11 (Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 11/2/11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12 1612 21) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 12/12/11; 1/9/12 Minutes of 11/14/11 22) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Agenda of 8/3/11; 1015111; 11/2/11; 1/4/12; 2/1/12 Minutes of 8/3/11; 1015111; 11/2/11; 121/11; 12/7/11; 1/4/12 23) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of 12/1/11; 1/5/12 Minutes of 11/3/11; 12/1/11 24) Water and Wastewater Authority: Minutes of 8/8/11; 10/24/11 161 2A I April 11, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECEIVED April 1 , 2011 JAN 0 9 2012 Naples, Board of County Cwm*WgNM LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiner Henning Coyle Coletta� Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: a V Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby (Excused) Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Gina Downs Patricia Fortune Christine Jones Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Sally Masters (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer (Absent) (Vacancy - Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director - Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor - Staff Liaison 161 2A April 11, 2011 1. Call to Order — Vice Chairman: Vice Chairman Giblin called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. 2. Roll Call of Committee Members: Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. 3. Approval of Minutes —March 14,2011: Changes: • On Page 2, under Item "A "— New Member: AHAC meetings will be held on the second Monday of each month • On Page 5, under Item 7 — "Committee Member Comments: " Marcy Krumbine was one of the authors who contributed to a chapter in the 2011 Edition of The Florida Government Guide John Cowan moved to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. 4. Approval of Agenda: Chimes: • Under Item 5, Information Items Only, Paragraph "b" was deleted from the Agenda. John Cowan moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. 5. Information Items: A. Reprogram Proposal Scores — Marcy Krumbine Background: • RFPs ( "Requests for Proposals ") were issued to obtain projects from local non - profit organizations o Approximately $470,000 in CDBG ( "Community Development Block Grant ") funds became available because projects that received allocations were not begun o Also available: • CDBG - "R" (energy - efficiency) funds in the sum of $500,000 • SHIP funds in the amount of $2.7M which must be expended by December 31, 2011 The projects were ranked by the Scoring Committee as follows: • Big Cypress: • Requested funds for an energy- efficient project (Main Street Village in Immokalee) to be funded by CDBG - "R" program - $470,000 • A recommendation for approval will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners o Scored: 96% 2 161 2A pril 11, 2011 • Florida Non - Profit Acquisitions: o Requested funds to acquire, rehab, and rent single - family houses o Will recommend approval using SHIP funds - $510,000 o Scored: 81.6% • David Lawrence Center: o Requested funds to re -roof all of the buildings on the Campus and install energy- efficient, impact - resistant windows in all buildings o Total amount: to be determined ($300 — 350,000) o Will recommend approval using CDBG funds o Scored: 80.8% ---__ • Habitat for Humanity: • Requested funds to re -roof existing bitat homes that are 10+ years old • Will recommend approval using S P funds - $300,000 / • Scored: 80.4% 11Z.— Additional recommended project: • A request from the Foundation for the Developmentally Disabled ( "FDD ") to acquire one NSP house (single or multi - family) to house developmentally disabled adults RFPs requiring curing: • Goodwill • Florida Non- Profit/Senior • Collier County Housing Authority — requested funds for renovations (Farm Worker Village) C. Update: Neighborhood Stabilization Program — Marcy KrumbineBuddy Ramsey • 76 properties have been acquired • Estimated acquisition costs: $4.8M • Estimated remodeling costs: $2.8M • Sold properties: 13 • Program income: $928,000 • 3 pending contracts (acquisition of property) • 5 contracts pending for sale of rehabbed properties • Zip code breakdown o 34112 — 23 properties; 34116 — 28; and 34120 - 25 • Multi - Family • six duplexes will be transferred to Florida Non - Profit Corporation • eight additional properties (16 units) are either fully rehabbed or will be completed by the end of March D. Update: SHIP Program: Buddy Ramsey • HUD granted an extension to expend all funds by December 31, 2011 • Total amount: $2.7M • Consulting with Technical Assistance provider to identify eligible activities 3 A 41 16 I 2 April 11, 2011 Public Comments: (None) 6. NSP -3 Contract Presentation — Marcy Krumbine & Buddy Ramsey • Will be presented to Board of County Commissioners on April 12th to approve /sign the contract with HUD for participation in NSP -3 ( "Neighborhood Stabilization Program ") Funding: $3,884,165 Goals: o Stabilize neighbors — arrest decline, reduce blight o Target and reconnect neighborhoods o Optimize economic activity (incentives) o Ensure long -term affordability • Eligible Activities: o Financing mechanism — community may act as "bank" and hold mortgage o Purchase and rehab properties o Establish/operate "Land Banks" — may hold for 10 years for redevelopment o Demolish blighted structures o Redevelop demolished or vacant properties as homes • Restriction: 25% of funds must be used to benefit households earning 50% or less of Area Median Income ( "AMI ") • 50% of funds must be spent within two years and completely spent within three years • Target Areas: Golden Gate City, Bayshore Gateway Triangle, Naples Park • Allocation for administrative expenses is ten percent ($388,416.50) After a period of fifteen years or when the homeowner decides to sell the property, he /she is entitled to return of his/her investment. The remaining funds will be returned to the County. If the property is a rental property, it must remain "affordable" for no less than fifteen years. The homeowners execute a second mortgage to the County with a special covenant that limits the appreciation of the home to the Consumer Price Index (applied to the original purchase price) plus one percent per year during the term of ownership. Any money over that amount, which will be determined at the time of sale, will be returned to the County. • HUD has approved utilizing NSP -3 funds to purchase short sales • Housing, Human & Veteran Services' written policy states that no property will be acquired until ninety days after title has been transferred from the previous owner to a bank (in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Act) • The policy was approved by the Board of County Commissioners under NSP -1 • Under NSP -3, redevelopment is strictly limited to housing and does not allow for development of public spaces such as parks or community gardens • NSP funds cannot be used to provide foreclosure prevention directly to owners o Some Counties provide a lease to own program • HHVS has partnered with the County's Real Property Department to obtain eligible properties • Approximately 800 properties were evaluated and 370 homes were inspected • Offers were made on 308 properties — 79 offers were accepted A 1612 April 11, 2011 • Under "First Look" program, HHVS is notified 48 hours prior to release of properties to foreclosure list to the public Bradley Schiffer moved to approve recommending to the Board of County Commissioners that it approve and executed the contract with HUD for NSP -3. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 7- 0. 7. Nominate Member to Entitlement Round Scoring Committee — Marcy Krumbine Vice Chairman Giblin disclosed his affiliation with a non - profit organization which may /may not submit an application for funding and stated he would not participate in the grant funding discussion and would also abstain from voting. Christine Jones noted she volunteers at the Shelter for Abused Women and Children. Background: • RFPs ( "Request for Proposal ") were requested from local non - profit organizations • Funding source: Entitlement Funds from HUD (CDBG, HOME, and ESP) • Amount of funding: has not yet been announced • Submission deadline: April 15, 2011 Marcy Krumbine requested that the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee appoint one representative to sit on the Entitlement Scoring Committee. The remaining members of the Committee will be approved by the County Manager. Sally Masters volunteered in the past and has informed Ms. Krumbine that she is willing to participate again. Gina Downs moved to approve nominating Sally Masters to serve as the AHAC representative on the Entitlement Round Scoring Committee. Second by Bradley Schiffer. Christian Davis volunteered to serve an Alternate if Sally Masters was unavailable to attend a meeting. Gina Downs amended her motion to approve nominating Sally Masters to serve as the AHAC representative on the Entitlement Round Scoring Committee with Christian Davis to serve as the Alternate as needed. Second by Bradley Schiffer. Motion carried, 6 — "Yes " /1— "Abstention." Vice Chairman Giblin abstained. 8. Committee Member Comments: Bradley Schiffer noted he had been nominated to serve as the AHAC representative for the Mobility Study. The Study will be presented to the Planning Commission on which he serves. He requested to resign as the AHAC representative to the Study. Gina Downs stated she is a member of the Study Committee as the Director of the Citizens' Transportation Coalition. 161 2A 1 April 11, 2011 Next meeting: May 9, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 4:06 PM by order of the Vice Chairman. Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Cormac Giblin, Vice Chairman The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on CIA , 2011, "as submitted" [_I OR "as amended" U. 6 161k2 Al September 12, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2012 Board of County CowkWonws September 12, 2011 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala -- '`" - -- Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta - Misc. Corres: Date_3��3��2 Item #:_ kh S 2 *A Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Gina Downs (Resigned) Patricia Fortune Christine Jones (Excused) Sally Masters (Resigned) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer (Absent) (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Commissioner Jim Coletta — BCC (Absent) County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney (Absent) 1 1612 A I September 12, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Steve Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. 2. ROLL CALL — COMMITTEE MEMBERS /STAFF: Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Six members were present. 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda Christian Davis moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by John Cowan. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. b. Approval of Minutes —June 13, 2011 John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Vice Chairman Cormac Giblin. Carried unanimously, S — 0. (Note: Patricia Fortune could not vote because she did not attend the June 13th meeting.) 4. INFORMATION ITEMS — STAFF: a. NSP -11HUD Monitoring Close -out Letter: Buddy Ramsey (A copy of the HUD letter was distributed the Committee.) HUD's performance evaluation/on -site monitoring began on May 18, 2011 Purpose: to determine program compliance and analyze the community's continuing ability to carry out the program Result: there were no concerns or findings Chairman Hruby noted HUD usually tries to find some "fault" and for the report to be blemish free was an achievement. b. Inventory of NSP Properties • Total Inventory: 60 properties • Land Bank— 10 vacant, single- family lots (17 %) • Multi Family — 17 buildings /36 units (28 %) • Single Family — 33 properties (55 %) (County owned) 0 6 houses — "Ready for Sale" — no buyers, but construction is complete o 10 houses —"Reserved for Purchase" but not yet ready for occupancy o 17 houses — construction has not begun It was noted that 20 properties have been sold. Buddy Ramsey explained eligible, pre - qualified buyers were given a list of County - owned properties and they "reserved" the properties that best suited their needs. These 16112 A 1 September 12, 2011 properties are being renovated while the buyers are in the process of obtaining a mortgage and completing a Sales /Purchase contract. The multi - family units will be rented to individuals who earn less than 50% of the Area Median Income ( "AMI "). HUD requires that the County develop a plan to utilize the land- banked lots within ten years of acquisition. c. Securing NSP Properties • Site visits were conducted in late August and increased security measures were implemented for 14 properties, including: • Replacement of damaged dead bolt locks • Installation of dead bolt locks where necessary • Locks were installed on sliding glass doors • Door knobs have been replaced • Broken /damaged windows have been replaced • Properties will be monitored by Staff on a weekly basis, especially in low - traffic or remote areas • Lawn maintenance — continuing to be provided by a landscaping company d. Status of NSP -1 and NSP -3 Funds NSP -1: • Total allocation received by the County: approximately $7.3M • Spent: approximately $7.8M • Program income: approximately $1.4M o generated by sales of rehabbed properties (20) • Additional income: approximately $430,000 o The revenue is not currently recognized — income has not yet been approved by the Board of County Commissioners • Obligations /Commitments: approximately $310,000 o for lawn service, construction contracts — not yet spent • Balance: approximately $177,000 • Met 18 -month obligation deadline in September, 2010 • Met expenditures deadline (ahead of schedule) • Currently working solely from program income NSP -3: Allocation: approximately $3.8M o funds available but will not be spent or obligation until directed to do so o funding will be utilized for eligible activities outlined in the Action Plan o may also be used to support NSP -1 programs if necessary o 50% of the funding must be spent by 2013 161 2 All September 12, 2011 e. Disaster Recovery Enhancement Funds ( "DREF ") Application • July 26, 2011 — Board of County Commissioners approved the application through the State's Department of Community Affairs ( "DCA ") • Allocation: approximately $3.3M • Funds awarded as the result of damage from a named storm (Tropical Storm Faye) and no funds from FEMA were available • Approved projects: • Immokalee CRA — flood /drainage improvement — $2,073,344 • Collier County Housing Authority — install impact resistant windows in 100 units in Farm Worker Village — $832,519 • Bromelia Place Apartments — low- income senior rentals — purchase and install generator for back -up power — $300,000 • Esperanza Place Apartments — low /moderate income — complete construction of swale to improve stormwater drainage system - $35,000 • Housing, Human & Veteran Services — for planning and administrative costs - $83,099 (approximately 2 %2 %) • Some activities (installation of impact resistant windows, installation of a generator) are eligible because they mitigate against future storm damage • 51% of the grant funds must benefit low- income individuals, and 14% of the grant funds must be used for affordable rental housing 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Kathy Patterson, Executive Director — Housing Development Corporation ( "HDC "), announced that a Foreclosure Prevention Benefit breakfast will be held at the Hilton on Wednesday, October 19th from 7:45 to 8:45 AM. The donation is $35.00. Proceeds will help fund a joint program with Legal Aid. • The HDIC is a HUD - approved counseling agency and the majority of counseling has been to individuals at risk of losing their homes. Clients are referred to Legal Aid as appropriate for further counseling and assistance. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS: STAFF a. NSP Discussion: Options, Considerations, and Comments Kim Grant, Interim Director, provided the following background information: • July 26, 2011 — at the Board of County Commissioners' meeting — discussion took place concerning how some of the elements of construction were being managed under the NSP, specifically related to billing procedures • Dwight Brock, Collier County Clerk, announced that he had begun to conduct audits of the NSP billing procedures • Housing, Human & Veterans' Services received a preliminary audit from the Clerk's office and has responded • The results of the audit process are confidential until finalized • The BCC asked Staff and the County Manager to evaluate existing options for the NSP -1 and NSP -3 Programs, i.e., possibility of partnering with community organizations 161 2 kl September 12, 2011 Ms. Grant asked the Chair and the Committee to consider establishing a subcommittee to vet any suggestions made and to present recommendations to the BCC on December 6, 2011. Buddy Ramsey presented the following: • Common Considerations • Treatment of Program Income • Monitoring requirements — remain constant • Reporting requirements — remain constant • Record Keeping • Eligibility of activities and clients • Outstanding Decisions o Financial support to Partners — what will be required? o NSP -3 Funds o Procurement needs and methods • Implementation of Policy (Staff issue) • Staffing requirements • Impact on Housing Element of the Land Development Code ( "LDC ") • Definitions o "Opportunity" when setting policy — eliminate properties where no construction has started — place with community partners to benefit public rather than remain dormant o "Challenge" — when construction is needed and securing funding He noted the County owns 60 properties, separated into three categories: • Homeownership — single family - 33 total properties o 10 properties are reserved for purchase ■ 5 — construction completed; ■ 2 — under construction; ■ 3 — construction has not begun o 23 properties are not reserved ■ 6 — construction completed; ■ 17 — construction has not begun • Rental housing — multi - family. o 17 buildings ■ 6 duplexes were reserved by a non -profit organization but construction has not begun; ■ 11 — not reserved (4 buildings have been completed, 2 — under construction, 5 — construction has not begun) • Vacant land o 10 properties • none have been reserved • one property requires demolition He suggested the proposed Subcommittee could discuss in greater detail /depth suggestions made during discussion. 5 1612 Al September 12, 2011 Discussion ensued. • During the BCC meeting, the County Manager was instructed to stop purchasing properties. Buddy Ramsey stated the program is in "rehab mode" and the purchase of additional properties would not be appropriate until the current inventory was depleted. • The focus of the Clerk's audit is the manner in which construction draws were managed, i.e., procurement means and methods. • Active contracts will be completed. • New work will not begin until directed to do so by the BCC. • Payments to contractors will be processed unless there are deficiencies. Ms. Grant stated since the audit was on- going, Staff was unable to discuss /disclose information due to confidentiality restrictions. The specific information requested would be provided as appropriate. Bradley Schiffer noted there are several architects on the Committee whose expertise and experience in dealing with construction draws will be helpful. Buddy Ramsey stated all properties will be maintained in the interim. Chairman Hruby outlined the "best practices" currently being utilized under the program: • Complete control exercised by a municipality to administer the Program; • Funds are allocated to non - profit community agencies to purchase /rehab properties while monitored by the municipality. Bradley Schiffer moved to approve forming a Subcommittee to vet the issues discussed and devise recommendations to present to the Board of County Commissioners on December 6. Second by Christian Davis. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. It was noted Christine Jones indicated her interest to serve on a Subcommittee. Chairman Hruby, Bradley Schiffer, and Christian Davis also volunteered to serve. Buddy Ramsey will confirm Ms. Jones' availability by email and will devise a schedule of meeting dates and times. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS • Resignations: • Gina Downs • Sally Masters Bradley Schiffer noted the Committee has been mandated to review its procedures every four years and this is a review year. Buddy Ramsey will review past practices and inform the Committee at the next meeting. NEXT MEETING: Monday, October 10, 2011 at 3:00 PM 161 2 A'1 September 12, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 4:21 PM by order of the Chairman. Collier County Affordable Housing U The foregoing Min es were approved by Board /Committee Chair on � , 2011, "as submitted" [,_] OR "as amended" LJ MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DECEIVED JAN 0 9 2012 hoard of County CommWslonem November 15, 2011 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala — Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta �G Misc. Comes. Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Michael Diamond Patricia Fortune Christine Jones (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer Clyde Quinby (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Margo Castorena, Grants Operations Manager 1 i A ,1612 November 15, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DECEIVED JAN 0 9 2012 hoard of County CommWslonem November 15, 2011 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala — Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta �G Misc. Comes. Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin John Cowan Christian Davis Michael Diamond Patricia Fortune Christine Jones (Excused) Bradley Schiffer Stuart Warshauer Clyde Quinby (Vacancy — Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Kim Grant, Interim Director — Housing, Human & Veteran Services Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Operations Analyst Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor — Staff Liaison Margo Castorena, Grants Operations Manager 1 161 2A 1 November 15, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER — CHAIRMAN: Chairman Steve Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the informal meeting. 2. ROLL CALL: Roll call was taken. A quorum was not established. Nine members were present. 3. AGENDA AND MINUTES — CHAIRMAN: a. Approval of Agenda John Cowan moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Vice Chairman Giblin. Motion carried, 9 — 0. b. Approval of Minutes —September 12, 2011 Christian Davis moved to approve the Minutes as submitted Second by Patricia Fortune. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. (Note: Only the members who were present at the September 12th meeting could approve the Minutes. Stuart Warshauer, Michael Diamond, and Clyde Quinby could not vote.) c. Approval of Minutes — October 10, 2011 Due to Members' concerns regarding format, the Minutes were tabled and would be reviewed at the December meeting. (Scrivener's Note: • The October AHAC meeting can be referred to as a "meeting" because members responded to a previously- issued call to assemble on a specified day and time. • The document produced remains the written record of the proceedings which took place and are referred to as the "minutes." • The cover page was amended to reflect the status of the meeting.) 4. INFORMATION ITEMS — STAFF: a. Welcome to New Members — Chairman • Michael S. Diamond, representing "engaged in labor of home building" • Clyde C. Quinby, representing "real estate professional" b. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) — Margo Castorena (The report is available at http: / /www.collier2ov.net/Index.ast)x ?page =105). Background: • Fiscal Year: 2010 -2011 • Entitlement Grants • Community Development Block Grant ( "CDBG ") • HOME Initiative Partnership Program ( "HOME ") • Emergency Shelter Grant ( "ESG ") • CAPER is part of the Five -Year Consolidated Plan and the 1 -Year Action Plan o Reviews goals and outlines results 4 16 E 2A l November 15, 2011 • Funds received: $3,376,051 • Expended: $2,329,249.70 • Timeliness (burn rate) was met • Report was posted on the County's website o Copies are available at the public libraries, at the front desk of the HHVS office, and at the County's Communication Department • Public comment period (15 days) closed on November 14, 2011 • Draft report was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners o Presentation of Final Report —December 13, 2011 meeting • Submission Deadline: HUD must receive on or before December 29, 2011 Activities —Allocation of Funds: • Rehabilitation — $444,772 • Acquisition, demolition/clearance — $615,740 • Public Facilities — $339,709 • Public Service — $526,625 • ESG — $82,575 Margo Castorena explained the figures reflect the projects that were completed during the 2010 -2011 reporting period. She noted some of the projects were begun in other Action Plan years. Projects Highlights: • Housing — o One person was assisted under ADI ( "American Dream Initiative ") Program o One single- family house was renovated 0 185 houses were closed at Habitat for Humanity's "Regal Acres" • Homeless — o St. Matthew's Shelter received an Emergency Shelter Grant • Meals for Seniors (10,005 were provided) • Legal services were provided to abused women and children • Salaries for psychiatrists at the David Lawrence Center • Counseling • Utilities assistance • Community Development — o City of Naples • Completion of River Park • Completion of repairs to sound system and A/C — River Park Center Ms. Castorena noted the Five -Year Consolidated Plan will run from 2011 through 2015. The Board of County Commissioners approved the Action Plan on July 26, 2011 and accepted the Five -Year Consolidation Plan, a Renewed Citizen Participation Plan, and the Consultant's Analysis of Impediments. • No comments were received during the Public Comment Period 3 1612 A I November 15, 2011 • The Fiscal Year conforms with the HUD and County's Fiscal Years: July 1 through September 30 (extended by 90 days) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sneaker: Nick Kouloheras, Executive Vice President of Land Development & Construction, Habitat for Humanity • SHIP Program had allotted $20,000 in down payment assistance per household • Habitat received approximately $3M per year o $20,000 per unit for 150 units • The County reduced the amount of assistance to a 3:1 ratio o $3,000 per unit for 150 units • Habitat requires a down payment of $1,000 from eligible buyers He stated increasing the dollar amount of the assistance would help to keep the home as affordable as possible, i.e. 20% of purchase price. Frank Ramsey noted the in previous years, the County capped the allocation at 15% of the home's purchase price. • The current program offers at 3 to 1 match, with a maximum of 4% of the purchase price. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PRESENTATIONS: STAFF a. SHIP Down Payment Assistance Policy Kim Grant stated: • Habitat for Humanity is a key partner in the SHIP Program • A re- reconciliation was completed concerning several years of financial statements for the SHIP Program • Approximately $1.9M from previous program years is available • Approval from the State to spend the funds is anticipated but has not yet been received • A presentation has been prepared and will be made to the BCC at the December 13th meeting if State approval is received • Goal: to obtain recommendations from AHAC to present to the BCC Frank Ramsey provided background information on the SHIP Program: • Established in 1992 ( "William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act ") • Funding is provided through a document stamp tax on real estate transactions o Dedicated revenue stream • Assistance to Counties — provide for the housing needs of very low, low, and moderate income families • To obtain funds, a Local Housing Assistance Plan ( "LHAP ") is presented to the State after approval by the Board of County Commissioners 4 1612 A 1 November 15, 2011 Down Payment /Closing Cost Assistance Program ( "Purchase Assistance Program "): • State allows a maximum award of up to $50,000 per recipient • Collier County policy: 3 to 1 match, up to 4% of the purchase price, whichever is less • Assistance Awards: 0 1996 through 2002 - $2,500 for down payment assistance /closing costs 0 2003 - $5,000 per applicant 0 2005 - $10,000 0 2006 through 2008 - 15% of the purchase price (Average: $22,500) • Maximum purchase price: $300,000 • November 2008 to present: average is $3,000 per applicant • The Board of County Commissioners reduced the award amount (November 2008) in response to lower home prices in the depressed housing market • Approximately $1.9M must be expended by June 30, 2012 o The State could recall the funds • The County received a SHIP allocation of $435,000 for 2011 -2012 • Statutory set aside /compliance requirements from the State: 0 75% - new construction/rehab 0 65% - home ownership 0 30% - very low income households 0 30% - low income households 0 10% - administration • State revised rules — allocation for new construction will not be not permitted (future) • Decreased in lender participation • Florida Housing Coalition provides technical assistance to SHIP recipients o Recommendation: increase assistance to a maximum of 20 — 25% of purchase price Other LHAP strategies: • Rehabilitation • Disaster relief • Special needs housing Mr. Ramsey noted HUD's definition of "expended" means an eligible individual is occupying an eligible property. Down payment assistance is one option that assures immediate occupancy. He stated the Housing Trust Fund cap was repealed in 2010, but the balance in the Fund is minimal. The funds may be accessed by: • directly apply to Housing, Human and Veteran Services for assistance (either the client or the client's banker /mortgage broker) or • if the County issues a Request for Proposals ( "UP "). Kim Grant stated there were requirements to spend the funds within a specific period of time after receipt. The reconciliation identified money that should have been spent 3 to 5 years ago. The spending deadline is June 2012. 1612 1 November 15, 2011 Patricia Fortune asked what could be done to make the SHIP application more friendly to the banks that have apparently discouraged participation by their clients. Frank Ramsey stated, as a former banker, if his efforts resulted in his clients obtaining $22,000 in down payment assistance, then it was "worth it." When only $3,000 is available, it was not worth the effort. He noted the SHIP Program is paperwork and time intensive. Income is underwritten differently than a bank, resulting in different interpretations. For example, a bank examines what a client actually earned during the past two years and average the amount. The SHIP Program examines what the client made to date and project anticipated income for the next twelve months. He continued there had been an active loan consortium of local lenders and bank that met on a regular basis. The group no longer meets due to lack of interest. Ms. Fortune suggested one way to meet the deadline would be to raise the down payment assistance cap. She asked if it would be proposed to the BCC. Vice Chairman Giblin noted the amount, after subtracting the allotment for administrative services, was approximately $13M. He asked if it was feasible to spend the funds by the deadline even if the cap were increased to $20,000 per household because 85 houses would have to be sold. Frank Ramsey asked the Committee if it believed increasing the down payment assistance award amount would be a possible solution. He also asked if a portion should be reserved for the banks to access and a portion reserved for non - profit partners. Christian Davis asked if the $1.9M were expended by June, would the County still receive the $400,000 and would the amount be replenished. Mr. Ramsey stated the County receives money on a yearly basis which must be spent within three years after receipt of the funds. Chairman Hruby noted there is a greater need for significant down payment assistance even though housing prices are much less than during 2006 — 2008 because it is more difficult to obtain a mortgage due to restrictions. Qualification standards have become more stringent. Frank Ramsey stated an FHA mortgage requires a down payment of 3% of the purchase price but the client must buy the FHA's mortgage insurance policy which increases the mortgage payment. With 20% down, there is no requirement for mortgage insurance and the client would be eligible for the best possible rate with the lowest monthly payment. Christian Davis suggested encouraging the participation of non - profit providers might be the best way to ensure the money was disbursed by the deadline rather than the County overseeing distribution of the funds. Mr. Ramsey explained part of the process was for the County's clients to complete eight hours of home buyers education. When asked about how the mortgage assistance was secure, he explained a deferred payment, zero interest, second mortgage is held by the County and is paid off only when the refinanced or property is sold. The recaptured funds have contributed to the $1.9M. It was noted the Florida Housing Coalition recommended increasing the down payment and closing cost assistance to between 20 to 25% of the purchase price. 1612 A 1 November 15, 2011 Chairman Hruby asked the Committee members if they were in favor of increasing the down payment assistance award in some form. Consensus: Yes. He outlined the issues: utilizing one flat method of allocation, or treating non - profits differently than individual recipients who would obtain conventional financing. Question: Do we want to one set of standards for everyone or do we want to sub - allocate to the non - profits versus an open market? John Cowan asked if there would be a different time line for the non - profits to expend the funds? He suggested it would take longer to advertise and qualify individual recipients while it might be faster to give the money to the non - profits. Frank Ramsey confirmed the spending deadline will remain the same. Chairman Hruby pointed out the County will receive $400,000 in additional SHIP funds during 2012 which has a 3 -year timeline to expend. He suggested utilizing those funds specifically for the general public. Mr. Ramsey clarified the Committee could recommend allocating a special portion of the funds to the non - profits which would handle applicant selection, income qualification, and placement into homes. Vice Chairman Giblin stated the County's RFP process (Requests for Production) of soliciting bids from non - profits is lengthy. He expressed concern that it would take too long as opposed to making a policy decision to open the program to all applicants including Habitat for Humanity. Patricia Fortune agreed and stated there was an opportunity to open the program to lenders as well. Mr. Ramsey cautioned that HUD has advised against mixing funds from Federal with non - Federal programs. The SHIP Program was designed to be flexible, but if NSP funds were used, the more restrictive Federal guidelines would apply. Chairman Hruby summarized the Committee's position: To open the program to all applicants, including non - profits, as a level playing field. Christian Davis suggested reviewing the program in June prior to determining how to allocate the additional SHIP funding. ` Bradley Schiffer reminded the Committee the current SHIP Program 10 open to all applicants — it was not necessary to change it. Chairman Hruby asked if a limit should be imposed and to what amount? Christian Davis noted if the total amount of down payment money was supplied through a SHIP allocation, buyers might not qualify for a mortgage since they had not invested any of their own funds. Kim Grant responded all buyers are required to contribute a minimum down payment of $1,000. She stated the Committee could consider increasing that amount or changing the ratio. Frank Ramsey explained lenders are concerned about the "loan to value" ratio — the appraised value of the house versus the amount being mortgaged. Since the SHIP award is a zero percent, deferred payment loan, most lenders are not viewing it as a "risk." 1612 A I November 15, 2011 When questioned about the trends in default or foreclosures, he stated the only factor common to buyers who received assistance in 1998 and those in 2002 was the loss of employment. John Cowan requested the Habitat representative present additional information specifically on its ability to obligate the funds by the deadline. Speaker: Nick Kouloheras, Executive Vice President of Land Development & Construction, Habitat for Humanity • Habitat's Fiscal Year runs from June to July • Using the 20% down payment as a working example, Habitat would need to close on 61 homes between December 2011 and June 30, 2012. • Habitat's plan is to close on 100 homes during its Fiscal Year and has closed on 25 homes to date. • He stated if Habitat for Humanity was the sole non - profit requesting the funds, it could place families in the homes by the SHIP deadline. • He encouraged the Committee to open up the process. He stated he could walk in by the end of the calendar year with 20 applications. • Habitat has a subdivision with 184 lots that have been plotted and the infrastructure is ready. The only requirement is to pull building permits. • Habitat concentrates on new construction and rehabilitation of foreclosed homes with a ratio of approximately 50150. • If Habitat received the award, additional staff would be hired to handle the workload. • He noted Habitat's new build time is approximately six weeks. Rehabbed homes average approximately 6 to 8 weeks. • Average sales price: $135,000 to $140,000 Chairman Hruby suggested modifying the 20% with a cap. Frank Ramsey stated the maximum purchase price allowed under the current Local Housing Assistance Plan ( "LHAP ") is $300,000. The maximum award is $50,000. Twenty percent on a $300,000 purchase price would exceed the maximum award. He noted the Technical Assistance provider suggested a ceiling on the award. The L -HAP that applies to the funds was from 2007 — 08. He stated a maximum award of $50,000 does not mean that it must be awarded in all cases — it merely provides flexibility. The Committee could establish a maximum sales price and maximum award that reflect the current market. Christian Davis stated he would support a $150,000 maximum purchase price with a maximum award of 20% -- which would cap at $30,000. Chairman Hruby moved to approve: • Retaining the current policy which makes grants available to everyone, • To increase the award to 20%, not to exceed $30,000, • The policy will apply solely to the $1.9M in SHIP Funds, and • To review the policy in May with regard to the $400,000 allocation. The motion was carried unanimously. 161 2A 1 November 15, 2011 Staff will present the Committee's recommendation to the BCC on December 13, 2011. b. Affordable Workforce Housing Units — To define figures /percentages Kim Grant noted during the October meeting, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning, gave a presentation concerning the EAR -based ( "Evaluation and Appraisal Report") Amendments to the Growth Management Plan. One issue was to determine the correct amount affordable housing units within the Plan. Ms. Mosca has asked the Committee to review the information and make a recommendation to be presented to the Planning Commission. ( "Housing Element ") Frank Ramsey reviewed the draft language of the Land Development Code's Housing Element portion of the Growth Management Plan: • Goal One: "To create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. " o The prior measure: "We shall increase by at least 15% of the units approved to be built in the County but not less than 1,000 units per year, averaged over a five -year period." He stated many organizations have stated the goal is no longer appropriate in the current housing market. Vice Chairman Giblin asked if a home that sold for $600,000 in 2006 and was now in foreclosure for $200,000, would the property be considered a "new" affordable housing unit. Mr. Ramsey stated one of the issues was how to define affordable units — as "restricted" with policies in place to ensure the property remains affordable or to define "affordable" in relation to the market. He stated the Goal applied to new construction units that were approved to be built and sought to increase the number of affordable units. Bradley Schiffer noted since the figures were never tracked, it is not known exactly how many affordable units were actually built. The intent of the Growth Management Plan was to create affordable units during a time when none existed. The Affordable Workforce market consisted of individuals who worked as teachers, nurses, police, and fire fighters. Frank Ramsey stated tracking began in 2006 at the PUD approval level. When a PUD was approved, it was noted how many units were designated as "affordable workforce" or "gap" housing. The figures were not audited. Chairman Hruby stated while lots may have been designated, until a house was built and a family was living in it, it was not a "affordable housing unit." He noted tracking may have inflated the numbers and 15% may never have been achieved. Mr. Ramsey researched the issue and found the County approved 4,200 "workforce" units to be built, but only 728 units were actually built. Chairman Hruby stated the market drives the numbers. He suggested eliminating Goal One. Vice Chairman Giblin stated six years ago, the DCA requested tracking and measurable goals. He contended the goal of building affordable housing has remained the same. Bradley Schiffer suggested the Committee should have more time to review the topic. Frank Ramsey will provide a copy of Staff's full report and analysis to the Committee members for their review. 1612 Al November 15, 2011 Consensus: The topic will be tabled and reviewed during the December meeting. c. Status: Subcommittee meeting — NSP Options Bradley Schiffer stated the Subcommittee met several times. • The Subcommittee recommended turning the operation of the NSP over to an experienced for - profit developer. • An RFP would be issued by the County and a Scope of Work will be devised. • The NSP -3 Funds have been frozen but will be used to help fund the remainder of the Program, i.e., complete the remodeling of the houses in stock, new properties will not be purchased. • Staff will still be required to monitor the project but the day -to -day operation will be in the hands of the developer. He suggested distributing the draft of the Subcommittee's minutes to the entire AHAC. Kim Grant suggested publicly noticing a Subcommittee meeting to be held during the last week of November. She stated the Subcommittee's final recommendation will be presented to AHAC on December 12 and to the BCC on December 13. Consensus: The Subcommittee meeting will be held on November 30th from 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon. 7. STAFF /COMMITTEE MEMBERS: GENERAL COMMENTS (None) NEXT MEETING: Monday, December 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at 4:51 PM by order of the Chairman. County Affordable Housing The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board /Committee Chair on POe-, jZ , 2011, "as submitted" X OR "as amended" [_]. 10 161i2 AL itr „, ��z 2Pi EE6 0 i? 201 Creativity in Bloom C;;oies to: Bayshore Beautification MSTU >$Y. •.•••••....... 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 .. BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 02, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Carolyn Cochrane, and Maurice Gutierrez. Absent: Gerry Buck, and Victoria Nicklos. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Messmer. Second: Mrs. Cochrane. Approved 4 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the October 05, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to apprlgM@i Mr Py2pg. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 4 -0. Hiller Henning 4. Projects Report: Coyle Coletta S a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. He informed the committee that at least four of the royal palm trees have died, or are in the process of dying. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices, and to remove the palm trees and bring back the subject at a future meeting. Motion: Mrs. Cochrane. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 4 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project is under construction and on schedule. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that the design work is still being completed on Bayview Drive and Lunar Street, and that they will be provided additional information at a future meeting. d. David Buchheit informed the committee that Atkins has been hired, per the committee's direction, to complete the Thomasson Drive conceptual plan. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that "Whited Holiday Decor” was hired again this year. . November 02, 2011 1612A2 2fi Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 f. David Buchheit informed the committee that the street lights are being repainted and should be completed by the end of December. g. Mrs. Cochrane made a motion that all invoices on all projects be paid. Mrs. Dugan seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 -0 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: a. Mr. Messmer requested that the committee receive an update on the Bayshore Drive crosswalks. Mr. Buchheit explained that MSTU and CRA staff has had meetings with Collier County Growth Management staff. And, growth management staff agreed to work with staff to design and install the first HAWK signals in Collier County. Staff will bring this back at a future meeting. 7. Public Comments: a. John Hater from the Bayshore Citizens Marketing Taskforce talked about the branding of the area. There was discussion amongst the committee and Mr. Hater. Mrs. Cochrane made a motion to support the efforts and to accept the recommendations for "Where creativity thrives" and Naples Bay Village. Second by Mr. Messmer. Motion passed 4 -0 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on December 7 at 5:00 PM. The me �adjourned at 6:10. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. November 02, 2011 Fiala Hiller Henning. Coyle Coletta 161 2fi Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 2A2 1 Q 3039Y31 F E 6 BY: BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 07, 2011 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos, and Maurice Gutierrez. Absent: Carolyn Cochrane. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mrs. Dugan. Second: Mr. Buck. Approved 5 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the November 02, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mrs. Dugan. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 5 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. A motion was made to approve payment of monthly invoices. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 5 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project is nearly complete. He also explained that a resident of Bayshore Drive South is actively pursuing a resolution to an issue of private property possibly used in error. He explained that staff will provide more information as it becomes available. c. David Buchheit informed the committee that the design work is still being completed on Bayview Drive and Lunar Street, and that they will be provided additional information at a future meeting. d. Nathan West from Atkins explained to the committee that his firm is actively working on the Thomasson Drive conceptual plan. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that the stre*%Weave repainted. Mr. Buck made a motion to order six replacement heads or the lights. Ms. Nicklos seconded the motion. The Motion passed 5 -0 December 07, 2011 Item #: Copies to: "161 ZEi 2Pi ;;';Cre'at7?iq in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: a. Mr. Buck made a motion that the MSTU Advisory Committee keep the existing officers for 2012. The existing officers are Maurice Gutierrez Chairman, and Carolyn Cochrane Vice Chairman. Mrs. Dugan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on January 4 at 5:00 PM. The meeting urned at 5:40. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. December 07, 2011 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta 161 2P� Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 2 A 2 +i . ....................... BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 04, 2012 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Maurice Gutierrez at 5:00p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Robert Messmer, Sheila Dugan, Gerry Buck, Victoria Nicklos, and Maurice Gutierrez, Carolyn Cochrane. MSTU Staff Present: David Buchheit (Project Manager) and David Jackson (Executive Director). 2. Approval of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the December 07, 2011 regular meeting minutes. Motion to approve: Mr. Buck. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance: Aaron Gross of Ground Zero conveyed to the Advisory Committee that his crews have performed the usual maintenance in the area. David Buchheit explained to the committee that a request was received to remove a buttonwood tree from under the bridge on Bayshore Misc. Corres: Drive. He showed a picture of the tree, and explained that the owner of the Date: �l 1 X112 Naples 360 is requesting that it be trimmed. He explained that the owner is ncerned because the tree is blocking the view of the revitalized building. A item #:1 u-j:yA- motion was made to completely remove the buttonwood tree that is located near the bridge on Bayshore Drive by Mr. Buck. He stated that he didn't want Copies to: the landscape, which was installed to shield unsightly locations, hurting locations that have been revitalized. He suggest that the MSTU be a good neighbor and not hinder a new business. It was seconded by Ms. Nicklos. Approved 6 -0. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Bayshore Drive South project is complete, with the exception of the crosswalks. c. Chris Wright from RWA presented the 30% design for Bayview Drive and Lunar Street. Mr. Buck made a motion to approve the 30% design and to move January 4, 2012 16t2Ad Creativity in Bloom Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 forward to complete the design. Ms. Nicklos seconded the motion. Approved 6-0 d. David Buchheit explained that Atkins is actively working on the Thomasson Drive conceptual plan. e. David Buchheit informed the committee that Collier County staff has completed the preliminary design of the HAWK crosswalk signal. 5. Old Business: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that the replacement heads for the light poles have been ordered. The total cost of the order was $5,610.00 b. David Buchheit asked for approval of all bill. Motion: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Messmer. Approved 6-0 6. New Business: a. David Buchheit informed the committee that they had three candidates for the open MSTU Advisory Committee Position. He informed the committee that all three candidates agreed to attend the meeting; however Mr. Oakley called at 4:54 PM to inform staff that Susan Oakley could not attend. Mr. Gutierrez asked the candidates to tell the committee why they would like to be on the committee. Sandra Arafet and Philip Litow both spoke to the committee and answered questions that the committee had for them. The committee voted and Sandra Arafet won the vote 4-2. b. David Buchheit informed the committee that the Annual CRA Board & CRA-AB Workshop will be held at the BCC chambers on January 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM. 7. Public Comments: 8. Advisory Committee General Communications: The Advisory Committee agreed to meet on February 1 at 5:00 PM. The 'ng adjourned at 6:50. Approved and forwarded by Maurice Gutierrez, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman. January 4, 2012 THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOP NT A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGEN XW110,11 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.445 t FEB 0 Q 20112 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISO 1( OARD MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 4, 2011 MEETING j The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Lindsey Thomas, Chuck Gunther, and Karen Beatty. Excused: Vicki Tracy. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit and Sue Trone, Project Managers, Ashley Caserta, Grants Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none he asked for a motion to approve. Motion to approve the agenda: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the September 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 7 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. Project Updates. i. CRA Projects. Mr. Jackson briefly reviewed the updates in the Board's Fiala _ packet and added informational sheets on FY2012 road repaving and Hiller restriping schedule for CRA streets, informed the Board that the CRA 'ienning TIF Grants were offered to the Clerk of Courts as a potential internal nylea -r`�`� -- audit project, and that the Triangle Tertiary Drainage Project received a letter from Housing, Human and Veteran Service authorizing the project to be bid. ii. MSTU Projects. Mr. Gutierrez informed the Board about the street bike lane painting, completion of the MSTU Place making Project and that the south Bayshore Drive Construction Project was ahead of schedule. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment — Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board that there weren't any invoices to pay this month due to the change over from FY2011 to FY2012 accounting. He asked for a motion to approve the roll -over of two projects from FY11 to FY12: RWA inc. (Overlays Update) and Pizzuti Solutions, LLC (17 Acre Rezoning). Motion to approve: MR. Thomas. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. b. Consideration of C -BIG 2011 Time Extension - Maddox. Mr. Jackson asked the Board to approve a one -year time extension for this grant due to delays in certain permitting issues and fire department regulations. Motion to approve: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Ingram. Approvegik�orres: Date: Item t� �sZ. 2�A'3 October 4, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 Copies W 1612 A3 c. Consideration of SIG 02 -2011 Time Extension — Jarvis. Mr. Jackson asked the Board for a 3 -month time extension to complete this project due to issues with Land Development Code concerning driveway size, location and vegetation. Motion to approve: Mr. Main. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. 6. New Business: a. Consideration of Christmas in Naples Residential Grant Participation. Mr. Jackson introduced Mr. Michael Gentzle and Ms. Laurie Bellico, Board members of the not - for - profit Christmas in Naples group. He explained how the current Sight Improvement Grant for homeowners required a cash match from the owners and that if the not - for - profit made and paid for improvements, then the CRA could not reimburse them. The purpose of the group's organization is to repair and improve homeowner's houses when the owner's low income level would not let them or if the owner had a disability that prevented them. Several questions were asked of Mr. Gentzle and it was confirmed that the topic for approval would have to go to the CRA Executive Board for approval. Motion to forward the project as a Pilot Project for one house to the CRA Board: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. b. CRA TIF Grant SIG 01 -2012 — (2705 Shoreview Drive— Duaan). Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to approve this grant for a new driveway in the amount of $2,607.00. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 6 -1 (Mr. Ingram dissenting). c. CRA TIF Grant SIG 02 -2012 — (3275 Cottaae Grove Avenue — Shadis). Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to approve this grant for a new paint, door, windows, hurricane shutters and rain gutters in the amount of $1,742.73. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 7 -1. d. Consideration to Conduct Commercial Appraisals. Mr. Jackson asked for Board discussion about contracting for commercial appraisals on the CRA -owned commercial sites in the Davis Triangle. After roundtable discussion, the Board agreed that appraisals should not be ordered, at least until there is a firm offer to purchase from a third party. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. Mr. Thomas asked about the County's Land Development Code and possible exemptions of the Color Code. Ms. Jourdan explained that with the update of the CRA's overlays that language could be inserted. 8. Citizen Comments. Ms. Rebecca Maddox stated that in her 14 month process it has been very difficult to move forward and get approvals and that the County was earning its reputation of not business friendly. 9. Adjournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm. r ed an arded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. October 4, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 1612 A 3 THE BAYS HORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENTAGEN0190199WR 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.44 D FEB L0nl.li V (� ^� 1 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVIS ,BOARD MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2011 MEETING ' ' " "' ".. °""•..... The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Ms. Beatty at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Dwight Oakley, Vicki Tracy, Chuck Gunther, and Karen Beatty. Excused: Lindsey Thomas. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit and Sue Trone, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Ms. Beatty asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked to add Item 6c: CRA/MSTU Update Presentation to CRA Board. She asked for a motion to approve. Motion to approve the agenda with changes: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Tracy. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Gunther absent. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Ms. Beatty asked for a motion to approve the October 4, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. Mr. Gunther absent. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. Project Updates. i. CRA Projects. Mr. Jackson individually introduced CRA & MSTU staff to update the Board on their projects: O Jean Jourdan, Project Manager: Discussed the 17 acre mixed use rezone project and the CRA's submission to the County of the Land Development Code changes to the CRA's Overlays. Fiala `� • Sue Trone, Proiect Manager: Provided a description of the Triangle Hiller Streetscape Guidelines process. Rennin . David Buchheit, MSTU Project Manager: Gave an update on the Coyle Bayshore Drive (south) improvement project, the adoption of the Coletta MSTU Master Plan by the BCC and gave the details of the multi- media campaign's successes. ii. Presentation: John Hayter, Marketing. Mr. Hayter and Pat Utter, Collier Enterprises, explained the Marketing Teams progress over the last year. At the conclusion of the presentation they recommended that the CRA -AB Misc. Comes: adopt the branding name and slogan: "Naples Bay Village" and "Where 3112 creative people thrive." Ms. Tracy asked staff where do we go from here? Mr. Jackson stated that there will still have to be a public information Item 0: l D-3-- -2- VD, 3 process to get the word out to all of the residents. And staff should meet with the District 1 & 4 Commissioners to get their input. He added that staff CoPM3 to: will work closely with the Marketing Team to achieve the goals of the Board. Motion to adopt the brand name and slogan: Ms. Tracy. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 8 -0. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment - Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board that there three invoices to pay this month: Pizzuti Solutions for the Wading Bird Plan for the 17 are rezone in the amount of 3,000; Aztec Communications for telephone relocation November 1, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 1612A3 rezone in the amount of 3,000; Aztec Communications for telephone relocation service in the amount of $50; and Intech Printing for design, printing and mailing of public meeting post cards in the amount of $541.98. Motion to make payment: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 8 -0. 6. New Business: a. Consideration of Acceptance of Foreclosed Property from Collier County. Mr. Jackson explained that a 5 -acre C -3 zoned parcel in the Triangle that had mobile homes on it (Palm Lake Mobile Home Park — 3131 Tamiami Trail East) was under high fines for code violations, and that the Code Enforcement Department was considering foreclosing on the property. Permission to take action would be reviewed by the BCC on December 13, 2011. Code Enforcement Director, Diane Flagg, called and asked if the CRA would be interested in receiving the property after the County has completed the foreclosure. Mr. Jackson asked for the CRA -AB to discuss options, liabilities and risks if the property was transferred to the CRA. After a round table discussion the Board agreed that they needed more information to make a qualified decision or even a recommendation to the CRA Board. Motion to have staff contact all parties (code and legal etc) to find out the liability of owner relocations, trailer demolition, legal fees and possible suits, and if the County would consider having all homes and tenants off the property prior to assigning the parcel to the CRA. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 8 -0. b. Budget Amendment Approval - $2,700,000 DRI Grant. Ms. Trone asked for a motion to recommend to the CRA Board approval of a $27 million budget amendment to allow the CRA to commit $2,709,150 of CDBG DRI Grant Award #10-DB-D4-09-21- 01 -K09 for FY12 to Fund 717 for the Tertiary Stormwater System Improvement Project for the Triangle residential area. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Ms. Tracy. Approved 8 -0. c. CRA /MSTU Update Presentation to CRA Board — Discussion. Mr. Jackson gave a brief overview of the CRA's budget and crime statistics over the last 6 years that included a short video. In round table discussion that included members of the audience from time to time, the CRA -AB agreed that a presentation to the CRA Board at the next meeting, November 8, 2011, would be a good opportunity for the CRA Board and the general viewing public to hear about the good things happening in the area and see pictures and charts of the improvements made. They agreed to contact their neighbors and encourage them to attend the November 8th meeting to speak about the positive things about the area. d. Executive Director's Annual Evaluation - Discussion. Mr. Jackson asked for each Board member to complete the evaluations they had received and return them to compile the scores for the CRA Board to see when they complete their evaluation. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. Ms. Chellie Doepke advised everyone that there was going to be many musical entertainment events in the area and that they will bring people to the area. Mr. Bill Cugno expressed his appreciation for all the assistance he received form CRA staff during his remodeling of a commercial warehouse into a classic car restoration shop. He liked the grants and the entire CRA progress was the reason he chose to buy in this area and operate his business. 9. Adjournment: The re eeting was adjourned at 7:53pm. pik7ed 4ptWrwardek by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. November 1, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 161 2 A'S ., THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGEN )9MEIIWIE 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.44 D IEEE (1 201 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISO§> !30ARD MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2011 MEETING "'° "' ° °" °"""" °° The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Lindsey Thomas, Lary Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Chuck Gunther, and Karen Beatty. Excused: Peter Dvorak, Dwight Oakley, & Vicki Tracy. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit and Sue Trone, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked to add Item 6d: BE Home Realty C -BIG 05 -2011 Grant Extension Request and 7b: Larry Ingram Memo - Discussion. He asked for a motion to approve. Motion to approve the agenda with changes: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Thomas. Approved 6 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the November 1, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 6 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. Proiect Updates. i. CRA Proiects. Mr. Jackson updated the Board on two items that were not in the published agenda: January 17, 2012 CRA Executive Board and CRA -AB Workshop scheduled for 2 — 4pm and that the CRA received a $25,000 grant from 5/3 Bank. Mr. Jackson also handed out Collier County Thank You cards to the three Project Managers. The cards have certain dollar values as select stores. Fiala David Buchheit, MSTU Project Manager: Gave an update on the Hiller �_ Bayshore Drive (south) improvement project, two side street Henning improvement projects and gave the details of the multi -media Coyle campaign's successes. Coletta ii. Presentation: Mr. Jackson introduced Mr. Mark Isackson, Director, December 6, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 Corporate Financial & Management Services. Mr. Isackson introduced Mr. Ed Finn, the new Budget Analyst assigned to the CRA and MSTUs. Mr. Isackson detailed the state of revenues for all of Collier County as well as the CRA's historical Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues. He followed Misc. Cones: with an update on the CRA's loans with Wachovia Bank and 5/3 Bank. He explained that the County has ongoing negotiations with 5/3 Bank about a Date: It'blII- potential refinance of the current note; however, the Bank is hesitant to negotiate in earnest this far out from the term date of September 2014. Mr. Itern #: t Thomas asked if when negotiating and presenting the TIF projections, that the $300,000 in commercial lease revenues were factored in as an offset 0 to: to the $300,000 per year interest payments? Mr. Isackson responded yes. Mr. Ingram asked if 5/3 Bank was the County's financial services provider. Mr. Isackson stated that they were and that that services contract was coming due for advertisement in 2013. December 6, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 1612 A3*- 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment — Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board there three invoices to pay this month: Tax Collector bills for four commercial properties; State of Florida Annual District Fee; and RWA Inc. for the Overlays update. Motion to make payment: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 6 -0. b. Acceptance of Foreclosed Property from Collier County — Update. Mr. Jackson detailed the results of conversations with an Assistant County Attorney and Code Enforcement Director. The results are that the CRA will not take possession of the land until all structures have been removed and that there are not residents on the land. The relocation costs are $2,700 per mobile home unit, and between $3,000 and $4,500 to demolish a trailer. There are 35, more or less, trailers now onsite. c. Sabal Bay PUD Amendment— MSTU Agreement. Mr. Jackson presented the Collier Enterprises' offer to the MSTU in the form of $65,000 in financial assistance to plan the improvements for Thomasson Drive. The language currently in the Sabal Bay PUD Amendment reads as follows: "E The Owners agree to deposit $65,000 with the Bayshore Beautification MSTU within 30 days of the approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of the final design contract for the streetscape improvements along Hamilton Avenue and Thomasson Drive from Hamilton Avenue to Lombardi Drive. Except as to financial obligations which are imposed upon all property owners within the MSTU and/or CRA the $65,000 payment satisfies all other obligations of the Owners in regards to the MSTU and CRA. If the final design contract is not approved by the BCC by January 1 2015 this requirement shall expire." d. BE Home Realty C -BIG 05 -2011 Grant Extension Request. Mr. Jackson presented documents requesting a six month extension of the commercial building grant for 1712 Commercial Drive. Motion to approve and forward to the CRA Board: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 6 -0. 6. New Business: a. CRA TIF Grant C -BIG 01 -2012. Mr. Jackson asked for CRA -AB review and approval of a commercial building grant for 2068 Davis Blvd in the amount of $6,752.50 to repair a metal roof and gutter system. Motion to deny: Mr. Ingram. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. In discussion the Board discussed the merits of the program and why these types of grants are important to the CRA. Approved 6 -0. b. CRA TIF Grant C -BIG 02 -2012. Mr. Jackson asked for CRA -AB review and approval of a commercial building grant for 2595 Tamiami Trail East in the amount of $3,607.00 to repaint the building, trim trees and vegetation encroaching of the building and repair the sign. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 6 -0. c. Triangle Tertiary Stormwater Contractors — Approval. Ms. Trone briefed the Board on the process to date that resulted in the stormwater pond construction, the development of the tertiary plan for the Triangle, the receipt of a $2,700,000 grant to construct the improvements, and the two contractors to perform Construction Engineering Inspection (CEI) services and to perform the actual improvements. Motion to approve URS for the CEI services and D. N. Higgins for construction, pending further purchasing review and approval: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 6 -0. December 6, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 2 1611-2 A 3 d. Commercial Lease Extension — Budget Rent -A -Car. Ms. Jourdan briefed the Board on a request for a new lease that had been in the works for a year. Rather than extend the current lease, Budget wishes to receive a new lease at $5,000 per month with a 3% per year CPI instead of the current rate of $7,000 per month. Market forces and overall reduction of commercial lease rates are what prompted the request. Motion to approve and forward the lease to the CRA Board: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Ingram. Approved 6 -0. e. Code Enforcement Reimbursement Budget Amendment — Approval. Ms. Jourdan revisited the surplus land transfer process between the CRA and County that occurred earlier this year. The CRA sent the paperwork to Finance; however, the transfer of funds never occurred. To execute the transfer in this fiscal year, a budget amendment is required to place the funds in the correct category. Motion to approve: Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 6 -0. f. CRA Advisory Board Election of 2012 Officers. Mr. Thomas stated that he would like to step down as Chairman this year. Ms. Beatty nominated Mr. Main as Chairman and Mr. Gutierrez and Vice Chair. Mr. Ingram stated that if there were no other nominations that the nominees be accepted by acclamation. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. a. 2012 Annual Goals and Objectives Workshop. Mr. Jackson asked the Board if they wished to conduct their goals session as part of the January 3`d regular meeting or schedule a separate meeting. Chairman elect Main stated that he preferred it happen as part of the regular meeting. The Board concurred. b. Larry Ingram Memo — Discussion. The Board discussed the contents of Mr. Ingram's Memo and discussed the risks and rewards of having adequate staff. Mr. Gutierrez advised Mr. Ingram that Mr. Buchheit was funded totally by MSTU taxes and not CRA funds. Mr. Main pointed out that Ms. Caserta was more than a receptionist, in that she was a grant writer and had just received $25,000 in outside funds for the CRA. 8. Citizen Comments. Mr. James Dougan introduced himself and asked if the CRA thought about saving money by hiring small business owners like himself in order to save dollars. Ms. Beatty stated that would be fine; however he needed to get on the County's approved vendor list and then he can bid on all jobs. Mr. Dougan expressed his thanks at the information. 9. Adioumment: The,;eg"ularAeeting was adjourned at 7:13pm. anf' warded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. December 6, 2011 CRA -AB Minutes 1612A3 THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT NGEN xwx 4069 BAVSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAx 239.775.44 0 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVIS BOARD MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3, 2012 MEETING ° ° ° ° °' The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Mr. Steve Main at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Lindsey Thomas, Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Peter Dvorak, Dwight Oakley, and Karen Beatty.. Absent Chuck Gunther. Excused: Vicki Tracy. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, David Buchheit and Sue Trone, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked to add two Items 4.a.i.: Presentation of 17+ Acre Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Update and 6.b: CRA TIF Grant SIG 03/2012. Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve. Motion to approve the agenda with changes: Mr. Dvorak. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0, Mr. Gunther absent. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the December 6, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion: Mr. Thomas. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0, Mr. Gunther absent. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Proiect Updates, Mr. Jackson updated the Board on two items that were not in the meeting packets: January 17, 2012 CRA Executive Board and CRA -AB Workshop scheduled for 2 - 4pm and that there would be a staff meeting with the Collier Budget Office on Thursday January 5, 2012. i. Presentation: 17+ Acre Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Update. Ms. Jourdan introduced Mr. Dean Ziegler from Banks Fiala Engineering, the firm working on the rezoning under a Pizzuti Solutions, Hiller LLC contract, and gave a brief presentation on the work completed to date Henning and announced that there would be a Neighborhood Information Meeting Coyle -- on January 18, 2012 at 5:30pm. The meeting will update the community Coletta _� _ on the planned project and answer any questions they may have. In discussion, Mr. Thomas asked what was the Bayshore CAPA group's intent. Mr. Heithaus, President of CAPA, was in the audience and responded that the CAPA group was moving forward with their concept, Misc. Corres: but it would have a slightly smaller venue. Mr. Oakley asked how much work would have to be done if another parcel was added to the plan. Ms Date: 3h Jourdan explained that an amendment would have to occur. Mr. Oakley asked if the use changed or a different project was there and it wasn't Item #: 0-2.2 missed use, and Ms. Jourdan explained that there would have to a new PUD completed. Copies to: b. David Buchheit, MSTU Project Manager: Gave an update on the Bayshore Drive (south) improvement project, two side street improvement projects and gave the details of the multi -media campaign's successes. 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment - Approval. Mr. Jackson informed the Board there two invoices to pay this month: RWA Consulting, Inc. invoice for $4,050 for CRA January 3, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1 1612A3 io Overlays work, and Q. Grady Minor invoice for $59.00 for reimbursable expenses for the Triangle Drainage Grant project. Motion to make payment: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Dvorak. Approved 8 -0. 6. New Business: a. January 17 2012 CRA Board and CRA -AB Workshop. Mr. Jackson presented a draft power point slide printout of his draft presentation for the workshop. He asked the Board who might attend so he could get a seating chart completed for the event. The Board discussed issues that could be addressed with the CRA Commissioners. b. CRA TIF Grant SIG 0312012. Mr. Jackson asked for CRA -AB review and approval of a residential improvement grant for 2718 Gulfview Drive in the amount of $7,959.66 to repaint the metal roof, replace windows and doors with impact resistant glass, repair the driveway and bury the overhead electrical service. Motion to approve, pending satisfactory CRA staff and County Attorney review: Ms. Beatty. Second: Mr. Gunther. Approved 8 -0. 7. Advisory Board General Communications. a. 2012 Annual Goals and Objectives Workshop. Mr. Jackson gave a short update on 2011 achievements and 2012 projects and programs in work. Mr. Main directed the Board's attention to the Board's Goals and Objectives list. He advised the Board that there are many things the Board wishes to do and all it takes is time and money to complete them. On the list are some projects or objectives that have a high priority but the finances are not in place to achieve them, but they should be kept on the list. Also, there are other goals, projects or objectives that are low in priority but can be completed with minimal funding or can be completed by staff. He asked the Board to go through the list with him and update, add or delete items as necessary. The Board completed the Goals and Objectives review line -by -line and asked staff to clean up the work and bring it to the January 17th workshop. The Board discussed the 2012 budget and 2013 budget. Mr. Jackson advised the Board that the Budget guidance will come out in February and around March 1St the Property Appraiser gives and estimated percentage of land values increase or decrease. Based on those projections, CRA staff can work out a proposed FY2013 budget for the Board to review. In June the BCC reviews the proposed budget and either approves it or amends it. Mr. Main stated that the Board will do a budget workshop in February and March as part of their regularly scheduled meeting, with the intent of presenting the County Budget Office a draft budget prior to the end of March 2012. 8. Citizen Comments. Mr. Mark Kyle asked if the Board would consider installing street lights on Collee Court, Peters Avenue and Gordon Street. Mr. Jackson replied that the area is within the MSTU boundary and that he would contact the MSTU Advisory Committee to see if they would fund the side street lighting as they did before for other MSTU area streets. . Mr. Kyle expressed his thanks at the information. 9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:OOpm. Approved aFrOorwarded by Steve Main, CRA -AB Chairman. January 3, 2012 CRA -AB Minutes 2 . JANE'^ Collier County BYE ....................... Citizen Corp Committee August 16, 2011 Voting Members Present: Chris Nind, Salvation Army Russ Rainey, C.E.R.T. Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chief's Assoc. Steven Smith, R.S.V.P. Heidi Ruster, American Red Cross Dr. Joseph Neiween, MRC Voting Members Absent: Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriff s Office Walt Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Expert Consultants Present: Judy Scribner, CCEM -9 Soo, Fiala Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Hiller Henning Coyle Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Coletta :::::r Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes of June 15, 2011 meeting. Approved unanimously. Threat Update There are no present problems and no threat signs at this time. Weather Update Rick Zyvoloski reports that we are experiencing rain storms every day with the tropics very hot. There have been seven named storms so far and we should keep our guard up. Local Mitigation Strategy Sub - Committee. LMS Rick Zyvoloski serves on the committee and reports that grants should be submitted after an event. Grants should be applied through FEMA to retrofit homes in S.W. Florida. We should be prepared should Collier County be affected. Salvation Army & Red Cross will work together. Bobby Dusak will do the grants. Some of the Government projects are Wastewater and Parks in Collier County to be retrofitted. One lady had a storm surge flooding problem and applied for a grant. When she applied, FEMA gave her a hard time, she continued to pursue and she finally gave up. Some grants areltlffnK've and some are not. Do* 31 l 'b i 12 Item #: I CO -=-? -. n`-i Copies to: er .b C,) 1 1612A4 A 4 •1 Judy Scribner reports there is no 211 update at this time. She will be attending a meeting in September. It will be a resource to us for human services. It presently is being managed by Miami Dade and it is a very expensive to get up and running. GPS will be plugged into the system. Jerry Sanford called the number during a CERT managers meeting and received instructions over the phone. Judy also reported that there are now two positions open in the EOC. Josh has left for family reasons and John Veit has retired. The National Red Cross will no longer place their staffers in our shelters. Collier County is looking for their employees to man the shelters. The D.R.T. units will be placed outside the schools. The local Red Cross has tried to get the National to reconsider. They have not. All will help to implement the way shelters will be maintained, which will include Lee County. We hope it will change in two years. Heidi Ruster reports that the.Red Cross will support us after the event. A group called C.O.A.D. (Coordinated Organization Active in Disaster) will work together during a disaster. They had their first meeting at the Red Cross office that was attended by 23 people from Government, Faith Base and Non Profit as well as Places of Worship groups. These are tough times for all organizations and will strive to work together with the Red Cross to helpawith disaster response. Private companies were not invited but will be considered in the future. Jerry Sanford reported on the Patriot Flag that will be on display on August 24th, 2011 and the upcoming September 11th Memorial Services as well as the progress of the Freedom Memorial. Salvation Army. Chris Nind introduced Lt. Michael Missy who will be joining the Army. Chris asked when would our agencies be pulled into the Direct Assistance Group. Their next meeting is September 7th at the First Baptist Church at 2:00 p.m. Lt. Missy is finding his way around now and is giving out back packs to students. Chris invited us to join the Salvation Army at their"Red Kettle Gala& Auction"on Saturday,November 12th, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. at the Vineyards Country Club. Civil Air Patrol. John Fako reports that the Naples Squadron has about 13 of their members in CERT. Gulf Coast High School will be their shelter. A number of new people are joining the squadron. A Marco Island aircraft flew over the Naples pier during the Spirit of 45 event. MRC- Dr. Neiween reported that Dengue fever is not active in our area. He thanked Rick Zyvoloski for the Sky Warn training to the Health Dept. There have been beach closings north of us due to increased coliform levels. All quiet in the MRC at this time. Flu shots can be received at Walgreen's.Next Tuesday is National Vaccination Day. No issues on vaccinations so far this year. There are no Shingles vaccinations available at the present time. Very expensive. RSVP- Steve Stith reported that he went to various stations and signed new MOU's with them and recently returned from a conference in New Orleans. The Harry Chapin Food Bank-and RSVP have'been working together with more volunteers needed. 1611 2A 4 CERT- Russ Rainey reported that the Marco team has trained over 100 employees of Marco Island. Their final drill is this Thursday, August 18th, 2011. For the last several years, damage assessment has been accomplished by CERT team members using an ARCPAD computer program. Two team members go out, one as a spotter and one as a driver and can record the damage seen street by street. The data collected is fed into the laptop with results obtained in 4 hours. Fire Chief Mike Murphy says it will be a prime function using CERT members in damage assessment. Jerry Sanford invited the other CERT teams to his monthly Alumni meeting with the topic being Generator Safety at Station 45 on Monday, September 12, 2011. Next Meeting /Adjourned Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the EOC. Meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. t° Approv d by Russell Rainey, 4hairman Date 1612 p4 Agenda Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda Aug 16, 2011 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Opening Remarks Roll Call Sheriff's Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP EMS EM Health Dept Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCH City of Marco Island 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:30 New Business Chairman Hurricane Season Update EM 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman hqp://www.citizencorps.gov/cc/CertRegWizard.do 1612A4 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 14, 2011, TO: Advisory Boards Liaisons FROM: Ian Mitchell RE: Advisory Board Member Mileage Reimbursement On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08 -341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request reimbursement for this last year from August 1, 2010 — July 31, 2011. The members are to submit the completed form to the Advisory Board Liaison for processing by September 16, 2011. Attached are the mileage rates for the applicable year, a mileage reimbursement request form, and for your information a detailed explanation of the guidelines. Thank you Ian Mitchell scribnerJ 1612A4 From: Mitchelllan Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:56 PM To: AlvarezAnnie; BakerJennifer; BellowsRay; BiresJason; BosiMichael; BrownAraqueSummer; BrueggemanDebra; FrenchJames; GreenKelly; GustTatiana; HambrightGail; HarrisonGary; JacksonDavid; KrumbineMarcy; matthes_marilyn; McAlpinGary; McCaughtryMary; McLaughlinAlan; OssorioMichael; PageJeff; PhillippiPenny; PuigJudy; RichardDarryl; RodriguezRod; scribnerJ; SeatonTamika; SheffieldMichael; SilleryTessie; SuleckiAlexandra; Tindall_p; TownsenclAmanda; WileyRobert; WilliamsBarry Cc: Mitchelllan Subject: Advisory Board Mileage Reimbursement Attachments: 7 -14 -11 staff memo.doc; Reso 2008 -341 Mileage Reimbursement.pdf; MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES 2011.xlsx; Adv Board Mileage memo.docx; BLANK Mileage Reimbursement Form.doc Attached is the information that covers the mileage reimbursements for members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend the advisory board meetings. If you could forward to the members who qualify I would be grateful. I have given a mid September date for their return. OF OF i Ian .Mitchell Executive Nanager, BCC (239) 252- 8097_phone (239) 252-6406 fax ianmitcheCl @collier og v.net Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. *161; 2A4 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 3 41 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPLACING AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 93 -224, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A POLICY RELATING TO ALL COLLIER COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS, WHICH PERMITS REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS WHO MUST TRAVEL IN EXCESS OF 20 MILES ROUNDTRIP TO ATTEND MEETINGS. . WHEREAS, on October 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners repealed Ordinance No. 86-41, as amended, in its entirety, and adopted Ordinance No. 01 -55, which now governs the creation and review of Collier County Boards and provides a policy declaration; and WHEREAS, both Ordinance 86-41 and the superseding Ordinance No. 01 -55, as amended, define a "board" to include every agency, advisory board, regulatory board, quasi - judicial board, committee, task force or any other group created and funded in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners through adoption of Resolution No. 93 -224, established a policy of non-reimbursement for any in- County travel expenses incurred by board members defined by then - current Ordinance No. 86-41, as amended; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 01 -55, as amended, is silent as it relates to reimbursement for in- County travel expenses incurred by members of the boards defined therein; and WHEREAS; in light of recent, dramatic increases in fuel prices, the Board of County Commissioners desires to revise its policy of non - reimbursement for travel expenses to avoid placing undue hardships on advisory board members who must travel in excess of 20 miles roundtrip to attend their board meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby establishes a policy which provides for reimbursement of mileage expenses incurred by advisory board members who must travel in excess of 20 miles roundtrip to attend their advisory board meetings. 2. The Board of County Commissioners shall from time to time review and approve the process and funding source for administering this policy. 3. This Resolution shall supersede and replace Resolution No. 93 -224. Page 1 of 2 X16(2 A4 __ � THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, this _4 day of November. 2008. ATTEST:. BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, LORIDA DWIGHT E.,BROCK, CLERK aUCOUNALORIDA COUNTY, LIS', By: C T T G, C Clerk C14 dl- ki Page 2 of 2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES DATE MILEAGE RATES July -10 0.5 August -10 0.5 September -10 0.51 October -10 0.5 November -10 0.51 December -10 0.5 January-11 0.51 February -111 0.51 March -11 0.51 1 April -11 0.51 May -11 0.51 June -11 0.51 July -11 0.51 To Get Current Mileage Reimbursement Rates: Go To Intranet Page Employee POV Reimbursement Rates QuickLinks Privately Owned Vehicle POV Mileage Reimbursements 1612 A4 0 N O O Q\ O O O O z 0 F� Q � a w O cC � 0. Q O O � U LL1 L V] w O � oz z� O O w U C/)w G O � W F NZ ICI W d W bA � � U 0 �r Q of CQ r� a a O R L' a� O C �L w O C �o p, 0 b e w L a L A 0 C N N O U 1612 U U ti c cz C � Y %+ U c U cz � N U � O cC v' O U � O � ct y cC O a L1 E U scs L � O O a U O 6J on . U iU+ A 4 69 r3, U 7- -2 ,Fry y L Q [.rl W � c7 w L1 � Collier Coun Communication c& Customer Relations 1612A4 Govemment Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 Tamiami 'frail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov August 9, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 16TH 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Tuesday, August 16`h at 3:00 p.m. in the 3`d floor Policy Room at the James V. Mudd Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board /committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004 -05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision. of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 'Fainiami 'Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FI- 34112 -5356, (239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted. listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Judy Scribner at (239) 252 -3600. -End- 1612 A4 ColeMaryAnn From: scribnerJ Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:51 AM To: Alfonso Elizabeth; Anderson, Dan; Baer, David; Bernaldo, Maria; BowmanDan; Buxton, Reg; ColeMaryAnn; Elson, Jim; FoorclMarlene; Frost, Ryan; Jaskiewicz, Walter; Jones, Mike(Lt); Lauzon, Peggy(RSVP); Marr, Kathleen; Murphy, Mike; Neiween, Joe(MRC /DOH).; nfn11555; Nind, Chris; Porter, Doug; Rainey, Russ; Reid, Phil; Ruster, Heidi(ARC); Sanford, Jerry; SmithSteve; Soliday, Ted; Speers, Greg; Wilkins, Joe; Zunzunegui, Dan; zyvoloski_r Cc: ColeMaryAnn Subject: Aug meeting date The date for the Aug meeting has been changed to Tues. August 16`h at 3 pm. Sorry for all of the shifting. Scheduling for anything is tough right now with vacations and impromptu meetings being called. Be sure to call me ahead of time if you are unable to be there. Thanks, Judy Judy Scribner Collier County Emergency Management Human Services Program Manager 8075 Lely Cultural Pky Naples, Fl. 34113 239 - 252- 3600(main) 239-252-3608(direct) 239 - 252- 3700(fax) If you choose to share personal information with Collier Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by using an e-mail message, we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public- records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal law. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all information received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption. 1612 A 5 May 17, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE 113039YINI Naples, Florida, May 17, 2010 FEB 0 9 202 BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the Human Resource Training Room located at 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Building B, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala �--- Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta - ALSO PRESENT Misc. Corres: Date: 3 11 -611 2 Item # 1 lD T 'Z- +94 5 Copies to: Chairman: Joseph A. Moreland Robert Raymond (Excused) Victor Rios Inlet Management Work Team Jack Kindsvater Dick Lydon Nicole Ryan Jeff Raley (Excused) Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Gail Hambright, Tourist Tax Accountant Steve Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering Maura Kraus, Principal Environmental Specialist 1612 A 5 "1 May 17, 2010 I. Call to Order Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 9:12 AM. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call - A quorum was established. Also in attendance via teleconference — Sabarna Malakar, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda The Committee formed a consensus to follow the agenda until 11:00 AM to allow Boater Characterization Study Presentation to be given by Dr. Sweet. Gary McAlpin will request to the BCC to accept Sabarna Malakar, a representative from the FDEP as a Work Team Subcommittee member. Committee continues to seek members to fill two vacancies. Victor Rios moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously: Subcommittee 2 -0, Work Team 3 -0. V. Public Comments —None. VI. Approval of Minutes — April 19, 2010 Correct Page 3 — 2nd Paragraph 2nd sentence should read: As part of the "RAI" process. Dick Lydon moved to approve the April 19, 2010 Minutes as amended. Second by Nicole Ryan. Motion carried unanimously: Subcommittee 2 -0, Work Team 3 -0. VII. Staff Reports Gary McAlpin reported receipt of an e -mail forwarded from Sgt. Dave Bruening, Collier County Sheriff's Office. (See attached) Cpl. Todd Byrns of the Marine Bureau emailed Sgt. Bruening stating Wiggins Pass is closed at dead low tide. Cpl. Todd Byrns reported checking on a couple who was stuck on Saturday along with other boats. Staff will post the information on the website for the public and give notice to Pelican Isle Yacht Club and the U.S. Coast Guard. Chairman Joseph Moreland suggested Staff include the coordinates and depths when posting boating information. VIII. New Business 1. Review/Discussion of May 4, 2010 FDEP.FPS Meeting in Tallahassee Steve Keehn, CPE gave a brief presentation and summarized the topics discussed and pertinent concerns at the FDEP FPS Meeting in Tallahassee for the Subcommittee. (See attached) 1612A5lay 17, 2010 • FDEP expressed interest in meeting in the future on the Inlet Management Plan and the Modeling effort. • Collier County clarified ebb shoal sand and the method of determination on the direction of bypassing for the park. • FDEP has requested Collier County demonstrate an alternate means of placing sand where the greatest need was regardless of volumetric measurements. • Hot spot issues need to be addressed in the project description or contingency plan. • The Request for Additional Items (RAI) response needs to define responsibility and cause for full re- nourishment or intermediate re- nourishment. • There is no hard bottom affecting the inlet accept for the Delnor Wiggins Park. Hard bottom was described as small coral reef. • FDEP requested Collier County develop a Biological Monitoring Plan. Steve Keehn stated the Inlet Management Plan will need language to address the greatest need more than volumetric. He further stated the County did not have to do the work per the plan. The plan can define who will do the task. Gary McAlpin stated the Subcommittee will describe the scientific criteria, the type of monitoring and what stages heighten the re- nourishment event. What triggers a dredging and re- nourishment will be included in the Inlet Management Plan. It was noted Jeff Raley and Bob Brantley agreed Delnor- Wiggins Park does not have severe erosion. Gary McAlpin clarified FDEP does not believe Collier County has identified where the hard substrate is and would like more samples taken. FDEP believes the hard substrate to the north is clay and is very significant. Rock substrate and clay anchors the pass. FDEP wants to make sure, if the rock is removed, what the control feature is. Collier County will need to address the above before the permit will be issued. It was noted hard bottom will be addressed as rock substrate. Rock bottom is considerably lower than the dredge limit. Victor Rios expressed concern on the impact of any actions taken that may have an effect on other areas. Gary McAlpin responded the DEP has the same concerns. The Inlet Management Plan will need to convince DEP the issues that are legitimate and important to Collier County and the recommended plan will solve the issues permanently and correctly. He stated another study group was formed to identify the best solutions and they decided doing nothing was not an option. The issues to focus on are: • Erosion and habitant destruction to the north of Barefoot Beach. • Wiggins Pass does not have safe boating conditions at low tide. • Effective solutions to address the area in a cost effective way, in an environmental manner. 16112 Ab i May 17, 2010 FDEP concerns are: Geological assessments. Hydraulic assessments. What happens if actions taken impact Delnor- Wiggins State Park and what Collier County will do to correct. Steve Keehn stated FDEP recommended Barefoot Beach be declared a critical eroded area. FDEP will fund 33% toward ebb shoal building on Barefoot Beach, which will meet one of the Inlet Management Plan objectives. He proposed the following steps be done out of sea turtle season. ➢ Initial construction outside of turtle season. ➢ Major maintenance dredging every four years. ➢ Intermediate ebb shoal dredging, ➢ Create a contingency and monitoring plan. ➢ Ebb tide shoal re- building. He also stated it would take several years to re- nourish the beach - 250,000 cubic yards of sand were previously used. He stated Bob Brantley suggested one ebb shoal re- nourishment. Steve noted he has never heard of a project where this has been done. Gary McAlpin stated the modeling will tell what the optimum approach to replace the sand will be. 2. Physical, Biological, Contingency, Construction and Inlet Management Plans and Key Points Gary McAlpin distributed and addressed the following "Significant Items requiring discussion /resolution on Wiggins Pass Channel Project" to FDEP for them to issue permitting. (See attached) • Physical Plan • Biological Plan ■ Contingency Plan ■ Construction Plan ■ Inlet Management Plan ■ Letter of Consistency Staff recommended inviting National Marine Fisheries and the US Army Corp to a future meeting to discuss the Biological Plan. Staff also suggested inviting Outstanding Florida Waters to discuss what their trigger points are. It was noted a Biological Opinion will be required. Steve Keehn recommended Staff be proactive. He suggested Staff not wait for the permit before writing a letter to request permission from Delnor - Wiggins State Park for the land use. 161 12 A+ 5 May 17, 2010 3. Discussion/Identification of Major Issues Gary McAlpin reviewed the Physical, Biological and the Contingency Plan issues for discussion and resolution. He distributed the criteria for the Letter of Consistency (See attached) and stated the letter would be exactly as Mr. Lorenz requested. 4. Responsibilities for Resolution of Major Issues and Who Reviews Joseph Moreland suggested having a point of contact on the Committee, to keep current on each topic and receive documentation for distribution to the Committee. Dick Lydon stated having a point of contact makes sense and he inquired as to the cost to provide the requested additional items for the RAI Response. Gary McAlpin responded $150,000 has been approved for the EIS Study and Permitting by the CAC and will be submitted for approval from TDC and the Board of County Commissioners. Gary McAlpin recommended Nicole Ryan be the contact person on the Biological Plan and items associated with ecology and environment issues. Staff will be the point of contact for The Construction Plan. He asked the Committee members to let him know if they would be interested in being a point of contact on any plan. Nicole Ryan responded positively and volunteered to work on the Letter of Consistency. 5. Timing of RAI Response The Staff objective is to have RAI Responses ready to submit to DEP in 90 to 120 days. Speakers Doug Fee stated he was happy that the State is involved. He made a comment on RAI Response #19. He expressed concern with the funds expended for the process and he does not believe anything has been done at the County level such as meetings or reviews. He asked who will write the EIS. Gary McAlpin responded Bill Lorenz will be assigned the task to write the Letter of Consistency based on County Boards approval. On his initial review, he did not find any problems with the scope. The Consultant of record on the project is Coastal Planning and Engineering. They have done the majority of the environmental work. Doug Fee asked if the County will be able to meet a "zero' level of water quality in the construction of the project. Gary McAlpin said yes, they have never had an issue with increased tepidity levels. IX. Old Business 1. Discussion of Nearshore Placement of Sand for Maintenance Dredging During Sea Turtle Season Gary McAlpin clarified the Coastal Advisory Committee will try to avoid any beach re- nourishment during turtle nesting. CAC proposed main re- nourishment be done during turtle nesting season and Maintenance Dredging will be done over a 1612 A.5 May 17, 2010 four month period and could be done as a nearshore re- nourishment and outside of turtle nesting season. Nicole Ryan distributed a packet of various documents for the Committee's review. (See attached) Activity Description - The project is to widen and deepen Wiggins Pass with subsequent maintenance dredging every two years. She reviewed: ➢ (Pages 8 & 9) -Permit No. 0142538- 001 -JC ➢ (Page 18) - Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging, Modification No. 0142538- 004 -EM She provided the following sketches to show the difference between nearshore and offshore. ➢ (Page 23) — Beach Fill Site Plan reflects nearshore disposal site 50' away from beach. ➢ (Page 24) - Proposed Offshore Disposal Area sketch reflects offshore disposal. Wiggins Pass Policy and Planning Guidelines ➢ (Page 26) — No. 10. Summer maintenance dredging to reduce cost and complexity, with offshore placement. Attachments ➢ (Page 31) No. 5 Project Description ➢ (Page 34) No. 23c Construction Description ➢ (Page 36) Collier County Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual Report, 2005 — Reflects Emergences. ➢ (Page 37) Summary of All Monitored Beaches, 2005 - Reflects 4,200 Hatchlings Emerged Maura Kraus stated the summary was representative of current times. Land Development Code 3.04.02 ➢ (Pages 39 & 40) Species Specific Requirements — Sea Turtle Protection 5 and 5c. Nicole Ryan expressed concern vibrations from pipes could disturb female sea turtles. She recommended maintenance dredging be done after the nesting season. She provided an email received from Fish and Wildlife stating they always recommend that the work be done outside sea turtle nesting season. Maura Kraus stated she shares the same concerns as Nicole Ryan and added lighting attracts predators and is a bigger concern. 1612 A,5 May 17, 2010 Speakers David Addison, Biologist for the Conservancy of SW Florida stated since 2000 water head nesting had declined more than 50 percent. Hatchlings will be attracted to light and will go to them. This will have the hatchling wasting energy by swimming toward the light and put them in further jeopardy from predatory fish. He urged the Committee to wait until after turtle nesting season. Gary McAlpin proposed the following: ❖ The major part of construction will be done outside turtle nesting season with sand placed on the beach. ❖ Maintenance dredging of the anticipated 40- 50,000 cubic yards of material will be taken out of the pass over an approximate 4 year period and will bring in a cutter -head dredge with work to be done out of turtle nesting season with onshore placement. ❖ Spot dredging will only be performed during daylight hours and the scope of the work would be approximately 5 -6,000 cubic yards of material during the turtle - nesting season to be taken offshore. He asked if this proposal would satisfy the needs of the Community. Nicole Ryan, Maura Kraus and Dave Addison agreed the proposal would work. It was noted the equipment will be moved back into the channel away from the beach each night during turtle nesting season. Staff will address the three conditions and include options when submitting for a dredging permit to be done anytime over a one -year period. It was noted Fish & Wildlife Service and Fish & Wildlife Conservation define the turtle- nesting season. Joseph Moreland stated funding for any kind of dredging comes from the tourist dollar beach re- nourishment fund and their goal is to spend it for beach re- nourishment. He asked if there was a safety or emergency hot spot dredge required during turtle nesting season and therefore cannot be used for beach re- nourishment, would the funding be lost for that particular dredge. Staff will research with the County Attorney's Office. Joseph Moreland recommended type of dredging terminology be defined. Staff suggested the following terminology for dredging events: ■ Capital Dredge is a one -time event. ■ Maintenance Dredge is performed every four — five years outside of turtle nesting season with a small cutter -head dredge. ■ Spot Dredge is triggered by a navigational problem at the mouth of the pass. Nicole Ryan moved to modify the direction of the Inlet Management Plan for the three dredging maintenance options. Second by Jack Kindsvater. 161 2 A15 I May 17, 2010 Gary McAlpin recommended the Committee refrain from voting until Staff receives an opinion from the County Attorney's Office. Joseph Moreland tabled the motion. Speakers Doug Fee agrees with the way the project is going and thinks the County should follow the Land Development Code. He believes in the process and the public be made aware. He urged the Committee not to do any work during turtle nesting season. Susan Calkins stated she was happy with the Subcommittee's decision to go forward but not during the turtle nesting season. Michael Seef congratulated the Subcommittee on the decision not to dredge during turtle nesting season. He stated he appreciated all efforts to avoid damage to the turtles. Donna Reed Caron stated consideration of maintenance dredging during turtle nesting season is "incremental at its' finest" and would be a bad move. It has never been done during the 13 years she has been a resident. She added any dredging should be done outside of turtle season and boaters should not be in the water in the middle of hurricane season. She commented boaters should be smart enough not to bring their boats to that area during low tide. She expressed it was a waste of taxpayers dollars. X. Announcements Mr. Sweet has been scheduled to give a Boater Characterization Study presentation after the meeting is adjourned at the same location. Gary McAlpin asked the Committee for suggestions on representatives from the Friends of Barefoot Beach and the Boater Community to serve on the Committee. Staff would like to fill vacancies over the next month. XI. Committee Member Discussion — None. XII. Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee will be held on Monday, June 21 at 9:00 AM. 1612A5 May 17, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 pm. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee ti G jbseph A oreland, Ch�i'rman aV These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented '�-< , or as amended 9 p 5AcApproval Janu* 12, 2012 1 6 �' of CAC Minutes 1 of 6 FEB o 9 1_U11 BY-.- .................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 10, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business Herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning — Coyle Coletta CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III Anthony Pires (Excused) Randolph Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Misc. Corres: Date: 3113 112- Item #: I s (ms2- 94 S Copies to: 16 10" CAC January 12, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 6 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. October 13, 2011 Mr. Waldack moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7— 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the document titled "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue as of November 2, 2011 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through 11 /l /11. 3. CAC Meeting Minute Discussion Gary McAlpin submitted the following documents for information purposes: • Letter from Dwight E. Brock, Collier County Clerk of Courts to Board of County Commissioners Chairman Fred Coyle and others dated April 25, 2011 — regarding the Clerk of Courts policy on provision of minutes to County Boards. • Email from Patricia Morgan, BMR Manager to Gail Hambright dated November 2, 2011 — Subject "Meeting Minutes" • Copies of Coastal Zone Management Department 2010 and 2011 Minutes billing He provided an overview of the requirements for provision of minutes under the Clerk of Courts contract for summary minutes. If the Committee wishes they may have verbatim minutes at an additional expense. 2A 5 iVCC I1 Apo oval of CAC Minutes r.r 3 of 6 The Committee reached consensus on continuing to utilize the summary minute's services provided by the Clerk of Courts. 4. FEMA PW 00561 Time Extension Request Gary McAlpin provided the FEMA application "Request for Project Time Extension " and related backup emails for the proposed re- nourishment of Marco Island Beaches for informational purposes. 5. Laser Grading North Marco Beach Gary McAlpin provided a document outlining 3 options for the Laser Grading project at North Marco Beach. He has been notified by the Division of Water Resource Management that past field permits issued for the laser grading work were issued in error and the County will be required to obtain a CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line) Administrative Permit to complete future grading in the area. The Committee determined to continue the item pending comment from representatives of the City of Marco Island. Mr. Raymond arrived at 1:31pm 6. Marco South Permitting - Verbal Update Gary McAlpin reported the contract has been issued for the Scope of Work in the amount of $89,000. 7. Collier Creek Dredging - Verbal Update Gary McAlpin reported the project is in the "pre- construction conference" phase of the operation. 8. Bureau of Ocean Management Lease a. 11/9/11 Letter to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gary McAlpin provided the following documents for information purposes 1. "Collier County Conceptual Renourishment Project Analysis Selected Sections and Descriptions " 2. Letter from Gary McAlpin to Renee Orr, Chief, Strategic Resource Offices — Bureau of Ocean Energy Management — Re: Request for Non Competitive Negotiated Agreement for Use of OCS Sand from Collier Borrow Area T -I " dated November 11, 2011. 9. Beach Cost Share Presentation to TDC Gary McAlpin provided the documents "FDEP Cost Share Program — 71712011 " and "Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida "- Updated June 2011 "- prepared by the State of Florida, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems for informational purposes. He noted the informational was requested by the Tourist Development Council. 10. GLDD Schedule Flexibility Memo Ac-�anuary 6 2 12, 2 12 .r VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 6 Gary McAlpin provide a copy of a letter from William H. Hanson, Vice President of Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company to him dated November 1, 2011 — "Re: Upcoming Beach Projects " for information purposes. The Committee recommended Staff investigate the concept of stockpiling approximately 0.5M to 1. OM CY's of sand at strategic beach locations during the major beach renourishment project. The concept would be to utilize the stockpiles for emergency /minor beach renourishment when necessary. 11. Beach Economics a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin provided the documents "Healthy Beaches are Vital to Florida's Economic Recovery, " "Florida Beaches are Critical Infrastructure " and "The economic value of beaches — a 2008 update" prepared by James R. Houston, of the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center for informational purposes. VIII. New Business 1. Revised 10 Year - Fund 195 Master Plan a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC recommend approval of the revised 10 year — Fund 195 Master Plan" dated November 10, 2011 for consideration. The Committee recommended Staff, for planning purposes, prepare an alternate Master Plan absent of utilization of Federal funds. Speaker Doug Fee Mr. Waldack moved to endorse the Plan as presented subject to the following: 1. The Plan be revised to include the Laser Grading Project required for North Marco Beach (if necessary). 2. The Plan be revised to include an additional Wiggins Pass dredging cycle, (if necessary). 3. Staff prepares a Master Plan outlining expenditures through the following renourishment period (FY 2025 + / -), 4. Staffprepares a Plan outlining an expenditure of $3OMfor major beach renourishment (which may be the expenditure required to adequately complete the project). Second by Mr. Moreland. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Staff to coordinate with Mr. Hendel on items 2 and 3 as necessary. 2. Wiggins Pass Sub - Committee Discussion Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC appoint a three- member subcommittee made up of members of the CAC to review, analyze and recommend to the CAC on matters concerning the straightening of the Wiggins Pass Channel" dated November 10, 2011 for consideration. 161 Z �i'� CAM Ay 12,2012' VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 6 Mr. Hendel moved to appoint Mr. Rios, Mr. Raymond and Mr. Moreland to the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Speaker Doug Fee 3. Conceptual Design and Modeling Report - Marco South Renourishment a. Backup Material b. Backup Material /Analysis Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Recommend that the CAC review and approval the Conceptual Design and Modeling report for Marco Island Beach renourishment program " dated November 10, 2011. Michael Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. submitted the document "Conceptual Design and Numerical Model, Analysis of South Marco Island Erosion Control Alternatives Final Report" dated October 28, 2011 — CED File No. 10.094 prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. The Committee viewed the Slideshow "Marco Island South Beach Conceptual Design and Numerical Model Analysis —Coastal Advisory Committee, November 10, 2011 Mr. Rios moved to approve the conceptual design as presented subject to the installations of G -2 — G -4 groins, with the groins to be installed as near in timing to the actual renourishment of the beach. Second by Mr. Moity. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. Break: 2: 50pm Reconvened: 2: 58pm VIII. Old Business 1. Water Quality Clam Pass/Bay * Draft Summary as directed by CAC on 10/13/11 Gary McAlpin provided the Executive Summary "Receive feedback from the CAC on the draft Water Quality report requested at the last meeting. Update the CAC on recent Water Quality Data Concerns " dated November 10, 2011 and document "Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary" prepared by Atkins dated October 27, 2011 for information purposes. He provided an update on the issue noting the reports are still in process and upon completion, will be returned to the Committee for their review. Speakers Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Noreen Murray, Pelican Bay Resident IX. Announcements None X. Committee Member Discussion 1612 i CAC January 12, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6 of 6 Chairman Sorey directed Mr. Moity to work with Mr. McAlpin on the concept of stockpiling sand during beach renourishment projects. Mr. Moreland reported the Estuary Conservation Association, Inc. is developing a process for the users of the Pass to provide "incident reports" when appropriate. He requested members contact him if they have any concerns on the concept. Mr. Waldack reported he is attending a Legislative Conference on November 17 and 18 in Orlando. The City of Marco Island is dedicating Veterans Community Park on November 11, 2011 at 10am and there is a softball game scheduled between the City of Marco Island Fire /Police Departments and the Wounded Warriors for November 12, 2011 at l Oam. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location December 8, 2011— Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3:18 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee n Sorey, III, Chair an These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented L", or as amended 16112 A5 1 December 19, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE O WIGGINS PASS SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 19, 2011 FEB 0 1U i BY:.. ..................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Coastal Advisory Committee — Wiggins Pass Subcommittee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. at the Risk Management Training Room located at 3311 Tamiami Trail E, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala 1 U Hiller Hennin �T Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Cares: Date: 3) 1 1-2- Item #: 1 Le -rt- 2 Copies to: Chairman: Joseph A. Moreland Robert Raymond Victor Rios (Excused) Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director Gail Hambright, Accountant CZM Steve Keehn, Coastal Planning and Engineering Nicole Sharp, Coastal Planning and Engineering 1 1612 A5 December 19, 2011 I. Call to Order Chairman Moreland called the meeting to order at 9:07A.M. He gave a brief summarization on public participation for the meeting; including project updates, explanations, comments and discussions. He reiterated project effort costs were approximately $800,000 on an investment with good intentions. He expressed concern from the boating community. He also asked the subcommittee to keep in mind another possible principal dredge may be necessary which could cost $750,000. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call - A quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Robert Raymond moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Joseph Moreland. Motion carried 2 -0. V. Public Comments Speaker Jack Kindsvater, Vice - President of Estuary Conservation Association noted the ECA partners with FGCU will support recommendations and will assist in implementation efforts. For the Record — James Moreland previously stepped down as President of the Estuary Conservation Association. He will no longer be making comments or be a part of any decision making now and in the future on behalf of the Estuary Conservation Association. VI. Approval of Minutes Robert Raymond moved to approve the May 17, 2010 Minutes as submitted. Second by Joseph Moreland. Motion carried 2 -0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Public Participation in Subcommittee meeting — Previously addressed. 2. Public Documents Posting Gary McAlpin addressed concerns regarding public document postings and reassured the subcommittee that all related documentation had been posted to the Collier County Government website. For the Record - to help provide a paperless environment, staff will email agenda and documentation with a link to be addressed for future meetings to the subcommittee and Inlet Management Work Team. VIII. New Business 1. PowerPoint from FDEP Meeting with New Figures 16 L2 A5 1 December 19, 2011 Steve Keehn, CPE gave a slide presentation as presented to the FDEP and reviewed topics. Gary McAlpin introduced and acknowledged Nicole Sharp - Coastal Planning and Engineering for working closely with Steve Keehn on the presentation documentation. a. Review of Minutes/FDEP November, 2011 Meeting • Notes for the meeting on the Wiggin's Pass Straighten and Inlet Management Study at FDEP. (See Attached) • Wiggin's Pass Geology and Permitting Outline (See Attached) • Prior to November 17t Meeting, 3- conference calls were held. Speaker Nicole Johnson, The Conservancy - Sea Turtle season, construction and year round beach re- nourishment. b. Review of Wiggin's Pass Project Description Steve Keehn continued the slide presentation and reviewed. (See Attached) • Cores from New Flood Channel • Geological Findings • Outstanding Florida Waters c. Review of Geotechnical Investigations and Reports Steve Keehn continued the slide presentation and reviewed several reports. (See Attached) 2. Review of RAI Request and Responses Steve Keehn, CPE gave a slide presentation on RAI progress and reviewed. (See Attached) • Principal issues have been addressed. • Steps for next phase. For the Record — FDEP requires more than one solution option for consideration. Speaker Nicole Johnson suggested map clarification to separate options and factor in maintenance costs. Questions were addressed and answered by staff throughout the meeting. Recessed at 10: 35 a.m. Reconvened at 10:48 a.m. 3. Discussion of Inlet Management Plan Work to Date Steve Keehn reviewed the Draft EIS and Inlet Management Plan dated December, 2011. (See Attached) 1612 A45 December 19, 2011 Jack Kindsvater agreed to forward a copy of the FGCU Boater's Report to be presented to the EAC next month to staff for comparison reasons. 4. Discussion of Letter of Consistency Gary McAlpin explained the Letter of Consistency request and compliance process through the BCC. Speakers Nicole Johnson voiced concern on year round beach re- nourishment and the impact on Collier County's Sea Turtle nesting success. Jack Kindsvater agreed to provide staff a one -page summarization on support of the project, and usage including public safety vessels. IX. Old Business —None. X. Announcements Wiggin's Pass Subcommittee Scheduled Meetings Schedule was included in agenda documentation previously e- mailed to sub - committee. XI. Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date — TBA. Robert Raymond's schedule will not allow him to attend Tuesday morning meetings. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 pm. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee Wiggin's Pass Subcommittee Joseph A. Mofeland, Chairman L/ These Minutes were pproved by the Board /Committee on as presented , or as amended 4 a 1612 CAC February 9, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY Fiala i( COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S Hiller'%` 012 Co Coyle Naples, Florida, January 12, 2012 ' Coletta C/ w LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Misc. Corres: Murray Hendel D *: Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland (Excused) Victor Rios Coples to. Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples Scott Johnson, Collier County Purchasing Department alisc. Cams: Date: 3l 1 3112 1612A5February 9, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 6 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management submitted the memo "2012 CAC Scheduled Meetings " for information purposes. Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7-0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. November 10, 2011 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2011 minutes. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY 12 Revenue Report' dated through December 31, 2011. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY 201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects " updated through 1/5/12. 3. FDEP Naples Beach Joint Permit /Storm Water Outfall Pipes Condition Gary McAlpin presented a copy of a letter from Robert Brantley of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to William Moss, City Manager, City of Naples and Gary McAlpin, Collier County Coastal Zone Management, Re: "Naples Beach Joint Coastal Permit No. 0222355- 001 -JC — Stormwater Outfall Pipes condition" dated December 21, 2011, and related Resolution from the City of Naples. He provided an update on the County /City of Naples proposal to "decouple" the requirement in previous FDEP permit cited above that "The County shall submit a long range management plan (including identification of viable funding sources) for the removal of the storm water outfalls from the beach. 1612 A 5cAC February 9 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3of6 Submittal of an acceptable plan will be a requirement of the Notice to Proceed for the second nourishment. " 4. FDEP Clam Bay Markers Status — Update Gary McAlpin presented a Resolution from the Pelican Bay Services Division executed December 14, 2011 regarding the requirement for marking of Clam Bay as provided under the 1998 FDEP permit; and a Naplesnews.com article dated January 1, 2012 "Seagate's push for Clam Bay Markers spurned by State, going to judge next. " He reported the proposed installation of the informational markers in the Clam Bay waters is now subject to litigation. The Board of County Commissioners authorized Staff to move forward with any informational signs on County lands not subject to the litigation (beach signs, boardwalk signs, canoe launch area signs, etc.). Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney reported the Board of County Commissioners approved the Resolution executed by the Pelican Bay Services Division. Speaker Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division 5. Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary Gary McAlpin presented the "Clam Bay Numeric Nutrient Criteria Executive Summary" last revised January 11, 2012 prepared by Atkins and related backup material. He reported the item will be considered at a future meeting. Speakers Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida Mary Johnson, Mangrove Action Committee 6. Collier Creek Dredging — Update Gary McAlpin provided the document "Hideaway Beach Meeting Notes — 1/11/12" regarding a meeting between County Staff, Commissioner Fiala and representatives of the City of Marco Island and other interested parties. He reported an issue has arisen on where the sand from the dredging activity will be placed in relation to Hideaway Beach. The County represented in documents the sand would be placed seaward of the erosion control line, however Hideaway Beach District representatives were under the impression it was to be placed inland of the erosion control line. He outlined three options developed to address the issue on where the dredged sand is to be placed. O tion I — Continue as currently approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Option 2 — Demobilize the dredge and move it to Naples for two months allowing time for the BCC to resolve the issue at a cost of $5000 to the County. 161 2 CA*kb5ry 9, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 6 Option 3 — Continue the dredging activity and stockpile the 10, 000 cubic yards of material until the issue is resolved with Hideaway Beach District paying to distribute the sand based on a decision by the BCC. He sought a recommendation by the Committee. The Committee reached consensus and recommended either Option I or Option 3 be undertaken Mr. Pires abstained from the discussion and recommendation. 7. Conceptual Design Plan and Approach to BCC in March 2012 Gary McAlpin provided a verbal update on the conceptual plan for the major beach renourishment project. He has presented the conceptual plan to the City of Marco Island and intends to present it to the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. It was noted the Tourist Development Subcommittee has several questions on the plan and requested Staff provide a presentation on it. Discussion occurred on the optimal timeline for the presentations of the Plan to the various parties. The Committee reached consensus and recommended the plan be presented in this order, and to these parties: the CAC, TDC, City of Naples and the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee directed Staff to answer any questions posed by the TDC Subcommittee. Mr. Pires abstained from the recommendation as he did not have enough information to make an informed decision. 8. United States Department of Interior Sand Lease Gary McAlpin provided a copy of a letter for information purposes from Steven D. Textoris of the US Department of the Interior, received 1/10/12 at the Coastal Zone Management Department. VIII. New Business 1. Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit Work Order with Atkins North America Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under contract CE- FT- 09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of $ 7,672. 00 " dated January 12, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Pires moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve a Work Order with Atkins North America, Inc. for Clam Pass Joint Coastal Permit under contract CE- FT- 09- 5262 -CZ for a not to exceed amount of $7,672.00." Second by Mr. Hendel. Carried unanimously 7— 0. A :i C February 9, 2012 1612 ry VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5of6 2. Marco Laser Grading Gary McAlpin presented Schedule A, Work Order No. 1 for CEC Contract No. 09- 5262 for Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. to assist the County in establishing a long term maintenance program to reshape the beach on Marco Island from monument R -135 to R -143. The Work Order is a time and materials scope of work at a cost not to exceed $35,190.00. Mr. Rios moved to approve Schedule A, Work Order No. I "for CEC Contract No. 09 -5262 for Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc is at a cost not to exceed $35,190.00. Second by Mr. Moity. Motion carried 6 "yes " — I "no." Mr. Hendel voted "no. " Chairman Sorey stated the approval is subject to Staff contacting the necessary governing agencies in an attempt to streamline the permit process. 3. RFP No. 11 -5772 "Beach Renourishment Engineering Services" Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve shortlist of firms for contract negotiations for RFP #11 -5772 Beach Renourishment Engineering Services " dated January 12, 2012. He reported Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Committee's selection of firms and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the number one shortlisted firm, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. Mr. Hendel moved to approve Staffs recommendation listed above. Second by Mr. Burke. Motion carried 5 "yes" — 2 "no." Mr. Pires and Mr. Moity voted "no. " IX. Old Business Gary McAlpin reported the Vanderbilt Beach Restroom project is still in the permitting process. X. Announcements Gary McAlpin reported Dr. Bauer has been appointed to the Environmental Regulation Commission. XI. Committee Member Discussion 1. Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening — Update Gary McAlpin reported the next meeting of the Wiggins Pass Subcommittee will be held on January 18, 2012. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location February 9, 2012 — Government Center, Administration Bldg. F, 3rd Floor l 51-1 AC r &ary 9, 2012 b! 2 A App ppr al of CAC Minutes 6 of 6 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:31 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee YrCf J n 'To�tY pi`r�3� Vc These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on D- 1 ^ j 2 as presented or as amended x 161'2 �6 ' September 22, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 22, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, 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: DEC p .g 2011 D Fiala y__L Hiller ✓ Henning Coyle ✓' Coletta- Also Present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Page 1 James Lavinski Larry Dean Mieszcak Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Excused) Ronald Doino (Excused) Chris Hudson (Excused) Misc. Cones: Date---2 I Item t:I L 2 ►Gi c� Copies to: 1612A6 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for this month, September 22, 2011. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless additional time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person wishing to decide -- I'm sorry. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance. MR. UESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino, Mr. Ronald Doino, and Mr. Chris Hudson are all absent today, excused absence. Page 2 A.,6 161' Zeptember 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you. Approval of the agenda. Do we have any changes? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, No. 2, Omar J. Barreda and Veronica Trujillo has been withdrawn. Case CESD20100018786. Under stipulations we have three stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100020287, Hilda Beovides; No. 2 will be Case CEAU20100022285, Hilda Beovides; No. 3 will be Case CESD20100006498, Gulf Way condominium. Under Letter C. hearings, No. 4, Case CENA20100020043, Eric and Dayle Westover, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Case CESD20110001824, Ana Milena Franco, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Case CESD20100019476, Eric Dorestil and Elvita Pierre, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Case CEVR20100021002, Mayte Puron, has been withdrawn. Number 13, Case CEPM20090014245, Leonor Montelongo, has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CESD20090007697, Timothy Beebe, has been withdrawn. Number 17, Case CESD20100022120, DAD Development /Pebblebrooke Center, has been withdrawn. Under No. 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, No. 5, Case CEVR20100020717, Palm Foundation II, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CEVR20100020718, Palm Foundation II, Inc., has been withdrawn. And also under old business we would like to add Letter C, which will be motion to rescind orders. These are for Robert and Serita Brown, and also Letter D, motion to amend orders. This is also Page 3 161t2 A6 September 22, 2011 for Robert and Serita Brown, and that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the changes. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The agenda's been approved. Now on to the approval of the minutes from our August 25, 2011, hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, wait. One discussion, I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I will be abstaining from this vote. September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Moving on to public hearings, Letter A, motion, motions for extension of time. The first case is Robyn Cantara. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Could you state your name for the record. MR. ASARO: Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. We have a letter in our packet requesting an extension for 90 days for health reasons. Any discussion amongst the board? Does the county have an issue with the extension? MR. ASARO: No. No issue at all. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Was the $81.15 paid? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. ASARO: Yes, that was. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would someone like to entertain a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to extend the time 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 5 1612 SNiOrhber 22, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the extension's been granted for 90 days. Thank you, Tony. MR. ASARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes our motions for extension of time. Now moving on to B stipulations. The first one -- and I apologize for messing up the last name -- is going to be Beovides. And we have -- sorry. There are two cases with the same respondent. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the respondent's not here. Would you like to read the stipulation into the record. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. Therefore it is agreed that the -- between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; X61,2 p•6 .a September 22, 2011 Two, abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, unpermitted living space must be unoccupied and utilities turned off within 24 hours of this hearing until the building permit or demolition permit has received a certificate of completion/occupancy, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Four, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Five, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Patrick. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This was signed yesterday; however, there's a 24 -hour provision in here. Being today, the order doesn't actually get passed today, let's say, be 24 hours from now. Any issues from that? MS. RAWSON: No. There are no issues. It would be 24 hours from today's date. Actually, the orders won't be signed today, but this is the day that the board's going to make the order, so it will be 24 hours from today. And good for the respondents, because they knew about it yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Great. MR. BALDWIN: I spoke to the owner yesterday, and we have an appointment tomorrow afternoon. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. Page 7 161I 2Sekfemer 22, 20 11 Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. This originally was last year, November of last year. Has anything been done? I see they were cited in May. Has anything been done to rectify the situation during this period of time? MR. BALDWIN: No. The case did open in November, but the owner went through some personal problems for a little while, and I couldn't gain access to the property until -- in April of this year. MR. KAUFMAN: And they feel confident that they'll be able to resolve this? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. They've already -- have been in talks with contractors to abate the violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation's been accepted. Now moving on to the same respondent, next case. It's a separate case. Page 8 161o,-2 AL y September 22, 2011 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for the record, would you like to read in the stipulation. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just so there's no confusion, I don't think the case number was ever read. So this is in case -- pertaining to Case CEAU20100022285. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: So this one is 30 days; the other one was 120? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. This is for a fence surrounding the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Fence and a gate. Make a motion that we approve the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. 1614 A 6 -,1 eptember 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Great. Thank you, Patrick. The last stipulation that we have is Gulf Way Condominium. Is the respondent here today, or a representative? MR. URBANCIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you counsel? MR. URBANCIC: Yes, I am. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Joe (sic), do you want to state your name for the record and read the stipulation in. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100006498 dealing with the violation of a garage that was converted into living space without first obtaining Collier County permits located at 211 First Street, Naples, Florida, 34134. Folio No. 5585076008 (sic). It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by Page 10 1612 .4b September 22, 20 11 obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, and obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning, sir. MR. URBANCIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you mind stating your name for the record. MR. URBANCIC: Certainly. Greg Urbancic, law firm, Coleman, Yovanovich, and Koester for the respondents in this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And just as a formality more than anything, agree to and accept all the provisions? MR. URBANCIC: We agree and accept. We're already in for our building permit, so we're in the process. As soon as that gets approved, we're ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: On the address, it says -- I think when we read it, it said Naples, Florida, and this says Bonita Shores. Does that make any difference? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The postal address is Bonita Shores, but it is in Collier County, so it's considered Naples. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 11 161 2A6 4 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry, did you have a question? MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah. Is -- the garage areas and living space, is that occupied? MR. URBANCIC: It has been at various times, but the last time I was told by the owner that there's nobody occupying it at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation's been accepted. Great. Thank you very much. MR. URBANCIC: Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues -- MR. URBANCIC: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues or your client runs into any issues, you have the option to come back in front of us before the time expires and ask for an extension. MR. URBANCIC: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That concludes all of our stipulations. Now we're going to move on to public hearings. First case is Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. Page 12 A 6 .4 161zeptember 22, 2011 MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, is it possible to take the case with the translator first? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MS. BAKER: Number 7. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving to Case No. it was originally Case No. 7 in your packet. Is that the one we're on, Case 7? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Lunar? CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have Lunar. MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'm not sure which one. Anyways. MR. KAUFMAN: That's on No. 7. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, that's the one. (The interpreter herein, was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 13 A� 6 161 September 22, 2011 MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition Chapter 1, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Permits 2004080292 for a fence; 2004112551 for a shed; 2006023718 for a garage conversion; and 2006023732 for an enclosed porch that have all expired without completing all inspections and receiving certificates of completion/occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 35766920004. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Erineldo Mosquera and Eddie Lunar, 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: June 1, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 2, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 1, 2011. Date of re- inspection -: July 15, 2011. And results of a re- inspection: The violation remains. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property- maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007333 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and the Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105. Violation location is 4191 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116; Folio No. is 35766920004. Service of the notice of violation was given on June 2, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. I have six photographs taken by myself from June 1 st of 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent seen the Page 14 16 I A6 i September 22, 2011 photographs? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: A matter of note. We have two individual names on this case. We have one individual in front of us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's get some clarification on that real quick. Joe, can you hang on one second. MR. MUCHA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record and for the court reporter, can you identify the respondent who's standing before us, please. MR. MOSQUERA: Erineldo Mosquera. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And did you check the deed? He's the property owner, so we're okay. He's one of the owners, correct? MS. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, okay. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good, Leno? Page 15 A 6 16k2 September 22, 2011 MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Sorry, Joe. Go ahead. MR. MUCHA: Okay. This case initiated back on June 1, 2011. I had received another complaint on the property. And while researching the property for that case, I found that the permits for a fence, the shed, a garage conversion, and an enclosure of a porch had expired without having all of the inspections completed. On June 2nd of this year I met with Mr. Mosquera and I brought an investigator that spoke Spanish with me, and we explained the violations that we found at that time, and that's when I served the notice of violation. And at that time he had kind of indicated to us that he was having some financial issues, that he possibly might be losing the house. And we just said, well, you know, we'll kind of work with you as long as we can, and basically that's kind of where it's at. It's been a few months. Really no change in any of the permits. And I figured we'd bring it here and let you guys -- you know, see what you guys could come up with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, do you know if the property's in lis pendens or foreclosure? MR. MUCHA: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Did you say there was a permit pulled? MR. MUCHA: There was a permit pulled on actually all the things that I mentioned, for the shed, the fence, garage convers- -- four separate permits that just were never finished. And this here is a picture of the shed. As you can see, it's not even completed. MR. UESPERANCE: Are we missing, simply, the final inspections, or do we have other inspections missing? MR. MUCHA: The shed and the fence have had no inspections done. The garage conversion and the enclosure of the porch have had Page 16 1612. A 6 September 22, 2011 some inspections done but not the final inspection. This is the porch that was enclosed. This is just showing the fence. There's a wood fence and a chain -link fence. And -- oh, that's part of the garage, yeah, just showing that the garage has been converted. I never have actually been inside the garage, but it's showing it so you guys can get a point of view. MR. LEFEBVRE: Were impact fees paid for the garage and screen enclosure? MR. MUCHA: Well, I mean, I'm assuming so, if that's part of the process for when you have to apply for the permit, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have -- the floor elevation, generally, is the linchpin on converting garages. So I'm guessing -- or maybe you know and maybe you don't know -- if the elevation in the garage has been raised to the same elevation as the floor or the inspection that checks that elevation, is that one of the things that has been checked? MR. MUCHA: To be honest with you, I do not know that answer. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll ask the respondent then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MR. MOSQUERA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is -- it's a formal process, but you can speak informally. You can talk plainly to us and explain your side of the story and what's going on and where you are in the process. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. Money's a problem. The problem is that everything -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, I'm sorry. Could you speak into the mike so that the court reporter can hear you better. Thank you. Page 17 A6 1612 4 September 22, 2011 MR. MOSQUERA: Everything was done under the law. We did the elevation of the floor in the garage just like the house. There was an inspector that went over there and checked everything. He said it was all right. So I went on with the construction. And its -- and then I did have four jobs. I lost -- no, I had three jobs, I lost two, and I'm keeping one, and that just is just -- I'm just working 20 hours. And the problem is that I wouldn't like to lose my house, because it's a very nice house, a good house in a good neighborhood, and I fix it the way I want it. And I spent a lot of money doing all the improvements. And right now I haven't been able to make the payments for the last three months. And you know how the situation is in the country. My wife is also working. She's 70 years old. She's ill. And the way -- and she's ill and she's still working. And she works very few hours, and sometimes -- some days they call her, sometimes they don't, and we have a real financial problem. I talked to an attorney in Fort Myers, and he said the best thing that I can do is just go foreclosure. I would not like to get to that point, but since the situation -- the situation is the way it is, and I'm going to have to get to that point, but, really, I wouldn't like to lose my house. Because of so many hours for my family and working and money, and all that costs me a lot of money. I did not get the money out of the house. It was just out of my hard work. And I'm really hurt of what is going on right now. I would like to know if you could please help me with a resolution or to come into an agreement. I will agree to keep on fighting, go ahead, to see what we can do about it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you please ask the respondent -- he had a permit pulled for all of the improvements, but not all of the inspections were passed. MR. MOSQUERA: I went to the city and exposed my problem Elm 16)egrfier42, 2011 to what was going on, and he said that I had to do it all over again, get the permission, and I said how -- I'm not going to be able to do that because I don't have the money. All the planning, it cost me $900, and the other one was about $600, and the permits are -- all cost money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The problem with it is when you don't get your inspections within six months the permits expire, and they require you to pull a whole new permit. MR. MOSQUERA: That's true. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. MOSQUERA: I didn't know that -- I did not know that. I didn't know that. If I had known that, I would have not let the permits expire. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Even if he did a permit by affidavit, he would still have to reapp and open the permits, correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Did you do the work, or was it done by a contractor? MR. MOSQUERA: I did it, but it's perfectly done according to the regulation, and I am a constructor. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there a record of what inspections have been done? MR. MUCHA: As far as the fence and the shed, no inspections were done, and the inspections that I saw that were done for the garage conversion and the enclosure of the porch, none of them had actually passed. They all had failed. MR. KAUFMAN: So the floor elevation and the -- MR. MUCHA: I can't be specific about what inspections failed. I just know from looking at it that they're -- because there's so many, and they weren't all complete, and the ones that I saw that were done Page 19 161 1 ZpkOer 22, 2011 had actually failed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Just one. Is anybody occupying the garage or the enclosed porch at this time? THE INTERPRETER: If it's being occupied? MR. MIESZCAK: Are they being occupied at all, the garage or the -- MR. MOSQUERA: Yes. The idea was to make, like, a game room, but now one of my wife kids is living there. But it's open. It's open to the house. MR. MIESZCAK: So it's being occupied? MR. MOSQUERA: Yes, a son. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the photos and the testimony, I'd like to find that the respondent is in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We did find that he is in violation for not having the permit finalized, okay. Joe, do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Page 20 1612 A 6 -1 September 22, 2011 Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're a gentleman for making it easy on the translator. Sir? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a comment. How long does he feel it will take to get enough money together to get permits to get it inspected? MR. MOSQUERA: I just add $80? MR. KAUFMAN: No. The $80 is the, if you will, court costs. MR. MOSQUERA: Hoy? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Si. MR. MOSQUERA: Today? And how much money do I have to pay for the other one? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, when the permits were originally pulled, there were two fees. One is for addition of square footage in the residence, and the other is the normal permitting fees. The additional fees to add the square footage has probably been paid. So what is left is the cost of pulling the building permits. To get -- I don't know how much money that is. He would have a better idea by talking to the Building Department. Page 21 1612 A-6 a September 22, 2011 What I would like to propose is that we give him enough time to gather the funds necessary to get the permit and all the inspections. MR. MOSQUERA: But I don't know how much will be the permit. I don't know -- I don't have a job. I lost my truck. With transportation, I'm picking up boards (sic), so I'll be able to pay some bills. I lost my Direct -TV antenna. I lost everything. MR. KAUFMAN: What I was trying -- what I was trying to come up with was a solution to the problem. It is not a solution to say that I don't have the money and don't know if I ever will have the money. If that's the case, then we will have to decide what the dates and costs would be. MR. MOSQUERA: For an extension? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, what we can do is give him sufficient time to accumulate the funds necessary and get the inspections completed and bring everything into compliance. As far as the board is concerned, it would just be the -- if he brings it into compliance within what we set up, it would be the $80 plus whatever it costs to get the building permit reissued. MR. MOSQUERA: Is it possible six months? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. Let's go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: Any other discussion from the board? I know we have a problem with that space being occupied when it's -- there's electrical. Is there plumbing in that addition also? MR. MOSQUERA: Yes, and also electric. The electric work was my son -in -law, and he's a professional electrician company. I don't remember the name right now. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm ready to -- with the nods from the board, as far as the six months -- and I would propose a $200 -a -day fine after that based on what can be resolved. Maybe we can have somebody go in there and just make sure that the plumbing and the electrical can stand for six months. Is that possible? Page 22 16 i z,, A 6 4 tember 22, 2011 MS. FLAGG: Uh -huh. MR. MIESZCAK: Or if we had his word that he wouldn't occupy it. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about making part of the order that within seven days he would vacate the enclosures, the garage enclosure and the other enclosure -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Porch. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- porch enclosure, thank you, vacate it and let the code enforcement investigator inside to make sure that that's the case? MR. KAUFMAN: That's possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would have to attach a fine to that, too. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you explain what Mr. Lefebvre just said. THE INTERPRETER: I just did. MR. KAUFMAN: And his comments on that? MR. MOSQUERA: I don't agree with that, because it's part of the property. What am I going to do, just open up the garage again? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's not part of the property until it's got a CO. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Certificate of occupancy. It's the final on the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: The board -- we have to look out for the welfare of the community, and since it has not been inspected, we don't know if there's some dangers and a chance that there may be a fire. So that's why we want it to be vacated until all the permits have been pulled, the inspections, and a certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Not the whole house, just those two rooms. MR. MOSQUERA: Just the garage? MR. LEFEBVRE: Garage and the enclosed porch. MR. MOSQUERA: There was a back door to the porch. That door doesn't exist anymore. Page 23 161 e,eptA 6 r 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Into the kitchen. MR. MOSQUERA: Between the kitchen and going to the new porch, there is a door. There's a bathroom, there's a small TV room. There's a small place for the dining room, and then another small room for my wife's sewing machine. And all that, I would have to put it inside the house and empty that area? MR. KAUFMAN: From a practical standpoint, it seems that, to me, that the best solution would be to see if we can get somebody from the county out there to take a look at the addition and see that it's safe. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's what the permit and inspection period is -- inspections are, and without paying for that, we can't put it on the county to go out and do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would be comfortable as long as I knew someone wasn't sleeping in those rooms. MR. MIESZCAK: That's what we're talking about, the safety factor of somebody sleeping in that room. MR. KAUFMAN: But it is a bedroom. MR. UESPERANCE: I don't think he understands. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me see if I can -- MR. MOSQUERA: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They won't sleep in the room ?. MR. MOSQUERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we can show the investigator within a week that the beds have been moved out? MR. MOSQUERA: Okay, no problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll go back to the time frame. To get all of the inspections, building permits pulled, everything that needs to be done, six months. If it's not completed within six months, he can either come back to the board and ask -- and ask for additional time, or if he doesn't do that, there will be a lien of $200 a day on the property. Page 24 161 e e(� Septem6�r�,'L, 2011 In addition -- that's the first part. The $80 will be paid within 30 days and, finally, that the respondent allows the code enforcement officer to take a look at the addition to make sure nobody is sleeping in that space. MR. LEFEBVRE: I need a time period, and is there going to be a -- MR. KAUFMAN: Seven days. MR. LEFEBVRE: And is there going to be a fine if there is a bed or whatever in there? MR. KAUFMAN: The fine will be $100 a day for that. MR. MOSQUERA: No problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. One more piece of advice for him. We know he has to go and get new permits. We're going to -- hopefully he can use the same permits that he pulled in 2006 but just reapply them. If he's able to do that, he may be able to hire an engineer to look at what he's done and have an Page 25 � b � i 6 I ZA ptember 22, 2011 engineer sign off without having to have all of the individual inspections completed by the county. It may be faster and cheaper. MR. MOSQUERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MOSQUERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MR. MOSQUERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we can, we'll move back to our first case under hearings, C 1, Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. I apologize, gentlemen. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record? MR. SNOW: Good morning, board members. The order from the last -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for the record, if you want to state your name. MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kelly. Kitchell Snow, K- I- T- C- H- E -L -L, S- N -O -W, Collier County Code Enforcement. The order from the last proceedings was to see if we could get on and do an inspection for the property. We contacted all the folks that were going to be involved, including the Sheriffs Office. There was some concern over the legality between -- which our county attorney stated, between the tenant and the property owner. We attained an inspection warrant. We just got that recently. We had to go to Circuit Court to get that inspection warrant. That warrant's going to be served tomorrow. We do have the tenant here today, and we also have representatives from the property owner. So we prefer to wait and appear before the board next month to give you our findings, for the case to be heard, if it's necessary. So we would ask a stay for an additional 30 days, but we are moving forward. Page 26 1 A 6 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. First of all, thank you very much for complying with the order and coming back in front of us this month. Does anybody have any objections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to bring this back in 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. UESPERANCE: I'll second that. MS. RAWSON: For procedural purposes, wouldn't it be just easier if the county withdrew it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because it was our order and we told them they have to come back in 30 days -- MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- they're executing it. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. SNOW: That's why we're here. MS. RAWSON: Okay. So it's your motion for stay for 30 days? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're motioning, the original motion, to just stay that one; is that what we're saying? MS. RAWSON: I think so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second? MR. UESPERANCE: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: That's what we mean. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're okay with that? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you're okay with the second? MR. UESPERANCE: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion? Page 27 16 114 q 6 '1 e p tember 22, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, Julio Rodriguez. Is the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the investigator, Janice Potter, here? MS. POTTER: Good morning. MR. KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: The following permits are expired: 2003061529 for a pool; 200302602 for a pool cage; and 2003020399, screen enclosure with pan roof. Also fence on property with no valid Collier County building permit. Location/address where violation exists: 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 40295960009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Julio C. Rodriguez, 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. 161 2A 6 + September 22, 2011 Date violation first observed: May 16, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 5, 2011. Date on by /which violation to be corrected: August 26, 2011. Date of re- inspection: August 29, 2011. Results of the re- inspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Hi. Good morning. For the record, Janice Potter, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110006525, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. The violation is located at 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 40295960009. Notice of violation was posted and mailed on August 5, 2011. I'd like to present three photographs. The first is taken of the fence taken by myself on May 16, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me make a motion that we accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 29 161 4ep4eAer A. 201 MS. POTTER: And the second two are GIS aerial photographs; one taken 2004 of the property and the second taken 2011. That shows the screen cage, the pool, and the pan roof. MR. KAUFMAN: They grew? MS. POTTER: Okay. On May 16, 2011, while on patrol, I observed a vacant home with overgrown weeds and grass. After requesting a copy of the property card, I discovered that there were three permits with certificates of completion/occupancy outstanding. One is for a pool; the last inspection was performed in August of 2003. A screen enclosure, pan roof; last inspection performed in February of 2003. And a screen enclosure; the last inspection was performed in August of 2003. There was no -- there's a fence on the property with no Collier County building permit. These violations were to be corrected by August 25, 2011. As of today, the violations remain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any additional photos? MS. POTTER: I do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The charging documents talk about permits that were pulled but never CO'ed? MS. POTTER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a copy of the permit showing where it was never CO'ed? MS. POTTER: I do. I have a copy of all the three permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it in the privy for anyone to see it? MR. KAUFMAN: what year were they pulled; 2000? MR. LEFEBVRE: '3. MS. POTTER: The screen cage was pulled in 2003. The pool was also pulled in 2003. The pan roof was also pulled in 2003. It's all the same year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if the home's in foreclosure or lis pendens? Page 30 161 �A6 eptember 22, 2011 MS. POTTER: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find the house -- the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: I do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violations are abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Page 31 A 6 161tZ September 22, 2011 Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: What were the costs, eighty dollars -- MS. POTTER: They were $81.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the respondent? MS. POTTER: No, not at all. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on this one, as has been going on for quite a while, is that this house somehow gets back on the market and sold to somebody who now has this problem. So I'm going to make a motion with a shorter time frame than I would ordinarily make just to make sure that that does not happen. So I'd like to make a motion that we find them -- give them 60 -- excuse me -- 30 days and a $200 -a -day fine thereafter. MR. UESPERANCE: Did we discuss if there is a pool? MS. POTTER: Yes, there is. MR. UESPERANCE: Is it secured? MS. POTTER: Yes, it is. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have an acceptance of the -- a motion to accept the county's recommendation, 30 days, $200 per day. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. Page 32 161'2 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thank you, Investigator. A,6 September 22, 2011 MS. POTTER: You're welcome. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, could we take a recess? We're having some technical issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Be happy to. We'll take 10 minutes, 15 minutes? MS. BAKER: Not sure how long it's going to take, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll -- 10 minutes; 10- minute recess. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. Next case is going to be Sandra Sage. Is the respondent here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MR. AMBACH: Good morning. I received an email -- MS. BAKER: Hold on. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: The storage of several boats and unlicensed trailers on this property not identified as the property owners and an allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where the property is located. Location/address where violation exists: 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 00209120008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Sandra S. Sage, 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: October 25, 2010. Date owner /person in change given notice of violation: June 17, Page 33 1bI � Aptkber 1 22, 2011 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 7, 2011. Date of re- inspection: July 18, 2011. Results of re- inspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: Good morning. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I did receive an email this morning from the owner's daughter stating that the owner will be out of state or out of town until December. Just leading into this, I have posted this -- the property several times. The owner's daughter actually lives right next door. With that I'd like to present the case this morning. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20100019962 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 2.02.03, the storage of several boats and unlicensed trailers on this property not identified as the property owner's and an allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where the property's located. Location address: 3135 Ravenna Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34120: Folio No. 00209120008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Nine photographs taken on October 25, 2010; one photograph taken on July 20, 2011; eight photographs taken September 21, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 34 16t C lib N September 22, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint on October 25, 2010, for the property being used as a storage center for trailers, recreational vehicles, and cars, as well as a fee paid to the property owner to store these vehicles on the property. On my initial visit, I observed several boats and trailers, some without current license plates affixed and some covered with tarps, parked throughout the property. I was told by the owner's daughter who lives on the adjacent property that her mother no longer lives at the property and the boats and trailers are owned by family members and a family friend and are stored there but at no time was a fee paid for storage. I explained research was needed into allowable uses for agricultural -zoned districts for the storage itself. After researching I found the storage was not considered allowable in that zoning district, and a notice of violation was sent to the owner as well as a courtesy copy posted on the property in question. I was able to determine only one boat was removed after the compliance date on the notice of violation, and the case was prepared for Code Enforcement Board hearings as a result. As of September 21, 2011, the violation remains. This week I ran one tag on one of the boats that I -- that was actually visible, and the owner and address comes back to a property off of Davis Boulevard clear on the other side of the county from where this property is. I received a determination letter from Ray Bellows, the zoning and planning manager, and I posed this question: Property is zoned ag, agricultural, and is being used to store several recreational Page 35 16Ik2 Ab , September 22, 2011 vehicles, such as boats, RVs, and trailers not owned by the property owner. There is no evidence any profit is being made from the outside storage, only that the recreational vehicles are not owned by the owner. They belong to friends /family members. My question to him was: Is the owner allowed to store recreational vehicles at no profitable charge, that they do not belong to the property owner or any of the home occupants? My answer back from Mr. Bellow's was: The recreational equipment that is not owned by the property owner or the home's occupants must be removed. The agricultural zoning district does not permit the outside storage of recreational vehicles that do not belong to the property owner or the home's occupants even if it's not - for - profit storage. Furthermore, the storage of recreational equipment and vehicles not owned by the property owner residing on the subject property is not an accessory use to the residents. It is also not an accessory use to a use permitted by right in the agricultural zoning district. That's -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let's look at the pictures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we take a look at the photos? MR. AMBACH: This is a copy of the zoning for where this property is located. You'll see the "A" stands for agricultural. In this picture a boat -- covered boat in a recreational vehicle, RV, park. Again, some more photographs. MR. KAUFMAN: I saw a for -sale sign on the property in the first picture. MR. AMBACH: There is a for -sale sign, correct. MR. UESPERANCE: Was that a Michigan plate on the last -- MR. AMBACH: That is a Michigan plate, correct. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. MR. KAUFMAN: Looks like a boatyard. MR. UESPERANCE: There is a single- family residence on this Page 36 1612 A,6 September 22, 2011 property? MR. AMBACH: There is. MR. UESPERANCE: Nobody occupying the single- family residence? MR. AMBACH: Not at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: When you spoke with the respondents, what did they say about this? MR. AMBACH: Well, when I spoke with the daughter on my initial visit, she admitted to me that they were storing family members' and friends' recreational vehicles and boats on the property. I've posted that property at least five separate times for legal notice, and on every posting I always leave a copy of a business card, my phone number for a contact back. When I go back to recheck the property, those postings are always removed. Even when it was raining I put them in plastic and attached them to a metal wire and put it right out in the right -of -way. So I've not heard back from anyone in that family since this case started. MR. KAUFMAN: Not even the people who own the property who live out of state? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 37 6 1 �-2 A 6 September 22, 2011 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: I do, thank you. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Cease and desist use of agricultural zoned property as storage for recreational vehicles and trailers not owned by the property owner /occupants and remove to a place intended for such storage use within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question or three. We have guidelines that we use, and I just wanted to go over a couple of them. One it says, vehicles without a tag. Would you consider one or more of those vehicles a vehicle without a tag? MR. AMBACH: There are more than one vehicle out there, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Without a tag, okay. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, that's one. Parking on the grass? MR. AMBACH: That would not be an issue in that zoning district. 161t2 A6 September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: And recreational vehicles, what? MR. AMBACH: Again, pretty free to park the vehicles anywhere they want on the property in agricultural zoning districts. MR. KAUFMAN: That's if they own the vehicle? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And they don't? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, if you want, I'll take a shot at it. The fine -- I'll start with the 80.57 to be paid within 30 days. The fine that I propose is $150 a day, and the time limits on it I'm going to make three days, they comply within three days. That's also part of our guidelines. One of them is the next day, so three days, I think, is generous. MR. AMBACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, any problem with three days compliance? MS. RAWSON: Well, it will probably be longer than that before they get the order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it will be okay then? MS. RAWSON: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many vehicles are we talking? MR. AMBACH: Total, four boats, two trailers, and an RV. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many of them are registered? MR. AMBACH: Legally? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- MR. AMBACH: One that I know o£ MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. When I ask that question, yes. MR. AMBACH: Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, the others do have plates affixed, but I cannot see -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I think three days is a little bit short. I Page 39 16 �-2 Septe6 mber 22, 2011 know it's been an ongoing problem, but I think three days may be short. I think to get everything registered and so forth, I think 14 days would be a little bit better. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's not getting them registered. They don't belong to them. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's not getting them registered. I'd be willing to go five days, but I think we need to send the message to these folks. At least we'll get them in a response mode, I would hope, but -- let me modify my motion to make it five days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone want to discuss that, or is there a second on the pond (sic) case? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was from? MR. KAUFMAN: Lionel. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Lionel? Okay. Any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: I guess my only problem with the days are, like I say, it might be -- the girl that lives there, it might be her kid or son or something. By the time they call them up and get them out there to get the trailer, boat, whatever, removed, three to five days does seem real short, you know, and I'm kind of thinking, 14 days -- I like 14 days. MR. KAUFMAN: I was just looking at the guidelines that we have been given. Vehicles without a tag, three days -- MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: -- is the guideline. Recreational vehicles, next business day. So I think five days is generous. MR. MIESZCAK: I guess I'm bringing that up, because, one point. It might just be their friends. Maybe they live in the home and their friends are parking their stuff there. By the time they get the call and get them down here and whatever to move them, that's all. It wasn't -- I don't think somebody's just doing it on purpose. They're 161 2A6 rA September 22, 2011 letting them, as a nice gesture, to be on their property, and now they've got to notify them in three days that they're going to have a problem, so-- MR. KAUFMAN: I look at this from the perspective of a maybe neighbor who's looking out their window and seeing these every day -- for how long did you start on this? MR. AMBACH: This is about nine months. Almost a year, actually. MR. KAUFMAN: Almost a year, and you've tagged them five times? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that's more than sufficient time to get them to notify their friends that they need to do something. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate the urgency Mr. Kaufman's putting forth, and I also appreciate the -- you know, extra little bit of time to get them out of there. Also I want to point out that those guidelines may be for respondents who are here. You know, maybe they could start working on it right away. So I'm kind of in the middle as well. So anyone else? Lionel or Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: I think, you know, the respondent not being here, they certainly had time to have someone come in their place. So I don't feel that's any part of it. I think the five days is more than sufficient after the time that this has been dragging on. MR. UESPERANCE: I also feel that the respondents would have the opportunity to come back to us and request a reduction in fines if we're so requested, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor of the five -day motion, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. Page 41 16 A 6 ` 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposition, and it was Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Gerald was the one opposed, so it does pass. Jean, did you get that? It was five days, 150 a day. MS. RAWSON: I did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you, Investigator. The next case is going to be Valorie Lojewski. Did I say that right? MR. AMBACH: Yes. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Pool and garage conversion on Estates zoned property without Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37220800008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Valorie K. Lojewski and Carol E. Nelson, 3216 Northeast 127th Place, Anthony, Florida, 32617. Date violation first observed: October 30, 2008. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: May 19, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 19, 2011. Date of re- inspection: August 5, 2011. Page 42 1611-2 AL Septembe�22, 2011 Results of re- inspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: Again, for the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080015799 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), pool and garage conversion on Estates zoned property without Collier County permits located at 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37220800008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photographs dated July 23, 2009, and one photograph dated September 21, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint October 30, 2008, for several unpermitted structures and unpermitted pool and garage conversion. Research was conducted and no permits were found. The property owner at the time was working on obtaining all required permits; however, the property eventually fell into foreclosure, and the case was transferred to the foreclosure team. After receiving this case in November 2010, I made a site visit and spoke with the tenant. He advised me all unpermitted structures W-me, tv 16 2 A 6 4A September 22, 2011 had been removed; however, the pool and garage conversion continued to exist without permits. He stated the owners had moved out of the area, and I was given their contact information. I spoke with owner Carol Nelson who advised me she purchased the home and was unaware the violations existed. She stated she attempted to rectify the violations; however, due to the economy, the property had fallen into foreclosure, and she had no plans to correct the violations at this time. As of today the violation remains, pool and the garage conversion. Okay. This is the interior of the garage. It's basically just the garage walls were repainted a softer color, and an office was moved into that area. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to that picture a second. So it's not a bedroom? It's a -- MR. AMBACH: It's an office. MR. KAUFMAN: It's an office, okay. MR. AMBACH: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Looks like air conditioning was added? MR. AMBACH: Yes, there was, yes. And this is a view from the front of the house. You'll see to the right in the photograph that where the door is, that's the new front of the garage. And this was my photograph yesterday from the fence line. I was not able to get on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: You climbed a tree there? MR. AMBACH: Did a pretty good job, huh? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. AMBACH: That was actually from the right -of -way. I had to wait for the wind to blow at the right time to click the picture. Just to give you a little background on this case, there were several unpermitted buildings, structures, lean -tos, car ports, so on, so 16 4. Z A 0 d September 22, 2011 forth, and the owner at the time did take care of a lot of issues on that property. She did meet with the permitting department as well as the original investigator on this case, and they sat down and went over exactly what was needed for the pool and the garage conversion. At the time, also the screen cage around the pool was unpermitted. She actually did pull a permit for that, and that was CO'ed, but when it came to the pool itself and the unpermitted garage conversion, she had just -- she threw her hands up at that point and said, it's in foreclosure, and I'm not going to put any more money into it, so -- So time extensions were given on this because she was making a good -faith effort to rectify everything but, unfortunately, the economy took its toll on her and, you know, that's where we are today. MR. KAUFMAN: When did she purchase this; do you know? MR. LEFEBVRE: '04. MR. KAUFMAN: '04? MR. AMBACH: That sounds about right, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was October'04. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find the home -- the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. 16I 2A6 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Do you have a recommendation? MR. AMBACH: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, utilities are to be turned off to the garage area within blank days of this hearing until permit has obtained a certificate of completion/occupancy or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; and, Number 3, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a minor change. In Paragraph No. 2, second line where it says "days of this hearing until permit has obtained," should it be "until respondent has obtained "? MR. AMBACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or permit has been attained. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or permit has been obtained. MR. AMBACH: Oh, permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that respondent probably would be better. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Either way. MS. BAKER: Just for clari- -- what they're saying there is the 16N2A6 � September 22, 2011 permit has to get the certificate of completion/occupancy is how that is reading. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Oh, I see. MS. BAKER: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on this particular case reverts to cases that we've already heard where this is in foreclosure. The last thing that we want to happen is that this property winds up being sold to somebody else who then has the same problem. So when we come up with the time to rectify the situation, it has to be somewhat on the short end of the stick. As far as the other point that you're making here about turning the electric off, I don't know -- it's not occupied? The house is not occupied? MR. AMBACH: It is occupied, sir, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, it is. MR. AMBACH: Yes, there is a tenant in there now. He's told me he's not using that area any longer; however, they are still living there. MR. KAUFMAN: I just -- every time I hear electric turned off, I think of mold, and that's a concern that I have. If you turn the electric off, you may be creating a bigger problem in that house. So those are my comments. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I applaud the investigator for adding that line, you know, presuming that we would probably want something like that done. MR. AMBACH: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Nicely done. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a comment. It doesn't matter if we ask the respondent to abate the violation within 30 days or 6 months; it's still recorded, correct? Page 47 1611 A 6 1 eptember 22, 2011 MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it doesn't really matter, the time frame? MS. RAWSON: It's -- the time frame has to do with when you get the case back to impose the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right, but it's still going to be recorded on land records, so if someone does a search, they're going to see that there's a pending case. MS. RAWSON: Oh, sure. They'll record it probably next week. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So if someone comes to buy the property or the bank foreclosed on it, they'll see that there's an outstanding case. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: No matter if it's 30 days or 60 days to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that by going with a shorter time frame you motivate the bank to get off their backside to do something; otherwise, they have no incentive to do anything. If you give them six months, they'll wait six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes and no. If you impose a fine after 30 days, and let's say they take the property in 90 days, they have 60 days that they potentially have to pay for a fine, which might discourage them from taking the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, what the banks pay attention to is once fines are imposed, not the orders. So the shorter time frame for the finding -of -fact order followed by whatever that compliance date is it comes back for an imposition, that's when they take notice. MR. KAUFMAN: So if you'd like to add any other comments, or I'll make a motion on this. Two hundred dollars a day as far as the fine; the 81.15 within 30 days; the electric turned off. I guess, for safety reasons, we have no choice but to do that; and the 30 days to complete this order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So 30 days for both the electric and to 112 A46 September 22, 2011 complete all of the fines? MR. KAUFMAN: The electric should be seven days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the -- No. 1 would be 30 days with a fine of $200 per day, you said? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And No. 2 would be 7 days and $200 per day, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: James. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And -- by Jim Lavinski. Discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I have discussion. In the previous case we asked that the respondent vacate the area that is not permitted until he has a permit. I'm a little bit leary of telling someone to turn off electricity, just for the fact that there may be a mold issue and wouldn't want the liability to fall upon us that we asked the respondent to turn off electricity. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Investigator, could you repeat your comments earlier when you said that when they converted the garage into living space the only thing they did was repaint the walls. MR. AMBACH: Yeah. It was just -- basically it's still a garage; they just put a front fascia on it with a door and a window to go in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. AMBACH: It has its existing electric that any garage would have in any home, yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there -- MR. AMBACH: No modifications to the floors or drywall or ceiling or anything like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just the air conditioning was added, but there was no -- 1.61 " b eptember 22, 2011 MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And turning the electric off in the garage is not going to stop air conditioning from pumping in. MR. AMBACH: Actually, it won't in this case because there is a laundry facility in the kitchen. Actually, you can see it right through the door, so it would get some sort of ventilation through that area. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, thanks for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Investigator. Okay. Next case, Pinegate 135, LLC. Is there a representative here? No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(13)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Alteration of interior office without Page 50 161 Z AO September 22, 2011 permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 4, Naples, Florida, 34116. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Pinegate 135, LLC, care of Square Mile Capital Management, LLC, 450 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10022, and registered agent NRAI Service, Inc., 515 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Date violation first observed: January 26, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 7, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 1, 2011. Date of re- inspection: August 9, 2011. Results of the re- inspection: The violation remains. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property- maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007295 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) described as interior office remodel without permits. Violation location is 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Unit 4, Naples, 34116; Folio number is 37930510002. Proof of service was obtained on June 9, 2011, by return receipt from certified mail. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: I have three photographs taken by myself on January 26, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 51 161 �A6 4,4 eptember 22, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: This first photograph's going to depict that -- basically this case was initiated by the fire marshal who was going out to do his inspection and had observed that they had enclosed an office inside. This is a -- like a doctor's office, that -- and it's in a commercial building. So I went out and took a picture of that. And this is kind of how he recognized that the office had been enclosed, because the fire sprinkler was, you know, right next to the wall, and that's not how -- where it was on his last inspection. And just basically showing another view of the backside of office. So my case actually started back in January. And the property actually sold to a new owner in June, so I started a new case with the new owner. And then that -- the old owner had hired a contractor, and there was a permit at that time in apply status. So on -- I checked again on July 2nd, and I observed that the permit had finally been approved, because I think they had to do some corrections along the way, and it was in ready status as of June 29. I checked the permit again on August 1 st, and the permit had -- was still in ready status. So at that time I contacted the contractor who stated that they had not picked up the permit because they had not been paid by the new owner. And as of September 19th -- the permit has been issued as of September 6th. I spoke to the contractor this week, and they're scrambling to get all the work done. As of today, they had not Page 52 1612 q 6 -1 September 22, 2011 completed all the inspections, so -- but I think it will be done pretty quick here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Not questions, but a comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: It looks like Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property, and they received a certificate of title on March 16th, and then it was sold to the current respondent; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, that Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of Page 53 1612A6 September 22, 2011 blank for each day the violation continues. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anyone want to take a stab at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. Eighty eight -six to be paid within 30 days; $100 -a -day fine after 60 days. Hopefully everything will be done within 30, but that's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. Okay. Next case, Case No. 11, Ofelina and Dean Patten. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, yes. Excused absence. We knew about this ahead of time. He had to leave early for an important Page 54 A6 1 1-2 mber 22 September , 2011 meeting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Have a good day. (Mr. L'Esperance is leaving the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The respondent is not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Swimming pool permit 2004031700 expired on 9/12/04, missing the 10 -day spot survey, and fees outstanding; screen cage permit 2004042999 expired on 11/7/04, missing the 10 -day spot survey; shed on property, no valid Collier County building permit obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 39659120001. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Ofelina M. and Dean L. Patten, 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: May 31, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 3, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 4, 2011. Date of re- inspection: August 15, 2011. Results of re- inspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good morning, again. Janice Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110007245, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation is located at 4530 20th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID, 39659120001. A notice Page 55 1612 _A 6 September 22, 2011 of violation was posted and mailed on June 3, 2011. I have two photographs I'd like to admit into evidence. The first is the screen enclosure and swimming pool taken by myself on June 1, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. MS. POTTER: And the second is a photograph of the unpermitted shed taken by another investigator on June 28, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any more? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept, yeah, same one. Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. POTTER: On May 31, 2011, while researching the property on another violation, I noted that the swimming pool and screen cage did not have certificates of completion. Last inspections performed on both the swimming pool and the screen cage were done in May of 2004. Screen -- the pool is missing several inspections and the re- inspection fees are due as well on the pool. Screen cage is missing its 10 -day spot survey. There's no permit obtained for the shed. The violations were to be corrected by July 4th of 2011. As of today's date violations remain. Page 56 161,2 A 6 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put the picture back of the pool, please. Few questions regarding this. It appears that someone came in and covered the pool? MS. POTTER: Uh -huh, it looks like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: It looks like maybe a bank? They usually typically go with, like, two -by- eights or whatever and put some meshing -- mesh over the pool; is that what it looks like? MS. POTTER: Uh -huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: The screen on the lower part of the lanai, is it missing? MS. POTTER: That I do not know. The photograph was taken from the adjacent property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But from your observation, you couldn't tell? MS. POTTER: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because that would be kind of important to know if there was an imminent safety issue regarding access to the pool. MR. KAUFMAN: It's clean. Can you tell us what you were there investigating originally? MS. POTTER: I was on patrol, and the property had weeds over 18 inches, and there was also litter in the front yard. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it occupied? MS. POTTER: No, it is not. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with respondent whatsoever? MS. POTTER: My supervisor indicated to me that the respondents called yesterday and said that they were not going to be here, and they had nothing to do with the property. They're in foreclosure. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion a violation does exist. Page 57 6 A 161 eptember 22, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: Recommendation is that Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is bated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a recommendation that the respondent pays $80.86 within 30 days, and within 21 days of this hearing a fine of $250 a day. 1b12 A o September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Accepting the county's recommendation, 21 days and $250 per day. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you, Investigator Potter. MS. POTTER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That closes our public hearing -- sorry. That concludes our public hearings. Now we're moving on to old business, imposition of fines. First case is going to be Fidel and Esperanza Alviar. The respondents are not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This is in reference to case -- CEB Case No. CESD20110000036. To this date they are not in compliance with the CEB order of September 22, 2011. I think I'm doing your job, sorry. MR. SNOW: You can continue, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fines and costs to date are described as Ordered No. 1 -- Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, total of 26 days, and the total fine is $3,900. The fines due continue to Page 59 1614A i m er 22, 2011 accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,980.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lavinski. And, Gerald, do you have a question? MR. LEFEBVRE: I was going to have a question. Has there been any attempt to come into compliance? MR. SNOW: No, sir. None whatsoever. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And motion carries unanimously. Next is going to be Case No. CESD20100004792. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your turn. MR. SNOW: Thank you, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: He's going to let you this time. MR. SNOW: This concerns the Board of County Commissioners versus Enrique and Maria Ruiz. The violations are Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 1612 A6 , September 22, 2011 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 545 Clifton Street, Immokalee, Florida; Folio is 73181160003. The description and past orders. The description is the shed erected without first obtaining Collier County building permits. And past orders: On November 8 -- 18, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and a conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached OR order of the board, OR4629 and Page 241 for more information. An extension of time was granted on March 24, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4670 and Page 173 for more information. Additional extension of time was granted on July 28, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4708 and Page 1549 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period of July -- I'm sorry -- August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 26 days, for a total of $2,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have been paid, and total amount to date is $2,600. They are not in compliance. They have attempted to come into compliance. They do have a permit, but they realized it's going to take them more time and they know -- we have advised them they'll go before the Board of County Commissioners to come into -- once they come into compliance, we'll take care of that for them. So they are aware of that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we impose. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 61 1612 A 6 September 22, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, CESD20110003173, Kimberly Fry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the board, this is the case we had some additional information left for us. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110003173, Board of County Commissioners versus Kimberly M. Fry. Violation: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 110.4. Location: 6025 English Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 41883680004. Description: Collier County Permit No. 2005070536 for CBS garage with electric, expired on May 27, 2006. Certificate of completion was not issued. Past orders: On June 23, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4698, Page 1353 for more information. Page 62 161% A 6 September 22, 2011 The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 13, 2011. Fines and costs are -- to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for a period between August 23, 2011, through September 13, 2011, 22 days, for a total of $4,400. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid. Total amount to date, $4,400. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs is paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry to make you wait all day, but thank you very much for taking care of it. There are no more further fines owed. MS. FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next Case, Omar Raul Garcia, CEPM20100018330. And the respondent's not here. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 63 161 A 6 --1 eptember 22, 2011 Reference Case No. CEPM20100018330, violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22- 231(12)(1). Location: 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 00738120003. Description: Broken windows on the main house. Past orders: On January 27, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR4651, Page 592 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between February 27, 2011, through September 22, 2011, 208 days, for the total of $52,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 4 abatement costs of $759.20 have not been paid. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $52,839.49. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) 1612 A 6 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will accrue. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next is going to be Carlos Hernandez and Maria Carranza, CEBR20100021320. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case No. CEBR20100021320, violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), 4.06.05(J)(2), and 4.06.01(D). Location of the violation is 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 35766880005. The violation description is presence of prohibited exotic vegetation on the property and presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle. Past order: On July 28, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a conclusion of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached order of the board, OR4708, Page 1575, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 20119 26 days, for the total amount of $5,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Items No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 28, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 26 days, for the total amount of $5,200. Fines also continue to accrue. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of 85.72 have not been paid. Total amount due today, $10,485.72. Page 65 161 ZsA I eptember 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any discussion with the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. This property has been vacant since the case was going on. We are in the process of trying to bid this out at the moment, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to impose. MR. MIESZCAK: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case is going to be Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer, respondents. No respondent here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement in regards to CEB Case No. CESD20090000870. Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 1260 17th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 45912400009. The violation description is a storage building on the property that was expanded without permits. Past order: On September 23, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4610, Page 2385, for more information. Mims 1612 Ab 4 September 22, 2011 An extension of time was granted on January 27, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4651, Page 585, for more information. An additional extension of time was granted on May 26, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4690, Page 270, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB order as of July 20, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 26, 2011, and June 20, 2011 -- I mean, excuse me, July 20, 2011, 25 days, for the total amount of $5,000. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of 81.15 have been paid. Total amount due today is $5,000. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And they have been abated. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case, Robert Campbell and Nina Campbell. And we have two cases. This is the one ending in -- well, the CEV20110000842. Page 67 16-1 A6 September 22, 2011 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. CEV20110000842. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article III, Chapter 130, Section 130 -95. Location: 3221 8th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 39393640009. Description: Unlicensed vehicles on the Estates zoned property. Past order: On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 2027, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $50 per day for the period between August 29, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 25 days, for a total of $1,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date $1,330.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Any conversation with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: I have not had a conversation since the -- with the respondent since the day before the previous hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. M • i --. 1612 Ab i September 22, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Imposed on that one. Next case is going to be same respondents, the Campbell's, CEA -- CENA2110000844 (sic). (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CEB Case No. CENA20110000844. Violation: Collier Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article III, Chapter 54; Article VI, Section 54 -181. Location: 2331 8th Ave Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio 39393640009. Description: Litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household items, et cetera. Past orders: On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 2025, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between September 2, 2011, and September 22, 2011, 21 days, for the total of $2,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $2,180.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. l " 161 - � ab September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. The next case -- let me just read it in real quick -- is going to be Robles, CESD20100009519. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: Once again, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CEB Case No. CESD20100009519. Violation: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Location: 4015 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 401048360004. Description of the violation: Expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single - family one -story modular home. Past orders: On July 28, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4708, Page 1569, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of September 22, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 70 1 6 1 ie 6 --i September 22, 2011 No. 1 and 2, the fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between August 2, 2011, to September 22, 2011, 26 days, for a total of $3,900. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,980.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Any communication with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: None. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, are we moving on or -- MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Going on to motion for reduction of fines and liens, Letter C. Actually -- I'm sorry, motion to rescind cases, Brown. MS. BAKER: Yes. We have a -- we have two lien orders. There was an order imposing fine lien recorded on April 8, 2011, at OR4670, Page 156, and also an amended order imposing fine lien recorded on May 13, 2011, OR4681, Page 2139. We would like to have both of these orders rescinded, as the property owners are in bankruptcy and we are not wishing to collect Page 71 .J A6 p 1 Se tember 22 2011 any kind of debt from them at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do I have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. They've been rescinded. MS. BAKER: Okay. And then for Letter D, to amend the original finding -of -fact order for the same respondents, Robert E. and Serita D. Brown, Case CEPM20100018257 recorded on December 2, 20101 OR4629, Page 269. And with the help of Ms. Rawson, we would like to add some verbiage into this order saying that we are not going after the property owner but the property itself. As you may recall, this was a health- and - safety public- nuisance pool case, which the county did go in and abate this public nuisance. So we did want to get that taken care of for the community- welfare sake. So we need to leave the order on the record, but we need to amend it saying we are not going after the Browns for any kind of money for anything. It's just we needed to go in and abate the public nuisance at the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's since been abated? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So really there's no issue if we go back and change in any way? Page 72 1611? h6 + September 22, 2011 MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What language do you need help with? MS. BAKER: Jean, what kind of verbiage would you suggest we put in there? MS. RAWSON: Basically we're going to amend the order, and we'll talk about the order specifically -- I'll probably need to get, again, from you the OR and page numbers -- that says we will amend that particular section of the order so that that particular line that said that the county can go in and abate is going to remain in force and affect, but that the reason that we did it was to abate the public nuisance on the property, but the rest of the order insofar as the respondents are concerned will be abated, then I'll get the -- some help from Mr. Wright, the county attorney, on all that language before you see it to sign it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it something that we can do between now and the next meeting and then just bring it back? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You don't need -- MS. BAKER: No. We need to get it done, so Jean will prepare the order and then have it for your signature when you sign all the rest of the orders. MS. RAWSON: We'll get it done in the next day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the board okay with passing a motion leaving that up to Jean and county staff to take care of? MR. MIESZCAK: Think so. MS. RAWSON: You're basically just giving us two orders to rescind and one order to amend. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you give me, us, an explanation of what has happened; if somebody files for bankruptcy -- MS. FLAGG: Correct. If someone files for bankruptcy, you cannot go after the property owner until the bankruptcy is resolved. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 73 1b1�2 Aj6 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this order made while they're in bankruptcy or prior to them being in bankruptcy? MS. BAKER: While. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, while they were in bankruptcy. MR. MIESZCAK: I see. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they're protected, basically, is what they are. MS. BAKER: Correct. MS. RAWSON: They're protected. And we don't -- the code people can't always know who's in bankruptcy when we file these cases, and so we went ahead and -- you not only did the order, but you imposed the fines. And then, of course, it got recorded, and I very promptly heard from the bankruptcy attorney, and so he said, "Fix it." So that's what we're trying to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if the order was imposed prior to the bankruptcy case, then the county would become a creditor? MS. RAWSON: Right. But this was after, or during actually -- MR. LEFEBVRE: During, okay. MS. RAWSON: But we can't keep up with all the bankruptcies. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But once they come out of the bankruptcy, then we can re- impose the order? MS. RAWSON: Depends, I guess, is the lawyer's answer. You know, it's difficult to discharge all of your debts, including those to the county, but it depends on what kind of bankruptcy it is, too. MR. KAUFMAN: That's decided by the bankruptcy judge? MS. RAWSON: Yes. You know, you can do a Chapter 7, you can do a Chapter 13, which is a wage earner's bankruptcy wherein you actually pay your bills. So if it's owned by a corporation, it could be a corporate bankruptcy. So, you know, I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but it gets a little tricky for these people who work for code enforcement that they have to try to keep up with all this stuff. Page 74 161 September 22 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't remember; did we make a motion and a second? MR. MIESZCAK: We didn't vote on it yet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know we didn't vote. MS. BAKER: No. We need to do it now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need an order. MR. MIESZCAK: Wait a minute, Jen. We might want to wait till next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the order would be -- we don't know the exact language, but the order would be to amend the prior motion that we have and leave it up to the board's attorney and the county attorney to write that language? MS. RAWSON: You're amending the order that had the findings of facts and conclusions of law. To the extent that it said that the county could go in and abate the property, we're leaving that section because, in fact, they did that in order to abate the public nuisance. The rest of that is going to be amended to go away because we're not trying to get any money from the respondent. And you're rescinding the two orders that imposed fines against the respondent, because those are monetary fines that go against the property, and all of this is in bankruptcy. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're not even going after the abatement, the costs of the abatement? MS. RAWSON: Probably not right now. MS. BAKER: Not at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I make a motion that we allow the county to amend. I don't know how much more verbiage you need. MS. RAWSON: Amend the order of -- what was that second order? What's the date on that second -- what's the date of the first order? Was this December -- MS. BAKER: The order -- it's recorded at 4629, Page 269. It's recorded on December 2, 2010. Page 75 16112 A 6 1 September 22, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: To amend that order that was just stated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Now on to new business. Do we have any new business to discuss? How about -- well, there was nothing forwarded on the consent agenda. How about reports? MS. FLAGG: Good morning. MR. MIESZCAK: Good morning. MS. FLAGG: Let me just give you some quick stats for the week of September 8th through September 14th. As you know, the department every week monitors the statistics -- performance statistics of the department. For the week ending September 14, $2.3 million has been spent by the banks to abate code violations at no cost to the taxpayer. They have abated 1,919 code violations. For the week ending September 14, there were 185 new code cases opened; 655 property inspections. A hundred and one cases were brought into voluntary compliance. There were 98 lien searches, and of that 98 there were four with violations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Page 76 161 k2 A 6 September 22, 2011 MS. FLAGG: And as you -all know, the NABOR, there -- Naples Area Board of Realtors did provide the information that you requested in their newsletter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. MS. BAKER: And I just have one other thing, too. You were emailed a copy of the date and time for the Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics Workshop, which is October 3, 2011. If you have not attended, please plan to attend that session. MR. KAUFMAN: How often do you have to attend that session? MS. BAKER: You only have to attend it once. If you'd like to attend it as a refresher, you may, and it will also be televised. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Because we've met with -- I think we were at Horseshoe. MS. BAKER: We did, we did. And we do have some new members that were not at that training as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And are not here. MS. BAKER: Correct, which they've been notified. We'll get back with them again as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: A couple suggestions or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, under comments. I have a couple suggestions. Just wanted to reiterate the ability to use our, you know, tablet or laptop devices. If we could get the orders in PDF version, we can just flip through them real easy and save a bunch of trees. Just a thought. The other idea was, when presenting cases, Jen, when you read the case into the record, the investigators then stand up, state their name and their position for the record but then proceed to read all of that all over again. In the essence of saving time, is it necessary for them to read everything? Couldn't they just refer to the case at hand or what was Page 77 161 A 6 1 eptember 22, 2011 just read or something along those lines? Because that's an extra couple of minutes. MS. BAKER: They could. The CEB and the -- we tried to make everything the same for Code Enforcement Board and special magistrate, and special magistrate has a different procedure where we don't read the Statement of Violation into the record. If you would like us to do that, we can. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or if they're more comfortable reading it in, it kind of gets them started on the presentation, maybe you could call the respondent and the case number and let them read everything else, you know, just so there's not so much redundancy. MS. BAKER: And another option, too -- I know it's in your rules and regulations that it's required that that statement of violation be read. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. MS. BAKER: So -- and that's something that you may want to look at in the future. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. We want it being read; absolutely, we want it part of the record. We just don't necessarily need it read twice. MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that, you know, just in essence it's saving time. And then also I wanted to thank -- I think it was -- Colleen for adding the additional space under stipulations. It makes it real easy to record the items. So those were my comments. Anything else? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment, and I may have asked it in the past. The special magistrate swears in an officer once. If they have a case -- first case and then the last case, they don't need to be sworn in again. Is there -- MS. RAWSON: Well, far be it for me to disagree with the 161& Ab September 22, 2011 special magistrate, but the reason I think that you need to swear them in again is because it's a different case, a different set of facts, and different circumstances. So you swear them in and they testify about this case that they're telling the truth and then they come back up, you know, two or three cases later, but it's a whole other case. So, in an abundance of caution, I think it's a good idea to swear them in. I mean, we even swear attorneys in, which is fine, because sometimes they're the only person you hear giving testimony, which is really all hearsay testimony. And in a court of law we don't get sworn in. But I don't have a problem with that either, because sometimes that's your only evidence. So -- these guys don't mind being sworn in over and over again. MR. MIESZCAK: I always like that. I always wanted them sworn. MR. KAUFMAN: I thought it wears off after a while, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I don't mind. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, wait. Next meeting -- real quick. Next meeting's October 27, 2011. We have a motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: No. Don't second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 79 A 0 16 1 2 September 22, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we are adjourned. See you next month. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:26 a.m. KENNETH KELLY, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. 161 2A6 November 18, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, November 18, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, 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: t JAN 2 r ZOIi ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Chris Hudson Lionel L' Esperance (Absent) Tony Marino (Excused) Ronald Doino (Excused) Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney Page 1 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle _ Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: -511 a,) ► 2, Item #:1_%, z 1, (4 Copies to: 1612A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order for November 18, 2011. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which records include the testimony and the evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance is absent, and Mr. Tony Marino and Mr. Ronald Doino have excused absences. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any changes to the agenda? Page 2 161 A 6 November 18, 2011 MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A motions, motion for extension of time, we have two additions. Number 3 will be Steven T. Hovland and Melanie Ann Hovland, Case CESD2010001975 8. Number 4 will be Michael and Amy Facundo, Case CESD20100006940. Under stipulations, Letter B, we have four stipulations. The first will be Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Case CELU20100004523; Number 2, Steven and Kelly Johnson, Case CESD20090011861; Number 3, Carlos Rivers, Case CESD20110009946; and Number 4, Elias Nicot, CESD20100003911. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Case CESD20110008948, Philippe Quentel has been withdrawn; Number 8, Case CESD20110001100, Steven J. Sokol has been withdrawn; Number 19, Case CELU20100021890, Douglas B. and Diane M. Faas has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the changes in the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 3 1612 6 .� November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from October 27, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And one abstention, due to an absence. It does carry. Moving on to public hearings. Motions, motion for continuance, motion for extension of time. First case, Waste Services of Florida, Incorporated. Are the representatives here? Come on up and we'll swear you in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. Sir, could you state the name for the record. MR. HAGAN: Sure. My name is Chris Hagan from Hagan Engineering. I'm here representing Waste Services of Florida, Inc. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Just for the record, could you state publicly that they have given you authorization to speak on their behalf. MR. HAGAN: Yes, they have, and I have a representative here with me also. 161 A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Will the representative be testifying or anything today? MR. HAGAN: Only if needed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Just let us know, and we'll get him sworn in as well. MR. HAGAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're the one that's requesting the extension. Do you want to give us a brief overview as to what's going on and what the need is? MR. HAGAN: Sure. We came before you -all back in August, and we had just pulled our building permit for the required construction the day before. Came in, we got 120 -day time limit. We found out very shortly thereafter that there was a problem with the approved plans. Our contractor found some inconsistencies, so we had to go for a building revision. We submitted very promptly. Back by 9/23 we were back into the county for building permit review, and that permit was issued on November 10th. So we've lost about -- almost 90 of our 120 days, and what we'd like to do is get a 60 -day extension to make up for the difference. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, you said that it was issued back on the 10th of November. Does that mean you actually picked it up as well and you're actually ready to go and -- MR. HAGAN: Correct. They're mobilizing as we speak and getting all the -- all the things that they can do off site have been started. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Has the 82.86 been paid? MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir. We made our payment the day of the hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think 60 days should do it as far as the timing? MR. HAGAN: We believe so. Page 5 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, do you have any -- does the county have any objections with the extension? MR. BOX: No. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we extend it 60 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Good luck. Thank you. MR. HAGAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case is going to be Marvin and Donna Schroeder. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Mr. Schroeder, I presume? MR. SCHROEDER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since you're the one that's requesting the extension of time, would you like to briefly describe what's going on so that we can kind of get a feel for the situation? MR. SCHROEDER: Well, we've been trying to get things together. My wife had a very bad situation with her heart. She had a heart attack, and it's been a very -- hardship on us. And we need money to get this thing rolling. And I also lost my job. 16[2 A6 November 18, 2011 And I'm asking for an extension. And I'd like to get at least six months to a year, and -- because I've tried to go ahead and contact people to get the surveying done and -- on this building and everything. And they want money up front now, and things are very rough. And that's about all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I know this is a rather personal question, but is the property in any type of foreclosure proceedings? MR. SCHROEDER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: This case had a 270 -day extension the last time it was heard, if I'm not mistaken. MR. SCHROEDER: Right, right. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And my second question is, has the $80.29 been paid? MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. The operation costs have not been paid. MR. SCHROEDER: I could pay it. It's not a problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MR. SCHROEDER: I can pay that. That's not a problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. That was due to be paid 30 days after the last hearing. MR. SCHROEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about from the county, any objection to the extension of -- 9 to 12 months is what's asked for in the letter. The respondent said 6 to 12 months. MR. CONDOMINA: We do not oppose as long as he pays the operational costs. I don't want to set another date for that, for him to Page 7 1 6 { t 2 A November 18, 2011 pay the operational costs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the respondent just admitted that wouldn't be a problem, so I'm sure we can make that part of this. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on cases that go on and on like this is that -- the possibility that the property is sold to somebody else with these black marks, if you will, on them, and then the next person winds up before the board. So 270 days was a long time in the past, and to extend it another year seems a little unreasonable, personally. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct me if I'm not -- correct me if I'm wrong. But it still shows that there is an order on public records. So if there's a titles search done, a new owner would be aware that there is a violation and that something has to be corrected on the property. MR. SCHROEDER: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if he were to sell it, it would be under this particular cloud. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm not a realtor, but is it in public record, or is it only under a property search through the new code inspections? MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be -- MS. BAKER: The order is filed in the Clerk of Court's public record. MR. LEFEBVRE: So when they did -- if they were to do a title search, it would show up. So it would be a public record. MR. KAUFMAN: That is if somebody purchases the property without a mortgage. If they -- excuse me. If they purchase the property without a mortgage, they don't necessarily need title insurance, and we're back in the same ball game again. That's only -- a title search is only done at the request of the person purchasing the property, or most banks would require it as part of obtaining a mortgage. So the situation still exists. MR. MIESCZAK: Are you telling me if somebody paid cash they wouldn't get a title? MR. KAUFMAN: MR. MIESZCAK: MR. KAUFMAN: MR. MIESCZAK: MR. KAUFMAN: X612 A November 18, 2011 They may not. That's up to them. That doesn't really sound -- Not title. That doesn't -- title insurance. That's correct. MR. MIESCZAK: But that doesn't even make sense. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean, is that -- MR. MIESCZAK: It could be a lien. MS. RAWSON: You know, whether people get title insurance or not, you know, I don't know. But the point is that every time these orders are entered, they are immediately recorded. So if someone's foolish enough to pay cash for a property and not get the title insurance or not at least do a lien search, I can't imagine it. But they're recorded. That's all I can say. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would -- I would think that a search would be done because they have to find out if there's a mortgage on the property to see what they have to pay off. So it would show up. But I'm in agreement with Mr. Kaufman. I think a year would be an excessive amount of time to give since this case has already had an extension. I make a motion that we grant an extension for 150 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, did you want to do something about op costs? MR. LEFEBVRE: And op costs be paid -- well, he agreed to pay them. Do you have a check now? MR. SCHROEDER: No, I don't have one with me. I got to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 15 days. MR. SCHROEDER: Where do I pay that to, right -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that motion. s-. No er 1 � 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion on the table to extend for 150 days and to pay the operational costs in 15 days. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. And you can talk to the investigator, and he'll help you with how to pay those operational costs. MR. SCHROEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much, sir. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case for extension of time is Hovland. Are the respondents here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: To the board, we have -- do we have anything in writing on this one? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Which one is it? Okay, got it. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any cases that we were given in the distribution on this case? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. It's in the imposition of fines. Page 10 1 I A,6 � ovember 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is -- for the record, let me read this one in. It's an extension of time for Board of County Commissioners versus Steven T. Hovland and Melanie Ann Hovland, respondents, and that is Case No. CESD20100019758. Investigator, you want to state your name for the record. MR. ASARO: Yeah. Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Board Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any objections with the extension of time asked for? MR. ASARO: I don't. MR. KAUFMAN: I do. Nothing's been paid and they're not in compliance, and, ordinarily, that's three strikes and you're out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would be a different situation, I believe, if there was actual compliance here. MR. ASARO: Yeah. I think Mr. Hovland's having some financial problems right now. Last time I talked to him he was in -- having some pretty extreme financial hardships with this property and some other properties. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions for the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion amongst the board about this case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion that we deny the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 11 1612 At November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And this will go back to its original spot on our docket today. Thank you, Tony. MR. ASARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case is going to be Facundo. Are the respondents here? Sorry if I butched your name. MR. FACUNDO: You did good. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. MR. FACUNDO: Oh, good morning. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you state your name for the record, please. MR. FACUNDO: Michael Facundo. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And since you're the one that's asking for the extension of time, would you like to explain the circumstances? MR. FACUNDO: Yeah. It's just --it's been a journey for my wife and I. I guess in a nutshell what had occurred was I'd hired a contractor, Tyler Construction. He was here prior to this meeting roughly about 120 days, and he had asked for an extension and -- in good will, thinking that he was going to be able to complete my house. And what sort of put everything -- halted everything, I guess, is that he had built the house within the setbacks, 3 feet. Page 12 A6 4 1612 November 18, 2011 Since then, out of my own pocket I have, you know, rectified the situation, and we're in compliance now. But, unfortunately, the time sort of expired, and he's not able to make good on what he had told this board he was going to do. And so I -- my wife and I had decided to go elsewhere, and we've hired another contractor. He's not, sort of, signed up yet, and so I'm asking right now if we could -- for a 180 -day extension upon issuance of a permit. And I believe I sent this letter, and hopefully it's in part of your enclosure that, you know, explains to you what has gone on. So I guess in a nutshell I'm sort of at your mercy to make this -- you know, to make this happen. So, that's -- that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you clarify again just a little bit of the circumstances? We're pretty good about working with people. MR. FACUNDO: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So, you know, you're not under the gun here. But just as far as where you are as far as permitting, actual work being done, that kind of stuff. MR. FACUNDO: Okay. The -- that was not -- the demolition of the wall, which is facing the north side, has been demo'ed, and so we have already made it into compliance. It's in the setbacks now. Right now I have put a phone call H.L. Bennett, which is a surveyor out of LaBelle, that's going to come in and do a tie -down survey, basically, and showing that it's in compliance. And right now I have the drafter that's wrapping everything up hopefully by, I want to say, the end of this month, according to this letter. And then my intent is to submit it the first week of December. And I know that, you know, hopefully the turnaround process for review would be, hopefully, you know, with no rejections, obviously, by the end of December, and hopefully the contractor can go ahead and commence and get started on -- in January. And so he had told me tentatively that he would need about Page 13 161 � A 6 November 18, 2011 approximately six months to finish, and so that's where we're at now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SNOW: If I could offer some clarity to the board for you. Remember, originally this case had to do with a foundation that was encroaching on setbacks. It was across the line. He couldn't do anything with the permits until he got that permit done and that CO'ed. In the meantime, his contractor lost his licensing that he had hired, and all the funds that he had invested and previously gone, Mr. Facundo has lost. So he's done what he needed to do other than to build the house, and he's had to get a new contractor. He has to get new plans, he has to get them approved, and he couldn't do anything until that one permit was finished, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: So in other words, the county has no objection for -- with the extension? MR. SNOW: And he has paid operational costs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: That was my question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to grant six months, and not six months from the time of issuance of the permit, but six months from today. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Let's just clarify that real quick, because you did say -- you're right, Gerald. He did say from issuance. We don't like to leave that window, just because it could be out in never neverland. MR. FACUNDO: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically what you're asking for is six months from the end of December when you believe your permit's going to be approved, or is it six months from today? MR. FACUNDO: Well, to be quite frank, it would be six months Page 14 1612 Ab November 18, 2011 from the end of December would be when I'm asking for, because I want to give 30 days for -- in case there's rejections or comments that they -- the guy that has to respond to. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll amend my motion to make it seven months. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll amend my second. MR. MIESZCAK: Also, can I add that we pay operating costs? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Done. MR. MIESCZAK: That's in? CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Supervisor Snow said it was done. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, he did? Okay. I have "not," okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Great. Thank you. Good luck. All right. MR. SNOW: Thank you, board. MR. FACUNDO: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I believe that completes our extensions of time? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any changes -- any new Page 15 1612 6 November 18, 2011 stipulations? MS. BAKER: We do have one new stipulation. It will be Charles R. and Laurie L. Flaum, Case CESD20110002004. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And in our hearings, what number is that? MR. KAUFMAN: Twelve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thanks. MR. MIESZCAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That will be Stipulation No. 5. Okay. We need to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Agenda is amended. So moving on to stipulations. The first case is going to be Silver Lakes Properties with the owners' association of Collier County. Is there a representative here from Silver Lakes? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, would you state your name and position. MR. BENNETT: I'm Conway Bennett. I'm the park manager. Page 16 1612 Avk ber 18, 2011 I'm -- also represent the management company that's the agent for the association. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MR. BENNETT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is a stipulated agreement, which means that most of the work's been done out in the hall already. We'll just have the investigator read in the stipulation to the record, and then we can talk about it afterwards. MR. BENNETT: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michelle McGonagle, code enforcement. This is in regards to Case No. CELU2010004523, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Incorporated. Come now, the undersigned, Conway Bennett, on behalf of himself and Silver Lakes Property Owners Association as representative for the respondent and -- enters into the stipulation and agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notices of violation in reference to Case No. CELU20100004523 (sic), dated the 8th day of October 2010. In consideration of the disposition and resolution of the matters outlined in said notice of violation for which a hearing is currently scheduled for November 18, 2011, to promote efficiency in the administration of the code - enforcement process and to obtain a quick and expeditious resolution of the matters outlined therein, the parties hereby agree to the following: The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and I stipulate to their existence: An open storage area being utilized at Silver Lake RV Resort without first obtaining a Site Development Plan for this use. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Page 17 A6 ' 162 November 18 2011 Number 2, abate all violations by: Cease using the area for open storage or obtain a Site Development Plan amendment allowing the use of open storage in this area within 270 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation of the county, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Sir, do you understand and agree to everything that was just read and you signed? MR. BENNETT: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And it carries. 161 4A6 i ovember 18, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to not vote on this issue. Their respondent's agent is in the same business as I am, and I just will abstain from this vote. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have one abstention. Jean, do we have one of those handy -dandy forms? MS. RAWSON: We do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. MR. BENNETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Steven and Kelly Johnson. Are the respondents here today? MR. BALDWIN: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is Hearing No. 23. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Patrick, do you want to state your name and read it. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county Page 19 161? `�doveA m er 18 2011 may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulations as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation carries. Thank you, Patrick. The next stipulation is going to be Rivers, Carlos Rivers, and that is CESD20110009946, Case No. 2 under hearings. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with the property owner Carlos Rivers this morning. He has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificates of Page 20 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. MR. RIVERS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you state your name, please. MR. RIVERS: My name is Carlos Rivers. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. RIVERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 21 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Thank you, sir. Sir, if you have any problems getting this done within the time frame, please come and see us before the time expires. MR. RIVERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case is going to be Elias Nicot, and that is Hearing Case No. 7, CESD20100003911. MR. NICOT: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Board investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, good morning. MR. NICOT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, can you state your name, please. Page 22 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 MR. NICOT: My name is Elias Nicot. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. NICOT: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Again, if you run into any issues, please come see us before the time expires. MR. NICOT: Thank you very much. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the last stipulation -- no? Second to last? No -- is going to be Flaum, that's Case No. 12 under hearings, Charles and Laurie, Case No. CESD20110002004. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, code enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution Page 23 161 A 6 -.1 ovember 18, 2011 of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and obtain all inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning, ma'am. MS. FLAUM: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can you state your name for the record, please. MS. FLAUM: Laurie Flaum. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. FLAUM: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Does the board have any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Is 120 days sufficient time to get everything done? MS. FLAUM: I think so. I hope so. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. HUDSON: I second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any further discussion? Page 24 A 6 November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Great. Thank you, both. If you have any issues, ma'am -- Laurie, I'm sorry -- before the time expires, please come back and see us. Okay. What's next? MS. BAKER: We do have four more stipulation agreements. Number 6 will be Eric T. Rodriguez, Case CESD20110005820. That was be No. 16 from the agenda; Number 7 will be Marc L. Shapiro, Case CESD20110007725, Number 6 from the agenda; Number 8 will be Kirstin C. Martucci, Case CESD20110008406, Number 9 from the agenda; and Number 9 will be Kirstin C. Martucci, Case CELU20110006574, and that's Number 10 from the agenda. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Entertain a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 25 161 M6 ,i ovember 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: On the last one we just did, there were two cases. Is this both of them or just one of them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Both. Number 8 under stipulations will be Case Hearing No. 9, and then 9 under stipulations will be case No. 10. MS. BAKER: There are two cases for Martucci. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Both of them stipulated. Okay. So, Mr. Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. The owner has agreed to the stipulation. He has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site Page 26 A 6 .1 1 6 1 &ovember 18, 2011 inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. PAUL: And I have explained this to him. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning, sir. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you agree and understand everything that was just read? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESCZAK: Second that motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into problems, let us know Page 27 before it expires. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks. Next case is going to be Marc Shapiro. MR. BLUESTEIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. are you Marc? MR. BLUESTEIN: I'm counsel. A 6_ 1612 November 18, 2011 Is the respondent here? Are you representing or CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You don't need to be sworn in then. Just get the investigator. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read into record and state your name, please. MS. POTTER: Okay. Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of occupancy /completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must -- No. 3, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and No. 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Would you like to state your name for the record. Page 28 161 �2�OA4m e r 18'2011 MR. BLUESTEIN: Attorney Jeff Bluestein for Marc L. Shapiro. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that your signature on the -- MR. BLUESTEIN: That is my signature, and that's my bar number. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, cool. MR. BLUESTEIN: And I've circled as representative. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that the house in foreclosure or lis pendens? MR. BLUESTEIN: It may have gone to a lis pendens. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: A hundred and twenty days sufficient time to MR. BLUESTEIN: That's a good question. It's a little bit tight, but I think it's feasible. We have to go through a permit -by- affidavit process, which obviously we have very little control over. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 29 4 161 A6 4 bovember 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. BLUESTEIN: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Okay. Now we have Kirstin Martucci, Case No. -- because there's two of them -- CESD20110008406, which is Hearing No. 9. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by, Number 2, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Can you state your name for the record, please. MS. MARTUCCI: Kirstin Martucci. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. MARTUCCI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anyone from the board have a question? Page 30 161,2 Ail November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MS. MARTUCCI: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That one carries. And it is a new case, so I think we should probably re -swear you in. Sorry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And then, Janis, could you read the case number for the record. MS. POTTER: This is Case No. CELU20110006574. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all violations by: Apply for and obtain any and all occupational licenses from the tax collector to include but not limited to a zoning certificate from Growth Management Division within 45 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, must cease all traffic not associated with the allowable residential use to include travel of employees to and from the property within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be Page 31 161 2 16 ovember 18, 2011 imposed until the violation is abated; Number 4, must cease all parking/storage of company and employee vehicles on property within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 5, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; And, Number 6, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have an issue with No. 4. If I'm reading this correct, does it say that somebody in the Estates cannot have a company vehicle at their house, parking it there? Must cease all parking/storage, so that's parking or storage, of company and employee vehicles. Employee vehicles I understand, but company vehicles? MS. POTTER: The employees are coming to the property and taking the company vehicles off the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand, and that's against zoning regs, of course, that -- even if she did get the occupational license, still couldn't have that, but she could still have her own company vehicle with a sign on the side and park it at her own residence. MS. POTTER: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I read this literally, it would disallow that as well, and she'd be susceptible to a fine of $250 per day. Maybe it's just me. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think No. 3 and 4 are very similar. To me, it seems like it would be fining her for -- to maybe taking out No. 4 or rewording it a little bit. MR. HUDSON: I agree with that. I think you caught that, Chair. Page 32 Ab 16112 November 18, 2011 I think it basically says the same thing as Mr. Lefebvre said, and I think that -- I mean, a lot of folks in the Estates park a company on their property, a company vehicle on their property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, that's not prohibited if I'm correct, or else I'd be in trouble. But I understand the zoning regulations about increased traffic. That's not allowed. Deliveries, personal -- or employee picking up company vehicles and leaving their own, that's not allowed. But No. 4 I have an issue with still, so I was wondering if we could reword that in some way. MS. FLAGG: You can take it out. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that okay? MS. FLAGG: Uh -huh. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, code enforcement supervisor, Cristina Perez. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Without elaborating much on the case itself, because you're hearing the stipulation, the No. 4 of this section would be for the illegal storage and parking of all of the company vehicles. The property is being used as storage of these commercial vehicles. So in -- I can't tell you an exact number but, for example, say they have five employees, they have four employees that come and go every working day to pick up these vehicles and then come back in the afternoon and put them on the property. In the zoning aspect, that would be something allowed in an industrial area versus an Estates zoned property. But in seeing what you're saying, if the vehicle that Mr. Martucci were to use would be in � violation of that section, of that quote because it says all. " So we could reword it to say besides vehicle that is operated by the property owner or property occupant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about, since there's such a great section already in the zoning regulations that clarifies exactly what can and can't, how about we just refer to the zoning, just come in Page 33 16 i 6 ovember 18, 2011 compliance with zoning regulations. MS. PEREZ: Okay. That would be fine. So we could step out and reword that section, or we could do it on the record, and then have them -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're here now. Might as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we maybe should -- just so they can look at the Land Development Code and kind of tailor it towards that, and come back with a No. 4 that's closer to the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- Land Development Code so we can bring this case back later. I mean, if it's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. I have no problem amending the agenda again if you want to go see if we can't get better language. MS. PEREZ: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would the respondent agree to that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. We're trying to make it better for you. MS. MARTUCCI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a little constrictive right now. MS. MARTUCCI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And if we'll go out, we'll see if we can't change that writing just a little bit, and come back. MS. MARTUCCI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. In that case, can we move on to our hearings and then we'll come back to that? MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have to modify the agenda? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to modify agenda to come back. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 34 161 � A 6 i November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving on to hearings. We're going directly to Case No. 4, which is going to be Melba Garcia. Is the respondent here? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. GARCIA: Good morning. I'm here on behalf of my wife, Melba Garcia. She's out of the country with her sick mom in Honduras. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry about that. I just wanted -- sir, I apologize, I didn't mean to be so rude, but I just wanted to make sure everybody was sworn in and that the county was going to allow you to speak on behalf of your wife, so -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. We're going to read the case into record first, and then we'll talk about it. MR. GARCIA: Okay. MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Enclosed the garage and added full bathroom without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4280 6th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 40745440008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Melba Garcia, 4280 6th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Page 35 1 1'2 011 6 18, 2 Date violation first observed: September 10, 2009; Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: December 30, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 26, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 27, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just a clarification. You may get on the record that he has the property owner's permission to speak. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll do that right now. Sir? MR. GARCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could I get you just to say into the record that you have permission to speak on behalf of the property owner? MR. GARCIA: Yes, I have permission to speak on behalf of the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Investigator. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090014480 dealing with the violation of. Enclosed the garage and added a full bathroom without Collier County building permits located at 4280 6th Ave Northeast Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 40745440008. Service was given on December 30, 2010, via posting. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four pictures taken September 11, 2009, and one photograph taken yesterday, November 17, 2011. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Has he seen the pictures first? MR. BALDWIN: He has not. I was unaware that he was here for Melba. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's get some approval first, and then Page 36 16112 A 6 November 18, 2011 we'll go from there. If you can show the pictures to him so he doesn't have any objections. We have a first. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Okay, sir? MR. GARCIA: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. GARCIA: I have something to say. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, go ahead. You have an objection with the photos? MR. GARCIA: We tried to keep up with the permits, but we ran out of money. It's so much money to modify the drainfield and the septic tank and all that. And the house now, we tried to make an agreement with Bank of America to keep the house from going in short sale, and they didn't want to come to any kind of agreement, so the house is on short sale, so -- it's $3,800 more they want for the septic tank. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I get you to hang on one second -- MR. GARCIA: We ran out of money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- because we're going to hear all of that as soon as the county presents. MR. GARCIA: Oh. Page 37 16 1- 2NA 0 ovember 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay? Let them kind of run through and do their thing so we can kind of get a sense for what's going on, and then you'll have ample time to tell us what's going on and your side of the whole thing. MR. GARCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, cool. All right. You're approved. MR. BALDWIN: I'd like to present the details of the case. Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone responded to a complaint that someone was renting -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can I get you to slow down, please. MR. BALDWIN: Oh, all right. Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone responded to a complaint that someone was renting a garage that was converted into living space. The investigator met with the owner, and they applied for a permit. The permit number was 2009101187 and was to convert the garage to a bedroom and a bathroom. The case was then transferred to me, and the owner has applied for a new permit because the other permit was expiring. The new permit number, 2011030435, is for a game room with a bathroom. That permit was applied for March 7, 2011, and the permit still has not been issued or CO'ed. The last rejection was by the Environmental Health Department on August 10, 2011. I've spoken with the contractor, Octavio, who's pulled the permit for the owner, and I've spoken with the owner, Melba Garcia, on several occasions, and they appear to want to obtain the CO, but it just doesn't happen, due to financial hardships, as I think he's going to state. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to show us the photos? This is inside the garage? MR. BALDWIN: This is inside the garage, yes. You can see the 16 ZA 6 , November 18, 2011 bathroom there. That's just a picture of the outside of the garage here, and the last one will be a picture of the outside of the house taken yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the floor level in the garage the same level as the house, or is it lower? MS. BAKER: It's the same level, I believe. I was only in the property one time, so I believe it's the same level. MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir, same level. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Then -- finished? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, all yours. MR. GARCIA: Okay. I just wanted to say we were trying to get the permits done. My wife had this thing done to the garage because her dying mom was sick, and she wanted to get her out of the rent trap from the apartments. And she's very sick now in Honduras. And now, when all this commotion happened, we rented it out to another person after her mom left to Honduras. And this all occurred because we rented it out to the tenant that wasn't happy that -- in the second month she did this. But we tried to get the permits, everything together legal so we can be in compliance, but it's just too much money. They want $3,800 for -- to modify the drainfield and -- so that I'll have 100 gallons more in drainage per day of sewage water, and it's just too much money. The house is in short sale with Bank of America. Bank of America doesn't want to come to agreement with us to -- you know, to -- with the value of the house so we can keep on paying the mortgage and stuff. So it's in their hands. Bank of America wants it on short sale. So that's the bottom line. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any chance of turning the garage back Page 39 i. A 6 161 2November 18, 2011 into a garage? MR. GARCIA: It would be -- it would be a big problem because we sealed the door with Sheetrock in the back, and it would just be a total mess. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it occupied now? MR. GARCIA: Because we're using it as storage. It's just used for storage. We don't have it rented out to nobody. It's just storage. A small bathroom. Like I said, we spent, like, over $2,000 getting all the permits, and it's -- now they want another 3,800 more to modify the drainfield, and it's not going to happen. So we're trying to come to an agreement with Bank of America so we could keep the house, and they don't want to come to bring the price down, because the house has lost a lot of value because its out there in the boonies. And it's just -- it's in short sale. They want us to just stay there watching the house so the house won't be vandalized, but they want to put it on short sale. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. BALDWIN: Sir, could I state one thing? As of yesterday, I was checking the Clerk of Courts, and I could not find a recording of the lis pendens on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I'd like to follow up what the investigator said. You said it's -- there's no lis pendens on the house? MR. GARCIA: No lis what? Excuse me? MR. KAUFMAN: Lis pendens is the first notification that they intend to foreclose the property. They generally do that, and then you get into the -- MR. GARCIA: Yeah, that's because my wife has been calling trying to -- trying to agree -- you know, come to an agreement where we can keep the house, but the house has dropped in value so much 16 A16 November 18, 2011 for being so far out there that it's not worth what we agreed to pay for it on the 200,000. Now the house is, like, worth a hundred and six or hundred and seven thousand, and we've done a lot of work to it. So it's a matter of them coming to an agreement with us so we can keep up the mortgage payments, and they don't want to. They just want to throw it over their shoulder and say -- and the reason we haven't done that is because my wife's been calling them every two or three months to try to come to an agreement with them. That's why they haven't put it up on foreclosure yet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you current on your payments? MR. GARCIA: No, no. MR. LEFEBVRE: No? MR. GARCIA: No. Six months. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. There is a violation. It just means that what the investigator said is true, and now does the investigator have a recommendation? Page 41 1 61 A 6 Z November 18, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per pay will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, utilities are to be turned off to the addition of the principal structure within blank days of this hearing until permit has obtained a certificate of completion/occupancy, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anyone on the board have a discussion or would like to -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a quick point to make. It seems that money is short and you're unable to get this permitted. MR. GARCIA: Yes. I brought the letter here to show you that they want $3,800 for the modification -- MR. KAUFMAN: I understand that. But as far as the board and the violation is concerned, the details of how much it costs, et cetera, is not the concern as much as the violation itself. So if your intention is to never -- because that's what you said -- have it permitted, we're kind of limited on what we can do to help you out. The first number that was discussed, the 81.43, that's the amount of money, court costs, if you will. But as far as getting the place Page 42 1612k. �A 6 Nov tuber 18, 2011 permitted, I'm certainly willing to make a motion to give you six months to see what can be done, but if you come back after six months and nothing has been done, that generally causes more problems. So do you think maybe in some given period of time you might be able to come into compliance as far as getting it permitted? MR. GARCIA: In six months? I think we can work with that. Does the bathroom, the restroom area, need to be knocked down or just open the garage door back up again? MR. KAUFMAN: The concern that the board always has it electrical, that the electricity to that area be turned off, because nobody's inspected it. They don't know whether it's a possible fire hazard. MR. GARCIA: That wouldn't be a problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'm going to go back -- if you want to -- give you my recommendation, and that was that the costs of 81.43 be paid within 30 days, and 180 days -- six months' time be given or $150 a day fine after six months to come into compliance, and the utilities, the electricity, to be shut off to that space within 30 days or $100 fine on that. Did I miss anything? MR. LEFEBVRE: Will the respondent be responsible to call the investigator to come out and make sure the power's been turned off. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Once you throw the circuit breaker to turn the electricity off into that space, you should notify code enforcement so they can come out there to verify that. MR. GARCIA: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: And then you have six months to, hopefully, come into compliance as far as permitting, et cetera, either that or it gets reverted back to -- it gets reverted to what it was originally, a garage or storage space without electricity and water. MR. GARCIA: Right. Let's say the house goes into what Bank of America wants, short sale, what do we do then? Page 43 16� A6 .•4 November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Well, the short sale shouldn't have anything to do with this. All the short sale is, that your mortgage is bigger that you can sell the house for. MR. GARCIA: No, we won't be there, then we won't be there. MR. KAUFMAN: That's if -- MR. GARCIA: That we are totally going to abandon the house in the next couple of months, let's say. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, that's between you and the bank. MR. GARCIA: That's going to be the bank's problem now. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, you own the house, and you have to agree to a short sale should a short sale occur. MR. GARCIA: That's what's likely to happen, before we tear the thing down, you know, to make it back to garage, because we spent over $10,000 doing that for her mom that was very, very sick. MR. KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. GARCIA: And she's dying now overseas. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be your responsibility to notify any owner or any potential buyer of the issue with your property prior to it being sold, but this also -- MR. GARCIA: No problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: This order will also be recorded in public records. So as you probably heard in one of the previous cases, if there is a search done to find out if there's any liens, mortgages, so forth, this will show up. MR. GARCIA: That's no problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what I'm saying is -- MR. GARCIA: Well, we think we're going to let the bank -- the house go to the bank, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you're telling me basically this isn't going to be fixed and in six months we'll probably have to impose the fines. MR. GARCIA: Well, we'll have to discuss it with my wife when she comes back in a couple of months, but that's when I think it's Page 44 A6 I 16 1-- ov&ber 18 2011 going to happen, because the house is so far out there, the end of the Golden Gate Boulevard, the last boulevard, it's called DeSoto. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know where it is. MR. GARCIA: That's where it's at. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to add one thing. We're talking about turning off the electric. What about the plumbing to the garage? Would that area still be used or what, you know? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll -- MR. BALDWIN: The recommendation, No. 2, says utilities, so MR. MIESZCAK: So that covers electric and toilet? MR. BALDWIN: And plumbing, I would -- and the water. MR. MIESZCAK: Water? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. MIESCZAK: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is air conditioning being kept on in there? Because if not, then there's going to be a mold issue. MR. BALDWIN: It's supposed to be a garage, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. BALDWIN: -- sometimes garages don't have A/C. I don't know, sir. I don't know if there would be a mold issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, to make things even more interesting, I don't think we should give six months to a home that is going to be let go anyways. MR. MIESZCAK: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think we should get a lien filed on it immediately so that some unsuspecting buyer doesn't get stuck with this bag. MR. LEFEBVRE: But this order will be recorded, correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Page 45 16 12 A 6 .4 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: But that might -- I agree, I agree, so it will be known. But the buyer might not know to the extent of financial repercussions that this may have on them, where if you had a lien, you would know exactly what it would cost. This is a fine plus what it would take to get it into compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the only difference is, let's say hypothetically -- and I know Bank of America doesn't move fast, but let's hypothetically say it goes under contract, it closes within 120 days. They'll know that they have 60 days to get this into compliance or a fine will start to be -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me ask one question. Are you going to pay the $81.43 within 30 days? MR. GARCIA: Yes, I think that would be the best thing and wait the six months. And my wife will be happy with the six months period that you guys set it, that we could work with, and we would turn it back to the garage, or just we'll leave the house. MR. KAUFMAN: If somebody wants to modify the dates, I'm all ears. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it currently up for sale? She's calling every two months Bank of MR. GARCIA: America. MR. LEFEBVRE: That wasn't the question. MR. GARCIA: For sale, for sale? MR. LEFEBVRE: The question, is it currently for sale on the market? MR. GARCIA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it currently listed with a real - estate agent? MR. GARCIA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. So no offer's been submitted to Bank of America at this point. I think we're going to be back here in six months imposing fines. So no matter what date we give them to get this into compliance, it's really a nonfactor. 16I2A6 ti November 18, 2011 So, Mr. Kelly, if you want to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a, you know, concern that I have. I just want to throw it out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: What would be a time frame that you would be -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm with you. I don't think it matters what time we put out there. I think we're just going to be back. So the sooner the better, in my eyes, so that we can make sure that everything's out in the open. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that you had a comment that we kind of cut you off on regarding the time frames on this, if you had any comments on that. MS. FLAGG: What I believe you're dealing with is that Bank of America has not even responded to these folks. So there are many times that banks successfully pass properties on because there's not a lien filed against the property, because many times they don't look for the specific orders. They're looking for the liens. And if there's not a lien, then they pass the property on. The order is recorded. So -- we're going to provide this gentleman some resources in regard to working with the banks, which we'll do after this. So I think you're at the very beginning of negotiating with the bank in this case. MR. KAUFMAN: And it wouldn't get posted as far as a lien is concerned until after whatever the time frame is on this order? MS. FLAGG: Correct. This is a finding of fact. So once -- whatever time frame you set for coming into compliance, the day after that it would be re- -- it would be scheduled again for a lien hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe it would be proper to cut the baby in half and -- in other words, instead of being 180 days -- I'm just talking to the board now -- 180 days, if we made it 90 days and -- with the instruction to the respondent that should he have any problems within the 90 days to come back to us if he needed additional time. MR. LEFEBVRE: When is our next hearing? Page 47 1612 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: January. MR. MIESCZAK: January 19th. MS. BAKER: January -- MR. LAVINSKI: 19th. MR. MIESCZAK: Somewhere. MS. BAKER: 19th. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, realistically, if we cut it down to 45 days, you can bring it back to imposition of fines. That way if, for some reason, it does go to short sale or foreclosure, there will be a lien at that point, potentially. MR. KAUFMAN: Then I will modify my motion to show 45 days. And the second on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know. Did I second the motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I think you did. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't remember. MR. MIESCZAK: Are you staying at 150? MR. LEFEBVRE: Did I second the motion? THE COURT REPORTER: I can go back and look. MR. MIESCZAK: You said 45 days, $150 a day; that's what you're saying. MR. LEFEBVRE: If I was the one that seconded it, then I'll amend my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Why don't we go ahead and withdraw the original; start over. This way we won't have to worry about who seconded it. So go ahead and withdraw your first one and try a new one. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I withdraw the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: And I'll start with the new motion: 81.43 paid within 30 days; within 45 days, at $150 a day, is the second one; and the utilities, that's 30 days, and $100. Does that fit in your -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. u- 1 ' A6 ovem er 181 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Okay. So now what we've done is given you 45 days or a fine of $150 for day. Now, keep in mind, if you successfully work something out and are able to keep the home and you want to go through, finish the permitting, and get everything taken care of so that you can stay in the home and enjoy the garage conversion with the new addition, you can do that. If you run into problems with timing, come back to us before it expires and ask for an extension. We're pretty good about those things. As long as we see activity, we're pretty lenient. MR. GARCIA: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But if it goes past the time frame and there's no extensions, we could then get to a point where we actually file a lien against the property, and those fines would continue to accrue until the property was sold, because the person selling it would have to pay those off before they could sell it. So that's where we stand. Don't forget to turn off the utilities within the next 30 days. So turn the plumbing off on the toilets and the sinks and everything, and then also the electricity to the garage. MR. GARCIA: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And he'll have to notify? 16A6 1 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. You'll have to notify Investigator Baldwin when you do that so that he can come and inspect to make sure that it's done. MR. GARCIA: The lights and the plumbing? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: They'll come out and flush the toilet and turn the light on. MR. BALDWIN: I'll meet with him outside, and we'll just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. And in the audience, I don't have a speaker form for you on this case, but did you want to publicly comment on this case? MR. HESTER: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm going to have to have you come up and swear yourself in as soon as we're done with this one. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. HESTER: This man here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait. Let's have you come up to the microphone, we'll have you swear yourself in -- or get you sworn in, and then you can state your name, and you have three minutes to tell us everything you'd like to say. MR. HESTER: My name is Erik Hester. I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, wait. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. HESTER: For that man -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to state your name real quick. MR. HESTER: Erik. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Erik, okay. MR. HESTER: For that man -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. Page 50 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 MR. HESTER: -- if his toilet was removed, would he still be in a problem? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. HESTER: And if his garage door was to open and he could drive his car in there, would he still have a problem? CHAIRMAN KELLY: As long as there was additional electrical that was done and it had not been inspected, yes, he would. He's -- he would need an inspector from the county building department to go in and make sure that everything conforms to code before he could use that and be in compliance. So, yes, he still would be in trouble. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, he would have to get a demo permit to remove any walls that were built illegally, so then he would have to have it inspected. MR. HESTER: Do you have a wall built? MR. LEFEBVRE: The bathroom. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So, yes. MR. HESTER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Okay. So do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go a couple more, okay. The next case is going to be Valori Coe - Fitzgerald. Are the respondents here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: No Collier County permit for garage door converted into exterior wall which is in need of repair, and no Page 51 161'�A6 ,ember 18, 2011 permit for storage structure near the rear of the dwelling. Location/address where violation exists: 10812 1 st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 45903640001. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Valori Coe - Fitgerald, 1081 21st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: July 8, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 26, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 25, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 25, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110009349 dealing with the violation of no Collier County permit for garage door converted into exterior wall, which is in need of repair, and no permit for storage structure near the rear of dwelling located at 10812 1 st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 45903640001. Service was given on July 26, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken by me on September 8, 2011, a floor plan found under Permit 86915, elevation plan found under Permit 86915. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 52 102 Ab November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead. And also, slow down just a little bit for the court reporter. MR. CONDOMINA: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all right. MR. CONDOMINA: Details of case: This violation first observed on July 8, 2011. I checked property card and several databases for permits. I could not find a permit for this conversion or storage structure. Permit 86915 shows a garage where now exists a window and exterior wall. That's the storage and that's the garage or where the garage was converted. Now the next floor plan, please. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this property occupied, by the way? MR. CONDOMINA: No, sir, it's vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is it also bank owned? MR. CONDOMINA: There is a notice of lis pendens. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Okay. So it's supposed to be a garage, and they've definitely converted it and enclosed it. MR. CONDOMINA: The exterior wall now with the window is, it's in disrepair so -- also, just a note. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 53 161 �A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was pretty easy. Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. CONDOMINA: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X days of this hearing or a fine of X per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by -- and give 45 days from this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Hundred and fifty? MR. LEFEBVRE: Hundred and fifty, yes; one fifty. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. Page 54 161 2A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Okay. Thank you, Investigator. MR. CONDOMINA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now moving back to our stipulation, which just happened to fall right in line as far as cases. Are we good to go, Kirstin? MS. BAKER: Can you wait? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, let's take a ten - minute break. We'll recess for ten minutes and be right back. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. We're going to go to Hearing Case No. 11, Frank Paz. Are you in the room? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Fence without Collier County building permits in disrepair. Location/address where violation exists: 125 2nd Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 37282480000. Page 55 1 I ?. A6 A ovember 18, 2011 Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Frank Paz, 2864 10th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: May 4, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: May 13, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 12, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 29, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20110005919 dealing with the violation, fence without Collier County building permit in disrepair located at 125 2nd Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37282480000. Service was given on Monday, May 13, 2011, via posting. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs, the first one dated May 4, 2011, and the second taken yesterday, November 17, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 56 161.2 A 6 November 18, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: I'd like to present the details of the case now. This case was opened by Investigator Janis Potter May 4, 2011. I posted the property on May 13, 2011. Last month I left a door hanger and a business card at the owner's other address in the Golden Gate Estates, but I still have not heard from the owner to this date. All of my attempts have gone to nothing, and we're here today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two quick questions. One is, is there anyone occupying the home, or is it in some kind of foreclosure procedures? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, the home is vacant, and there's a lis pendens -- well, there was a lis pendens, but it was dismissed in 2009. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And second, do you have a permit in reference to this fence showing that -- MR. BALDWIN: There is not a permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How do we know it's this property and not the neighbor's? MR. BALDWIN: Well, typically -- that's a good question. Typically, when you build a fence in the Estates, the slats that you see, the upright -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. BALDWIN: -- beams or whatever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Posts. MR. BALDWIN: They're on the inside of the property. The other property does have a fence, but it's a chain -link fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: It was probably reported by them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Is that fence laying down there with the weeds growing through it? Is that -- is that what I'm seeing in this picture? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. That was the original picture taken May Page 57 1612 A 6 .4 November 18, 2011 4th. The picture taken yesterday, they have repaired the fence, and the property is being maintained, although vacant, no perm and it was CHAIRMAN KELLY. Okay. So there is p not part of the original site plan to have a fence? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. ask the neighbor whose MR. KAUFMAN: Did you happen to g fence that is, or -- MR. BALDWIN: No, I did not. MR. KAUFMAN: Because I know that when you put a fence up, the ugly side goes to the people who put the fence up, and the nice - looking side goes the other way. But if they didn't get a permit, that might have fallen out of the window. This was an anonymous report? MR. BALDWIN: This was opened by another investigator out on patrol. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? . � A 6 16 ..2 November 18, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of fine of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to co nduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to ab ate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone like to accept the recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks; 80.29 paid within 30 days, $100 -a -day fine after 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. Page 59 1 q 6 2 A ovember 18, 201 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you, Patrick. Since our motion prior to amend the agenda allowed us to bring the stipulation back at any time, let's go ahead and bring the stipulation for Case CELU20110006574, Kirstin Martucci, back at this time. This would be Case No. 10 on your hearing docket. Consider yourselves still sworn in from prior. MS. POTTER: Okay. MS. MARTUCCI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Do we have -- let's see what this looks like. Do you -- do we need to reread this in? I MR. MIESCZAK: We just changed the wording on No. 4, think, didn't we? MS. RAWSON: I think that you probably -- I'm trying to remember the discussion. I think you probably went through all of it, and then you suggested that we reword No. 4. So I think -- MR. MIESZCAK: Right. MS. RAWSON: -- that we all just have to read No. 4. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Cristina, is No. 3 also amended? Let's get her sworn in, and -- oh, you're already sworn in from before, sorry. MS. PEREZ: In hearing the discussion of the board, in Finding 3 and 4 being similar, we went ahead and took 3 and 4 and summarized it into the new Number 3. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Janis, you want to just read No. 3 into the record then for us, please. MS. POTTER: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. POTTER: Number 3, must use property as intended in 1612 A 6 November 18, 2011 Estates -zoned property by complying with the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 2.03.01, Subsection B, within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. that Everything sound good to you? You agree to everything was written? MS. MARTUCCI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. This is a -- I think, a lot better. It's not as restrictive. MS. MARTUCCI: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. POTTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now moving back to regular hearings, Case No. 12. MS. BAKER: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thirteen. It is Janet Sneeden. Is the respondent here? Page 61 161PZ A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Utilizing Collier County property appraiser's aerials, modifications to the main structure without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 540 Platt Road, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 00111280007. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Janet Sneeden, 540 Platt Road, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 12, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 19, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 19, 2011. Date of reinspection, October 5, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110009351, pertaining to a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), exterior modifications to a mobile home without obtaining Collier County building permits. The property is located at 540 Platt Road Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 0011280007. Service was given on July 19, 2011. At this time I would like to present case evidence. I have two aerial photos dated from 2004 to 2011 -- and 2011, and six current photos that were taken November 15, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections from the respondent? Do you have any problems with us seeing these photos? Have you seen Page 62 1612 A.0 November 18, 2011 them? MR. HESTER: I don't care about the photos. I have a question. MS. BAKER: Can you talk in the mike, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. You'll have to speak in the mike so that the court reporter can hear you. MR. HESTER: Hi, there. 1999 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, it's just about the photos. We're going to let county do their part first, and then you'll get plenty of time to tell us your side. Any problem with the photos themselves? MR. HESTER: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. MS. BAKER: Hold on. The respondents haven't seen the photos, so we're going to show them the photos first. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Make your motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESCZAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead, Tony. MR. ASARO: On July 12, 2011, utilizing the Collier County Property Appraiser's GIS mapping system, I observed aerial photos Page 63 164 2A6 November 18, 2011 from 2004 to 2011 of a mobile home on the property with increased living space without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Also on November 15, 2011, I was granted access to the property by the property owner, Janet Sneeden, to take updated photos of the property. On that same day I did meet with Janet, the property owner. She advised me at this time she's experiencing financial hardship right now and is not in the position to complete the permitting process. Violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to describe the photos for us? MR. ASARO: That's the main structure. That's the mobile home. Or they -- well, it's been enlarged. That's another shot of the front of the mobile home, and soon you'll be seeing a side shot of the original mobile home. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So just for clarification, mobile home's on the left, addition on the right? MR. ASARO: Yeah, and then actually addition -- the mobile home's on the left. You can see where the main structure is, the original structure, and then there's some additions to it around the entire property. MR. KAUFMAN: The roofline? MR. ASARO: This is the original roofline, and then some of this is the additions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can you restate that, please, so that the court reporter can pick it up. MR. ASARO: Okay. The original mobile home is -- that's the original, and then in the front is the additions, and there's some additions in the rear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: The roofline that's going across there straight, is it at the end of the one roof, is that where the -- it has been added to, or is it just in front of that other roofline? 16 it-2 A 6 November 18, 2011 MR. ASARO: I think that's -- I'll have to let Erik tell you about that. He'll be able to explain that to you. MR. HESTER: See this spot right there -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hey, Erik? MR. HESTER: -- that is your trailer, and this is what the man built. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, got it. All right. And the aerials? MR. ASARO: The aerial photos show in 2004 what the -- what it looked like then, and then the 2011 photos show -- aerial photos show how it's been enlarged. CHAIRMAN KELLY: 2004 is on the right? Okay. MR. HESTER: No -- yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what it says. MS. BAKER: 2004. MR. KAUFMAN: Collier County Property Appraiser. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, okay. Do you have anything else? MR. ASARO: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there -- as far as a permit search, have there been any permits at all? MR. ASARO: A permit for the original structure, the original mobile home. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So there was a permit to place a mobile home on the property? MR. ASARO: Right, but there wasn't any permits to do any modifications to the original mobile home. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would -- what we're seeing even in 2004 still looks like there's some sort of an addition to the original mobile home. MR. ASARO: It appears that way, yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ASARO: But I don't have any aerial photos of what it Page 65 16k.geA er 18, 2011 looked like originally. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And in what year was the mobile home placed on site; do you know? MR. HESTER: Ninety - three. MR. ASARO: Yeah, it was in 1993. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Okay. If you can, both of you state your name for the record, and then tell us what's going on and how can we help. So if you want to start, Janet, I presume? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. I'm Janet Sneeden. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can you pull the mike down to you? It actually -- yeah, you'll have to speak up a little bit so that the court reporter can hear it. MS. SNEEDEN: I'm Janet Sneeden. Yeah, the place not that great. We bought it as -- the way it is, with a guy named James Cane. James Cane died a couple days ago, because we went to look for him about what's going on. But he built the place, and he killed himself a couple days ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wow. MR. HESTER: I'll explain that one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Erik, what was your last name again? MR. HESTER: Hester. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Erik Hester. Go ahead, please. MR. HESTER: All right. In 1999 I went out and looked at this place. What I liked was that there was lots of land and nobody around me. I did not enlarge that house. I did, though, after a tree fell into the house under the hurricane, I had to put metal roofing on. Another tree fell on the other side. I've called FEMA. They do not agree with me. They say it didn't happen. Now, this man sold me this property. He did this work. We went through title search. County flew over and took pictures. At this point in time somebody should have came to us and said, this has been modified. This is illegal, but no one did. But there was 161 A 16 4 November 18, 2011 pictures taken from above. I seen them. I can't download the computer, but it does it. I don't think anybody here is willing to pay for someone else's sins or crimes. I will not lie to you and say I didn't fix things, because this was a total disaster. If someone walked into that meeting and said, it's going to cost you this and this to fix it, I would have taken my 10,000 down and sued the guy for it, and we wouldn't have gone any further. This was not the only piece of land I own. I did want to build another house on 32nd Avenue, but this was done. This saved time. So I go to this man who built this, because he's put me in a very b position at this moment, and I said, you are going to court on Friday. I will be here to pick you up. The following morning my friend tells me that James Cane put a gun to his head and eliminated the chance of him being here. So next thing, how do you correct the problem? I have two solutions, bulldozer or fire. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let me explain from the county's standpoint why we're here today. The county has a responsibility to ensure that its residents are safe. So in that they have a building department that overlooks any type of additions or changes to a building to make sure that they follow certain codes. Whenever those are not followed, there is a corrective action and oversight hearing. This happens to be one of those avenues, and we're public just like you, and we come and we try to help out the public but also enforce some of the ordinances and the Land Development Code. Unfortunately -- and this is going to hurt -- unfortunately, all violations in this county go with the property, not with who caused the problems on the property. Now, you may have a civil path to go back after the person. But as far as who's responsible today, unfortunately, it goes with the Page 67 16 162 A 16 November 18, 2011 property and whoever owns it today. Now, a couple of years ago when we started having a lot of foreclosures and a number of homes that were being passed through banks on rapid deals, we started noticing more and more of these type situations where a previous owner committed these violations and then passed them on to new unsuspecting owners. During that time there were some very sad cases of people who were losing basically their life savings because they didn't realize what they were getting into. And because of that, our own director, Diane Flagg, along with her team, lobbied a number of people in the community to create a new process to where in these cases, in these foreclosure and these pass -on cases, there's an additional search that's done, not just on the title, but through Code Enforcement to make sure there's no violations against it that were in violation of the Land Development Code or any ordinances relating thereto. Unfortunately, that's just taken place in the last couple of years and that was not in place back when you purchased it. So the good news is, moving forward, we're seeing less and less of this situation. The bad news is, unfortunately, the law is still the way it is, and the violation goes with the property. And, therefore, since you're the owner of it, you're responsible for that. I would strongly discourage you from taking any harsh action like, for instance, a fire or a bulldozer. We'll see if there's maybe a way to work with the existing structure or maybe even get some of those that were added on permitted so that you can continue to enjoy them the way you do now. There are avenues. So due to the testimony that you had, I -- MR. HESTER: I just want you to understand, you don't tear off one section and try to save this place. It won't happen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Well, unfortunately, that might be the case then. But at least there's no denial there are some additions that were put on, there's no records of permits, so we 6 1'2 A b November 18, 2011 do have -- we do, in fact, have a violation. So the first thing we need to do is rule as to whether or not there's a violation, and I believe, due to your own testimony, we do have a violation. So give us a moment, we'll go ahead and rule on that part, and then we'll talk about how we fix this problem. Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion that a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And all in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. It passes. Tony, would you like to read the recommendation, and we'll go from there. MR. ASARO: Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits -- permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had an opportunity to do some investigating as to how much it would cost to bring this property into compliance? MR. HESTER: Say that again. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. There was an addition that was put on. MR. HESTER: Several. MR. KAUFMAN: Several additions that were put on, and they have probably electrical and plumbing in those additions? MR. HESTER: See, plumbing. That's a really good one there. After buying the place, I flushed the toilet and it didn't go down, and then I took a shower, and the water stayed in the tub, and then I brushed my teeth and the water went out of the sink but a few minutes later it came through the wall. MR. KAUFMAN: So it was in real bad shape when you bought it? MR. HESTER: One bathroom. He drilled a hole into the frame of the trailer, the wood frame, and sank the pipe into it, and that was for the tub. It went nowhere. MR. KAUFMAN: When did you purchase this property? MR. HESTER: I started buying it in '99. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And since 1999, have you fixed lots of things that are on it? MR. HESTER: Oh, yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: So is it in a condition that it's possible that it would pass an inspection from the county? MR. HESTER: Negative. Page 70 16d ZA6 41 November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: You say that -- do you have any reason why? MR. HESTER: How old is the trailer? MR. ASARO: It was built in 1993. MR. HESTER: No. MR. ASARO: Or placed on the property in 1993. MR. HESTER: Maybe a'50s model. He tore the sides off the trailer, the outside of it. He put drywall there. It started off as a porch. It became the kitchen, living room, and a bedroom. It was a flat roof. The first hurricane /storm that came through, I'm standing on the roof trying to stop a leak, and I went through the roof. I have put four layers of plywood on this roof trying to stop it. The problem is, it's a flat roof. The county would not approve of a flat roof, would they? Also, you had a tree growing through the kitchen. Every time the wind blew, it separated the two parts of the buildings. I had to remove a tree. The bathroom that we use now, it -- the sink ran with hot water going to the toilet. To do this, he drilled a hole through the wall, which put it into the plumbing, the plumbing that was now going to the septic. The septic tank is unable to be found and located anywhere in the yard. It is because someone allowed him to set the trailer directly on top of the septic tank. A tree grew, and it stopped the septic tank from being able to use anything. I had to climb inside this septic tank under the house and remove thousands and thousands of roots that filled it. We're talking the most disgusting thing I've ever had to do except for picking up a dead person. It took me three days to dig all these roots out. The septic tank was ruined. I had to drain it and reconcrete it. It's still under the house. Page 71 161k2 A -6 November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I'd like to go through the -- unless there are any other comments from the board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any other questions? MR. MIESZCAK: No. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll fill in the blanks. The 80.86 to be paid within 30 days, ninety days, $200 -a -day fine to come into compliance. MR. HESTER: Really? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That gives you 90 days to either get the permits to be able to leave the structures as they are or to modify them in a way to where they go back to the original state so that you can continue to live in the main portion of the home. The choice is up to you. I know that the county is willing to help by getting the investigators -- I'm sorry -- the inspectors from the building department out to at least tell you what you need to do and so forth, if you want to set up a meeting with them. That won't cost you anything, but at least you can get an idea of where you stand. MR. HESTER: There is no money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. HESTER: I do not have a job. I'm fixing to sell my truck Page 72 16 2'A-6 i November 18, 2011 so I can pay the land tax. It's going to be scrapped. I'm going to get maybe $400 for something I've got 32,000 into. And you're going to give me fines? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, what will happen is, we're going to go 90 days until you have -- give you the opportunity to at least see where you stand. If it's not then completed or found out of the violation by those 90 days, then another hearing will happen. It will come back to us again for what we call imposition of fines; that means from that point forward there will be a fine that will happen daily until it is taken care of. And we feel horrible that you're in this situation, but I can tell you you're not alone. There are a number of people -- MR. HESTER: Sir, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. HESTER: I'm going to call the fire department. I'm going to have them burn my house down. I will no longer be in your -- what 1S it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, that's a good thing. We've done that before with foreclosed homes that people didn't want to, you know, spend the time to fix up, and the fire department has used them for test homes and burn homes to practice on. So if that's something you want to do, I'm sure -- MR. HESTER: No, it's not something I want to do. I am not going to pay fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. HESTER: I do not have money. I struggle with trying to eat. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, this -- if you did that, though, if you donated it to the fire department -- MR. HESTER: I get no home now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: True, true, but it would give you an opportunity to start over, perhaps. Page 73 161 eN A6 1 r182011 ovembe , MR. HESTER: Not here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Okay. MR. HESTER: You know, we came to this country because of the taxation, the government controlling everything. We went to war with that country. I stood for our country. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And everyone appreciates what you've done and the sacrifices you've made. MR. HESTER: I got spit on, called a baby killer. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. Without turning it into a political statement we're, again, sorry. MR. HESTER: This house hurts no one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand, I understand. MR. HESTER: You can't even see it from the road. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Again, I can appreciate where you're coming from and your right to own land and to do with it what you like, believe me, but there are certain ordinances that are not there just for the other public. They're there for your safety as well. So I apologize. Okay. All right. MR. HESTER: Very well then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the next case. Joselino and Yolando Sanchez, Sandy Sanchez. Are the respondents here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, permit, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Fence constructed without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2530 4th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 40920360000. Page 74 16112 A 6 "1 November 18, 2011 Name and address of owner; person in charge of violation location: Joselino and Yolando Sanchez and Sandy Sanchez, 2530 4th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: June 3, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 6, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 6, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 29, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20110007445 dealing with the violation of a fence constructed without Collier County building permits located at 2530 4th Ave Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 40920360000. Service was given on June 6, 2011, via posting. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs, the first one taken June 3, 2011, and the other one taken yesterday, November 17, 2011. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 75 16 42 16 Novem er 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: I'd like to present the details of this case. I first observed this violation on June 3, 2011. I posted the property on June 6, 2011. The property has been vacant and a final judgment was recorded in 2009. I have not had any contact with the owners of this property. The bank has been maintaining the property once we identified it as a vacant, foreclosed home, but the fence violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The bank's not interested in helping with that violation? MR. BALDWIN: It doesn't appear so, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, one big question is if this -- this is a foreclosed property owned by the bank? MR. BALDWIN: A final judgment was awarded in 2009, but they have yet to get a certificate of title. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Should the bank have been noticed also? MR. BALDWIN: As of right now they're not the titleholder of the property. It's still under the -- Sanchez. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sanchez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It one of the bank's, though, that you're able to communicate with and they know about it? MR. BALDWIN: They're aware of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. FLAGG: Just for the record, the bank has been noticed, which is why they're maintaining the property. They've just elected not to address the fence issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: The fence could just be removed, and that would be the end of the -- which doesn't seem to be a real big deal. MR. MIESZCAK: Nice fence; they just get a permit. Page 76 1ZAOey 61 r 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's no permits for the fence at all, correct? MR. BALDWIN: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion we find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY:- Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and inspection of completion/occupy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to property owner. Page 77 ` 1.... 161.2 A6 4 8 2011 November 18, CHAIRMAN KELLY: Somebody like to create a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that $80.57, incurred in the prosecution of this case, be paid within 30 days, and abate all violations within 30 days or a $100 fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thanks, Patrick. Okay. Case No. 15, Maykol Calderon. Is the respondent here? Investigator, we'll swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: No Collier County permit for a wooden structure with electric in the front of the residential structure. Location/address where violation exists: 1281 27th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 37344880001. Name and address of owner; person in charge of violation location: Maykol Calderon, 4461 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, 34119. 16I A.6 � ovember 18, 2011 Date violation first observed: June 27, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: September 14, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 5, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 25, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110009230 dealing with the violation no Collier County permit for wooden structure with electric in the front of residential structure located at 1281 27th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37344880001. Service was given on September 14, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken by me June 27, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. CONDOMINA: Details of case: This violation first observed on June 27, 2011. I checked the property card and several databases for permits. I could not find a permit for this chickee Page 79 161 o A b vember 18 2011 structure with electric that is in bad condition. The permit for the home was pulled sometime in 2005. There was a final judgment for foreclosure recorded in April 2010, and then later on the order was vacated -- vacating judgment was recorded July 2011. As of today, there's no active foreclosure information recorded. I have not been in contact with the owner, and the property is vacant. And there's no permit as of today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any type of leniency as far as codes and ordinances goes for Native Americans and their type of structures? MR. CONDOMINA: There is in the Florida Building Code, but the chickee -- when it has electric, it still needs a permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has anybody checked to see if that electric is hot? MR. CONDOMINA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hot is a -- MR. CONDOMINA: Obviously. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a term. MR. CONDOMINA: I haven't checked, no. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find it in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? 161 2A6 ...1 November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. CONDOMINA: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X days of this hearing or a fine of X per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern on this is a possible safety violation with EL (sic) out there. It probably would be prudent to check with FPL or whoever the electric company is out there to see if the electric to the house and to that box in front is turned off, which I would make as part of the recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know if you can force FPL to -- they don't have the ability to go and just turn off power to this tiki hut, or whatever it's called, and I don't think they can just turn off power if someone's paying -- MR. KAUFMAN: well, that would be the question. This is in foreclosure and they vacated it? There's nobody living there? MR. CONDOMINA: It's vacant, and when I checked recently, it -- I mean, there's no active foreclosure. The last one was dismissed. In July -- I just had it. MR. LEFEBVRE: July 1 lth, I think you said. 161 2A6 November 18, 2011 MR. CONDOMINA: July 2011 it was vacated, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Another issue with doing that is, if the pipes go directly to the main panel, you'd have to gain access to the inside of the home in order to shut that off. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, they would shut that off at the pole before it goes to the home if that's the case because -- the reason I bring this up is whether to give them 30 days to comply or longer or shorter. If it's a safety violation -- I don't know whether it is or it isn't, you know, by looking at pictures of the box, that concerns me that -- and it's right at the edge of the street. And children, being what they are, might become curious, so that's why I'm concerned about the electric there. MR. SMITH: Excuse me, Commissioners. On the power, FP &L does not turn off all the power to the foreclosed homes. You have to turn all your breakers off inside of your house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If -- hang on. MR. SMITH: And at that time -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on. We're going to have to have you resay all of that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sworn in. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- after we get you sworn in. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're allowed to speak to the case. in. MR. SMITH: Oh, I've got a house out there, too. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead. We'll get you sworn MR. SMITH: Yeah. Thomas Smith. Hi. Everything I say is true. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SMITH: Regarding the power. FP &L does not turn none of the power off to none of the foreclosed homes. What they require from you is that you turn off all your circuit breakers and leave A6 1 16 12November 18, 2011 everything off. They don't want nothing on. Now, regarding your power to the outside, you will have to have access to inside of the house to cut the power to whatever is outside of the house. But they do not turn off the power. Because my house is in foreclosure right now, and the power is still on, has been on for the last two years. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SMITH: All the breakers off are (sic) in my house, but you can get into my house. If you got into my house, you could turn everything right back on, and that is their standard policy, because I asked them about that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you for the advice. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Tom. Cool. All right. So does that help? I don't think we have the jurisdiction in order to do that. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know. Does anybody besides me think this is a possible safety problem? MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. CONDOMINA: We can attempt to call FP &L and see what they can do about it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Our deal is still with the owners, the respondents. We could still put that into the motion, and that would just be part of the violation. MR. CONDOMINA: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because they are the ones that are going to get served this, correct? MR. CONDOMINA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you been in contact with them? MR. CONDOMINA: No, sir. We did have the foreclosure team dealing with the bank that did the dismissal, but obviously we haven't received cooperation as of yet. Page 83 161 A November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll try to fill in the blanks: 80.57 within 30 days, $200 -a -day fine after that, and that the county will attempt to ascertain the safety of the outside electric that's located at the tiki hut. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MIESZZAK: Did you say days? I didn't hear days. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days. MR. MIESCZAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MS. RAWSON: Do you want to put in the order that you're telling the county to check on the safety? I mean, don't you think they'll just do that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. You can explain your intention behind that. MR. KAUFMAN: It would be much easier, obviously, if we were in contact with the owner of the property. We're not. I don't know who else to go to when you're dealing with the electric to see -- since it's right at the road on a pole, I am uncomfortable with that. I'm 161 2 . A.i 6 November 18, 2011 sure there are children in the area. FP &L, community minded as they are, I'm sure would have no problem in letting us know that the box -- maybe they -- all you need to do is put a little lock on those boxes, and that would probably be enough to keep it safe. Those boxes do have a provision for a lock. MS. RAWSON: My problem is that you're ordering the county. You know, every time we say, if they don't do what they're supposed to do, then the county may abate the violation; so maybe you want to say, the county may contact FP &L. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I think that's what it was. The county was going to ascertain whether or not it was even feasible or possible. I think that's -- right? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. CONDOMINA: I was going to say, we do have where, like she said, from any method to bring the violation into -- maybe that can -- that will be part of our -- us abating it would maybe just -- MR. KAUFMAN: Great. MR. CONDOMINA: For the safety. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Got it, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Moving on to the next case, it's going to be -- is it Delzotto? Is that the next one? Because Rodriguez was the stip, correct? MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, did you vote on that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MS. BAKER: Okay. MR. MIESCZAK: That was fast. I didn't hear it either. MR. KAUFMAN: Lightning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I voted on it, right? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. It was so fast I don't remember. 102 A6 November 18, 2011 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10 02.06(B)(1)(a), Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1 permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Metal shed, garage conversion, and fence all built without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2921 2nd Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 40927600006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Alejandro Cesar Delzotto, 7685 Tara Circle, Apartment 201, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: June 3, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: June 6, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 6, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 29, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20110007440 dealing with the violation: Metal shed, garage conversion, and a fence all built without Collier County building permits located at 2921 2nd Ave Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 40927600006. Service was given on June 6, 2011, via posting. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken June 3, 2011, and three photographs taken yesterday, November 17, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESCZAK: I'll second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. 1612 A -6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: The first photo is how we recognized the property as a vacant fore- -- well, possible foreclosure home. Picture of the fence. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the first picture again, just real quickly. All right. MR. BALDWIN: That's a picture of the garage. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a permit or your posting? MR. BALDWIN: That was a notice that someone had left on the property that had nothing to do with us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: That's the shed out back. And the last picture will be a picture of the fence. I'd like to present the following details of the case: Violation was first observed by Investigator Janis Potter on June 3, 2011. I then confirmed the violation on June 6, and I posted the property and sent a notice of violation regular and certified mail. I had made several attempts to contact the owner, but as of this date we have had no correspondence. There is not a lis pendens on this property, and -- or one has been -- I have not been able to find a 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 lis pendens that has been recorded on this property. The home is vacant. And that's all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions for the county? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violations are abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violations into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, zt96 161 2. A6 November 18, 2011 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would somebody like to create a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion that the respondent pay all operating costs of $81.43 within 30 days, and $150 -a -day fine in 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Patrick. The next case is going to be Thomas Smith. Is the respondent here? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There he is. Welcome back, sir. MR. SMITH: Not really, but -- MR. KAUFMAN: We have to swear you in again because it wears off. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County 1 A 6� November 18, 2011 Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Garage conversion, large structure, and fence on the property with no valid Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2461 4th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 40622180009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Thomas P. Smith, 2461 4th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: March 9, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: September 14, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 28, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 30, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case CESD20110003049, violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. The violations are located at 2461 4th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 40622180009. Service was given on September 14, 2011. And I'd like to present three photographs to be entered in as evidence. The first is a photograph of the garage conversion. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photographs. MS. POTTER: The second is a photograph of the shed, and the third photograph is a photograph taken of the fence at the front of the property. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. 1612 A6 November 18, 2011 MR. MIESCZAK: Has Mr. Smith seen these? You've seen the photos? MR. SMITH: They're okay. I'm not going to have a problem with the photos. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. Motion to accept the second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We can see them. MS. POTTER: While doing research on another case on the property on March 9, 2011,1 found a -- that there was a permit obtained in 1996 for a garage conversion that did not receive a certificate of completion as is missing several final inspections. There is also a shed on the property as well as a fence with no Collier County building permits. On May 3, 2011,1 received a telephone call from the property owner. He told me that he no longer lives on the property, as he was served an eviction notice by the bank in 2009. He acknowledged that the garage conversion was not complete and he also stated there were no permits for the shed or the fence. Again, he was not living at the property, but he would stop by the property periodically to make sure that the structures were secure and Page 91 161 A6 November 18, 2011 that the grass and the lawn were maintained. He also stated at the time that the property was for sale and there was a short sale pending to close in June; however, the sale did not take place, so the property is still vacant. The foreclosure team, who's been monitoring this case with me, has not received any response from the lender, and as such, the case was prepared for hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that it for the county? MS. POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Smith, do you have anything to add? MR. SMITH: No. The only thing, the final on the garage is just an electrical. The bathroom needed the division between the panel and the sink. That has been done. That was done right after the county informed the contractor of the situation. The county failed to follow through, and then I didn't realize that they had failed to follow through with the final. All that needs is just someone to come out and make sure that the electric falls within the wall -- divider falls within the county permission, and that should be no big deal there. The fence, I didn't know I needed a permit for the fence, and I didn't know I needed a permit for the Ted shed on the back of the property. The bank does -- they foreclosed me in January of 2009. We went for a modification at the time, stayed in the house because I got a lawyer to do the modification, a realtor lawyer, and I paid him 15 -, 1800 bucks to do that. Took about six months to get back, and the bank basically told me to forget it, they weren't going to remodify the house. So at that time -- because we were under a lot of stress waiting to be thrown out of the house basically -- so we went ahead and moved out of the house. At that time, I continued to go over and monitor the Page 92 16 1 e A 6 November 18, 2011 house and maintain the house and the property and everything. But we've been out of the house now two- and -a -half years. The bank, I talked to them just a couple days ago. The bank told me to call their property management -- the people that monitor the property and will take care of it. I tried to do that a couple times. It's very hard to get ahold of these people. I am going to try again. But they did tell me that once they take and take control of the property, I will no longer be allowed on the property. In other words, they're going to gate lock the property, because there is a gate on the front. They will lock the property. They will have their maintenance people come in and take care of the property, but after that I'm not allowed on the property no more. So basically that's where it stands. The permitting for the fence, I don't have the money right now. I'm partially part -time working. I got a part -time job, but I don't have a job, so -- and that's where we're at. Me and my wife are in some pretty bad times right now. We are renting from some other people that are very, very nice. And we're still having money trouble and everything. And then we've got our grandkids dumped on us. They were abandoned by their mom. So we've got all these things going on right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's very admirable that you would still keep up somewhat with the property that, you know, has been foreclosed. And we appreciate the insight to it. We'll go ahead and see if there's a violation or not and go from there. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been through the -- our foreclosure group? MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, he's the owner of record. The bank has not taken title to this property, and it may be -- because we're seeing more and more that the banks are giving the property back to Page 93 161 z A b November 18, 2011 the property owner. So we'll help him check to see the legal status of this property. MR. KAUFMAN: We have some contacts at the -- MS. FLAGG: We do. MR. KAUFMAN: That's good news. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: Be happy to make a motion that we find it in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Pick one. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. And do you have a recommendation, Janis? MS. POTTER: I do. Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is A6 November 18, 2011 abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for the county. On this case -- I know we've had similar cases before -- is it best to encourage the bank to do something to have a shorter date or a longer date on the recommendation? MS. FLAGG: Well, in regard to permits, unless the bank wants to go to court and get the Court's authority to obtain a permit to do the internal work, they generally aren't -- they can get a permit with a court order if they're not the owner of record. What we need to do is find out what the bank's plans are, because I believe what I'm hearing is that they didn't actually foreclose in January '09. They may have filed the lis pendens on January '09, and those lis pendens may go on for years with (sic) the bank ever taking any action. MR. SMITH: Okay, question. The final for the house, will I have to pay for your inspector to come back out and finally sign off on the garage mod? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Somebody will. You know, we're not going to give you advice either way. We've seen people in the past that if they're already moving towards foreclosures, they just kind of walk away and let the bank take care of it. MR. SMITH: Well -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: But if you feel as though -- that this may come back into your lap and you want to move forward, you know, you or somebody is going to have to pay for a reapplication of the Page 95 1 l g Ab 4 oveber 18 2011 original permit for the conversion, and then whatever inspections are remaining will be part of that, and they can just have an investigator come in and take care of it. The shed in the back would also need a permit, which is part of this violation. That should be pretty simple, I would assume. MR. SMITH: So once I apply for the permit, pay the fee for the permit, then you'll abate the -- whatever is left over? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, one more step. We do need that final inspection -- MR. SMITH: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- certificate. MR. SMITH: Well, you'll have to have that inspector come out, right? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Once that's done, then, yes, you would be in compliance, correct. MR. SMITH: All right. Because the fence is 90 percent gone. I basically gave a lot of the fence away to other people that wanted it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SMITH: So it's basically -- the only pieces left is just in the front. But I'd still have to pull a permit for the remaining part of the fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: The boats that are there, are those your boats or -- MR. SMITH: No. They were customers' boats at the time. They refused to pay or didn't have the money to pay for the boats that are on the property. I have tried to -- I've removed two of the boats. I'm going to try to remove two more when finances are available. But the county has basically taken the boats that used to be able to be taken out there and disposed of for just the weight and the crushing up of them; they've changed that now. Now it's $70 to get rid of a vessel 161 A 0 ovember 18, 2011 from zero to 20 feet, and you have to remove the engine and the gas tanks from the vessels. Also, if you take a boat that's bigger than 20 feet, the fee to dispose of it is $370. So that kind of makes it hard for me to -- I can physically get the motors out, the gas tanks out. That's not an issue. The issue is the money to do it. The only thing I can think of for right now, with the vessels on the property, is to basically move them to another lot where I'm living at, which still puts me in violation of your code. But I don't know what else to do, because I haven't got the money to move those vessels; otherwise, they'd have been gone, because I don't want no issues with the bank, and I don't want no issues with the county. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that. If somebody would like to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion: The 81.15 to be paid within 30 days. MR. SMITH: That I could probably do, no problem. MR. KAUFMAN: A hundred and twenty days, that should give you some time to speak to the bank and to the county for the -- to see what can be done, and $100 -a -day fine after the 120 days. Of course, if you have anything that you want to tell us prior to the expiration of the 120 days, I certainly recommend you come back to the board. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. MIESCZAK: I make a motion -- I mean second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just quickly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Really, please get with the county. They have resources that they can get in touch with bank. Maybe there may be a way for you to work out an agreement where you can get your Page 97 Ab 161 Zovember 18, 2011 house back. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm not interested in the house no more, no. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, you've been very diligent in keeping -- going there and looking over the house, and when you -- it's kind of a gray area between the foreclosure and taking title, the bank taking title of the property, but I commend you for going over there, keeping an eye on it and everything. MR. SMITH: Well, I maintained the house across the street from me that's been vacant and is still vacant and is overgrown, as mine is right now. I used to go over there and cut the yard over there because I got tired of looking at it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. I give you a lot of credit for doing that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Thanks for being here today, and thanks for helping out. MR. SMITH: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Jeffrey Lee Smith. Is the respondent here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County � A b ..� 16 �gember 18, 211 Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Two chickee huts with electricity, shed, and a swimming pool with a spa at -- with expired Permit No. 2006080726. Location/address where violation exists: 240 8th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 39260240008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Jeffrey Lee Smith, Jr., 240 8th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 21, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 21, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 20, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 23, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110010017 dealing with the violation: Two chickee huts with electricity, shed, and a swimming pool with spa with an expired Permit No. 2006080726 located at 240 8th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 39260240008. Service was given on July 21, 2011, via posting. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photographs taken July 21, 2011, one aerial photo of the property from 2011, and three photographs taken yesterday, November 17, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Elm 16�-2A6 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: The first picture is a picture from -- what you see from the road of the property -- can hardly see it. But the first picture -- from the road, sorry. That's a picture of the north side of the property. That is the chickee but to the north side. And that's a picture of the front of the house. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the house occupied? MR. BALDWIN: No, it's vacant. This is an aerial photo. On the top of the aerial photo, I have circled -- I have one of the chickee huts, and then in the middle there what appears to be two separate pools or one connecting pool or a pool and a spa. And then at the bottom there is another chickee but that is circled. And in the back of the photograph here there was a shed. But as of yesterday, that shed was removed. I don't know when it was removed, but when I got access to the property yesterday from the neighbor to get a better picture of the location behind the house, I noticed that the shed was removed. This is -- I gained access from the neighbor. This is -- this is the chickee but to the south side of the property. It's actually a beautiful pool and setup they have going there. MR. MIESCZAK: Party town. MR. LEFEBVRE: There might be a buyer. Page 100 161 2 1 At . A , November 18, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: That is, again, trying to get a good picture of something that's going on back there with the chickee huts. And they have almost like a grotto, like rock thing setup there. It's pretty cool. MR. MIESCZAK: Let's go. MR. BALDWIN: And that is another picture of the chickee but from the north side. You can see the electricity, because the satellite dish is there. And that's all. I'd like to present the details of the case now. In July of this year I responded to a complaint about a vacant and foreclosed home. While on the property, and during the research phase of my investigation, I observed that there were two chickee huts with electricity, a shed, and a swimming pool with spa all built without Collier County building permits. The swimming pool did have a permit but the permit was never CO'ed. I've tried to make several attempts to contact to speak with the owner, but to this date it still not has happened (sic). The home is vacant as of right now, and there is a lis pendens that was recorded on November 7, 2009. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the pool green or -- MR. BALDWIN: Foreclosure team was working with the bank. It's CitiMortgage, and they passed it back to me. It was -- we noted that it was possibly green. I could not determine if the pool water was green or not. Just yesterday was the first time that I actually could see, and I couldn't tell if the pool was boarded. I couldn't tell if there was water there or if it was just black water. The aerial photo does show that it's black. I couldn't determine. But the bank is aware that there -- that there could possibly be an unmaintained pool. MR. KAUFMAN: And as far as the address, I did notice that the location of the violation is 240 8th Street, and the respondent shows Page 101 161 2,A., it, 201 that as his address as well. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: But there's nobody there? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make the motion that a violation does exist. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy, within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Page 102 16�2 A-6 November 18, 2011 Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Somebody like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that the $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case be paid within 30 days, and within 45 days the fine be abated or $150 -a -day fine will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, Hearing No. 21, John C. Boyer, Betty Jane Savard- Boyer. Are the respondents here? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to come on up. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: From sitting so long. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Page 103 16 1W. A'6 November 18, 2011 Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Description of violation: Observed structure in the rear of the yard behind main structure which was permitted for a den/storage now converted to a living space with plumbing and air conditioning, and no permits were obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 514 105th Avenue North, Unit A, Naples, Florida, 34108; Folio 62841960004. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: John C. Boyer and Betty Jane Savard- Boyer, 479 Palm Court, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: April 15, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: May 3, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 1, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 7, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on a second, Investigator, before you get started. Number 2 in the statement of violation, description of violation, it's talking about a structure that was permitted but then at the end of the line it says, no permits obtained. MS. BAKER: No permits for the conversion. It was converted into living space. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So they were obtained for the shed? MS. BAKER: It was permitted as a den/storage, and the supervisor can probably -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I gotcha. But never obtained to live in it? Got it. All right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Isn't a den for living? Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It should be fine. MR. BOSA: For the record, Ralph Bosa, Collier County Code Page 104 16 L,&�m A b. 2 61i Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110002585 dealing with the violation of a structure at the rear of the property originally permitted for a den or storage. It had improvements done for living space with plumbing and air conditioning, and no permits were obtained. It's located at 514 105th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34108; Folio No. 62841960004. Service was given on May 3, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photos taken on April 5th by Investigator Pulse. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen them? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Yes, I've seen them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you're okay with them? MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. BOSA: That is the front of the structure. That's the driveway driving back into the structure, just behind the main structure. Page 105 16I 2 A 6 1 November 18, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: It's a detached structure, is that -- MR. BOSA: It is -- yes, it is detached, detached structure. That is inside of the structure; kitchen, full appliances, and a small bathroom with toilet and running water to the shower. I'll present the details of the case. Received a complaint that the rear structure originally permitted as a den/storage was now being rented out. On April 5th, Investigator Pulse conducted a site visit with permission of the owner, took pictures of the exterior and interior of the structure. Further research shows that the structure itself is permitted but not to be included plumbing or air conditioning. On April 28, Investigator Pulse spoke with the owner in regards to the violation via phone. We have been in constant communication with the owner and the engineer she hired to help her with this conversion, to obtain the proper permits for the improvements. As of today -- today's date, the permits have not been applied for. And she does have somebody living there currently. She did assure me that the person is moving out and should be completely moved out by the end of next weekend. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anything else from the county? MR. BOSA: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Your turn. You can speak as plainly as you'd like. Just kind of give us an idea of what's going on. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Okay. Unfortunately, I am a -- well, not unfortunately. I'm a realtor. Unfortunately, we purchased this property for sale by owner in 2005. The owner had -- the back unit was rented. I have a copy of what was in that back unit along with the fact that it was a gentleman with a child that lived back there. Page 106 6 1612 No ember", 8, 2011 So we naturally thought that it could be rented. I mean, it has electricity, it had washer /dryer. You know, everything was there. Driveway was there. It's a concrete driveway. It was there. We would certainly like to have it permitted. The electricity, I understand, was permitted. We will -- we will get new air conditioning, because we've had -- and I have -- as you can see, I have lots of paperwork here that I was going to give you. We've had an A/C inspector out there or an A/C appliance person. That was put in in 1987. So -- probably with or without a permit, there is nothing we can find. As far as the plumbing goes, we had a licensed plumber. I have all of the -- a copy of all their cards with me. And the electrician was also out there. We also had a structural engineer out there. The gentleman that we've been working with has copies -- all these copies were sent back to him. The owner of this property also owned -- and I have a copy here. The lot is two lots less three feet. But in the -- on the corner, Lots 26 and 27 were owned by his wife. Okay. Twenty -six and twenty -seven -- well, there's a large building, and then there's a garage that they built there. The garage -- we had to give three feet -- we didn't have to. Three feet were taken away from one of our lots so that the garage did not have to be torn down. I had no -- we had no idea that this was not -- that it was in violation. We had no idea of that, and I didn't know that until just this spring. We had all the proper paperwork done. I mean, we had -- being a realtor, we had everything taken care of, but there was no thought of checking with the county to see if permits were done back in the '70s or '80s whenever this structure -- well, obviously it was built in the back part in'87 when the A/C was put in. We have removed -- there was a shed that was within 15 feet of the back cyclone fence. We did remove the shed. The man that's Page 107 1614 2 A 6 k4 November 18, 2011 living in there is going to be moving out. We -- I mean, it's a perfectly good residence. It's not hazardous. If the -- if the people that live in the front want to use it for -- if family is coming to visit them, we'd like that to be used. But we do want to correct this problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is the county's position that this cannot have a rental on it, or is it just that we need to get the permits? MR. BOSA: That's correct. It's not supposed to have a rental back there, especially if it's not permitted for the plumbing and the A/C, because I don't know what -- it was permitted for electricity, but I don't know what alterations were done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Of course. If we did get the permits, though, and everything was CO'ed, could they use that as living quarters for a family member from the main home? MR. BOSA: As far as I know -- I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think she would have to get a variance if she wanted somebody to rent to be there permanently. MR. MIESZCAK: Can I ask one question? Is there -- when you said that there were an extra lot or two, do you get one tax bill or do you get two tax bills? MS. SAVARD- BOYER: No. We only get one tax bill. MR. MIESCZAK: So it's -- basically then it's one piece of property? MS. SAVARD- BOYER: It's a double lot less three feet on the west side. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So there's a good chance she might be able to get that variance, if needed? MR. BOSA: There could be a chance, yes. I can help her with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: The thing is, she stated that she'd want to use -- or have the tenant that's in the front building use the secondary -- this building as, like, a guest residence, which would be allowed, correct? 10,�AO .4 November 18, 2011 MR. BOSA: That's -- as far as I know, it is, but we can confirm that with the building official. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it cannot be rented out as -- MR. BOSA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: It would be -- it cannot be rented out. It's single- family use there. MR. BOSA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: One residence. MR. BOSA: Actually, it's a duplex. Her main home is a duplex. She has two renters, if I'm correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: This is in Naples Park. MR. BOSA: Yes. Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: They have sewer there? MR. BOSA: As far as I know, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So as far as the permitting and that detached building, what is it lacking as far as permitting? MR. BOSA: The -- all the plumbing permitting. She has to get a plumbing inspection. The application itself back in 1987, when the building was permitted for -- the building electricity says -- right there it says, no HVAC, no plumbing at all. So she would have to get a permit for just the HVAC, because there is ductwork in there and everything. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: We did have a plumber look at it, and he didn't see any problem. And I don't have his report. It's with someone else. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. We believe you. The structure looks very nice. We're just trying to kind of get a feel for how long we think that it's going to take you so we're as fair as possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: There would be an after - the -fact permit, is what it would have to be. Page 109 1 I ok. X16 o44 ove ber 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So an engineer would have to go in there and MS. SAVARD- BOYER: I don't care. Anybody can go in and check it out. The man that's there is a salesman. He's only there on the weekends. He travels Florida selling cigars, and he's been no problem. And we've had no problem with anybody back there. MR. KAUFMAN: What I think Mr. Kelly was talking about is a permit by affidavit so that the work is there, it meets code, and an engineer or -- MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Exactly. MR. KAUFMAN: -- signs off on it, and that will take care of that. And if a husband and wife lived in the first building and they had a fight, he could go sleep in the back building. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: You're funny. MR. MIESZZAK: He is funny. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, do we want to determine if there's a violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there is a violation. MR. MIESCZAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Doesn't mean you're a bad Page 110 �, A.,6 16 2 ovember 18, 20 11 person. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It just -- it is what it is. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, I was one of those people that bought a house and there were violations on it. Who would think that you needed a permit for a fence? I mean, I've been selling real estate for 30 years, most of the time in Minnesota. You don't need a permit for a fence. But anyhow, it's just different here, and you don't realize it. And a lot of these people that buy down here are from other states, and they don't understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm really glad you said that, because as you probably know, this is televised, and -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Oh, Lord. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And most of our -- most of our respondents are in the same position you are, and it's so glad to hear someone who's in the industry to realize that, you know, it's just unfair, but that's the way it happens. So please get not only a title search, but also a property search done. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, I had all that. We had a title search done. We have title insurance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: We had all of that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But there's a new -- a new property search done in addition to -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: This is just --I know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- the title search. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: This is just recent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is very recent. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: But it wasn't in 2005 or when people came to paradise. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. It's still paradise. Supervisor, do you have a recommendation? Page 111 161 162, 6 November 18, 2011 MR. BOSA: Yes, I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 2, any renters in structure must vacate property within X amount of days or X amount of days -- X amount per day will be imposed. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to contact a final -- conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the respondent. I know you're going through this process to get all the I's dotted and the T's crossed. How long do you think that's going to take you to get it all done? MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Well, I was just going to say, certainly not as long as it takes the bank to take over a property, but anyhow. We would try to get it done as soon as possible, but if we can't correct it I mean, if -- we can correct the A/C. I mean, that isn't a problem. But the plumbing certainly seems to be working. There's a cleanout right there on the concrete and everything. Everything's been done right. In answer to your question how long will it take to be done, well, it's season now, and people are down and people are very busy. And it's taken us months to get these other four people to come out and just Page 112 1612 A6 November 1� Nove , 2011 check it, and I even offered -- we even offered to pay them. They don't want anything. They just need the time to get there and look at lt. So in answer to your question, if we could have, you know, three months, we should be able to get it done. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me try filling in the blanks, if I can. You want to put that back up on the screen. MS. BAKER: No -- MR. KAUFMAN: It was. I got the 81.15 from it. It was there and gone, I thought. MS. BAKER: We modified a copy. It's not a very clean copy. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. Operational costs in the amount of 81.15 to be paid within 30 days, and 180 days, six months, to get everything done that you need to get done, and $100 -a -day fine after the six months. Hopefully that should -- MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Yeah. Can I ask a question? MR. KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Suppose we decide that we don't want to use it as that and we just use it as storage for stuff -- you know, down here you have a lot of stuff -- what do I have to do to remove the -- you know, remove the kitchen or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me help you with that. Let him finish his motion -- MS. SAVARD- BOYER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay -- and then we'll get back to that, because that's absolutely an option. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's 81.15 within 30 days, 180 days to get it permitted or whatever you need to do to come into compliance, or $100 -a -day fine thereafter. And as far as vacating the property, you said that the gentleman was moving out in 30 -- in a week? MS. SAVARD- BOYER: He's gone by the -- he said he'd be out Page 113 16 A� November 18, 2011 by the end of November, but he told me that he'd be out -- he's going to be out, like, right after Thanksgiving. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Thirty days would be sufficient to vacate -- MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Oh. MR. KAUFMAN: -- vacate the property or $100 a day after that. MR. MIESCZAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: A motion and a second. Now discussion. To answer your questions, all you would need to do is turn it back into the original storage area that it was from the original permit, which means remove the plumbing and the air conditioning, I believe. I think that's pretty much all that you said was put in there. So take out the toilet, you know, take out the sink, cap them off. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: If it was permitted with electric for a den, why -- I don't understand how it was permitted as a den with electric and no A/C. We're in Florida. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They may mean central A/C, whereas, you might just put one in the window. Like we call them a window banger. You might still be able to use something like that. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But there's two different types of units. So maybe they're referring to the larger units. And but it -- whatever it specifically said was excluded from the original permit you wouldn't be able to have. And the investigators can get you in touch with the building department who will go item by item and let you know what is and isn't acceptable. But, quite honestly, the pictures showed something that looked in very good condition. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Oh, it's nice. Page 114 16 h.2 A 6 10, November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You may be able to just get an engineer to sign off on that for a few hundred dollars. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we do have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically you've got six months. If you run into problems or, you know, there's a snag or something, come back before the time expires; we'll see if we can't get you an extension so that you're, you know, staying in the good graces. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Very good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. SAVARD- BOYER: Thank you. MR. BOSA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next is going to be Paul and Jacqueline Richards. Are the respondents here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 115 161 ' U November 18, 2011 MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 2007 Florida Building Code, Chapter 4, Section 424.2.17. Description of violation: Permit No. 2010040206 expired on October 2, 2010. No certificate of completion obtained. Temporary safety barrier has fallen down and is not secure. 580 -- I'm sorry. Location address where violation exists: 580 24th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 37748320002. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Paul Richards and Jacqueline Richards, 580 24th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: October 22, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 30, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 14, 2011. Date of reinspection: September 20, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good afternoon. For the record, Janis Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case CESD20100020099, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Florida Building Code, Chapter 4, Section 424.2.17. Violation located at 580 24th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 37748320002. The property and courthouse were posted on August 30, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence: A photograph taken by myself yesterday, November 17, 2011, showing a pool and no barrier. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 116 16:..1 2A 6 . November 18, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. POTTER: Okay. This case is for an unsecured pool with no protective barrier. The original swimming pool permit was obtained in 2007. That permit was reapplied for twice, once in 2009 and again in 2010. Fence permit was obtained in 2009. That permit was reapplied for in 2010. At one point temporary orange fencing was installed; however, that fencing was not sturdy and over time fell down and has been removed. No final inspections were performed on that fence, and the permit expired in October of 2010. While serving the notice of violation to the property owner on November 7, 2011, he indicated to me that he was not able to reapply for either permits on account of financial reasons. And, for the record, Mr. Richards was here earlier this morning but had to leave due to employment reasons. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is that it for the county? MS. POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any discussion? Page 117 161 � q 6 tti November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: Okay. County's recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, must erect an approved, protected -- protective pool barrier to avoid safety concerns, and /or must apply for and obtain Collier County building permits for a permanent pool enclosure and protective barrier and follow through to certificate of completion within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; and, Number 3, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, Page 118 161 A 6 ovember 18, 2011 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Is the pool empty? MS. POTTER: I asked that question to the property owner, and he said it was empty; there was no water in it. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So you won't drown, but you'll have a concussion from the fall. Okay. I'd like to take a shot at this. Eight -two ninety -nine. MS. POTTER: Eight -two twenty - nine. MR. KAUFMAN: Eighty -two twenty -nine paid within 30 days, and the violation should be abated in seven days or a $250 -a -day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that for Part 1 or Part 2? Because Part I is to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Part 1. Part 2 is we need something done to ensure nobody falls in the pool, and that should be done -- well, seven days is about as short a time as you can go. Am I right, Jean? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head.) MR. KAUFMAN: So I don't even know if we should address that if we address the first one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN .KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I see a quizzical look on Jen's face. MS. BAKER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's going to be difficult for them. to get any permits in seven days. And I can see why the recommendation was split into two parts. I agree with the seven days and $250 -per -day fine for Part 2. For Part 1, I'm thinking 30 days maybe would be more appropriate. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days is a longtime. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For Part 1, just to get the CO? I mean, Page 119 1612 A Novem er 1 1, 2011 Part 2 is to put the temporary -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. I think it is a health and safety, which is why we need the barrier within seven days. Am I reading this correct? MS. BAKER: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: So the barrier is Part 2, is what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. Barrier is Part 2. Part 1 would be the actual permit and COs. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll modify my motion, if that's what the board is for. We've got nods. Okay. MR. MIESCZAK: You're saying that No. 1 is 30 days and No. 2 is 7 days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll modify my second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Same fine amount for both? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BAKER: Can you state that again, what the fine amount was. MR. KAUFMAN: The fine is $250 a day for Part 1, and $250 a day for Part 2. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, you've got both of those? MS. RAWSON: I do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 120 161 A 6 November 18, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Great. Thanks, Jean. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That concludes all of our hearings. Now we're going on to No. 5, old business, skipping No. 1 because it was extended for time, to No. 2, Steven T. Hovland and Melanie Ann Hovland, and the respondents are not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is in reference to case CESD20100019758. Cristina, would you like to read it in? MS. PEREZ: Yes. For the record, code enforcement supervisor Cristina Perez. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 7850 Friendship Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 00103840400. Description: Shed, wood decking, and garage converted to an apartment without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Past orders: On June 23, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4698, Page 121 1612NA� er 18, 2011 Page 1335, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between October 22, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 28 days, for the total of $4,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $4,281.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve as presented. MR. KAUFMAN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Next case is Jennifer Carolyn Samules. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. Board of County Commissioners versus Jennifer Carolyn Sames. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 4320 14th Street Northeast, Naples Florida; Folio No. Page 122 161 ? A6 November 8, Zoe 39602680006. Description: Canceled Permit No. 2008040049 for a single- family home with carport/shutters and permit. Permit No. 2008040055 for a guesthouse. Past orders: On August 25, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4718, Page 2032, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders, and -- as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows -- as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October 25, 2011, November 18, 2011, 25 days, for the total of $5,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order No. 5, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $5,081.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Page 123 161 2AD November 18, 2011 Thank you, Tony. MR. ASARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rodriguez is already taken care of, so moving to -- MS. BAKER: No. MS. PEREZ: This is a different Rodriguez. MS. BAKER: This is a different Rodriguez. MR. MIESCZAK: Different Rodriguez? CHAIRMAN KELLY: See, I thought so. All right. Dig it back out. Go ahead. Sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20110006525. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and the Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 2620 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 40295960009. Description: The following permits are expired: No. 2003061529 for a pool; No. 200302602 (sic) for a pool cage; and No. 2003020399, screen enclosure with pan roof; fence on the property with no valid Collier County permits. Past orders: On September 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 857, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the -- with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The orders and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between October 23, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 27 days, for Page 124 A / 1.612 A6 November 18, 2011 the total of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,481.43. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Moving on to Ofelina and Dean Patten. Are the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD2011007245. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 4530 22nd Street (sic) Northeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 39659120001. Description: Swimming Pool Permit No. 2004031700, expired on September 12, 2004, missing a 10 -day spot survey and fees outstanding; Screen Cage Permit 2004042999, expired on November 17, 2004. Missing 10 -day spot survey; shed on property, no valid Page 125 1612 November 18, 2011 Collier County permit obtained. Past orders: On September 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 873, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Collier County -- with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between October 14, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 36 days, for the total of $9,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $9,080.86. MR. MIESCZAK: Motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries unanimously. Now to Valerie Loj ewski and Carol Nelson. Are the respondents here? MS. PEREZ: (Shakes head.) (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 126 a If 16 r o�2mber 18, 2011 MS. PEREZ: This is in reference to CEB No. CESD20080159 -- 15799 (sic). Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.01(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 3722080008 (sic). Past orders: On September 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 859, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date described as following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between October 23, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 27 days, for the total of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between September 30, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 50 days, for the total of $10,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. The total amount to date, $15,481.15. MR. MIESCZAK: Motion to approve the imposition of fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. Page 127 161 2A6 November 18, 2011 MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Moving on to Sandra Sage. No respondent. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, code enforcement, Cristina Perez. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CELU20100019962. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location: 3135 Ravenna Way, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 00209120008. Description: The storage of several boats and unlicensed trailers on the property not identified as the property owner's and not allowed -- and not allowable use for the agricultural zoning district where this property is located. Past orders: On September 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 889, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between September 28, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 52 days, for the total of $7,800. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $7,880.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve imposition of fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 128 16 lt2 A,6 November 18, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is Krista Irizarry -- MS. PEREZ: Irizarry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- and John Irizarry. Apologies. Didn't mean to beat up your name like that. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, code enforcement supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to Case No -- CEB Case No. CEV20100018622. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A), now found in Code of Laws and Ordinances Article III, Chapter 130 -95. Location: 105 16th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 39210380002. Descriptions: Many unlicensed and inoperable vehicles and trailers on the Estates -zoned property, two Volks beetles, vans, commercial trailers, and more. Past orders: On May 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, Page 129 16112 A16 1 November 18, 2011 OR4690, Page 273, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between October 24, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 26 days, for the total of $2,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $2,680. County would like to recommend that the respondent be granted a six -month extension to allow the respondent to work with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, who are currently working -- are working in the process of revising the vehicle ordinance for a possible alternative solution. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have a respondent? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, sir, if you want to chat. MR. IRIZARRY: Well, I mean, I just can't -- you know, like I said, just like last time, I can't understand why I can't keep my own personal bug on my property without having to -- I don't have the money to get it fixed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. IRIZARRY: I mean, you move out there to -- you know, it's not in anybody's way, and I have pictures of -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all right. I just assumed that, you know, because the county was recommending a six -month extension, we would -- MR. IRIZARRY: And last time we were here you said there weren't going to be any fines imposed until, you know, we came this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MR. IRIZARRY: And they say I've got $2,000 in fines. You Page 130 161'2 A 6 November 18, 2011 said, you know, that there weren't going to be any fines imposed until we have this meeting, if it comes to that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And as of right now there still aren't. It would be after today that they would actually impose them. So since the county's recommending a six -month extension due to an ordinance change, I'm in support of it. Let's see what the rest of the board said says. MR. MIESZCAK: When was the ordinance change? When was the ordinance change? MS. FLAGG: The ordinance has not been changed. The Golden Gate Estates folks that work with Cristina's team is interested in revising the ordinance, and she feels that the group would have to present the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners; get their approval to change the ordinance, but they're working on the ordinance right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. MR. MIESZCAK: So that time frame is realistic? MS. PEREZ: It's something that we've been working on already. And in talking to Mr. Irizarry this morning, I advised that maybe this would be something that he would like to go, you know, and talk to this group and see if his situation could somehow be -- you know, there could be something -- they've talked about hobby vehicles and whatnot out in the Estates, so this might be, you know, another solution for him. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If the county's recommendation is to give an extension for six months, why didn't we just wait six months and then see the imposition later? Do you want me to actually extend -- do you want us to actually extend the original order? MS. PEREZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there's no fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Page 131 1612 A b -� November 18, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we give an extension of six months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From today, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's take it till our May meeting. Would that be six months? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's just that he's -- you know, he's already passed since October. So do you want to do it six months from now, or do you want to go back to when the original order expired? MR. LEFEBVRE: Six months from now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From now, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: From today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cool. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Well, let's hope the ordinance passes. MR. IRIZARRY: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cool thanks, man. Sorry about that one. If I had known that's what the situation Page 132 161 2A November 18, 2011 was, I would have pulled that up to the very beginning. MR. IRIZARRY: I wish -- my whole day's shot now. I saw you sitting back there. I apologize. MR. IRIZARRY: Yeah. All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one's going to be AAAA Homes, Incorporated. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007090283. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Location: 581 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 37110800008. Description: Expired Permit Nos. 2001110145 for a fence; 2008050699 for a Ted shed type structure; 2008050702 for a pole barn/storage shed; 2008050704 for a pump shed. Past orders: On July 28, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4708, Page 1559, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between October 27, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 23 days, for the total of $4,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date $4,680.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion, imposition of fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. Page 133 16112 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. And the last case is going to be Hilda Beo- -- MS. PEREZ: Beovides. A 6 -,1 November 18, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Beovides. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Collier County Code Enforcement, Cristina Perez. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20100022285. Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1. Location: 1321 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 40988080005. Description: Fence with a gate constructed without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On September 22, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4728, Page 881, for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of November 18, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 134 16 12 A.6 rA November 18, 2011 Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between October 23, 2011, through November 18, 2011, 27 days, for the total of $2,700. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $2,780.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to approve imposition of fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's the end of all of our hearings and old business. On to new business. How about -- there's nothing being forwarded to the County Attorney's Office under the consent agenda, so reports. MS. FLAGG: Just a quick update. For the week beginning November 3rd ending November 9th, the banks have expended $2,531,000 to abate 2,048 violations. Just in that week's time frame, the banks expended $33,700 on code violations. For that week also there were 219 new code cases opened, just in that week; 646 property inspections conducted during that week; 115 lien searches, which are, when the potential buyer of a property is Page 135 161 ZA6 J November 18, 2011 getting ready to buy a property, they contact our office to say, are there any code cases on this property. Of those 115 requested during that week, 12 had open code cases. So those are 12 prevention cases that would not have showed up at your hearing with folks saying that they didn't know there was a code case on the property. And the investigators this week are carrying an average of 57 code cases each, which is significant. In addition, what you saw a lot today were vacant homes, and the -- each of the five code district teams continue to conduct the vacant home sweeps, and by doing this, they're identifying vacant homes. They're following up with the owner and the banks, because you're seeing quite a few times the situation where the owner vacated the home and thought the bank had foreclosed and, in fact, the bank had not foreclosed. They may have filed a lis pendens, and that may be a long time, from filing the lis pendens, that the bank takes any further action. In some cases they were receiving letters, thought that the bank had started the foreclosure process, but we're even finding homes that the owners vacated, and there wasn't even lis pendens filed on the home. So we're contacting -- as we come across these vacant homes through the sweeps, we're contacting the property owners, and it's coming as a surprise to them that they actually are the owner of the home. And we're also contacting the bank if there is a lis pendens filed because, as you know, we work with the banks to abate these violations long before they take title to the property. We're contacting the banks to maintain these properties, and we're also monitoring the vacant properties in conjunction with the Sheriffs Office because we want to make sure that there's no nefarious activity occurring in these vacant homes. Page 136 A +6 14 16 2 tuber 18, Zoe Additionally, the five co- district teams work with the Sheriffs Office and their other partner agencies to conduct meet and greats and community cleanups. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent work, Diane. Thank you. MS. FLAGG: Good team. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And comments? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. On our internal process, what seems to have happened today, as our packages have gone from two pounds to four pounds, the first thing you read in, and I think Jen did once, if the first person to read the case in could give the agenda line item number, would -- I find it extremely helpful. Because when we get here with 20 or 30 cases and we shuffle them between stipulations and back and forth to motions, you kind of lose track, and to try to track this nine -digit case number is a little bit bewildering for me. MS. BAKER: We can do that. That's no problem. MR. LAVINSKI: So if you could just read in that line item, that gets me set right to the case we're discussing and the issue. MS. BAKER: I will work with the chair that we get that straightened out. MR. LAVINSKI: And the investigators. You know, sometimes they read in a case first. Whoever reads it first. MR. MIESZCAK: I was talking to the chairman about the same thing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's either that or tablets. And then you can stop killing all these trees. I'm just saying. MS. BAKER: We'll talk about that later. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments? Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, we'll see you at our next meeting, which isn't until January 19, 2012. Have a wonderful holiday, and we'll see you next year. Page 137 ' Q November 18, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. MIESCZAK: Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas. See you next year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. MIESCZAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - -_� k6neth-Keff rChairman These minutes ap roved by the Board on u„ as presented or as correc e TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. Page 138 161'2 ab November 1, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, November 1, 2011 DEr, u ' 0I BY: .................... . LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM (Called to Order at 10:03 AM) in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala Hiller Henning _ Coyle ✓' Coletta --' ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Cones: COOS Date: 31 I �) ► �-. W. 1612 A46 4 November 1, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate 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. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 10:03 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. L CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding A. Hearing rules and regulations The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to Item V.A — Stipulations: • #14 - CASE NO: CESD201 10006092 -WILLIAM NORALES AND MARIA NORALES • #19 - CASE NO: CENA20110006879 - ROY DENNIS GULLION • #20 - CASE NO: CEAU2011001 1163 - JORGE VIANA AND ANA VIANA • #16 - CASE NO: CEPM20110009473 - WILLIAM L. RAINES • #07 - CASE NO: CEPM20100009008 - JOAN SIGONA • #06 - CASE NO: PU4643- CEEX20110013684 - PAUL LANDI AND DOREEN LANDI Under Item V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers): • #01 -CASE NO: PR042758- CEEX20110014132 - NORBERT WALDENMAYER • #02 - CASE NO: PR046820- CEEX20110013869 - RALPH CORELLI • #04 - CASE NO: PR046615- CEEX20110009669 - BEAUTIFAUX LLC • #05 - CASE NO: PR046623- CEEX201 10009955 - BEN A. HANDA • #]I -CASE NO: CEPM20110009830 - SCOTT DUFFIELD AND CATHERINE DUFFIELD • #13 - CASE NO: CESD201 10008191 - RICHARD W. GOOD • #15 - CASE NO: CENA201 10009495 - LADONA BYERS • #18 - CASE NO: CEPM20110009324 - HOMESALES INC • #23 - CASE NO: CENA20110008572 - LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF NAPLES LLC • #24 - CASE NO: CENA20110010872 - LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF NAPLES LLC • #25 - CASE NO: CENA20110010879 - LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF NAPLES LLC • #32 - CASE NO: CEPM20110005478 - SAMANTHA A. KRYKLYWEC AND CHRISTINE M. GREEN • #33 - CASE NO: CESD20100020770 - KATHY D. WALSH • #35 - CASE NO: CEPM201 1001 1423 - WILLIAM A. WADE AND RUTH A. WADE • #38 - CASE NO: CEPM20090007461 - MICHAEL D. RYON AND KAY ANNETTE FAIVOR -RYON • #39 - CASE NO: CEPM2011001 1311 - MICHAEL F. VISCUSO AND MEREDITHE VISCUSO • 941 - CASE NO: CESD20100017375 - JANET RIVERO AND RAMON SUAREZ 2 1611-2 Pov tuber 1, 2011 Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was withdrawn: • #08 - CASE NO: CEPM20110002763 - MORAD BAHRAMI • #I 1 - CASE NO: CESD20100021808 - FOOD LAND SUPERMARKETS LLC The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 21, 2011 October 7, 2011 The Minutes of the September 21, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted The Minutes of the October 7, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20110005633 OWNER: YVROSE JULES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). PERMIT #2011050629 NEEDS TO COMPLETE FINAL INSPECTION AND HAVE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 35753960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4201 21ST AVENUE SW, NAPLES The Respondent was not present. Investigator Mucha represented the County stating the County had no objection to the Respondents Motion for a Continuance. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents Motion for a Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CEPM20080016475 OWNER: SAN JANIE TREVINO AND GUADALUPE MARTINEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTIONS 9,11,12a, 12b, 12c, 12i, 12k, 12n, 12o, 12p, 19 AND 20.. SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS OWNER OCCUPIED THAT HAS NUMEROUS MINIMUM HOUSING VIOLATIONS. FOLIO NO: 56400080001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 311 PRICE STREET, IMMOKALEE Investigator Mucha represented the County stating the County had no objection to the Respondents Motion for an Extension of Time as the premise has been vacated and is intended to be demolished. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents Motion for an Extension of Time. 1612 k6 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS November 1, 2011 A. Stipulations 14. CASE NO: CESD20110006092 OWNER: WILLIAM NORALES AND MARIA NORALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). PERMIT 2004030870 FOR PLANK SIDING AND 2001050959 FOR A RE- ROOF HAS EXPIRED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 47871680007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3750 GUILFORD ROAD, NAPLES Investigator Botts requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Maria Norales on October 28, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by February 1, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 19. CASE NO: CENA20110006879 OWNER: ROY DENNIS GULLION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54 -181, 54- 185(A) AND 54 -179. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: VEGETATIVE DEBRIS/PALM FRONDS. WEEDS /GRASS EXCEEDS 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 82641160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2647 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Botts requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Ray Dennis Guillon on November 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of the case by December 1, 2011. 2 Mowing or cause to mow any and all weeds, grass, or other similar non protected overgrowth in excess of 18 inches by November 15, 2011 or pay a fine of $50.00 per day for each day the violation remains. 161 2A6 1 November 1, 2011 3. Remove all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property and dispose in an appropriate waste disposal facility by November 15, 2011 or a $50.00 per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 4. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 20. CASE NO: CEAU20110011163 OWNER: JORGE VIANA AND ANA VIANA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE WITH GATE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 40179080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3516 RANDALL BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Potter requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Ana Viana on November 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 16. CASE NO: CEPM20110009473 OWNER: WILLIAM L. RAINES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR THERESE ROUSSEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 1612 A 6 November 1, 2011 22- 231(12)(1). SEVERAL BROKEN WINDOWS WERE OBSERVED THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED. FOLIO NO: 61844400009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3816 ESTEY AVENUE, NAPLES Investigator Botts requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Bill Raines on November 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by repairing all broken windows and obtaining any necessary Collier County Building Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 CASE NO: CEPM20100009008 OWNER: JOAN SIGONA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(11). THE BOX CASING UNDER THE METER IS DAMAGED, WITH EXPOSED WIRING. FOLIO NO: 62576000006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 660 108TH AVENUE N, UNIT 1, NAPLES Supervisor Bosa requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Joan Sigona on November 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining any necessary Collier County Building Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy to repair electrical box casing under a meter by a licensed contractor according to the provisions of the Electric Code by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. 161CHO November 1, 2011 Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 CASE NO: PU4643- CEEX20110013684 OWNER: PAUL LANDI AND DOREEN LANDI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEREMY FLORIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2002 -17, SEC. 5.5.4 IRRIGATION RUNNING ON A STATE MANDATED DRY DAY (TUESDAY). PREVIOUS EDUCATION WAS POSTED CURBSIDE ON JUNE 24, 2011. FOLIO NO: 51960001363 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14850 TYBEE ISLAND DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Florin requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Paul Landi on November 1, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: I. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $50.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $50.00 B. Hearings 3. CASE NO: PR042735- CEEX20110014546 OWNER: TINA M. LANGELOH OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT VIOLATION ADDRESS: CLAM PASS PARK, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/22/11 The Respondant was not present. Ranger Maunz presented the case noting the Respondent failed to pay for parking at Clam Pass Park. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay a Fine in the amount of $30.00, Operational Costs in the amount of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total assesment of $85.00 by December 1, 2011. Total Amount Due: $85.00 8. CASE NO: CEAU20110011539 OWNER: NORA HERNANDEZ AND MARGARITO HERNANDEZ - BENITEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL 1612A6 November 1, 2011 VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED SECTION 5.03.02(A) . FENCE PERMIT 200071817 WAS OBTAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FENCE IS ALSO DAMAGED AND NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. FOLIO NO: 36230160001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5195 17TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/18/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 8/16/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to permit the fence or remove the fence by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 9. CASE NO: CEV20110008692 OWNER: DANNY T. MATRAFAJLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130- 96(a). BOAT STORED IMPROPERLY ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 30130120008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2221 THOMASSON DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/18/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by storing the boat in the rear yard or in an enclosed structure or removing the boat from the property by November 4, 2011 or a fine of $50.00 per day will 6 2 November 1, 2011 be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 10. CASE NO: CESD20110010453 OWNER: RAFAEL R. GUTIERREZ AND CANDIDA A. GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.4. PERMIT 2001122047 FOR THE WOODEN FENCE WAS OBTAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 36385200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2497 55TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 7/28/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to permit the fence or remove the fence by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 12. CASE NO: CEPM20110010983 OWNER: LIZETTE B. ABORLLEILE ESTATE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17. POOL WITHOUT A FENCE OR SAFETY BARRIER. FOLIO NO: 37010480007 1612 A� November 1, 2011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 441 15TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo dated 8/9/11 Exhibit B - 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: I. Pay the Operational Costs of $11247 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before December 1, 2011. 2. Part of Order: Install an approved temporary `pool barrier" and apply for all required Collier County Permit(s) for a installation of a permanent pool enclosure or protective barrier by November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. Part B of Order: Complete the installation of the permanent pool enclosure/barrier and obtain all necessary inspections and a Certificate of Completion by March 1, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $11 2.47 17. CASE NO: CESD20110003257 OWNER: HOMESALES INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 11, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 26(B)(104.5.1.4.4). UNPERMITTED FENCE. FOLIO NO: 47971040000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1074 ILLINOIS DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/17/11 Investigator Giannone presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 9/15/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: H 1612 A 6 .4 November 1, 2011 I. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 21. CASE NO: CEPM20110010215 OWNER: NEIL FORNEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL IS GREEN, STAGNANT, AND NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 29268001563 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5573 COVE CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/18/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 7/25/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before December 1, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or; 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 22. CASE NO: CESD20110001342 1612 A 6 November 1, 2011 OWNER: KHADIM HUSSAIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. SHED AND WOODEN FENCE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39952880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3265 35TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 Break: 11: 09am Reconvened. 11:26am 26. CASE NO: CESD20110010878 OWNER: THOMAS O'LEARY AND JUDY M. O'LEARY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). SHED ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 37802200000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 930 18TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 8/3/11 12 1612 A 6 November 1, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 27. CASE NO: CEPM20110005397 OWNER: KEVIN STREIGHT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) . POOL THAT IS GREEN, STAGNANT, AND NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 68975005923 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4083 BRYNWOOD DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/18/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 4/22/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before December 1, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or; 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 13 1612 A6 --4 November 1, 2011 S. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 28. CASE NO: CEAU20110011121 OWNER: IRENE VILAR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS SECTION 105.1. FENCE AND GATE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 39713120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4185 43RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/20/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A - 1 photo dated 9/23/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 29. CASE NO: CESD20110008186 OWNER: DAVID R. SHELDON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). SHED CONSTRUCTED IN REAR YARD WITHOUT OBTAINING VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38280160004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 655 LOGAN BLVD S, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/21/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 6/16/11 14 1612A6 i November 1, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GULL TYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $11220 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 30. CASE NO: CEPM20110001311 OWNER: JORGE HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) . POOL WATER IS GREEN /BROWN, STAGNANT AND NOT BEING MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 36860200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 185 31ST STREET NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/21/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 2/4/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 7/15/11 Exhibit C — 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: I. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.73 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before December 1, 2011. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide biweekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before November 8, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 15 A 6 b2 November 1, 2011 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal ho �Ia y , then the not cation must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. S. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 31. CASE NO: CESD20110001314 OWNER: JORGE HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). THREE UNPERMITTED SHED -TYPE STRUCTURES IN THE REAR YARD WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36860200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 185 31ST STREET NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/21/11 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 2/4/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 9/21/11 Exhibit C — 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 34. CASE NO: CELU20110009990 OWNER: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. DUMPING TWO MOUNDS OF DIRT IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 361 14400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2117 SUNSHINE BLVD UNIT B, NAPLES In 161 'L A6 November 1, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 7/15/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Pay a Fine in the amount of $500.00 by December 1, 2011. 3. Abate all violations by obtaining any required permits, inspections and Certificates of Completion necessary to permit the fill material placed on the property, or remove the material and restore the property to its originally permitted condition by November 15, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $612.38 36. CASE NO: CEAU20100018853 OWNER: SMITH FRANCOIS AND GUETTIE FRANCOIS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE PERMIT #2006042557 EXPIRED ON 10/15/06. NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 40301600004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2930 22ND AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 9/10/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo dated 10/31/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. 17 i6I 2 A-6 •� November 1, 2011 Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 37. CASE NO: CEAU20110008567 OWNER: WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE WITH NO PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 37981200002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3332 WHITE BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/20/11 Investigator Condomina presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 2 photos dated 6/24/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by November 15, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 40. CASE NO: CESD20110006565 OWNER: MICHAEL MOTTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a). POOL PERMIT THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ALL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY /COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 35641080001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4160 23RD PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 18 A () 4 1612 November 1, 2011 Investigator Mucha presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A — 1 photo dated 4/14/11 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $11229 incurred in the prosecution of this case by December 1, 2011. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 1, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 C. Emergency Cases: None VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CESD20100017536 OWNER: PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES MASTER ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. A POOL GATE WITH ELECTRIC, MODIFIED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 66262000028 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8610 PEBBLEBROOKE DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated by the Respondent. Abatement Date: 9/14/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 - No. 4702- Page: 181 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 9/2/11 — 9/14/11 (13 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,300.00 Total to Date: $1,300.00 19 16"1'2- A_6 November 1, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. CASE NO: CEPM20110000743 OWNER: HSBC BANK USA NA TR, ACE SECURITIES CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(12)(b)(n) AND SECTION 22 -243. UNSECURED STRUCTURE, BROKEN /MISSING SCREENS. FOLIO NO: 35980440001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4500 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the County has incurred the expense of securing the property however the repair /replacement of the windows and /or doors has not been completed by the Respondent. The violation has not been abated as of 10/31/11. Special Magistrate Order: 5/3/11 - No. 4681- Page: 2199 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 5/18/11 — 10/31/11 (169 days) Fine Amount: $42,250.00 Unpaid costs associated with securing the premise: $3,050.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total Fine Amount: $45,412.56 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $45,412.56. Said amount to become a lien on the property. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CEPM20110006479 OWNER: HULDA GEORGES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, 2004 -58, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 12. A STRUCTURE DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT CAUSED AN INSPECTION TO BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED BUILDING INSPECTOR. THE STRUCTURE WAS INSPECTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARED TO BE A DANGEROUS BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 25580640004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 211 WEST MAIN STREET, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/20/11 The Respondents were not present earlier in the day, but had to leave due to time constraints. Investigator Snow presented the case noting the violation has been abated by the Respondent. Abatement Date: 10/6/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 - No. 4702 - Page: 208 Total Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 8/2/11 — 10/6/11 (66 days) Total Fine Amount: $16,500.00 Total to Date: $16,500.00 20 161, A6 ovember 1, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 4. CASE NO: CEV20110001428 OWNER: JONAS MCCLURE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOAN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. VEHICLE PARKED ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A VALID REGISTRATION PLATE AND /OR EXPIRED REGISTRATION PLATE. FOLIO NO: 65420680003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 562 EASTWOOD DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Bosa presented the case noting the violation has been abated by the Respondent. Abatement Date: 7/6/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1 /11 - No. 4702 - Page: 177 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $112.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $112.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEV20110007567 OWNER: CDRE TRADING LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03. VEHICLE ON LAWN. FOLIO NO: 36560400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2864 44TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated by the Respondent. Abatement Date: 7/7/11 Special Magistrate Order: Unpaid Operational Costs: Total to Date: $112.38 7/1/11 - No. 4702 - Page: 172 $112.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $112.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. CASE NO: CESD20100017332 OWNER: SUZANNE M. YOUNG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA 21 1612 A6 November 1, 2011 VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR TWO SHEDS AND A LARGE BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 45849280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1090 11TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has not been abated as of November 1, 2011. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 - No. 4718 Page: 1548 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/2/11 — 11/1/11(30 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,112.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,112.29. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CEAU20100017344 OWNER: SUZANNE M. YOUNG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR A WOOD FENCE WHICH IS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 45849280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1090 11TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/17/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has not been abated as of November 1, 2011. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 - No. 4718 Page: 1593 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/3/11 — 11 /1 /11 (30 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,112.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,112,29. Fines continue to accrue. 9. CASE NO: CESD20100006517 22 161 L A 6 November 1, 2011 OWNER: AGRON SLOVA AND NEAT KERKUTI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) . REPLACEMENT OF STAIR RISERS WITHOUT A PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 35761000000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4637 18TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated as of November 1, 2011. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 No. 4718 Page: 1545 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/3/11 — 11 /1 /11 (30 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $3,112.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3.112.20. Fines continue to accrue. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20110004681 OWNER: DANNY L. NAIRN AND MARIE E. NAIRN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED, IN NEED OF WATER TREATMENT. FOLIO NO: 62761960100 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 753 93RD AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/18/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Bosa presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 9/14/11 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 - No 4702. - Page: 190 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 7/9/11 — 9/14/11 (68 days) Total Fine Amount: $17,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $954.55 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $18,067.19 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $18,067.19. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 23 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has been partially abated with violation still remaining. Partial Abatement Date: 8/31/11 Special Magistrate Order: 6/3/11 - No.4694 - Page: 407 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 6/11/11 — 8/31/11 (82 days) Total Fine Amount: $20,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,168.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.69 Total to Date: $21,780.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $21,780.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CENA20110008063 OWNER: BANK OF AMERICA AND THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2009 -08. WEED OVERGROWTH; PROHIBITED ACCUMULATION OF NON - PROTECTED MOWABLE VEGETATION, DEBRIS REMOVAL. FOLIO NO: 35758480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4349 18T" PLACE SW, NAPLES The Special Magistrate reviewed the case and GRANTED the County's Request. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 24 161 A .6 ,vember 1, 2011 12. CASE NO: CEPM20100017179 OWNER: FERNANDO L. VALERO AND JESSICA VALERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, SECTION 424.2.14, SUBSECTION 424.2.14.1 (424.2.17.1 ».1 THROUGH 424.2.17.1 ».14) AND CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). SWIMMING POOL WITH STAGNANT WATER AND NO PROTECTIVE BARRIER SURROUNDING THE POOL. FOLIO NO: 38509720002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14231 IMMOKALEE ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 10/20/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 10/19/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Asaro presented the case noting the violation has been partially abated with violation still remaining. Partial Abatement Date: 8/31/11 Special Magistrate Order: 6/3/11 - No.4694 - Page: 407 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 6/11/11 — 8/31/11 (82 days) Total Fine Amount: $20,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,168.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.69 Total to Date: $21,780.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $21,780.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CENA20110008063 OWNER: BANK OF AMERICA AND THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN VIOLATIONS: ORDINANCE 2009 -08. WEED OVERGROWTH; PROHIBITED ACCUMULATION OF NON - PROTECTED MOWABLE VEGETATION, DEBRIS REMOVAL. FOLIO NO: 35758480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4349 18T" PLACE SW, NAPLES The Special Magistrate reviewed the case and GRANTED the County's Request. VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 24 A,6 16 I ember 1 2011 The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 2, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 12:53 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING �da Garretson, Special Magistrate The Minutes were a roved by the Special Magistrate on.�.y'►� e��, as presented , or as amended 25 16 12 A,6 .i December 2, 2011 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRAT ((g)3 II W 13 Naples, Florida, December 2, 2011 JAN . 0 2012 BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Administration Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: -i�iia r er i_.lcr:ning '-'oyle Ule a SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Administrative,ft'$;cretary Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secreta Date: -511 S I i 2, Item #: t C.eZ''Z ►4 L- Copies to: 161 A 6 December 2, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate 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. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 A.M. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing rules and regulations Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the hearing. Prior to conducting the hearing, respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their investigating officers for a resolution by stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. Recess: 9:15 a.m. Reconvened: 9:32 a.m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Colleen Davidson, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under item V.B. — Hearings, the following cases were moved to item V.A. — Stipulations: • #11 - CASE NO: CEPM20100003914 - SIEGFRIED AND IRENE FASCHER R/F TRUST UTD 9/24/93 • #28 - CASE NO: CESD20110005755 - MIGUEL A. MONTALVO • #38 - CASE NO: CESD20100004948 - FRANK J. FOX III AND VANESSA T. FOX • #20 - CASE NO: CEV20110012870 - ODERAY ARAMBUL, ORLANDO VIGO AND CRUZ VIGO • #12 - CASE NO: CESD20110005633 - YVROSE JULES (added during the hearing) • #30 - CASE NO: CEPM20110010298 - SANA S. ITAYEM AND SAFWAT M. ITAYEM (added during the hearing) Under item V.B. — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as agenda numbers): • #1 - CASE NO: SOI74048- CEEX20110014430 - JOHN R. WALTERS • #2 - CASE NO: PR047064- CEEX20110015903 - MONICA F. GRADY • #3 - CASE NO: PR042741- CEEX20110014936 - KIM M. STEVENS • #5 - CASE NO: DAS 12554- CEEX20110014580 - LEE WEST #6 - CASE NO: DAS 12555- CEEX20110014582 -LEE WEST #7 - CASE NO: DAS12556- CEEX20110014583 - LEE WEST • #8 - CASE NO: DAS12557- CEEX20110014584 - LEE WEST • #16 - CASE NO: CESD20110007879 - MARIA ALVEAR • #26 - CASE NO: CENA20110013282 - CHRISTIAN J. MACQUARRIE • #27 - CASE NO: CESD20110004892 - LIONEL METELLUS • #29 - CASE NO: CEV20110012903 - MARTHA L. HOUSTON TR Under VI.A. — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was withdrawn: • #3 - CASE NO: CEPM20110000313 - LEONARD SZWAJKOWSKI The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. 2 161t2 A6 December 2, 2011 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 1, 2011 The minutes of the November 1, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CEPM20100018111 OWNER: FRANCIS HODGE COMM CTR INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -236. DANGEROUS BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 01131960005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 210 TURNSTILE DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Seabasty represented the County reporting the violation has been abated. The respondents were not present. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the respondent's motion for an Extension of Time until December 2, 2011. 2. CASE NO: CESD20110000968 OWNER: ETHEL MATA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). CARPORT ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE AND A SHED IN THE REAR ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 53500360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 906 TAYLOR TERRACE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Rodriguez represented the County. Max Tacco, the respondent's representative was present. He requested an extension to abate the violation. Investigator Rodriguez testified the violation does not pose a health, safety and welfare risk. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the motion for an Extension of Time until June 1, 2012. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations IL CASE NO: CEPM20100003914 OWNER: SIEGFRIED AND IRENE FASCHER R/F TRUST UTD 9/24/93 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22-234(3),22-231(12)(b), AND 22- 231(19) . SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HAS BEEN DECLARED AS A DANGEROUS BUILDING BY COLLIER COUNTY. DWELLING HAS SEVERAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS TO INCLUDE BUT NOT 16 12 A 6 December 2, 2011 LIMITED TO: INFESTATION, PAINT CHIPPING, ROTTED WOOD AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS MISSING. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALSO DECLARED DANGEROUS. FOLIO NO: 74080200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11219 KEEWAYDIN ISLAND, NAPLES Investigator Botts represented the County. Michael Volpe, Esquire, represented the Respondent. Investigator Botts outlined the terms of the stipulation 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit (s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by December 2, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance within 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Discussion occurred in reference to condition #2 and #4 above, noting the structure is deemed a "historic structure" by the County; Collier County's Historical Architectural and Preservation Board has recommended attempts be made to renovate the structure to resemble its original constructed condition, and that it not be demolished. Investigator Botts read a portion of minutes from the October 19, 2011 Historical Architectural and Preservation Board Meeting into the record. Mr. Volpe reported he has prepared a stipulation incorporating demolition as an alternative to reconstruction subject to a final recommendation by the Collier County Historical Architectural and Preservation Board and issuance of a "Certificate of Appropriateness ". The case was recessed at 10:10 a. m. so the parties could review the proposed stipulations for the purpose of reaching an agreement. The case was reconvened at 11: 30 a.m. with an agreement reached by the parties. The Stipulation was prepared by Mr. Volpe and titled "Before the Special Magistrate in and for Collier County, Florida, Code Enforcement Board — Case #CEPM- 20100003914 — Board of County Commissioners, Florida, Plaintiff vs. Siegfried and Irene G. Fascher ". The Special Magistrate accepted the above referenced Stipulation proposed by the respondent subject to following: 1612 Ab i December 2, 2011 1. The Final Order to be prepared by the respondent and to incorporate the following language (or similar wording to fulfill County requirements) and submit said Order to the County no later than the close of business December S, 2011: a. The respondent to pay operational costs incurred in prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.73 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. b. The violation must be abated no later than December 2, 2012. c. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. d. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.73 28. CASE NO: CESD20110005755 OWNER: MIGUEL A. MONTALVO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A SHED ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 35540200005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 126 WHITE WAY, IMMOKALEE Investigator Rodriguez requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative, David Montalvo on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s),or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by March 2, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 4 161 X46 December 2, 2011 38. CASE NO: CESD20100004948 OWNER: FRANK J. FOX III AND VANESSA T. FOX OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). SHED ON THIS PROPERTY WHICH HAS NO PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62580320002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 631 104TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Investigator Pulse requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Frank J Fox, III on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit (s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by April 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 20. CASE NO: CEV20110012870 OWNER: ODERAY ARAMBUL, ORLANDO VIGO AND CRUZ VIGO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03(A). SEVERAL VEHICLES PARKED ON THE GRASS. FOLIO NO: 36373240008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5401 23RD AVENUE SW, NAPLES Investigator Paul represented the County. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Oderay Arambul on December 2, 2011. Orlando Vigo and Cruz Vigo were also present with Ms. Arambul providing interpretation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of the case by January 2, 2012. 16112 A46 December 2, 2011 2. Abate all violations by moving any and all vehicles from grass and park them in a permitted designated parking area by December 9, 2011 or pay a fine of $50.00 a day that the violation remains unabated, thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 12. CASE NO: CESD20110005633 OWNER: YVROSE JULES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). PERMIT 2011050629 NEEDS TO COMPLETE FINAL INSPECTION AND HAVE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 35753960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4201 21 ST AVENUE SW, NAPLES Investigator Mucha requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Yvrose Jules on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining final inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by March 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.12 161 2 A 6 .4 30. CASE NO: CEPM20110010298 December 2 2011 OWNER: SANA S. ITAYEM AND SAFWAT M. ITAYEM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23](15). POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER, POOL COVERING IN STATE OF DISREPAIR AND TALL GRASS AND MOLD IN LANAI AREA. FOLIO NO: 76230000480 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7667 SUSSEX COURT, NAPLES Investigator Kincaid requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Sana Itayem on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by: 1. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before January 2, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 2. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before January 2, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Remove all weeds and mold present within the screened in lanai area on or before January 2, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 a day will be be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 B. Hearings 4. CASE NO: PU4644- CEEX20110014041 OWNER: SADOK B. CHIHI AND DIANE M. CHIHI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEREMY FLORIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2002 -17, SEC. 5(5.4) IRRIGATION RUNNING ON A STATE MANDATED DRY DAY. PREVIOUS IRRIGATION EDUCATION POSTED ON 7 -12 -2011. FOLIO NO: 51978000547 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14920 INDIGO LAKES DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Florin represented the County. 16 12 A 6 ,4 Kent Kolegue represented the Respondents. December 2 2011 Investigator Florin testified the violation occurred twice; the first time a warning was issued, the second time a citation was issued. Mr. Kolegue reported the irrigation system was in operation on a "dry day" the first time as new sod had been laid and the application of water was within the 30 day "grace period." During the second infraction in question, new sod had been laid to replace areas of sod that did not originally take hold, and the watering was again within the 30 day "grace" period. The Special Magistrate dismissed the case pending receipt of adequate written evidence that the sod had been placed within the 30 day time period allowed for an exemption to allow operation of an irrigation system (or other from of watering) on a "dry day ". If the appropriate written evidence is not provided, the case will be scheduled for rehearing. CASE NO: CEEX20110015660 OWNER: WALTER L. BUSH JR OFFICER: DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL DON BAER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE CHAPTER 50, SECTION 2.1, 2.2,2.10,2. 10. 1, AND 4.3.2. KITCHEN HOOD SYSTEM IS NOT OPERABLE AND HAS NOT PASSED INSPECTION FOR PERMIT 2010101771, TWO FRYERS ARE BEING USED WITHOUT A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, CLEARANCE REQUIRED FROM COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION (WOOD TRUSSES), DRYWALL CEILING REMOVED EXPOSING WOODEN ROOF TRUSSES. FOLIO NO: 77020005704 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1826 TRADE CENTER WAY, NAPLES Deputy Fire Marshall Baer represented the County. Steve Hovland, Hovland Real Estate represented Mr. Bush as his agent (property manager). County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 9 photos dated 5/25/11. Fire Marshall Baer provided an overview of the case noting it has been ongoing since June of 2010 without resolution The property owner has been renovating a restaurant without obtaining the proper fire code inspections. The main issue is installation of fryolators without proper venting and final inspections. Mr. Hovland outlined the status of the case, citing Collier County permit tracking records indicating only the final inspections are required at this point. Enrique Padron, testified he leased the property from Mr. Bush, however he sublet it to another individual (who is undertaking the renovations) in September, 2010. Eduardo Ramos, General Contractor for the project noted many of the violations have been addressed with only installation of a fire suppression system and final inspection required to abate the violations. Disussion occurred between all parties in an attempt to determine the status of ongoing and previously completed work, permits pending /issued and inspections pending /completed. The case was recessed at 11:31a.m. so the parties could clarify the status of the project. 1612 A,6 December Z, 2011 Break: l l: 32a. m. Reconvened: 11:58 a.m. The case reconvened following other cases at 12: 48 p.m. with the parties reporting they have reached agreement via a stipulation. The Stipulation was entered into by the respondent's agent, Steve Hovland on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.12 incurred in the prosecution of this case and $275.00 in re- inspection fees per Resolution 97 -001 by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by: Cooking equipment that produces grease laden vapors is to be located under commercial hood exhaust hood system. Install kitchen fire suppression system to be installed under the commercial exhaust hood system to meet NFPA 96 and UL 30 requirements. Remove all combustible construction from within 18" of the hood duct or provide fire rated wrap system. Restore gypsum -board ceiling to safe condition, obtain required permits, inspections and Certificate of Occupancy by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Mr. Padron testified the fryolators will be removed by the end of the day (December 2, 2011). Total Amount Due: $112.12 10. CASE NO: CEEX201 1 001 5355 OWNER: PACIFICA NAPLES, LLC OFFICER: FIRE INSPECTOR BARB SIBLEY VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE NFPA 1, CHAPTER 14.14.5.1, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 13.3.3.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.7.2 NFPA 1, CHAPTER 10.4.1, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.3.1, NFPA 101, CHAPTER 4.6.12.1, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 5.2.7, FLORIDA STATUTE 633, TRUSS RULE 69A- 60.008, NFPA 13, CHAPTER 6.2.6.2.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.3.1.2, NFPA 13, CHAPTER 6.2.7.2. EXIT SIGN DOES NOT WORK IN BACK -UP MODE, SPRINKLER SYSTEM NOT INSPECTED, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) CAPS ARE MISSING, FLOW SWITCH COVER IS MISSING/NOT SECURE, CONTROL VALVES NOT IDENTIFIED /LABELED. FIRE ALARM CABINETS AND SPRINKLER CONTROL VALVE CABINETS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED/LABELED. HYDRAULIC NAMEPLATES ARE NOT LEGIBLE, FLORIDA STATUTE 633, LIGHT - WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION NOT IDENTIFIED (SIGNAGE MISSING) SPRINKLER HEADS ARE PAINTED, CONTROL VALVES NOT CHAINED, ESCUTCHEON PLATES MISSING. FOLIO NO: 35830040001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: WASHINGTON LANE, NAPLES AND JEFFERSON LANE, NAPLES Deputy Fire Marshall Sibley represented the County. 10 16!12 A 6 4 December 2, 2011 Dan Mathews, Property Management Agent for Pacifica Naples, LLC was present. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 7 photos dated 8/18/11. Fire Marshall Sibley provided an overview of the case noting the buildings are not in compliance as of 12/1/11. Mr. Mathews testified the owner acquired the property unaware of the violations. They have been working to bring the buildings into compliance and provided an overview of the violations abated to date. The case was recessed at 12:16p. m. so the parties could attempt to reach an agreement via stipulation. The case was reconvened following other cases at 12: 52 p.m. with the parties reporting an agreement had been reached. The Stipulation was entered into by the respondent's agent, Dan Mathews on December 2, 2011. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by correcting all fire code violations (annual inspection of fire sprinkler system, replace missing FDC caps, install light weight truss signage, replace painted sprinkler heads, label/identify fire alarm and sprinkler cabinets, labellidentify control valves/backflow preventers, replace missing and/or secure covers on flow switches) by February2, 2012 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 19. CASE NO: CEROW20110011431 OWNER: GREGORY M. PENROD AND MICHELLE L. PENROD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II CONSTUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110 -31(a) SWALE BETWEEN TWO DRIVEWAY ENTRIES HAS BEEN FILLED IN. FOLIO NO: 77261880005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 154 7TH STREET, NAPLES 16112 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. Gregory Penrod and Michelle Penrod, the Respondents were present. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Ai 6 -A December 2, 2011 2 photos dated 8/17/11 Diagram depicting property layout 1 photo dated 12/1 /11 letter from Mark Burtchin, ROW Permitting and Inspection Department dated 8/18/11 — Subject: ROW Permit 0358 — E, 154 — 7" St. Respondent Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 9 photos Investigator Kincaid outlined the case noting the violation is in reference to Collier County Land Development Code Section 110.31 — Permits — (filling a roadway swale and installation of a culvert without approval by the County). Mr. and Mrs. Penrod testified the work was completed in February, 2005 by a contractor. At that time, the contractor provided written confirmation he completed the work in accordance with County codes. The culvert is not obstructed and the area drains properly. There are several other properties in the neighborhood with similar work completed. Investigator Kincaid reported a public records investigation has determined a permit was not issued for the work in question. The Special Magistrate noted the area may drain properly, however County requirements are for permits to be obtained prior to conducting the work. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until February 2, 2012 to allow the respondents an opportunity to contact the Transportation Department in attempt to obtain necessary approvals to abate the violation. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CENA20110007405 OWNER: DEIVIS GUERRA HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181. LITTER CONSISTING OF WASHER, BOXES, SUITCASE, DOLLYS, CONTAINERS, METAL, CRATES, COOLERS, MATTRESS, PICTURE FRAME, GAS CONTAINER, BUCKETS, TV, BEDRAILS, RADIATOR, AND AUTO PARTS IN THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 36377240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5291 23RD PLACE SW, NAPLES Investigator Paul presented the case noting the violation has been abated, and the County does not object to the fines being waived. Deivis Hernandez, Respondent, through his interpreter, Howard Maxam testified he purchased the property with the violation existing unbeknownst to him and abated the violation. 12 161'2 A 6 -1 December 2, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 13. CASE NO: CENA20110011444 OWNER: ELDER DUQUE AND MARIA ALICE MACEDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS, LITTER AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 186(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 37281080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 620 WILSON BLVD N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/21/11 Investigator Potter presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 8/9/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 11/22/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of the case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by mowing all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18- inches to a height of no more than 6- inches up to the property line by December 9, 2011, and continue to maintain the subject area in said condition, or pay a fine of $50.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 37. CASE NO: CEPM20110011182 OWNER: JUDITH HARBRECHT HILL TR AND WILLIAM P. HILL TR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND (I 2)(n). REPEAT VIOLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL WITH 13 161 Ab December 2, 2011 GREEN STAGNANT WATER. ALSO DOOR LATCH ON POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE DOOR IS IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR AND POOL ENCLOSURE IS NOT SECURE. FOLIO NO: 55402400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 451 TORREY PINES POINT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos 8/9/11 Exhibit 13: 1 photo dated 12/1 /11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11 Raymond Murry, neighbor, provided testimony on the extent of the violation expressing concern as a neighbor it is a health, safety and welfare issue. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Take all necessary steps to repair the door latch as identified and secure the swimming pool area in accordance with County Regulations on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $500.00 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 5. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 6. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 14. CASE NO: CENA20110007164 OWNER: LARRY D. SHIPMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54 -179. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: REFRIGERATORS, CINDER BLOCKS, CRUSH STONES, BUCKETS, CABLES, ALUMINUM, TIRES, CAR PARTS, WASHER, ETC. 14 16112 A 6 .j FOLIO NO: 37926520006 December 2, 2011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4591 PINE RIDGE ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/14/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 7 photos dated 5/25/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: I. Pay operational costs in the amount of$11220 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 15. CASE NO: CELU20110007170 OWNER: LARRY D. SHIPMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. UNPERMITTED POLE BARN AND STORING VEHICLES ON AN UNIMPROVED LOT. FOLIO NO: 37926520006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4591 PINE RIDGE ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 10 photos dated 5/25/11 The violation remains as of 12/l/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: a 1612 A 6 December 2, 2011 I. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Completion by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle and or repairing any defects to each vehicle so they are operable, or storing the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or removing the offending vehicles from the property by January 2, 2012 or a ftne of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 17. CASE NO: CEPM20110010931 OWNER: DALE C. HUNT AND ANNE M. HUNT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WAS FOUND TO BE GREEN/BLACK IN COLOR AND IN NEED OF CHEMICAL TREATMENT. FOLIO NO: 29555019103 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4972 TRAYNOR COURT, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 12/1/11. The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day In 1612 A6 1 December 2, 2011 will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 18. CASE NO: CEPM20110011725 OWNER: NORMAN C. PARTINGTON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(12)(1). DOOR IN FRONT OF THE HOME HAS BEEN DAMAGED AND NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. FOLIO NO: 38168160003 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 5761 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/16/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 8/24/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.56 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012 2. Obtain all required Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair the premises as identified on or before December 9, 2011, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.56 Break: 1: 35 p. m. Reconvened: 2: 00 p. m. 17 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 10 photos dated 6/27/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by December 16, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondentfails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 22. CASE NO: CESD20110008622 OWNER: LAURA LOU ROTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE Il, SECTION 22 -26(b) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. SHED AND FENCE ARE NOT PERMITTED. PERMIT 2009040511 FOR ROOFING WORK HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 82640920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES 18 1612 6 i December 2, 2011 21. CASE NO: CENA20110008621 OWNER: LAURA LOU ROTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54 -181, 54 -179, AND 54- 185(a). LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, RIMS, ALL TYPES OF WOOD, SEVERAL APPLIANCES, LANDSCAPE ROCKS AND COLUMNS, MATTRESSES, DOORS, METAL SECTIONS FOR ROOFING, DECORATIVE GLASS, PAINT CANS, PLASTIC ONTAINERS, TAR PAPER, AND OTHER MISC ITEMS. GRASS /WEEDS EXCEED 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT BOTH IN REAR AND FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 82640920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/16/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 10 photos dated 6/27/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to an appropriate waste disposal facility and remove any and all abandoned or derelict property from the location in question to a site intended for final disposal or store said items in a completely enclosed structure by December 16, 2011 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondentfails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 22. CASE NO: CESD20110008622 OWNER: LAURA LOU ROTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE Il, SECTION 22 -26(b) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1. SHED AND FENCE ARE NOT PERMITTED. PERMIT 2009040511 FOR ROOFING WORK HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 82640920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES 18 1612A6 �1 December 2, 2011 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 6/27/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permits, or Collier County Demolition Permit(s), all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to permit or remove the structure on or before January 2, 2012, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.56 23. CASE NO: CEPM20110010047 OWNER: LAURA LOU ROTH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(b), 22- 231(12)( c), AND 22- 231(12)(f). SOFFIT DAMAGE; ROTTING OR MISSING SOFFIT MATERIAL. SOFFIT IS NOT WEATHER- TIGHT. CEILING IN FRONT PORCH AREA IS ROTTING AND FALLING. PAINT CHIPPING AND PEELING. FOLIO NO: 82640920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 Investigator Botts presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 8 photos dated 12/1/11. The violation remains as of 12/l/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 19 161 Z A 6 i December 2, 2011 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Obtain all required Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to repair the structure as identified, including protecting the exterior surfaces by weatherproofing and/or proper coating on or before December 16, 2011, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. Total Amount Due: $112.47 24. CASE NO: CEAU20110012472 OWNER: BENNETT A. FITE AND DENAY M. FITE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.4. FENCE PERMIT 2003033233 WAS OBTAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 36241400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2137 51ST STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/16/11 Investigator Paul presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 7/18/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit (s), and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to permit the fence or remove the fence by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. 20 1612 A 6 ., December 2, 2011 Total Amount Due: $112.3 8 25. CASE NO: CEPM20110011548 OWNER: CHAD A. SHANNON AND CRYSTAL M. SHANNON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22- 231(15). REPEAT VIOLATION OF A POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER. FOLIO NO: 25117600268 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6654 CASTLELAWN PLACE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 8/16/11 Exhibit 13: 1 photo dated 12/1/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $500.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 31. CASE NO: CEPM20110011422 OWNER: JAMES L. DUNKELBERGER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL THAT IS GREEN, STAGNANT, AND NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 64625005565 21 161x2 A16 4 December 2, 2011 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2968 LONE PINE LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/14/11 Investigator Musse presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 9/26/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 32. CASE NO: CESD20110007579 OWNER: LISA COLEMAN AND ROBERT BOSCAGLIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT FOR STORAGE STRUCTURE IN REAR OF PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 45842400001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1090 15TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/15/11 Investigator Condomina presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 6/7/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. 22 1612 A 6 .,. December 2, 2011 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.47 incurred in the prosecution of this case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion by January 2, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 33. CASE NO: CEPM20110012158 OWNER: STEPHANIE B. CHRISTIAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WATER IS DARK GREEN IN COLOR, STAGNANT AND NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED. FOLIO NO: 51541880000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2106 IMPERIAL GOLF COURSE BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1 1/15/11 Investigator Connetta presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 11 /1 /11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012. 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or; 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 23 1612 A_ 6 � December 2, 2011 4. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 5. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.47 34. CASE NO: CEPM2011001 1365 OWNER: URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND (12)(n) AND SECTION 22- 228(1). POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER, POOL ENCLOSURE SCREENS IN STATE OF DISREPAIR AND TALL WEEDS, GRASS AND MOLD IN ENCLOSURE AREA. FOLIO NO: 54901480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 121 DORAL CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos dated 8/11/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 12/1/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.38 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before January 2, 2012 2. Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3. Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before December 9, 2011 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. Obtain all required Collier County building permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion as necessary to repair the lanai screens as identified on or before December 9, 2011, or a fine of $ $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. S. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by 24 1612A6 M December 2, 2011 phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 6. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.38 35. CASE NO: CENA20110011385 OWNER: URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS AND GRASS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES TALL IN REAR, SIDE AND POOL LANAI AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 54901480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 121 DORAL CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 Investigator Kincaid presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 8/11/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 12/1/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.29 incurred in the prosecution of the case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate the violation by mowing all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches to a height of no more than 6 inches as required by December 9, 2011 or pay a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 36. CASE NO: CENA20110012651 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA 25 161 e A6 December 2, 2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 186(a). WEEDS IN EXCESS OF 18 INCHES ON IMPROVED LOT WITHIN THIRTY FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/16/11 Investigator Mucha presented the case. The respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 9/17/11. Composite Exhibit B: 2 photos dated 12/1/11 The violation remains as of 12/1/11. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of the case by January 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by mowing all weeds, grass or similar non protective overgrowth in excess of 18 inches within 30 feet of the residential structure to a height of no more than 6 inches by December 9, 2011 or pay a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS - Continued B. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CESD20100002960 OWNER: LEOBARDO GUTIERREZ AND MARITZA GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CORRALS ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39655120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1815 47TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/17/11 26 1612 A6 .1 December 2, 2011 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 10/28/11 Special Magistrate Order: 6/3/11 - No.4964 Page: 399 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/7/11 — 10/28/11 (21 days) Total Fine Amount: $ 2,100.00 Total to Date: $2,100.00 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 4. CASE NO: CESD20110009304 OWNER: EDUARDO VILLASENOR AND ESMERALDA VILLASENOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 40473080002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4132 16TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/15/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 Page: 2009 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration:. 11/8/11 — 12/2/11 (25 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.64 Total to Date: $2,612.64 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,612.64. Fines continue to accrue. 5. CASE NO: CEAU20110008432 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A)(3) . WOOD FENCE ON PROPERTY IN DISREPAIR AND FALLING APART. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. 27 1612 A-& I December 2, 2011 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 Page: 2045 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 10/15/11 — 12/2/11(49 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $5,012.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $5,012.20. Fines continue to accrue. 6. CASE NO: CEV20110009199 OWNER: JUAN HERNANDEZ AND ADRIANNA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. UNLICENSED AND INOPERABLE MOTORCYCLES AND A DODGE NEON ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37060160005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1521 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/16/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 Page: 2011 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 10/11/11 — 12/2/11(53 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,650.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $2,762.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,762.20. Fines continue to accrue. CASE NO: CEAU20110008151 OWNER: ELIUD RODRIGUEZ AND DENA AULETTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY FENCE PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 39716440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4361 43RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Perez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. 28 1612 A6 December 2, 2011 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 Page: 2036 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 11/8/11 — 12/2/11(25 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $2,612.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $2,612.20. Fines continue to accrue. 8. CASE NO: CEV20110008692 OWNER: DANNY T. MATRAFAJLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130- 96(a). BOAT STORED IMPROPERLY ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 30130120008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2221 THOMASSON DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 11/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 11/18/11 The respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. The Operational Costs have been paid. The County recommends waiving the amount of all fines incurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to forward cases to the County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None 29 16[2 A6 December 2, 2011 X. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 6, 2012 9:00 A.M. at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 2:56 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING BSpecial Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on (p a, , as presented , or as amended 30 16f A6 2 January 6, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRAT D W93gVIR FEB Naples, Florida, January 6, 2012 i) 7.017 BY• ... .. ............ LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala�C' Hiller �- Henning _ Coyle Colette ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Cones: OWe :_aLai?- Codes to: 1612 A6 January 6, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Special Magistrate 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. Neither Collier County nor the Special Magistrate shall be responsible for providing this record. I. CALL TO ORDER — Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding A. Hearing rules and regulations The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. Prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. Recessed. 9:17 a.m. Reconvened. 9:43 a.m. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was moved to Item V.B — Motion for Continuance: • #16 - CASE NO: CENA20110006879 - OWNER: ROY DENNIS GULLION Under V.B — Hearings, the following case was moved to Item V.B — Motion for Continuance: • #13 - CASE NO: CESD20110008191 - OWNER: RICHARD W. GOOD Under V.B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to Item V.A — Stipulations: • #25 - CASE NO: CEPM20110015423 - OWNER: VINCENT PRINCIPE JR. • #22 - CASE NO: CEPM20110013209 - OWNER: PAULINE E. BURKE Under V.B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda item numbers): • #2 - CASE NO: S0174565- CEEX201 100171 15 - OWNER: MARY R. NOCERA • #3 - CASE NO: S0175968- CEEX20110016539 - OWNER: GLORIA A. BROWNELL • #6 - CASE NO: PR047085- CEEX20110016561 - OWNER: TODD W. DAVIS AND KRISTA DAVIS • #7 - CASE NO: PU3847- CEEX20110016137 - OWNER: HOWARD B. GUTMAN AND RACHEL A. GUTMAN • #8 - CASE NO: PU4692- CEEX20110016896 - OWNER: KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION • #10 - CASE NO: PU4828- CEEX20110017249 - OWNER: NAPLES PROPERTY SER III LLC • 411 - CASE NO: C012454- CEPM20110015013 - OWNER: GUADALUPE GONZALEZ AND EVA GONZALEZ • 414 - CASE NO: CEPM20110012330 - OWNER: JIMBERLY MANJARREZ - KROENUNG • #15 - CASE NO: CEA20110012605 - OWNER: ANA CASTILLO • #16 - CASE NO: CESD20110007879 - OWNER: MARIA ALVEAR 2 161:2 Ab January 6, 2012 • #17 - CASE NO: CENA20110002458 - OWNER: LYNNE V. CADENHEAD • #18 - CASE NO: CENA20110002906 - OWNER: LYNNE V. CADENHEAD • #19 - CASE NO: CEPM20100009680 - OWNER: SHERRY LICHTMAN • #20 - CASE NO: CESD20110004543 - OWNER: RAMIRO ESQUIVEL AND GUADALUPE ESQUIVEL • #21 - CASE NO: CEPM20110014350 - OWNER: HENRY N. BRAGA AND SALLY J. BRAGA • #23 - CASE NO: CEV20110012981 - OWNER: CHRISTL WALSH Under VI.A — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following case was withdrawn (listed below as Agenda item numbers): • #5 - CASE NO: CESD20100020107 - OWNER: O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC • #7 - CASE NO: CESD20100001516 - OWNER: GERALD DIPASQUALE • #8 - CASE NO: CEPM20110008150 - OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR • #12 -CASE NO: CEPM20110008927 -OWNER: HARRY NEVINS AND JACQUELINE NEVINS Under VILA — Old Business, the following case was added • #2 - CASE NO. CEPM20110011365 - URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 2, 2011 The minutes of the December 2, 2011 Special Magistrate Hearing were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines None B. Motion for Continuance 16. CASE NO: CENA20110006879 OWNER: ROY DENNIS GULLION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54 -181, 54- 185(a), AND 54 -179. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: VEGETATIVE DEBRIS /PALM FRONDS. WEEDS /GRASS EXCEEDS 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 82641160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2647 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Investigator Botts represented the County stating there is no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents request for a Continuation. Said case to be rescheduled at a later date as necessary. 13. CASE NO: CESD20110008191 OWNER: RICHARD W. GOOD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38336040007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5991 DOGWOOD WAY, NAPLES 3 161 �A6 1 January 6, 2012 Investigator Mucha represented the County stating there is no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents request for a Continuation. Said case to be rescheduled at a later date as necessary. C. Motion for Extension of Time None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 25. CASE NO: CEPM20110015423 OWNER: VINCENT PRINCIPE JR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(12)(b) AND (12)( c). SOFFIT AND FASCIA DAMAGE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 55551200003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 30 HAWAII BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Asaro requested the hearing. He reported the Operational Costs have already been paid by the Respondent. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Vincent Principe, Jr. on January 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permit(s) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion necessary to repair the soffit and fascia damage to the main structure by March 6, 2012 or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. 22. CASE NO: CEPM20110013209 OWNER: PAULINE E. BURKE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER. FOLIO NO: 55051480006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 364 SAINT ANDREWS BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Kincaid requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Pauline Burke on January 6, 2012. 12 A 6 j January 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1) Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before February 6, 2012. 2) Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water and filtration system on or before January 13, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter or, 3) Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water pursuant to HUD standards on or before January 13, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4) Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. S) If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: S0174339- CEEX20110016829 OWNER: BILL H. EVERETT OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARKETPLACE, NAPLES The Respondent, Bill Everett was present. Deputy Siegel was not present. The Respondent requested dismissal of the case as the officer was not in attendance to present evidence. The Special Magistrate DISMISSED the case. CASE NO: PRB000312- CEEX20110015933 OWNER: EDWIN GLASBERG OFFICER: PARK RANGER BARRY GORNIAK VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 95 -58, SEC. (A)(2) URINATING IN A PUBLIC PARK VIOLATION ADDRESS: BAYVIEW PARK, NAPLES Ranger Gorniak represented the County. Edwin Glasberg was present. Mr. Glasberg testified: • He is 89 years old, deemed a 100 percent Disabled Veteran due to combat injuries inflicted during World War II, with the injuries severely restricting his mobility 1.6 1 2 Q. -6 %A January 6, 2012 • On November 14, 2011, he was on fishing excursion with Captain Roan Zumfelde which returned that evening to the Bayview Park public boat ramp. • At approximately 10:00 pm the excursion returned to the dock and he needed to utilize the restroom (the vessel did not have a bathroom). • He could not navigate the distance required to access the restrooms on site, and in order not to soil himself, he chose a discrete location to relieve himself. • He did not see anyone present in the area when the action occurred. • He understands the regulations, but it was an extenuating circumstance and is appealing the citation on principle. Ranger Gorniak testified: • He was patrolling Bayview Park on November 14, 2011 at approximately 7:35pm when he observed Mr. Glasberg urinating in the park. • The restroom was unlocked and in proximity to the location Mr. Glasberg urinated. • Mr. Glasberg reported to him he thought the restrooms were locked as it was after sundown. • He notified Mr. Glasberg of the regulation and the citation was issued at 7:45pm. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos of the location of the incident dated November 15, 2011. Roan Zumfelde, Captain Ron's Charters testified for the Respondent: • There is no restroom facility available on the charter boat. • He intends to address the issue and assure there is a mechanism for persons to adequately relieve themselves in case of an emergency. The Special Magistrate reviewed the evidence and notified Mr. Glasberg the purpose of the regulation is to restrict the activity as people may be present in the public park, including children. The Special Magistrate found the defendant NOT GUILTY due to an extenuating circumstance, however issued Mr. Glasberg a verbal warning not to let this type of incident occur in the future. 12. CASE NO: DAS11099- CEEX20110016948 OWNER: VANESA SALAZAR OFFICER: CHRIS JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14-34, SEC. A(9) CARRY ANY ANIMAL OR LEAVE ANY ANIMAL IN VEHICLE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 16075 CALDERA LANE, NAPLES Officer Johnson represented the County Vanesa Salazar was present. County Evidence entered: Exhibit A — aerial photo of area of incident Respondent Evidence entered: Exhibit A — letter from representative of Nordstrom's Department Store. Ms. Salazar testified: 1612 A-j6 January 6, 2012 • She had two Shih Tzus in the vehicle and was returning from an appointment with veterinarian. • She stopped at Costco's at approximately 2:45 pm to buy an item before returning home and exited the store at approximately 3:05 pm • She left 3 car windows open approximately 2 inches to ensure proper ventilation in the vehicle. • Previously she had been at Nordstroms and the dogs were fed and watered while visiting their staff. • The dogs are in excellent condition, and she would never create a situation where the dogs were treated inhumanely. • She cited Ordinance 14 -34 Section A(9) "It is unlawful for any person to carry any animal upon or leave any animal in any vehicle in a cruel or inhumane manner, or in any manner that threatens the health of the animal, such as by overheating, lack of sufficient fresh air, wholesome food, and /or potable water. " • In her opinion, the incident did not constitute "leaving animals in a vehicle in a cruel or inhumane manner. " Officer Johnson testified: • On the afternoon of November 19, 2011, a complaint regarding dogs left unattended in a vehicle was registered by a member of the public. • He was dispatched to the scene at approximately 2:50 pm. • He arrived at the scene at 3:08 pm and located the vehicle in question. • The vehicle was parked in direct sunlight. • The outside temperature was 85 degrees Fahrenheit; however he could not ascertain the temperature inside the vehicle. • There was no potable water available in the vehicle for the dogs. • Upon releasing the dogs from the vehicle, they were panting and drank approximately half a bowl of water. • He reported the Department has a "zero tolerance" policy for the Section of the Ordinance (14 -34 Section A(9)) cited by the Respondent and a citation was issued to Ms. Salazar. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and ordered her to pay a $7.00 Administrative Fee, $50.00 Investigative Cost Fee and a $100.00 Fine. Total Amount Due: $157.00 A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 4. CASE NO: CESD20100020705 OWNER: CHERYL LYNN MAIN AND LARRY G. KNAPP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. ELECTRIC GATE ERECTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39895920104 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2680 OIL WELL ROAD, NAPLES Larry Knapp was present. Supervisor Perez presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 12/5/11 1612 k6 January 6, 2012 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 - Page: 2007 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 11/8/11 — 12/5/11 (28 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,800.00 Total to Date: $2,800.00 Supervisor Perez recommended the fines be waived as the violation has been abated and the Operational Costs have been paid. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for the Imposition of Fines. Recess: 11: 27 a. m. Reconvened: 11:51 a.m. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings (Continued) 5. CASE NO: PR047156- CEEX20110016957 OWNER: KENDRA CRAWFORD OFFICER: PARK RANGER RICHARD MAUNZ VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notification by Certified Mail: 12/16/11 Ranger Maunz presented the case. Exhibits Entered: Composite Exhibit A — 3 photos dated 11/28/11 The Respondent was not present. Ranger Maunz testified on November 28, 2011, he issued a citation to a vehicle owned by the Respondent for parking a vehicle in a space with an expired meter. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered her to pay a $30.00 Fine, $5.00 Adminsitrative Fee and $50.00 in Operational Costs by February 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $85.00 CASE NO: PU3851- CEEX20110017160 OWNER: DEBORAH HAPSTAK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RAY ADDISON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 2001 -73, SEC. 1.4 (N) UNLAWFUL CONNECTION TO COLLIER COUNTY WATER SYSTEM. FOLIO NO: 54670003069 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 382 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Notice of Hearing by Certified Mail: 12/16/11 Officer Addison presented the case and testified: • A call was placed on the evening of 12/9/11 regarding suspicious activity at the water meter box for the premise. A 6 161.2 January 6 2012 On 12/10/11, he responded to the scene and determined the curb stop had been tampered with and an illegal water connection to the County system had occurred. The violation is a 2nd offense, with the first one occurring in May of 2011. There are outstanding abatement costs of $233.08 from May of 2011 and $343.49 incurred for the 12/11/10 incident. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay a Fine in the amount of $250.00 2. Pay an Administration Fee in the amount of $5.00. 3. Pay Investigative Costs in the amount of $50.00. 4. Pay previously assessed abatement costs of $233.08 5. Pay current abatement costs in the amount of $343.49 All costs associated with 1— 5 above to be paid by March 6, 2012. Total Amount Due: $881.57 24. CASE NO: CEPM20110013960 OWNER: AGRON SLOVA AND NEAT KERKUTI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (12) (i). BROKEN WINDOW ON VACANT FIRST FLOOR UNIT. FOLIO NO: 35761000000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4637 18TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 Investigator Mucha presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 10/4/11 The violation remains as of January 6, 2012. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.20 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before February 6, 2012. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion /Occupancy to repair /replace the broken windows to a permitted condition on or before January 13, 2012, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or, 3. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 1612 A 6January 6, 2012 Total Amount Due: $112.20 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: - (Continued) 1. CASE NO: CESD20110003257 OWNER: HOMESALES INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4). AN UNPERMITTED FENCE. FOLIO NO: 47971040000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1074 ILLINOIS DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Giannone presented the case noting the violation has not been abated as of January 6, 2012. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 203 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112,56 Total to Date: $3,712.56 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.56. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CEPM20110007297 OWNER: DANA D. LEWIS EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(15). POOL GREEN AND STAGNANT. FOLIO NO: 60842700304 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 140 NAPA RIDGE WAY, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The respondent was not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 9/9/11 Special Magistrate Order: Unpaid Operational Costs Total to Date: $112.47 9/2/11 - No. 4718 - Page: 1572 $112.47 IN i Z-A-6 January 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $112.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEPM20110000313 OWNER: LEONARD SZWAJKOWSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15). UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL CREATING UNHEALTHY CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 79904123904 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7574 ROZZINI LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 (Received 12/22/11) The Respondent was not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 10/31/11 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11 - No. 4728 - Page: 2033 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 10/15/11 — 10/31/11 (17 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,250.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $4,362.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $4,362.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 6. CASE NO: CESD20110010453 OWNER: RAFAEL R. GUTIERREZ AND CANDIDA A. GUTIERREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.4. PERMIT 2001122047 FOR WOODEN FENCE WAS OBTAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 36385200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2497 55TH STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 193 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $3,712.47 i • i 1612 Ab January 6, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CESD20110006565 OWNER: MICHAEL MOTTO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . POOL PERMIT THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ALL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY /COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 35641080001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4160 23RD PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondent was not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /1 /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 201 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,712.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 10. CASE NO: CEPM20110009473 OWNER: WILLIAM L. RAINES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(12)(i). SEVERAL BROKEN WINDOWS THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED. FOLIO NO: 61844400009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3816 ESTEY AVENUE, NAPLES Investigator Botts presented the case and notified the Special Magistrate the violation had been abated as of January 6, 2012. She reported the Operational Costs have been paid and recommended the fine be waived. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 11. CASE NO: CELU20110009990 OWNER: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. DUMPING TWO MOUNDS OF DIRT IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36114400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2117 SUNSHINE BLVD. UNIT B, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 12 61 A6 January 6, 2012 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/20/11 The Respondent was not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /l 1 - No. 4737 - Page: 187 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 11/16/11 — 1/6/12 (52 days) Total Fine Amount: $13,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Unpaid Civil Fine: $500.00 Total to Date: $13,612.38 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $13,612.38. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 13. CASE NO: CEAU20110011539 OWNER: NORA HERNANDEZ AND MARGARITO HERNANDEZ - BENITEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 SECTION 105. 1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED SECTION 5.03.02(A). FENCE PERMIT 200071817 WAS OBTAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FENCE IS ALSO DAMAGED AND NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. FOLIO NO: 36230160001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5195 17TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 300 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $3,712.73 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.73. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 14. CASE NO: CESD20110001342 OWNER: KHADIM HUSSAIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. SHED AND WOODEN FENCE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 39952880006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3265 35TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 13 1612A6 January 6, 2012 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/19/11 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Potter presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 211 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $3,712.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of 3,712 47 Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 15. CASE NO: CEAU20110008567 OWNER: WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE WITH NO PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 37981200002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3332 WHITE BLVD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 (Received 12/28/11) The Respondent was not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /1 /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 305 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 11/16/11 — 1/6/12 (52 days) Total Fine Amount: $13,000.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $13,112.47 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $13,112.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 17. CASE NO: CESD20110010878 OWNER: THOMAS O'LEARY AND JUDY M. O'LEARY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 37802200000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 930 18TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/19/11 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Potter presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: I 1 / l / 11 - No. 4737 - Page: 191 14 1612 A6 January 6, 2012 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,712.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,71Z29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 18. CASE NO: CEPM20110001534 OWNER: FERNANDO L. VALERO AND JESSICA VALERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -243. REAR SLIDING DOORS AND WINDOWS NEXT TO FRONT DOOR ARE MISSING. FOLIO NO: 38509720002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14231 IMMOKALEE ROAD, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Short presented the case noting the violation has not been abated, the premises was "boarded" by the County. Special Magistrate Order: 6/3/11 - No. 4694 - Page: 404 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 6/11/11 — 1/6/12 (210days) Total Fine Amount: $52,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs for Boarding: $1,100.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $53,712.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of S53, 712.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 19. CASE NO: CEAU20110011121 OWNER: IRENE VILAR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 . FENCE AND GATE ON THE PROPERTY, NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 39713120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4185 43RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/19/11 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Potter presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 298 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day 15 1612 A anuary 6, 2012 Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,712.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 20. CASE NO: CESD20110001314 OWNER: JORGE HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). THREE UNPERMITTED SHED -TYPE STRUCTURES IN THE REAR YARD WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36860200001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 185 31ST STREET NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondent was not present. Investigator Ambach presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 199 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,712.29 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.29. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 21. CASE NO: CEAU20100018853 OWNER: SMITH FRANCOIS AND GUETTIE FRANCOIS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. FENCE PERMIT 2006042557 EXPIRED ON OCTOBER 15, 2006. NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 40301600004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2930 22ND AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/19/11 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Potter presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11 /l /11 - No. 4737 - Page: 293 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 16 16 112 Alb January 6, 2012 Total to Date: $3,712.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,712.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 22. CASE NO: CESD20110008186 OWNER: DAVID R. SHELDON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). SHED CONSTRUCTED IN REAR YARD WITHOUT OBTAINING VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38280160004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 655 LOGAN BLVD S, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/19/11 The Respondent was not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 11/1/11 - No. 4737 - Page: 195 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 12/2/11 — 1/6/12 (36 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $3,712.20 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3,71Z20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20090008057 OWNER: GUADALUPE PERALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(i), (I 2)(k), (12)( c), AND (19). FASCIA DAMAGED, ROOF TILES MISSING, BROKEN DOOR WITH NO LOCK, BEE INFESTATION. FOLIO NO: 36315120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5084 23RD COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 12/19/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 12/16/11 The Respondent was not present. Supervisor Baker reported reported the request is to amend the original Order to include the Abatement Costs. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 8/15/09 — 1/6/12 (874 days) Total Fine Amount: $218,500.00 17 A6 1 January 6, 2012 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,350.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $118.40 Total to Date: $219,968.40 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Amending a Previoulsy Issued Order for a total amount due of $219,968.40. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110011365 OWNER: URMAS A. KASK AND ROBERT SCHULTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND (12)(n) AND SECTION 22- 228(1). POOL WITH GREEN STAGNANT WATER, POOL ENCLOSURE SCREENS IN STATE OF DISREPAIR AND TALL WEEDS, GRASS AND MOLD IN ENCLOSURE AREA. FOLIO NO: 54901480005 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 121 DORAL CIRCLE, NAPLES Investigator Botts reported the request was to clarify the order to add a requirement for removal of weeds and mold inside the pool cage. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request. B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: February 3, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:00 PM. 18 1612 A6 January 6, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING (Inda Garre pedal Magistrate The Minutes we approved by the Special Magistrate onEbYU as presented �/ , or as amended 19 4S A 7 oi t 1612 October 20, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, Naples, Florida October 20, 2011 0 E ( () � Y........................ 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: ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Dater 11 ?--, I ►Z. Item 0:i_S Copies to: Page 1 of 78 / Mark Strain, Chairman ✓ ✓✓ Melissa Ahern Fiala Phillip Brougham Hiller -- - -- Diane Ebert Karen Homiak �"� ""`t` Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Dater 11 ?--, I ►Z. Item 0:i_S Copies to: Page 1 of 78 ««ff sr 161 October 20, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 20th 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: ** *Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney, welcome back. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thanks so much. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. We have basically two continued items. One under new business, which is the Orangetree PUD, and one under old business which is the Watershed Management Plan. I don't think there's any other changes. ** *Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is when? I can't even remember when our next meeting is. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 3rd. So our next regular meeting will be the 3rd of November. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, you're not going to be here? Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ** *Approval of minutes. I don't believe there were any distributed. ** *BCC report -- recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, October -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN REPORTER: Could you please get on the mic? MR. BELLOWS: Sorry about that. After all these years. Yes, on October 11th the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the Garden Street Iron Steel Transfer Station. That was approved on their summary agenda. They also heard the PUD rezone for the Cope Reserve RPUD. That was approved 5 -0 on their regular agenda, subject to CCPC conditions. And Hacienda was continued to the next board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. ** *Chairman's report. Couple items. Cherie', thank you for the desserts this morning. Our court reporters are really getting helpful around here keeping us fat. So -- and the other report is really by someone else. Paul, how was your trip? Give us some highlights. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, Nevada was nice. Paraguay was a little scary. The day before we got there, the guerrillas or revolutionaries or whatever you want to call them, murdered two policeman about three miles Page 2 of 78 1612 A 7 October 20, 2011 from where we were. So we were low profile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kind of glad to be back home? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good to have you back. We missed you. ** *There are no consent agenda items today, so let's move right into the first item up. It is the Orangetree PUD. Item PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608. 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 the Planning Commission. Well, the only disclosures I have are the same ones I put on record last time. I've had -- I don't believe there's been any communication since then that I can remember. So with that, Mr. Saunders, it's all yours. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Burt Saunders with the Gray- Robinson Law Firm. And I understand this one young lady is signed up to speak who has to leave to go to work, and we certainly have no objection to her making her presentation in advance, if that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work fine. We're trying to accommodate the public. So whoever that is, would you mind standing up? Yes, ma'am, come on up to the speaker and we'll hear what you've got to say. MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. My name is Carolyn Johnson. I live at 1709 Birdie Drive. Thank you for allowing me to speak before work. As a single mom I've always been very concerned with the security in our community. Our security allows anyone into the community, just by saying that I'm here to golf or go to the driving range or even go to the sales office. We need our own gate system on Double Eagle Drive to separate all of Collier County from our community. With the turnover of homes either by short sale or by foreclosure, with some homes rented, the clicker code has never changed. Despite repeated calls to D.R. Horton to upgrade the gate system, they have refused. As of today there may be well over 4,000 clickers still active for residents or renters that no longer live in Valencia Golf and Country Club. So when there was vandalism in our clubhouse six months ago, D. R. Horton's solution was just to close the doors and lock us out of our clubhouse, the clubhouse that all the residents pay for in our monthly fees. We maintain that clubhouse every month, whatever comes out of our fees, and we could not use it. Only D.R. Horton sales agent has access to the clubhouse. And also, the gate system allows as many cars as six to enter at a time because the gate swings so slowly. If the planning board approves the amendment for 1,050 rental units for Phase III and IV, which we really don't know if it's going to be investors or homeowners or whatnot, but if it allows for over 1,000 more cars and people coming into the community, how will those individuals not be allowed into our community? We hope the planning board will have the wisdom to make Orangetree have and build and maintain a gate system at their expense to separate the two communities. That's all have I to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Miss. Just so you know, this is a zoning board, and one of the things that is not under our power is to enforce or require anybody to put a gate in. That's something that unfortunately is outside any requirement of any of the zoning codes that we fall under. Now, obviously the applicant can volunteer to do things to be more in conformity with what maybe the neighborhood would want to get a better hearing. But that's not the thing we can require. There's no code that will be able to tell him that we demand to put a gate in. So I just want to let you know we have our limitations as a zoning board. Just as the Environmental Advisory Council is limited to environmental issues, we're limited to basically zoning issues. But we'll try the best we can to get there today. So, okay, Burt, with that -- MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 78 161 October 20, 2011 Just a couple of very quick introductory comments before we get into some of the detail. Today we have Bob Mulhere, Matt McLean and Norm Trebilcock here representing the petitioner, and also Steve Lowitz is here representing the petitioner. And I wanted the Planning Commission to know that since our meeting on October 6th, we've had numerous telephone calls and several meetings with neighbors to make sure that they understand what we're trying to accomplish and that we also continue to understand what their concerns are. And to ensure full disclosure, we've made sure that the new drafted document was on a web page so everyone had access to it. So we've tried to make sure that there's been full disclosure and everyone has been available to answer questions. And in addition, we've worked very closely with your staff and the county attorney's office and I want to thank them for their diligence. Mr. Chairman and members, a lot of the conversations we had since October 6th and also during October 6th planning meeting dealt with concerns about compatibility and making sure that the units that we're going to build, especially those adjacent to existing communities, were compatible. So we've agreed to two things I think that wold alleviate some concerns there. One is to increase the minimum size of those new units in those R -2 areas adjacent to the existing developments. And Mr. McLean is going to point those out. Those will be a minimum of 1,250 square feet. Under the existing PUD document that is currently enforced today, those units could be 750 feet. So we're going to move that to 1,250 square feet. We're also going to agree that there will be no carports in those areas. Those will have to have enclosed garages. There will be no carports. And that was an area that was of some concern. In reference to internal security, we commit to continuing to work with the community to improve security, but we're not going to be able to put gates on the loop road. There was some discussion about that. We don't believe the transportation staff would sign off on that. We've got an e-mail from them indicating that they would not agree to gates internally there. We can certainly talk about different communities, but the loop road itself, we're not going to be able to put gates on that. There are technologies and things that we can do to improve security at the gate. For example, there are ways to make sure that if someone comes to that gate and they're going to be playing golf, that there's communication between the golf course and the gate to ensure that those people really are playing golf. So we want to work with the community to improve internal security, but we don't believe we can address that in the document. The other issue, or one of the other issues dealt with the homeowners associations. As we discussed on October 6th, that's an area also that would be very difficult to put into a PUD document. We will continue to work with the community to make sure that we establish new homeowners associations for the new development and that we are working with them to make sure that those concerns relative to the homeowners associations are addressed. Finally, there was some concern from the Waterways area concerning the mixed use parcel and the potential for three -story buildings there. The concern was how close would a three -story building be to an existing single- family lot. There's going to be an access road across that parcel for -- adjoining the two schools together. And with that there's going to be a fairly substantial setback. So I think we've alleviated the concern that there'd be close proximity to three -story buildings. Also in the mixed use parcel we're going to agree that the noise restrictions, same restrictions that are in the OC and NC parcels, will apply to the mixed use parcel so that there won't be any problems with lighting and with noise. And we went and met with Ms. Cocheran to go through those changes, and she was representing the -- some of the folks in that community. I think, Mr. Chairman, with those changes, we are really attempting to address all of the major issues that have been raised by the community. We have a couple that we have to work on outside of this document. And with that, I'd like to ask Robert Mulhere to come on up and we'll start going through the document to make the changes that we all agreed to at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you do, you said something I would like staff to clarify. Who on Page 4 of 78 1612A7 , October 20, 2011 staff told you you could not put a gatehouse on a private road, internally to an internally private project, to a project that is owned by a developer, not owned by the county? How did we have control over that? I'd like to know, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then where is Mr. Saunders getting his information? MR. CASALANGUIDA: He must have spoke to one of the staff members. Maybe from John Podczerwinsky, is that who you spoke to? MR. McLEAN: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can make a recommendation to that effect, but it cannot be a requirement by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, I just got done telling the young lady we can't impose security. Likewise, we can't impose the developer wanting to put security in. They put -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- security in all over developments all over the county. So Burt, I don't know where you got that information, but it doesn't sound like it was accurate. And I'd sure like to understand what transpired so -- because that would have had a -- I mean, that was a big issue with the community when they were here last time. And it was one that was important to be addressed because you said you would address it with them after we left that meeting. MR. SAUNDERS: And we did have a meeting to discuss that. I do have an e-mail from staff in reference to that. We will continue to work on that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's got to get resolved today or you're -- I mean, that's a big issue. So you can continue to work on it, but we're going to have to resolve it today. I'm disappointed that somehow there was a miscommunication between staff and you. Because that -- I thought resolving that issue would have gone a long way to help some of the issues out there, but it doesn't sound like it got resolved if you are just walking away from it because staff told you they wouldn't let you. MR. SAUNDERS: Well, let's go through the changes that we do have and then I'll sit down with the petitioner here and we'll talk a little about that as you're going through the other changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere. Mr. Chairman, I thought I would go over the changes that we -- we've identified a couple of changes that still need to occur in the document that reflects Heidi's changes from the last meeting. Probably some mainly typo type stuff. And also we have some changes that we're recommending as part of our commitments to the residents. So rather than go over every single change page -by -page -- I certainly can do that if you thought that was necessary -- I thought I would just go over the changes that we feel still need to occur either as a result of a commitment we made for the residents or something that we thought was not -- did not get addressed in Heidi's changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Bob, just so you know, as the commission normally does, we're probably going to go through the PUD page -by -page ourselves anyway. So why don't we take it all together page -by -page. And then after that there are some -- I have a dozen -- 17 or so leftover questions from the last meeting that if it isn't shown how they've been addressed in the document I'm going to separately ask how you've addressed those for clarification that the public raised the last time they were here. So with that in mind, we'll proceed that way. The first page really of the document starts with Section 1, Page 1. It's the 55 -page document. Let's just take five pages at a time. And a lot of the first few five pages are cross -outs. Does anybody have any questions this time on the first five pages? Did you have -- is that yes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. I noticed in the new PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us a page? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, on Page 3. Page 5 of 78 Y 16 12 A October 20, 2011 -- that you are completely removing the absorption tables and you're getting rid of every -- as to when this was going to be built out. What year was the first house built in this community; do you know? MR. MULHERE: Excuse me, you're on Page 3? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am on Page 3 of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.08 is what she's referring to. MR. MULHERE: 2.08. Well, we struck through that because it -- way more than 15 years have already passed. To answer your question of when the first unit was built, I have absolutely no idea. Anybody have any idea? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, well, that was the question that I had on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for that answer, though, if -- Bob, I'm assuming it would have started sometime after this PUD was put into place, which is approximately 1985. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you know, probably in the late Eighties. MR. MULHERE: '86,'87? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you probably have your first unit built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And on Page 4, I noticed you crossed everything out for any reference to roads. Everything was crossed out in that. MR. MULHERE: Okay, 1988 was when the first house was built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1988? Thank you. I think one of my bigger questions is on Page 5. You -- MR. MULHERE: Well, you were on Page 4 and you asked the question about roads. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You took out the roads. You just took everything out. MR. MULHERE: Everything that it says there is as --we don't need that language. It's the way it is through the LDC and through the other provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few years back this board made an effort through staff to start streamlining the language in the PUD's; language that it was either redundant or part of current code and didn't need to be repeated, we asked that it stopped being repeated to make these documents less cumbersome. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Cumbersome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is -- that statement under 2.1.3. under roads, that is already part of an acknowledgment that's in our system. They can't always make roads public or private, so they didn't need to restate it there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Page 5. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your land use summary, table one, you crossed everything out. And to the people who bought into this development, everything that they have known has changed. Everything was fine up until the time you brought in this PUD for a new change. Everything on this page was changed. Originally it started out that there was R -1 was going to be residential one -acre lots. And through a couple of amendments it went down to a half acre lot. Now you're going to try and put 1,050 homes kind of in that area. You're just trying to change everything these people bought into. MR. MULHERE: May I -- I mean, what you said is not accurate, okay, so I have to correct you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, that's fine. MR. MUL14ERE: Okay. Because it says R -1 is one -half acre lots, if you looked at the master plan, the vast majority of the PUD was not designated R -1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, it was -- MR. MULHERE: The vast majority was designated R -2 and R -3, which allowed much smaller lots. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Um -hum. Originally there was 200 and some -- MR. MUL14ERE: Just saying we changed everything is not accurate. We've changed nothing with respect to those parcels that are already developed. We worked very hard to maintain the development standards that apply to those lots and parcels. Page 6 of 78 i • � y 1612 A7 OctobJ 20, 2011 Now, there were a few changes in undeveloped areas, and we even went back and returned those to the developments -- at the request of the residents to the development standards that applied, even so far as to increase some protection, such as the minimum lot size and such as the prohibition on carports and things like that. So we actually have more standards that apply to protect the existing residential area than previously did. But anyway, that's my response to that, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then that's all I have till we reach a couple more pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on the first five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to the next five pages, 6 through 10. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question on Page 8. Why under agriculture do we have educational plants and ancillary plants? Does that have to be there? MR. MUL1 ERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why? MR. MULHERE: Because they exist. They're built. It's the school board's property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I was just wondering why it's under the agricultural part if it's a school board property. MR. MULHERE: That's the designation that was in the PUD. The school board acquired the land. Some of the schools are built. There's probably some future improvements planned. Maybe -- MR. EASTMAN: School uses is a permitted use on agricultural property, as well as most versions of the residential. So it is a legal and valid use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 10 -- MR. MULHERE: I have one on 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Phil's done with his. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Section 4.04 under R -2. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In comparing the former rendition of this to this version, you deleted the reference to multi - family on the second bullet under R -2, but you added back in triplex. And I'm just wondering the rationale there. MR. MULHERE: The direction that I understood was to return the R -2 to what it previously had. And that's what we did. Unless I'm mistaken. I mean, I think that's what the intent was. So I'd have to defer to Heidi, but to my knowledge we went back to the language that exists. That was what the Planning Commission's direction was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. See, Phil, what they had done is changed it to add more intense uses, and they now have come back and decided to leave it like it was and drop some of the uses they used to have. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I do see that it, in referencing the other one, it was struck through on the former one. Okay, fine. MR. MULHERE: On Page 9, and this was a request from -- I wasn't at the meeting from the Waterways residents, and I know we've kind of said we weren't going to make any changes to the ag. designation, but I'm just reiterating because there was a request that we eliminate the packing houses use, and I guess that would be up to the school board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, the school board would have to sign on as a co- applicant or provide a sheet of authorization for you to represent them here to make that kind of change today. Tom, do you carry that kind of authoriza -- I mean, I agree that the packing house is something that isn't going to be there or shouldn't be there, but we didn't open the PUD up to areas that weren't owned by the applicant. Unless Tom, have you had any conversations with that with your board? MR. EASTMAN: No, the board has not weighed in on this issue. As a practical matter, I don't think the school board has any objection to the removal of packing houses. But Page 7 of 78 16 1 ` October 20, 2011 as a technical matter, no, the school board has not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I guess from your department, in regards to whatever you do with this particular section would have to apply equally to all sections. And previously because of the discussion with the fairgrounds and stuff, it was acknowledged that if the -- if co- applicants or landowners didn't provide authorization or sign on, changes really couldn't be made to their sections without their authorization. Does that still hold? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, yes. hl light of the fact that the school board is not a co- applicant, has not signed on off on anything, and I don't believe that Mr. Eastman has authority today to bind the school board, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason for that, everyone, is that we can't make zoning changes to someone's property without their permission. And the only people that have applied for zoning changes here today are the people that own the bulk of the Orangetree project, Mr. Bolt and his company. So all the other various property owners that can't -- won't have any changes made, such as the schools or Orange Blossom Ranch or the fair or the utility site. Okay, Bob, anything else in those? MR. MULHERE: There was another one on Page 10. So this in an addition that the residents have asked for that Burt mentioned. But suggestion would be under the bullets of R -2 to add a bullet that would read something such as this: Within the R -2 hatched tract designated on the master plan, the minimum floor area shall be -- 1,250, was it? 1,250 square feet, and no carports shall be constructed on the tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to amend the master plan for a consent hearing that will show that special area so it can be designated in some manner and tied to this language in the -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we're going to -- it's probably a little bit hard to see on that. I don't know if we can make that a little bit bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. The one we have, though, that was distributed, I didn't notice the shading. That's just something new. MR. MI LHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MUL14ERE: There's going to be a few things that we would recommend as a result of our meetings with the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Pages 1 through 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next group is Page 11 through 15. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one on 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your permitted accessory uses and structures, you have in there the guesthouse on lots more than one acre? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why are you leaving that in there? MR. MULHERE: I mean, it's unlikely, but there is a possibility of developing some larger than one acre or larger lots. I think that's permitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sizes of the lots they're asking for on the tables are minimum. So they could always make bigger lots. So I think that's probably why they're leaving that in. In case they ever decide to go to one -acre lots, that in this market place wouldn't sale, but if they ever waited long enough and the market turned around, maybe they'd want to do that. So I think that's why they left it in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 15, anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maximum building height. Originally it was 25 feet. Now they've broken it down so they have zoned 35 but actual can be 42. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Page 8 of 78 A. • 7 A • Octofer 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: If it was 25, what would the zoned height be -- I mean what would be the actual height be if it was 25? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I mean, let's take for example, let's pretend this pen's the roof. The zoned height would be the center of the roof. The actual height would be the peak. So it would really depend on the slope of the roof and a whole bunch of other things. So there is no relationship between the two. The 35 feet is essentially a single - family home's height. So I think that's why they have it at 35 feet. MR. MULHERE: In today's marketplace, almost all homes have very high ceilings. At least that's what the market demands. If you go out to the clubhouse, it has very high ceilings out here. So it really is intended to be more compatible with the current development patterns that we see. If the of you look at the single - family districts, as Brad indicated, the building height allowable in most single - family districts is 35 feet. So, you know, the 42 feet just allows for that additional height for the roof treatment above that midpoint of the roof. So you're having an additional seven feet for the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I don't mind the 35. I just -- you know, when it comes to 42 and everything else was 25 in there so far, it was just a question that I had on that and I wanted to ask Brad. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, the 42 isn't relative to the 25. Meaning the 25 is your zoned height. There was never an actual height listed on the prior PUD, which meant they could have gone to any height for the appurtenances that would have gone on top. So it's probably more restrictive to add it the way they have than to leave it like it was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. MR. MULHERE: I have a couple of comments on Page 14. I'm sorry, I didn't know if any Planning Commission members -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple but I always wait. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: On Page 14, the -- I think we need to add the reference to the sidewalk setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is added. Except you need -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, the footnote. There's a footnote on the first column, the 20 foot. I think we missed the footnote there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first column? MR. MULHERE: On the front yard setback under cluster homes. If you go down to the 20 foot, there's a -- there needs to be a setback there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your reference for the footnote one needs to be cleaned up. Because the way it reads now is for any construction after, and parenthetical, the effective date of this ordinance is when that applies. But your terminology for any construction could mean a wide variety of things. So I would suggest you would change that for any building permit applications after the effective date of this ordinance. And you don't need to put it in parenthetical, because the effective date will be whatever date it's recorded. And that will clean that up and you've got a definitive date to go with and you're no longer trying to define what construction may or may not be in the future. Does that work for you? MR. MULHERE: It works for us. I just want to make sure I --actually, the document is in Heidi's hands now, so I want to make sure. Did you get that, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For any building permit application after -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The effective date of this ordinance. The effective date of the ordinance -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the reason I put that in bracket is the intent was to actually fill that date in, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But the effective date is whatever it's recorded at. So it's going to be on the last page of the ordinance. So, I mean, I'm not sure we need to wait and fill it in. Because even if -- if you fill -- you're going to have to fill it in with the date that's effective and it's not going to be effective till it's recorded. I'm not sure you'd want to do that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it's effective -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the same day. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- when it gets filed with the Secretary of State. Page 9 of 78 1612 A 7 October 20, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I would just leave it effective date of the ordinance. That works. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- MR. MUL14ERE: Also, we wanted to -- we suggest that we also add a footnote under the column at the bottom of the first column, floor area minimum. Just to be particularly I guess repetitive, but if someone could look here and then if we had a footnote that says R -2 -- the R -2 tract depicted on the master plan through hatching shall provide a minimum of 1,250 square feet. So we'd have it in both places that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- move on, I have a question. Back to guesthouse, once you brought it up. Would you have a problem putting in there on single - family lots? Because the way it's written, you could actually put guesthouses on multi - family lots larger than an acre. MR. MULHERE: I don't have a problem putting it in there. I think it refers back to the section of the LDC which I believe limits it to single - family. But that's -- okay. So let's just make sure we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guest houses will be limited to single- family lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just, you know, put on -- MR. MULHERE: Accessory guest homes or single - family lots of one acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Guest homes on single - family lots one acre. MR. MULHERE: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else Pages 1 through 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think on Page 15 we have the same reference to the effective date of the ordinance and the word construction. Now there you've taken it out of the reference for number one. MR. MULHERE: It needs to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think you need to kind of make it like the one we just talked about. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on the two of them it would match up and it would be able to be read the same. Okay, Pages 16 through 20? Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 18. When you talk about the square footage of the commercial areas, can I ask, on the two areas that are there now what the acreage is for the southern one and what it is for the northern one? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We have that information? MR. McLEAN: Yeah. Matt McLean for the record. The Randall parcel on the corner where I've got the pen on the master plan is 8.7 acres. The NC at the corner of Oil Well Road is 14.14 acres. And the OC in the middle is 9.4 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the two make up the 22 acres that was originally in there? I didn't bring my calculator with me. MR. McLEAN: Yeah, 22.8 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I see that you kind of want to mix things around. Collier County is apparently now allowing this, because if it were a DRI they kind of separate it. And you're saying office and commercial in the neighborhood commercial areas, and then you're also saying in the mixed use district. I happened to drive out there this weekend because I just wanted to see what it looked like. And other than the fact that Oil Well Road is a mess, there's nothing out there. MR. MULHERE: You mean because it's under construction? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. And I found out how long it's going to take to finish it. It's going to be a year before it's done. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, improvements take time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I lived on hnmokalee Road. In this, when I was reading through the original agreement, it said that the shops were supposed to be, just a minute, in the vested area. In the vested area the size of the parcel should be no smaller than two and a quarter acres Page 10 of 78 4 1612 A 7 October 20, 2011 and no larger than five acres. And I notice the only thing out there is E's Convenient Store. And county records show that's 1.91 acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I really don't know what you're referring to. I couldn't even answer your question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We, because in this they were selling the lots. Like if you sold it to CVS, I mean, that's how this was being constructed, each one was buying their own on the 22 acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this what you're still planning to do? MR. MULHERE: No, not necessarily. I mean, somebody -- the developer could develop the commercial and own it, the developer could sell tracts in the commercial or to plat them, or the developer could sell an entire shopping center. Just like any other commercial. I'm not sure what you're referencing there, but to my knowledge there's no restriction such as that that applies to this property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'm referring to the vested areas. This is a very special project, and I'm referring to what the vested areas are, vested area one and vested area two. MR. MULHERE: But I'm unaware of any restrictions on the lot sizes that can be sold in the commercial. And nor has there been any legal issue raised with that, nor has staff raised an issue with that. I'm unaware of it. I mean, I'm happy to take a look at that, but I can't -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- answer your question because I really -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But this is what I'm reading on one part, and the other part is -- it just does not mix. That's it on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 16 through 20. Anybody else have any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16, a couple of things. And I guess the first one may be for Ray. They're silent on an accessory height, then it falls to the LDC; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the PUD is silent to a particular standard. The LDC would apply. Now, in regards to accessory structure height, I'm not sure that the LDC is specific, and we might need to provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall offhand without pulling up muni. code. So you guys want to peg accessory height in that table something to something? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, throw a number at us, see what it sounds like. I mean, you're basically looking at screen cages, aren't you? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what do you need for a screen cage, 15, 20 feet? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I've seen them a little bit higher than that, you know, on homes. You have a second story, people can walk out on the balcony under the screen enclosure. I'd say 25 feet for accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll make an addition to the table? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on your front yard setback under multi - family structures you have 20 feet. You failed to put a footnote three. I think that that would also need to be there where you have parcel boundaries. You're looking at -- you're protecting -- I mean, 20 feet to a parcel boundary is pretty close for a 60 -foot building. MR. MULHERE: I'm just trying to find where you're at, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 16. MR. MULHERE: Yep, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the last column, multi- family structures, I'm on the third line down, front yard setback, it says 20 feet. You have a footnote one. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm suggesting you put in a footnote three as well. That will at least get your Page 11 of 78 161 October 20, 2011 setback -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- comparable to what you build. On your maximum building height under multi- family structures, I believe this can only go on that one R -4 parcel in the new section that hasn't been built in yet; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why do you have the actual 25 feet more than the zoned? That's quite a spread. Was there a reason to go that far? Are you thinking of doing underground parking in which you'll then end up with really four stories? MR. MULHERE: Isn't that 15 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, you're right -- no -- yeah, you're right, 15 feet. Okay. Are you looking at underground parking for any of this? MR. MULHERE: No. We haven't even had a conversation about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so my add -- MR. MULHERE: 55 would probably work out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 15's okay. I just had a -- I was in a rush when I read this. I was thinking more of it being higher trying to put in an underground parking, and I thought that would -- at least we need to talk about it if that was the case. On Page 17, when you have a rear setback -- and I guess Ray, this is a question for you -- and it's half the sum of the building height, but you only got one building, so it's half the sum of that building then, right? MR. BELLOWS: Well, that would have to be interpreted that way, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure so that it --that's fine. That's what I want to confirm. Page 18 --1 think we went dead --there we go. I've got to talk a lot closer now. You have the 75,000 for the -- the way it reads is no single use in the NC district shall exceed 75,000 square feet of gross floor area. 75,000. What threshold do you think a big box is? I know what you're going to say to defend your position, but I'm just curious. MR. MULHERE: No, I'm thinking 100, minimally. Some are bigger than that. The reason we chose 75,000 is a grocery store could actually come in pretty close to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, similar to the -- I can't remember the exact language in the Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center, but it was similar circumstances, close by residential and things like that. Why don't -- would you consider looking at only one use may exceed 40,000 square feet and all the others have to be less than that? That would assure not a prolification of big boxes. Or is it -- MR. MULHERE: No, it's one may exceed 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a grocery store down at 75 or 80 or whatever it needs to be, that's fine. But that's what -- that's the item that goes -- because this is neighborhood commercial. You're not thinking of a Wal -Mart, are you? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And actually I think that the likelihood of the big box stores going in is probably much more feasible on the other PUD which doesn't have the kind of access that we have for neighborhood commercial, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to have an unlimited number of 75,000 square foot store seems kind of odd. MR. MULHERE: Maybe we can have that conversation. The suggestion is that we could live with only one use over 45,000 per NC parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But not to exceed 75 -- well, yeah, not to exceed 75. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would at least limit the amount of giant buildings you'll have out there that accommodate one use. I think that would be -- MR. MULHERE: 45,000, not to exceed 75,000. Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHWFER: Mark, question on that point. Page 12 of 78 1612A7 Y October 20, 2011 The use of the word use, could that be confusing? If you have multiple offices, do you add them all up and say that the office use exceeds 75? Or do you mean tenant, or -- MR. NIULHERE: Well, this only applies in the NC, so I don't think we'll have that much office use in there. In the OC we don't have that restriction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then use retail. So in other words, you add up all the retail uses, they can't exceed 75 -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- or do you mean one tenant, don't you? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Single tenants, use tenant. We could -- you know, I don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the building code use would be like I'm describing it. So if it doesn't confuse zoning, that's fine. But -- MR. MULHERE: I can look at the language that they used in the Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center PUD, but I think it's very, very similar to that in terms of how it's described as a single use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, for example, a big box could go in a smaller one. But if they put the garden center next to it -- I mean, somehow could they start considering that a different kind of use? MR. MULHERE: Not in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has to be owned by the same company and operated the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did you -- page -- okay, now we get into your commercial uses. MR. MULHERE: I had one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: One additional change. 5.A.02 where we -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? MR. MULHERE: Page 18, I'm sorry. Second paragraph, 5.A.02 where we've just been discussing those square footages and so on, so forth. It seems that needs a title, and I would suggest maximum density and intensity as the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Into your uses that you're suggesting for the neighborhood commercial, one of them that you have here is number six, bowling centers, indoor. You failed to put an SIC. It's 7933. MR. MUL1 ERE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven, miscellaneous business services, 7381. Because of the noise from dogs, do you mind excepting out dog rentals? MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that's odd, but that is in that code section and I'd hate to see someone walk in -- don't ask me what a dog rental is, but it's in there. So I could see someone use using that to keep dogs there and barking all day long and disturbing neighbors more than they've already been disturbed. MR. BELLOWS: What number is that under again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven. MR. MULHERE: So there's a specific SIC, or just no, it falls in the SIC Code as one of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 7381. Bob, if you disagree with me -- MR. MULHERE: No, we have no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- let me know. Because I've made mistakes. That's easy enough. On Page 20, number 14. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your last sentence, outdoor dining shall only be located between the commercial center and Immokalee Road. You mean commercial center buildings and Immokalee Road, don't you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they're going to be acting then as a buffer to keep that noise away from the residential. Under 21, health services, miscellaneous, 8092 to 8093. 8093 includes a series of uses. And I would suggest that you want to except out -- you did except out some uses in 8099 that follows, but I didn't see any -- Page 13 of 78 1612 October 20, 2011 MR. MULHERE: I think we intended to delete 8093 so that it should read 8092, either comma 8099 or /and 8099, limited to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest, yeah, 8092 and 8099, then limited to. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would resolve a lot of 8099 -- 8993's alcohol treatment and drug treatment centers and things like that, so -- okay, that takes us to Page 21 through 25. Anybody have any questions on those pages? Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 23, we were going to add a note, parcels of two or more frontages may be reduced one yard by 10 feet. Did you still want to add that or did you decide to leave that out? MR. MULHERE: No, I thought that we agreed to strike through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it became a problem last time because some of these parcels have three frontages. MR. MULHERE: So we just eliminated it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I do have one minor revision on Page 22. We neglected to or should probably have struck through, or at this point we couldn't -- there's nothing under the title development standards, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike through that title. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, strike through that. Because there's a table on the next page that contains the development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on Page 21. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 36. Did you intend to put freestanding liquor stores? MR. MUL14ERE: I don't think we had any discussion about deleting them. Though if the preference is that they be attached to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, usually they're attached to something else, pharmacy or a grocery store. The freestanding drugstores (sic) I'm not sure are the best idea. MR. MULHERE: Liquor stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Liquor stores, yeah. Drugstores, we'd eliminate half the commercial in Collier County if we eliminated drugstores. What you then would do is drop 5921 and go 5932 to 5963. That would be on number 36. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Drop 15 and 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 40, social services, including indivi -- I mean social services, individual and family. You have 8322 to 8399. And you except out homeless shelters and soup kitchens. There are other issues that may be concerning to the neighborhood. And some of those are the offender rehab, the offender self -help programs, the parole officers, probation officers, certain public welfare services. And I brought my SIC Code and it contains a whole litany of things that you might find in some neighborhoods. But I'm not sure all neighborhoods would want them there if they knew they had the opportunity to say no on a zoning application. I'll read 83 -- we're back to the 99's again. And if you recall, those are the ones that when we talked I told you would be the most concerning. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So we excluded homeless shelters and soup kitchens. What you're saying, there are other uses that we should want to consider excluding as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, under 8322 there's self -help organizations for alcoholics and gamblers, settlement homes -- which I'm not sure what that is -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, we'll just -- CHARWAN STRAIN: -- refugee services -- MR. MULHERE: We'll just exclude 40 in its entirety. Page 14 of 78 16 2 A7 October 20, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's not really neighborhood commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not. And that's why I was trying to make sure if you had it in there we at least took out everything that wasn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is just a general question. When you had your neighborhood meeting, did you discuss all these different areas that you were thinking of doing with the residents? Did they know anything about this? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I don't know that we specifically discussed every single use in our neighborhood meeting. Nor have I ever been to a neighborhood meeting where every use has been discussed. However, we did discuss what our intention was and we provided the documents. There's questions -- I mean, you know, it wasn't our intent to try to put a use in there that the neighborhood objects to. When we use the SIC Code, sometimes the uses are contained in the list that we have no intention of building, but there's just a long list. And we're very happy to strike through it. So, I mean, I don't -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I was just wondering if you brought it to the people. I see them shaking their heads no, that they had no idea of what was going to go in -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know that everybody was at that neighborhood information meeting. It was quite a few months ago. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one thing that happens at neighborhood informational meetings, the applicant has to talk about the uses. But unless the citizens come prepared with the SIC Code -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And they don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in this book -- well, no, and that's not -- it's hard to do that. I mean, who's going to know that the numbers that they're saying are in a book somewhere like this that describes what each use is. It's -- what I think this board should do is go through those things, which is what we're doing. I don't know if all the citizens would be expected to know all those answers. We're here to hopefully help them understand what it is being asked for and correct it through the public process. MR. MULHERE: What we did discuss was the square footage, the locations, the type -- generally the type of uses. Did we specifically discuss SIC Code 8322? No, we did not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that's not -- I just was wondering if this was really brought up at the neighborhood informational meeting. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. The changes that were going to include the commercial areas, the square footages, yes, those were discussed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 41, your telephone communications. I just want to make sure we're not sliding in any cell towers there. Do have any -- mind just say excluding communication towers? MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 43, vocational schools. Most of them are okay. There's one there that might be kind of awkward in a small neighborhood like this, it's called truck driving schools, 8249. So do you mind dropping out truck driving schools? I just don't think the roads could take it. MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 21 through 25. On Page 23, Bob -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm looking at -- okay, the footnote two. You have footnote two for the dumpsters are being set back 35 feet. And we have enclosure requirements and all that for dumpsters, so I know from a site perspective that isn't a problem. But from a distance perspective, I asked you to refer to the Golden Gate Shopping Center. Do you know what number was in there? Because we had those platted on a map, and that was one of the more contentious noise issues. And you guys were going to look at that to see the setback there. I just can't remember what it is. Page 15 of 78 161 2 October 20, 2011 MR. MULHERE: I did look at it. I'm sorry, give me a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if -- MR. MULHERE: I didn't bring that PUD with me. I did look at it. I -- here it is. Good. I'll see if I can find it. It might take a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can come back to that. Just before the discussion's over, if you could come back with an answer, one of you could look it up while we're talking about the other things, we could keep moving. On Page 25, use number 30. The second part of that, secretarial and court reporting services. Those court reporters have extremely wild parties. How we doing, Cherie'? Actually, number 26 was where I had a concern. The way you've labeled this, it's a principal use but you've tried to tie it to a -- not to be a standalone facility. It would be better if you listed it as an accessory use, because I would hate to see someone come arguing in that this could be a principal use because it's under the principal use category and tie it to a liquor store or whatever they want to say a physical fitness is part of. But since your intension is to have it as an accessory to something there, why don't we just make it an accessory use and keep it clear? Is that a MR. MULHERE: I don't even know, to be honest with you -- I'm just trying to think of a use that it would be accessory to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there was a guy in Fort Myers that built a building, and on the top he wanted to put a little place to run and work out. And maybe that -- I thought maybe that's what you're referring to. I don't know. But I just want to make sure that you're not looking at standalone in this office area, because that's a completely different use in office. MR. MULHERE: I think that was what the intent was, that it would be an accessory to a large office that the company wanted to have a fitness facility for its employees. And I don't mind putting it as an accessory. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us through Page 25. MR. MULHERE: Or maybe a bunch of smaller offices together would agree, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as long as it's an accessory, that gets it out of the ability to put it in as a principal use and take up office space, so -- Let's go to Pages 26 through 30, anybody have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One question on Page 29. MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item number 702.A.10. I had made a note that the word grounds was to be deleted from the last time you folks were here. Collier County Fairgrounds, that there was some issue regarding the entity that's out there. MR. MUL1 ERE: I'm looking to see if I had a note to that effect. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's in the community use district, and those are the uses that we were not making any changes to since we -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can't make changes to those because the property owner is not one of the people asking for a hearing today. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Slip of the pen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On Page 28, clubhouse. Is that already built? This is for the golf course. Is the clubhouse already built? MR. MULHERE: There is a clubhouse built. There is a clubhouse out there. I don't know -- I mean, Matt, you may want to talk to -- I don't know that it's -- MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, for the record. There is a clubhouse that currently exists out there for the golf course itself. However, it's more of a temporary type structure and the intent is one day to redevelop that. Right now it's basically a glorified trailer. Page 16 of 78 1612 A70ctober 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, it's just a temporary? Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through Page 30, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 26, the issue on the dumpsters, when you get that information, that needs to be corrected there as well. Or acknowledged, one way or the other. MR. MULHERE: We did find that, if you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What is the distance? MR. MULHERE: They've got a table and a footnote. And the footnote says, accessory uses such as fences, walls, dumpsters, so on, so forth, are not required to meet principal or accessory setbacks. However, they are subject to section 2.01.02 and a number of other sections of the LDC. So they're not even restricting the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they did get restricted on the site plan. They produced a site plan in which they showed the dumpsters. Those dumpsters were accepted as part of the site plan and the restriction was back to the inside of the parcel away from the homes to the north. MR. MULHERE: I don't have the site plan. But the 35 -foot, my thought there was we're going to have a landscape buffer with a wall that we're going to be building. And then you have a 35 -foot set -- and the dumpsters themselves are required to have a wall around it. So you sort of get double -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course you know that the problem with the dumpsters is not the dumpster itself or the wall, it's the trucks picking up the dumpster early in the morning and making the noise. So that's why it was so concerning in the Estates. The only thing I would suggest, Bob, is let's between now and consent we can resolve it, depending on what it says, so we can leave that one open. MR. MULHERE: Okay, we'll take a look at that master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McLEAN: For the record on that again --Matt McLean --I just want to note that within the NC district on Randall there's a current SDP approved that already has a dumpster location that's 35 feet off the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know you can put dumpsters --I mean, they can go towards the front of a parcel, because they are heavily landscaped. They're wrapped in a nice decorative wall, you don't even know they're there. But it also keeps the noise away from the residents. So if you can take a look at that, it might help. On Page 28, Item B, I'd suggest we change that language to the same language concerning building permit application and the effective date of the ordinance that we referred to in the tables. MR. MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 30? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- one other one. On Page 28, the one you're just on, you put in there number six, a maximum of two total permissible residential units for the management of the golf course. These are considered caretaker residences? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why is that in there? MR. MULHERE: Well, just so you're --take a look at it. You can see what's underlined. What already existed in this PUD was this following phrase: A maximum of two residential units in conjunction with the operation of the golf course. That's what existed. All we did is clarify that they are subject to the density, the total density count, and indicate that they're caretakers residences. I mean, so the allowance is already in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they are counted as residential units as part of the density. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next five pages are all pages that aren't part of the application today, they're all owned by other entities, so let's jump to Page 35 and we'll go 35 to 40, the next grouping. Does anybody have questions on 35 to 40? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 17 of 78 tz _ {W 1 b 1 2 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 40, Item No. 5, this concerns the construction of a CAT shelter. And you're specifying that -- the issue of a CO for commercial that exceeds 40,000 square feet. Is there any estimate -- may be an inappropriate question, but is there any estimate as to timing of that, when that might occur -- MR. MULHERE: There really isn't. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- in your plans? MR. MULHERE: But the need -- there's two things: One, the need really won't be there until you get some commercial for the stop. The only other alternative is if the county wants to construct it themselves and they come in and ask for it sooner than that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And just for clarification too, because that does refer to 40,000 square feet in the entire PUD, we already do have some existing, such as E's stores, and there are a couple that would count towards -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you know approximately how much? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- 40,000, the way this is written. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you approximately how much -- MR. MULHERE: How much exists? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. MR. MULHERE: How much? 6,000? E's. Sorry. MR. McLEAN: The current -- and again, Matt McLean. The current PUD annual monitoring report, the only current CO on there is E's. And that's approximately, you know, a couple thousand. 3,500. MR. MULHERE: So it would be, you know, as soon as we can attract -- get through this process and attract some commercial either tenants or purchasers and then, you know, hopefully the shopping -- the grocery store would be the first thing that would get built, and then we'd already trigger that and we'd have to provide it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 40? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- one on 35. And it was only an observation when I was reading this over. And it's number two under 10.2, the second one down, the multi - family dwelling units can be put in the mixed use structures. And I'm thinking wow, you have a high school on one side and you have schools on the other side. You really think multi- family will want to live between two schools? MR. MULHERE: I think you see it all over the place. Everywhere. Yeah, yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I mean, you can look at Immokalee Road, you can look at Pine Ridge Road. I mean, there are many examples of multi- family in close proximity to schools. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, one more, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We had a conversation the last meeting regarding the construction entrance and the possibility that you would be utilizing the additional access point off of Randall. Where was your construction entrance going to be? Or where is it? What are your plans for that? You're going to have two? MR. MULHERE: Thank you for raising that, because I think maybe we didn't address that, and that's -- I'm glad you brought that up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I had a note for it. MR. MULHERE: I think we intended to use the area where we would ultimately be improving a new access point. There's nobody living over there, so we would have minimal impacts that way. I think your suggestion was maybe we use Oil Well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Or both. MR. MULHERE: Or both. And I'm fine with limiting the construction traffic to either /or of those two locations. And that makes sense. We need to put that in as a condition, and we neglected to -- Page 18 of 78 r 16 �,2 A /October 20 2011 MR. McLEAN: Nick, for clarification on that, though, there are -- right now as you are aware there's only one access point coming into Valencia Golf and Country Club at -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. McLEAN: -- this location? And currently that is the access that's being used both for residences and as a construction entrance. And until such a time as development continues and this additional road is built out this direction to the east connecting back to Oil Well Road, or construction is built out to the connection out to future additional access point on Randall, you know, there's still homes to be built over here. And these homes are currently utilizing this particular access for construction and most likely will continue until such a time as these roads are built out that direction. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand. But what I wouldn't like to see -- I don't live there, but what I wouldn't like to see is construction starting in the new R -3 -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's what I was -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- area and still utilizing the existing construction road and hearing the words, well, you know, some day or when we get to it or there's not enough money. I've lived through a couple of those. And I think there needs to be some commitment as to at what point are you going to open up access for construction as you move to that R -3 construction area. MR. MULHERE: I think we can come up with some language, we'll have to bring it back to you, but that triggers when we would -- where the development -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You understand my point, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, conceivably you could use the existing entrance for all your construction and drive all that traffic, you know, around the development. And the other issue I would -- or the other question I would have is once you do have construction traffic coming in, and I assume you have some now, what is your security going to be with respect to those new entrances? Hours of operation, are you going to have some guard sitting there to be sure it's only construction, authorized construction vehicles, that type of thing? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would like some clarity on that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I think ultimately they'll be gated, but during the construction process -- I'll have to talk to my client, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I can tell you, that's where certain developments have had the most issues from the residents is the gate's open, who knows who is coming in and out of that gate, who's responsible to check. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I can appreciate that. There was one area where there was some security issues that my client already took care of by placing some rocks in the way. It's sort of a temporary condition. But we do need to look at that more specifically as it's associated with future construction traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still through Page 40 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 37. 1 would just -- the number H (sic), could you just please explain that? MR. MULHERE: Well, the sentence, the -- thank you for asking that. The first sentence is missing something. And I think it should read residential density is limited to a maximum of 3,150 residential units in the entire PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. MULHERE: So what it says is that this district may use any remaining residential units not used in other districts. So whatever is left over, if there is anything left over, can be used here. I mean, if it's going to be mixed use, it's still subject to that limitation. Page 19 of 78 x 16l,-2 A,? October 20, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is still subject to the development standards that apply to the type of product they put there. So if they put multi - family, the multi - family standards would apply to it. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. MR. MULHERE: I have one on 36. Just want to make sure that -- on number five at the top of the page on 36, all uses permitted in the NC district of this PUD. We had some folks in Waterways ask if we were going to be also subject to the applicable restrictions, such as hours of operation and those kinds of things. And just to be on the safe side, to give them a sense of comfort, I think if we after the word "PUD" put a comma and said: And subject to all applicable limitations and restrictions set forth therein. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And then the other one I had was in 10.03, development standards below, paragraph B, there's a reference to Section 5.A.03, which we struck through. So we think it should be just more general. It should say: The development standards for commercial only structures shall be as set forth in section 5.A -NC. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Where is that change, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Paragraph B on the same page, 36. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And how did you want it to read? MR. MULHERE: Strike through section 5.A.03, because we've already struck through that in the document, and replace that phrase with the phrase Section 5.A -NC district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The prior change of subject to all applicable limitations and restrictions, I'm going to have to take a look at that. Because I don't know if this language will apply just to hours of operation or if it will create confusion as to development standards. So I'm going to -- MR. MULHERE: Well, that's fine. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- have to take a look at that language and make sure it's clear enough. MR. MULHERE: I think the reason I --just so that there's some understanding, the reason I worded it that way, used the word applicable was that, for example, the one that deals with locating outdoor dining between Immokalee Road and the commercial buildings will not apply in the MU district. So there's one that is not applicable. I think that's the only one. I think all the other ones -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, see, that's what I mean, I need to look at it and see what does it means, and if it needs some clarification, we'll have to clarify it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I'll make a note. See, I think when we get to the consent we're probably going to have to reserve some approval at the consent process and then just vote not to have a further consent on those ones and settle them at that time, because there's some cleanup that's going to have to be done that may need some weighing in by this Board, based on your responses. And that may be one of them, so -- anybody else through Page 40? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have several. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on Page 36. Under C, conditional uses, the language is a little concerning the way the first sentence is phrased: The following uses are permissible as conditional uses. That seems to connotate that you can have them, you've just got to go through the process. And regardless, you're going to be able --they're permitted. I would rather make sure that they maybe allowed as conditional uses, subject to the process of the LDC. And that's just to make sure no one's going to hang a hat on saying well, see, they said they could be here. So -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so everybody knows, a conditional use is another use added to some others that are already there, but it only happens through an entire nother public process, similar to what you're seeing here today. So it's not one that's just given to them, they have to come in, have public meetings, have input and provide development standards that meet the needs of the area before it gets approved. At least theoretically that's how it's supposed to happen. On 10.03, Item D, distance between principal structures: None or a minimum of 10 feet with unobstructed Page 20 of 78 passage. 161 2A 7 October 20, 2011 How do you avoid massing? And massing has been an issue on a series of PUD's. It comes up anytime we have this language. We basically have put in limitations on how long a building can be. Do you have any concerns or any suggestions or have you looked at that? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing I think, we maybe missed that, because what we did elsewhere where we had that similar language I think was we said none or a minimum of ten feet. What we could add to that is for one -half the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't get your massing issue. MR. MULHERE: Well, the massing is something that's going to be addressed through the architectural standards. There's massing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, do the architectural standards limit the length of any one building? MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't limit the language, it just requires a setback or -- MR. MUL1 ERE: You've got to break it up. MR. BELLOWS: -- break up the relief of the sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You've got to break up the relief. So you could have a 1,000 foot long or 2000 foot building. All you got to do is have a two or three -foot panel popping out every now and then. MR. MUL14ERE: You're on distance between principal structures, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what brought the question. I'm sorry, you don't even have a section to describe the limitation of massing. MR. MULHERE: Well, let me add, you had brought this up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the depths aren't two, three feet, they're like 10 feet. I mean, it gets pretty big. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you comfortable with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was on a committee to work on it, so I'm a little prejudice that it works, but -- MR. MULHERE: We're limiting this -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I don't remember us ever limiting the length of a building. This isn't -- you know, and especially like when we get to the townhouses, we maybe should. But essentially the massing of the building in the architectural standards is to be broken up to prevent the look of one large massive building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those setbacks -- or those breakups are 10 feet in some cases? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can be. MR. BELLOWS: They can be, depending on the length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the longer the building, the more the breakup -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the depth of the breakup? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the size of it, the square footage too. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. E. This issue only becomes an issue when you get up close to the -- in the MU/U, you have a neck that goes up to the R -2 of Waterways. And that -- anything going in that area, whether it's the commercial which involves the retail uses and higher levels of noise and congestion, or if you were to put residential up there with the heights that you're asking for here, you're up closer to the existing homes in Waterways. What I would suggest is that anything in that panhandle or that neck from that east -west line north is reduced in height to two stories or 35 and 42, which is 35 feet and 42 actual. And that way you're limited -- that's basically what a single - family is -- heights are limited to. And that keeps Waterways secure in regards to what they could have close to them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll be okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somehow we need to make that -- MR. MULHERE: We'll either have to hatch it or somehow address it with a description of that area. Page 21 of 78 i 0_4 t passage. 161 2A 7 October 20, 2011 How do you avoid massing? And massing has been an issue on a series of PUD's. It comes up anytime we have this language. We basically have put in limitations on how long a building can be. Do you have any concerns or any suggestions or have you looked at that? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing I think, we maybe missed that, because what we did elsewhere where we had that similar language I think was we said none or a minimum of ten feet. What we could add to that is for one -half the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't get your massing issue. MR. MULHERE: Well, the massing is something that's going to be addressed through the architectural standards. There's massing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray, do the architectural standards limit the length of any one building? MR. BELLOWS: It doesn't limit the language, it just requires a setback or -- MR. MUL1 ERE: You've got to break it up. MR. BELLOWS: -- break up the relief of the sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You've got to break up the relief. So you could have a 1,000 foot long or 2000 foot building. All you got to do is have a two or three -foot panel popping out every now and then. MR. MUL14ERE: You're on distance between principal structures, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what brought the question. I'm sorry, you don't even have a section to describe the limitation of massing. MR. MULHERE: Well, let me add, you had brought this up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the depths aren't two, three feet, they're like 10 feet. I mean, it gets pretty big. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you comfortable with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was on a committee to work on it, so I'm a little prejudice that it works, but -- MR. MULHERE: We're limiting this -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I don't remember us ever limiting the length of a building. This isn't -- you know, and especially like when we get to the townhouses, we maybe should. But essentially the massing of the building in the architectural standards is to be broken up to prevent the look of one large massive building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those setbacks -- or those breakups are 10 feet in some cases? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can be. MR. BELLOWS: They can be, depending on the length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the longer the building, the more the breakup -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the depth of the breakup? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the size of it, the square footage too. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. E. This issue only becomes an issue when you get up close to the -- in the MU/U, you have a neck that goes up to the R -2 of Waterways. And that -- anything going in that area, whether it's the commercial which involves the retail uses and higher levels of noise and congestion, or if you were to put residential up there with the heights that you're asking for here, you're up closer to the existing homes in Waterways. What I would suggest is that anything in that panhandle or that neck from that east -west line north is reduced in height to two stories or 35 and 42, which is 35 feet and 42 actual. And that way you're limited -- that's basically what a single - family is -- heights are limited to. And that keeps Waterways secure in regards to what they could have close to them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll be okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somehow we need to make that -- MR. MULHERE: We'll either have to hatch it or somehow address it with a description of that area. Page 21 of 78 161 ZA7 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: So 35 with 42. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same height as a single - family, yeah. MR. MULHERE: Somewhere in here I saw, and I can't find it now, I'll try to find it between now and the next meeting, somewhere where it just said MU, it didn't have the slashed U. We were going to correct all those. I saw that there was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I pointed that out to you last time, yes, and you were going to get that. And that was one you missed, huh? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I missed one somewhere. I can't find it now though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 37, Bob, both numbers (sic) G and H have the following reference, and it's like the second sentence in G: This district may use any remaining retail personal use or office commercial square footage. And in the residential it says: This district may use any remaining residential units not used. Now, I believe your intention is to use these uses in the MU/U as you phase out the utility site that's there, or as the county takes it over and removes it. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you -- at the rate of build -out of this project, I mean, it's been there a long time, '85 till now, and the commercial that you've got on Immokalee Road, if you wait till all that's built out before you're allowed to build anything on the MU/U, you may find the MU/U vacant for years. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you understand by the way you've worded this -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the district may use any remaining -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest then that you can't do anything until the entire project's built out and that's the only piece left. MR. MULHERE: Okay, that wasn't the intent. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said yes. MR. MULHERE: No, I realize that it may -- you asked me if I realized it may be a long, long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know, yeah, it's going to be a long time, but do you really not want to touch that property until -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how do you determine what's remaining if the project isn't built out? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess -- that's a very good question because that wasn't the intent. The intent was that we're still limited. So that if that built out first, we could only use what's remaining. But if we built something in here sooner, it's still subject to that cap so it reduces what we can build elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just think you ought to rephrase that. Because I would think that when it says the district may use any remaining, someone's going to have to wait and see after you've built out what's remaining and then acknowledge that's the amount you can use there. Otherwise, how did -- where's the limitation on what can be put there and how much? MR. MULHERE: We probably don't even need that sentence in either case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I had -- MR. MULHERE: It's already accurate. It already applies that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already got the uses there, so why have it? I think that just -- both sentences probably could be -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And with that change, I'm going to have to reanalyze the residential portions to make sure that there's a sufficient cross - reference so they don't get it in both locations. So we don't exceed the overall density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? Page 22 of 78 161 2A 7 October 20 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Actually, in thinking of the architectural standards, do you think you'd be building solely multi- family? Because they don't apply to multi - family buildings, multi - family residential. MR. MULHERE: Within the MU district? I think there could be one or more freestanding multi - family buildings and some commercial in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the architectural standards don't apply to those, so -- MR. MULHERE: We're not going to build those things 1,000 foot long. I mean, we're going to build what the market's going to be attracted to. The kind of stuff that you see everywhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And every developer that comes in here says they're going to do that. And guess what? We've got some pretty ugly stuff out there. MR. MULHERE: Okay, but I'm not -- I'm unaware of any PUD that has a restriction on the length of the multi -- it's the setbacks and those other things, water management, parking, that's what restricts the buildable area. Once you've got a buildable area defined, we've never restricted that in multi - family. I mean, you've got setbacks, you've got parking, you've got water management, you've got landscape buffers. Once you've put all that into place, you've got a buildable area that's left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've brought it up before but we never have restricted, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did on that PUD on the corner of County Barn Road and Davis that ended up not going forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We put the maximum length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember that one down there? That was that -- I mean, went on for a long period of time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right, we did there, you're right. But this isn't -- I mean, this site isn't big enough -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's too small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to get in trouble. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do it there. You couldn't build it here that way if you wanted to. Okay, Page 38, that sentence that was -- the paragraph that was added on the top under 11.0 1, the last sentence, when the PUDR closed out -- is closed out, just a little grammatical thing. It's the only one I'll try to give you today. I don't like to get into that stuff at all, but it just seems so obvious. Let's read out that whole sentence, though. When the PUD is closed out, then the managing entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of the PUD commitments. And I would suggest we add: As long as all the commitments are completed. MR. MULHERE: I don't think that is necessarily true. I mean, I'll defer to Nick. Because the homeowners association may still have responsibilities, ongoing responsibilities for some commitments. It might be monitoring. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that I understand. I'm talking about like your traffic mitigation and all the things that developers are responsible for before he turns it over to the HOA. MR. MUL14ERE: That's part of what this -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You feel this covers your concern? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. Because the Board reviews close -out. So the Board of County Commissioners has the opportunity to decide when it's closed out. If there are commitments, they can note that at the close -out portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that works. We're still up to Page 40. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's give Cherie' a break, since she was so nice today. So let's come back at 10:35 after she has some time to rest her fingers. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Ray. Welcome back from our break, everyone. We left off on Page 40. We're taking five pages at a time. The next five pages have mostly to do with the utilities situation out there. It's through Page 45. Page 23 of 78 Octo 20, 2011 161 2 COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. McLean, are you in charge of utilities out there? MR. McLEAN: I'm certainly not in charge of utilities. However, as a civil engineering professional, we design those sorts of facilities, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you -- I assume that if this goes -- if this goes forward, that you have the capacity for everything? MR. McLEAN: Well, much like any other utility site, capacity is driven by the number of units that need to be served by that capacity. So for today's mechanism, the Orangetree Utility Plant, just like the Collier County Plant continues to upgrade and expand their particular parcels and networks to include additional units as they're ready to come on -line, that sort of thing. More like a concurrency issue, if you will. The particular Orangetree utility site today has the ability to continue to expand on its existing site of 28 acres to certainly service not only additional units and commercial it's asked for today here, but more of the greater area within that network. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And who are you servicing now besides Orangetree? MR. McLEAN: I actually have a utility service map, if you could just give me a quick second here. In general, to answer your question, Twin Eagles is within the Orangetree service area, Orange Blossom Ranch, the PUD adjacent to this. A couple of residents along 33rd Avenue, which is a connection between point Twin Eagles and the Orangetree PUD. That's the general for service area. But I'll get the service area maps and throw them up here for you so you can -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, no. I remember reading in the paper a while back, and this was quite a while back, that there were problems. Have those been fixed? Have you had any complaints, or are the people happy with the utilities out there? MS. SAUNDERS: Burt Saunders for the record. The utility -- there were some issues a couple of years ago. Those have all been corrected. There are an occasional complaint; typically it's a billing complaint, it's not a quality of service complaint. And in terms of the additional units in the additional commercial, you can't get a certificate of occupancy unless there's water and sewer service available. So that mechanism is in place to make sure that service is available for any units that are developed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. What is the capacity to date; do you know? MR. McLEAN: The current water capacity is 750 gallons a day. The current wastewater capacity is 600,000 gallons a day. Operational for those two numbers. However, the wastewater section of that is permitted for expansion, and it is currently under an expansion to go to 1.1 million gallons a day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 40 through 45. Does anybody else have any questions on those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 45 to 50? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I've got some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- cleanup questions. I'm not sure where they fall, and I haven't found references to these, which were changes that were provided to us at the last meeting, Mr. Saunders. And if they're in there, if these commitments are in there, just point me to them. And the first is limiting outdoor dining 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Is that specified in the PUD? MR. MULHERE: It is. It's under the neighborhood commercial district. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, I just missed it. And limiting the amplification devices as well? MR. MUL14ERE: Yes, that's also in there. It's on Page 20, paragraph 14. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. All right, very good. And then I'm just going to go back to construction. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, there were two outstanding, security and --I have the construction language I Page 24 of 78 1612 A% October 20, 2011 can offer, let me do that real quick. What we thought was that we'd put a condition under transportation, I assume. But it says, construction access road shall be developed on either or both of the future access points off Oil Well Road or Randall Boulevard. These construction access points will be used for the new construction tracts east of the existing access off of Randall Boulevard. So pretty much everything east of that existing access point. The existing Randall Boulevard access point will be used for completing infill parcels within the project not otherwise accessible, and predominantly to the west of the existing access point. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, a couple of questions then. And a resident approached me during break and he brought up a very good point. I understand that at this point that the maintenance of the internal roadways are the responsibility of the residents in some shape or form? MR. MULHERE: I don't know the answer to that. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you a -- they're not county roads, right? MR. MULHERE: They're private roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and they're not CD -- you're not a CDD, so you don't have your own municipality or you don't have an MSTU, which is special taxing district -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so yes, the HOA would have to be responsible for -- MR. MULHERE: But the question was the residents. And I think in some cases -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The residents are part of an HOA, aren't they? MR. MULHERE: No, I was only going to say, in some cases it's still the developer's responsibility, and in some cases it's not. That's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, on a pro rata basis. The concern being raised is you're going to have a certain amount of construction traffic over the internal roadway getting to that R -2 area that's -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- sort of isolated. And to the extent that that construction traffic causes damage to that roadway, can you folks make a commitment that it would be your responsibility to repair it? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And we'll see that the next time? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'll put that in -- I'll put that somewhere in this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I would also, going back to timing, I'd like to have more specificity here as to when you're going to open new construction access in terms of time. Like one month prior to the onset of any construction in the new areas -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I understand. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- east, or what? Because lacking a timing consideration, or timing commitment -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. Perhaps what we'd say is prior to the issuance of any building pen-nits for construction. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would help. MR. MULHERE: You know, in that area that we're describing, that the access points -- one or both of those access points will be available for construction traffic. But we can -- that's a good point. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The objective is just to minimize, then eliminate construction traffic off of that -- MR. MULHERE: Off of the new -- off of the main entrance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The existing access off of Randall and around through that new R -2. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. Page 25 of 78 ar 16 12A ? ober 20, 2011 That's it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Okay, we're on through Page 50. I guess I have a couple questions on Page 49. Since this is going to be the plan that gets recorded, the R -2 area to the west and the south side of Oil Well Road, I know that extends all the way over to where the R -3 abuts it. But the line of demarcation between R -2 and R -3 isn't really clear by following all those dots. It's not the map you have on here now, it's a little -- I don't know, if you look in our packet, when they record them, the dotted lines, they all kind of get to look similar. And I'm (sic) just wanted to suggest that you place the R -2 in more areas to the east so that we're sure how far the R -2 goes to the east, that's all. I had tried to track this -- MR. McLEAN: This area here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, over in those areas, yeah, to the left of that pencil. In those areas in there where you've -- over between the two GC's. But I suggest throw another R -2 or so in there so we know what parcels are. It will make it clearer for staff in the future. On that same map -- yeah, that's what I was asking about, Bob. On that same map you still show that interconnection to Orange Blossom Ranch. At the request of the residents who were in here before, that was a concern. I think it's certainly a valid concern for security purposes. Do you have a reason why you left it on there? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think that was requested by staff. And I think typically it's just to allow access to the commercial parcels without forcing people out onto the arterials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What commercial -- MR. MULHERE: That's not going to happen. Well, I know that's not going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to a residential parcel. Orange Blossom Ranch and that -- commercial is north of Oil Well Road. MR. MULHERE: We don't have a problem eliminating it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Nick's shaking his head no, it doesn't make a lot of -- let's just cross it out, then it solves another problem. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's just take the balance of the document, which is I think Pages 50 through 55 or -- most of it's a legal description. The last few pages are buffers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the Oil Well neighborhood commercial, the section you show goes through the eastern boundary. But the intent would be to have everything from the property line to the left of that also on the southern boundary. And maybe just note that there somewhere. MR. McLEAN: Yes, that is correct. The only difference is going to be once you start to turn down on the south side down there that you won't be on a right -of -way at that stage of the game. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I think maybe some note from the property line to the left, the little arrow, say on southern boundary. Because the people that are living there will be looking across the lake. They probably don't want to look into the -- just to make sure the wall and everything is there. MR. MULHERE: So let's make sure we understand, a note on this exhibit that indicates that it extends -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I think coming down, draw an arrow to the left and say add southern boundary or something. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on the last five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with Exhibit C. Sit down, Burt, I'm still trying to get Bob to answer questions. Sorry. Can you show me -- it would have probably helped if on the map we had indicated where the buffers were going to go. And I can understand the buffer says this one is for neighborhood commercial Randall landscape buffered to residential. Now, is that -- okay, so it's not the one along Randall Road, it's along the east side up against the residential. Page 26 of 78 161 2 A 70ctober 20, 2011 And the -- are the walls going to be used then in the entire buffer? You're not limiting them -- okay, so everywhere -- so there's not an option, you're definitely going -- MR. McLEAN: No, there's no option. There's a wall on the entire east, with the exception where the roadway guts through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, on the next exhibit it says the office commercial landscape buffer to residential. Now, on part of that parcel you have a right -of -way. Does that mean you're not putting the landscape buffer up there both at the entry -- I understand where the entry might have to access the parcel. But you have a road going to the back. See that internal loop road to the back of the OC parcel before you get to the residential? Go to the right. Right there. Right along that roadway, are you putting a buffer in? MR. McLEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which buffer? MR. McLEAN: The one with the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the buffer that reads landscape buffer to residential also runs along that roadway section? MR. McLEAN: Yeah, anywhere where it abuts up to that residential section, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that's contradictory. If you -- that OC -- MR. McLEAN: I understand your question. Yes, there's a difference between whether or not it's a lot versus whether or not it's a right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Is there a difference? Is there a difference in your scheme? So if the right -of -way is serving -- is part of the R -2 district, then the right -of -way gets the same buffer as though it was up against a residential? MR. MULHERE: Say yes. MR. McLEAN: Yes, that's the intent. The only question -- or clarification I got on there is the entry coming in there. There's not an intent to place it, a wall, through this section right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm more concerned about protecting the residential. MR. McLEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason the question came up is at our last meeting you were going to look at buffers and setbacks in one regards to residential versus roads. And I want to make sure there's no confusion. Your setback when you have a residential lot for your commercial buildings is greater than if your setback is up against a residentially district road. Okay. The last one is neighborhood commercial Oil Well landscape buffer to residential. What does that mean? That's only going to be where then? Where would that buffer go? MR. McLEAN: That buffer runs along the eastern side of the neighborhood commercial and then turns down the southern -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. McLEAN: -- section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you come back -- and the last one is the mixed use utility landscape buffer to residential. This one would only go along that north edge? MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. McLEAN: That's correct. The section that abuts up the Waterways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by letter, arrow or something just show on the master plan where these buffers are going to go? MR. McLEAN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: And label them according to what exhibit it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That way down in the future no one's got to guess what your intentions were. Okay. Well, that gets us through the PUD. Did you have -- I mean, we still have a lot of other -- I still have a list of questions to go through to make sure we're consistent with things that were raised at the last meeting, kind of what Phil was getting at, he still had some questions. Page 27 of 78 A7 1612 October 20, 2011 I don't know if you want me to bring those up now? Okay, there was an issue about recreation areas. And I heard from citizens last time that there wasn't enough rec areas, the rec areas that are there aren't being utilized. What are your intentions with additional rec areas in relationship to the additional densities that you're asking for? MR. MULHERE: I think we did put on the record at the last meeting that we would be building separate amenities in the new area, the area to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you didn't put -- you may have stated it, but as another attorney would say, if it isn't written down and recorded, it doesn't really carry weight. And that's -- we know other land use attorneys who have taken that position. So I want to -- I didn't see it anywhere in the documentation, nor did I see on the plan where you intended to put it. I did notice up in the far northeast corner, right there you've got an empty tract of land that could be utilized for a park, a tot lot, something. But I don't know what your intentions are, you don't cull stuff out. So we need to get that down on paper. You can do it next time if you want to bring it back. MR. MULHERE: We'll bring it back, we'll show the location. And if we need to add a specific condition, we can do that as part of the general commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the same time, I'm not sure if the rec area is going to be configured in a manner that it's also a park. Because you have different -- rec areas sometimes are buildings that are designated for club usage, for common areas for the community, and that may be a need. And there are also park areas that are needed for internal, like tot lots and things like that. Most PUD's come in with a -- they call them linear parks, different things -- I haven't seen any place down here so I don't know where you're planning to put them. Unless the SP is going to double as that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask. MR. MULHERE: So I think I heard what you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. MR. MULHERE: This is a design, a preliminary design of a recreation area. Matt, why don't you speak to the issues? There is some -- there are some open play areas on that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. McLEAN: This is a design area. And actually the location, Mark, which you identified that's up in this corner right here in that open area parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you labeled that as something to do to meet the needs that have been requested, it would probably go a long way to help explain how you're going to meet those needs. Because up until I asked the question, I didn't find that reference anywhere. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll do that. Future amenity site and park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but call it a recreation park facility, whatever you -- try to be a little -- the more descriptive you are, I would think the better it would provide the clarity you need for the residents there. So -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Crosswalks and safety at the new intersections on Oil Well Road. I know it's not your responsibility to install those, but I had asked transportation staff to provide us with any information they had on how they were going to make sure the kids that live in the south part of Orangetree safely cross the road to the north part. I understand there's been some concern out there with -- I actually met with the residents and they told me there was a concern. So how -- is anybody planning to address that, or how -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick. That question was not brought to my attention, so I wasn't prepared to answer that today. John is not here. But I can probably at the break look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the consent hearing could you -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- bring that information? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a lot of discussion about an additional HOA for the new area. And I think you said you're going to do that. Where in the document did you say you were going to do that? Page 28 of 78 4 1612A7 October 20, 2011 MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, we were under the impression from our last discussion that that type of commitment should not be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it shouldn't be. But I don't know what we can do to make sure that you do it. So I'm trying to figure out some way we can get the commitment -- in the past, and I think Olde Cypress was the prime example, we had the developer go back with the community, work out an agreement with the community and come back and everybody acknowledge they worked it all out. And it was outside the document but there was something else done to work out the point that there was going to be separate entities working on separate things within that community as a means to get through the process. Now, it's not a requirement, but you -- I thought you had said you were going to do that and I thought the residents had indicated they wanted it, so -- MS. SAUNDERS: Between now and the consent we will work with the community to come up with some binding document dealing with the additional homeowners associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The security points, we're going to address that between now and the time -- MR. SAUNDERS: I think we can address that right now, because obviously that's a very important item. And Mr. McLean can point out on the site plan locations for two internal gates. And I want to put on the record, I was a little concerned, and what gave us actually a great deal of concern was the statement from transportation that by putting the gates in there that would violate Growth Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 9.3, because it would negate the allowance for internal capture reductions in the Traffic Impact Study. If there is any reduction in internal capture, it would be diminimous at most. And so we feel that we can go ahead and put those gates in, with the understanding that it's not going to require us to do another Traffic Impact Study, it's not going to affect those calculations. And I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, are you comfortable with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And for the benefit of the owners here, you're trying to look at a project that is being retrofitted. And if this was a unified project, we would not recommend approval with all those kind of internal gates. But we recognize for your concerns that you're trying to protect yourself, so we have no issue with what you're trying to do with the developer to secure those gates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your two points of access, both of them are -- I'm wondering, I need to understand them. The one to the south. You have a gate off of Randall Boulevard right now. Now, that -- why wouldn't you put your black dot to the right of that T instead of to the left? Because the gating is supposed to be for the new section being created that many folks suggested why don't you just make it a new PUD, keep it separate? Although that's something that would be real difficult to do. MR. MUL1 ERE: Actually I think their concern is that they're not the access into -- access other than residents, guests and invited folks into their portion of this PUD. So they want those gates -- we're not the ones asking for the gates on the new portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that surprises me, because if there's a gate there which is to the east entrances to the R -2 section, there's no gates on the other sections, are there? Off of Oil Well and off of Immokalee? MR. MULHERE: They'll be a gate at any point -- if you think about it, there's two issues here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've only been -- the only gates I've -- the only place I've come through for that development is always to the south, so I'm not familiar with that -- MR. MULHERE: There is only one way right now, and that's that main entry, which is gated. There's a couple of issues. There's the overall issue of security. We're meeting with the residents; we're trying to work through those issues about, you know, how people make reservations to play on the public golf course. Those are just really operational issues that deal with security. As far as entry into the project, every external access point, point of ingress and egress, will be gated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't realize that. That's fine. Now, I understand then why -- okay, the dot to the north, those two cul -de -sacs that pull -- yeah, both of them are -- well, one's not a cul -de -sac. That connection point shouldn't be a T. You should move the T further to the east, I would think, yeah. That would make it a cleaner way to get to your gate without having a multiple intersection to deal Page 29 of 78 s October 20, 2011 with. Okay. Anyway, I have no problem now, understanding why it was chosen there. And I think if that's what you're putting on the record is where you're going to put the security, do it on your final master plan and we'll be in good shape. MS. SAUNDERS: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The absorption schedule. We talked about it before. And as we explained before, it would be one that would be an estimated absorption schedule, but it would be more for the use of the planning department to kind of make sure they stay in tune with the rate of development out there. So do you have any -- last time I thought we agreed you're going to provide one. Is that still something you don't have an objection to? MS. SAUNDERS: We don't have an objection to providing an absorption schedule, as long as it's a plan that's flexible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Bruce Anderson had the same problem, and he loved all that flexible language he added, so -- MS. SAUNDERS: So with that, we have no problem with the absorption schedule. And I'm not sure we have one that's been finalized. MR. MULHERE: Is that visible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So the current year would be 2011, and then you just add the years after that. And so that in five years you plan to put in some of the commercial, a few hundred more of the units and then that's how you're marching forward. Okay. Nick, does that work for your planning purposes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's informational only and not regulatory. That works for my planning purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you proposing that this go in the ordinance, or is this just going to be a supplemental sheet that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we do -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- provided in the backup? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we do Tuscany and the other one? Do you remember how that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it was supplemental -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was supplemental information only. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- I don't think we put it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all we're looking for. It's just a planning tool for Nick's offices. I mean, if they're in the document, they're written in such language it doesn't carry any weight anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am, go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a little comment on that. You're starting from ground zero again and you're adding the 15 years. I know it's not important to the developer, but the people out there bought into a lifestyle, and they also bought into a time as to when things were going to happen. And you're coming before us now and you are saying we're going to scrap everything and start now at -- right now you have 1,477 units. And you want to add 1,050 more; you brought it down 200. Can you -- you're 653 short already on your 2,100. Can you justify all these extra units? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess there's a couple of ways to define the term justify. Can we fit them on the site? Absolutely. Is there a market for them? Under the current conditions, no. Are we hopeful that the market will change sometime in the next, I don't know, two, three, four years? Yes, we're hopeful. If you're not prepared to respond to the market, you then have a three or four -year process to go through just to get able -- just to be able to go out and build. So we're a little bit ahead of what we anticipate the market to be turning around. And we're fortunate to be able to be in that position because my clients acquired this land a number of years ago. As a result, they're able to be in that position. A lot of other people would not be able to be in this position. So, I mean, to answer your question, we're really not starting from scratch. We've done the best job that we Page 30 of 78 v g G 16J 2A7 October 20, 2011 can to make sure that we are protecting the existing rights of all of the existing residents out there. And maybe we didn't do -- we didn't address all the issues up -front. We heard about them in public meetings, we heard about them here and we've been very responsive to that. So we're really not starting all over. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, the only reason I'm asking is because in looking over all these different papers, and we've got plenty of them to look over, going back to the vested area and everything, Bob, I also had found a letter that was for -- to Mr. Jordney (phonetic) at the Davidson Engineering back in 2002. And I know that they wanted this vested. They did not want to be a DRI. To be honest with you, they would have been better off being a DRI, I think. But back in 2002 they already wanted another 1,900 units to bring the total to 4,000. And they wanted another 280,000 square feet to bring it to 340,000 square feet as far as commercial. And at that time that would have constituted a DRI. And as it turns out -- this was in 2002, starting in 2003. As it turned out, what happened was they split the property and started Orange Blossom Ranch, which kind of took care of this. And they took the 1,600 units. And the 1,600 units at the time were just under the DRI threshold. They also got 200,000 square feet of commercial on 44 acres. People from -- which community -- Waterways were excited because of the fact that they thought the 200,000 square feet out there would give them their grocery store, something they want. This is what we're hearing from everybody out there. Now there's one at Ave Maria, and of course 951 is where most of the people come right now. Everything is grocery store, grocery store, grocery store. That was done in 2004. This is many years later, and nothing, not one piece, has turned over on that land at all. On your land the only thing is E's. I mean, there's been nothing. And this was during the good years when the market was going crazy. You did not come back -- and in the 2004 from the split it said you were going to come back in January and ask for about four or 500 more units. And Mr. Mudd said at the time, no, they're going to ask for 702 units so that the total will be 4,450,1 believe it was. I can see why the people out there are having a little bit of a heartburn, because of the fact that they were hoping a grocery store was going to be there early, like 2005, 2006. And the market was still going up, so they were happy to see that. The other thing is, these people bought into a special unit out there, which was a vested area, and in there it said that there would be a maximum of 2,100 homes. And so up until now when you're coming in for this PUD amendment, that was the same all the way through. So I can see where the people are upset. And it just turned out that they all happened to be single- family homes. Because I asked that question last time. Now you're trying to bring in another 1,050 and just add all kinds of multi- family and different units. You had that choice from'86 on, or'87 on, and you did not put in any multi- family. You did all single- family. And so people are -- I live in a single- family community and there are many advantages to it. So it's not all bad. But I can see where the people are upset, because all of a sudden you're changing everything in this last document. Because up until you brought this forward to us now, they only expected 2,100 units. And that 2,100 units was supposed to be in 2,800 acres. And when you split off the 616 acres and they got 1,600, that brought it to 3,700. 1 think the people inside Orangetree were happy because of the fact that theirs was still only limited to 2,100. And now you want to change everything in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure if that was a question or a statement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I mean, can you explain the need? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what this whole two days of process was. MS. SAUNDERS: I guess a couple points. First of all, in reference to the number of units, the overall density on the units that my client's going to be developing turns out to be about 1.5 units per acre, which is a relatively low density project, for an overall project. We've done everything we can to isolate the new development area from the existing area. And we've now got approval in terms of the security gates to continue that separation. In the areas that the developer can currently develop that are adjacent to the existing single - family units, we have assured the property owners there that they're going to continue to have single - family units there. We've limited the size to a minimum of 1,250 square feet. We've changed the zoning to R -2, which is consistent with what is there. We've eliminated car ports. So we've done everything we can to make sure that in the existing area there is total Page 31 of 78 161 2A 7OctobeJ20, 2011 compatibility with what is already there. In the new area there may very well be some multi - family. And there's nothing incompatible about having multi - family in a large development. You see it everywhere: Pelican Bay, pick a development, it's everywhere. There's nothing incompatible with that. In terms of the commercial, the two NC parcels and the OC parcel, those parcels are in a perfect location for commercial development. They're on Immokalee Road, they're on the other Oil Well and Randall. Those are perfect locations for commercial development for a grocery store and for other types of services that are important in those areas. Comparing that to Orange Blossom Ranch I think is comparing apples and oranges, if you will. I think that those parcels will be developed, there will be a grocery store there much more quickly. There are more rooftops out there. So I think that we've done everything we can to make sure that this new development area is compatible. Now, in reference to the DRI issue, we've got a letter from the Department of Community Affairs that indicates that this is not a DRI. And we've got staff recommendation of approval based on the Growth Management Plan in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And we've got plenty of information that we provided to you on the record that the maximum densities and intensities were not set in the settlement agreement. So there's nothing that we presented to you that is inconsistent with what the County Commission has done in the past and what can be permitted in this project. And so Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if that addresses the issues, but I think that we've tried to address -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you say that the Orange Blossom Ranch portion of it, which is a different unit, that they will get their grocery store much quicker? MS. SAUNDERS: No, I don't believe so. I think that as soon as this PUD is approved, assuming it is approved, I think that there will be tremendous interest in those two NC parcels for a grocery store. It's in a better location in terms of transportation, and there are more rooftops out there. But that's a market - driven issue, that's not an issue that we can control or even the Planning Commission can control. That's something that's driven by the market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Burt, we left off on going through the PUD and going through questions we have. Diane's questions. And then anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any more presentation you want to present right at this point? MS. SAUNDERS: No, I think that covers our presentation, Mr. Chairman. We'll listen to the public comments and then we may have some response to that. Bob, do you have anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is there a staff report, Ray, any further than the one that was presented last time? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, every -- yes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going to think I'm terrible, but I do have a couple of things here. I noticed when you went to put the -- in here you're saying that you're going to add 67 acres. You're going to increase agriculture district by adding 67 acres, from 131 to 198. The maps don't show that. Because what you did to send into the state for your letter, it shows -- which is August, 2009 when you sent it in for your letter, it shows agricultural as 67 acres. So how many acres are you really adding? MR. MUL14ERE: We're not adding any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you guys have the letter that she's talking about? Because we -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm just -- them. If you're asking them questions from something, you should at least make sure they got the same thing so you can get your answer accurately. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The acreage just doesn't add up. MR. MULHERE: I don't know what the letter was referring to, but the acreage that we cite, 198.3, is the Page 32 of 78 .t f 161 2 A 7 ctober 20, 2011 total amount of acres designated agriculture in this PUD. We're not adding anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same on the original? I'm going to pull it up right now. If it is, that would resolve the issue, I would think. MR. MULHERE: No, it's not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think the question is then what did you add to the 131 in ag. that wasn't on the original? MR. MULHERE: The question is about these acreages where there's a difference here than there was there. Like for example, 131 says approximate acreage of ag. But what we show is 198.3. MR. McLEAN: Yeah, to clarify that question, as we're going through this, there's 60 some plus acres of ag. lands that's effectively the canal section through here, the T canal section. It's not really necessarily developable, because it's effectively the stormwater management connection sections for within the overall PUD. Waterways drains out that way, the school boards drain out that way. And I believe -- I think you're referencing the DCA binding letter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I am. MR. McLEAN: I don't have that in front of me right here yet. But that DCA binding letter did not include trying to do any changes within that 63 acres of the ag. section in there through this piece. So -- MR. MULHERE: So when you add that T land to the 131, that gets you to 198. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any more questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray -- members of the public that would like to speak, we're going to start with those of you that are registered and submitted slips to Ray. However, when that's finished, anybody else that still wants to speak would more -- we'd like you to come up and let us know what you think. And at that time I'll call you up. We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes, although it's not a strict rule. And if you can avoid redundancy, that helps get the point across to us as well. Okay, Ray? And if the first speaker comes up to either one of the mics that's most convenient to you, that's fine. MR. BELLOWS: Troy Bish, to be followed by Kathleen Sullivan. MR. BISH: Good morning. I'm Troy Bish at 2212 Vardin Drive, Valencia Golf and Country Club. I'm requesting that -- would you mind if I were to move over where I can show you some things on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead, that's fine. Either one. MR. BISH: I just want to give you a little clarification if I could to make sure we're all on the same page. As far as Valencia Golf and Country Club, as the panel -- is the Board familiar with the exact outlay of our development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only to the extent of the documents provided for most of us. Some of us may have been out there. So by being exact, I'm not sure how to define that term. Where your house is, no. Where every other individuals live? No. MR. BISH: That's fine, you don't need to know mine is. MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Not yet. MR. BISH: That's right. Right now that's -- this is Valencia Golf and Country Club. This area right now is Phase I and 1I. This area over here is what we're talking about expanding to the new units, which was what we referred to as always Phase III and lV. When we bought in there, that's the terminology that was used. This is Phase III and 1V that will be developed in future single- family homes comparable to what we have now in Phase I and II. There's no interconnectability (sic) between Valencia Golf and Country Club and the next development, which is Vanderbilt Lakes. Totally separate communities. I wanted to make sure that you're clarified on that where this outlay's at. Couple things we were discussing, and we have met with the Orangetree PUD petitioner and his staff, and they've been very willing to at least sit down and talk with us, and we appreciate that. Page 33 of 78 161 2 "a ` y i Y Y October 20, 2011 Couple of issues that got resolved today was the interior security gates, which that's something we're excited to work with them on and put in place to see if we can come up to an agreeable resolution on that. The one issue we're still having a little bit of conflict with is the R -4 that they're still wanting to put in right here. Just more or less maybe a comfortability. We're not really sure what that final product's going to be or what it's going to look like. So we're still in question on that. We'd like to continue our discussions with them and maybe they can come to a better clarification on that. As you're aware of, the ones that have been in these last few meetings, we're still going through an HOA turnover, which is scheduled to happen November 9th where we will be forming our own board and we'll be able to have one voice when we come and speak in front of you and the County Board of Commissioners. At this point we don't have that. The one thing that was mentioned earlier that they agreed upon was in this off Double Eagle they talked about when -- they had 1,000 square foot minimum. When they came out to meet with us this last time, what we were requesting was a 1,500 square foot minimum along Double Eagle. Right now our smallest home in our development is 1,560 square feet, I believe. Goes up to 4,400 square feet. So we felt that was more compatible number is a minimum of 1,500. What they've agreed to with their petitioner is 1,250 square feet. So we're still at a little bit of a gap there as far as what we're comfortable with and what we're looking for to have as far as a minimum square footage. And I'll point to that area again. It's in this new tract that's going to be part of our HOA. That's going to be a separate HOA from this new development. Next thing I'd like to talk about is the timeline of this new development and their amenities and when they're going to be coming in. Right now in our community we have one pool, and that's by our clubhouse. And that's in this area right here, which is in front of the existing golf course pro shop. Behind our clubhouse is our pool. And what we were concerned about was if this new development comes in and they don't have amenities, that they're either going to be requesting to use our amenities or they're going to do it without our permission. So along with their agreement to put in amenities for their new development, I'm wondering if there can be some sort of attachment to after a certain amount of COs, after a certain amount of permits are pulled that there can be some sort of a timeline of when their amenities start to have to appear for that new development. The clubhouse lease, I want you to get a picture of this, because if you haven't been to our neighborhood. And I don't have an aerial view of our development. But where our clubhouse is is right past their Approach Road. As we come through the guard gate now we have around a 5,000 square foot clubhouse with a pool. What the petitioner has behind us is his private -- not his private, but his privately owned, which is the public golf course, which is a temporary double -wide sales trailer that he's using as a pro shop now. Which we've been told that they're going to be tearing that down at some point and putting up their own clubhouse. So within 100 yards from each other we're going to have dual clubhouses; our clubhouse for our association and then 100 yards away would be the clubhouse for the golf course, if that plan stays put. Just so -- and I'm just trying to give you an overall layout of what this development's looking like and what it's going to end up looking like. We're in a David and Goliath situation, and we're all speaking as individuals at this time. We do appreciate your Board and your panel and your expertise on this to help guide us through and make sure the clarification is done. Because a lot of this we're not familiar with the verbiage, we're not familiar with the one dot two's and the three dot O's, just like you were referring to earlier, Mark, about your -- the books that have those definitions in there. I doubt if any of us are really going to take the time to do that, so we do lean upon you as a board to help walk us through that and make sure that this final product is something that is a benefit to the residents, along with the petitioner, and that we can have a harmonious relationship in the future. So I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a couple of points. When we finish with public speakers, some of these will be asked of the applicant. One thing I wanted to point out, I just checked and the -- your R -2 area that you live in around the golf course isn't all built. Besides the piece that they're shaded in on this plan, sections of that piece to the west is cleared and the roads are put in, but no units are there. You do realize that any of those units could go in at 1,000 square feet. The current PUD is R -2, is 1,000 square feet minimum size unit. So by them going to 1,250, that seemed to be above what was even required on Page 34 of 78 1612A7 October 20, 2011 existing parcels. Am 1 wrong in that assumption? I know what they built. What they built was what the market dictated. But I just kind of wanted to make a note to you that if my reading of the original PUD is correct, they wouldn't have to do 1,250 anywhere else but that R -2 that's shaded in. Is that how you understand it? MS. BISHOP: No, it's not. I'd have to refer back to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe one of you guys from the applicant, can you tell me? MS. SAUNDERS: Under the current PUD, units could be as small as 750 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, R -2 detached -- MS. SAUNDERS: We had agreed to go to 1,000 at one point, and then we agreed to go to 1,250. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 13 of your PUD under development standards for R residential areas, it has R -2 detached. Is that the product that is in the current facility now? MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. I apologize, you're correct, it's 1,000 square feet now, and we're going to 1,250. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what I was trying to say to you is 1,000's all they've got to do on the areas that still are not built. By them going to 1,250,1 know you were wishing 1,500, that's still a lot better than what they've got to do under the current PUD for the remainder of those areas. So, I mean, I just wanted to point that out to you that the 1,250 is still a jump above the 1,000, so -- MR. BISH: And are you -- if you look at the map, are you referring to these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BISH: -- cul -de -sacs that are undeveloped at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those could all go in with 1,000 square foot units. MR. BISH: If that's the way it's worded, I guess that's the way it's worded. It's been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. MR. BISH: That would be extremely incompatible with the homes that are existing through here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I'm not saying you're wrong in what you're asking. I'm just trying to show you that the level of what they've gone to get to the 1,250 is a good level. I mean, it's better than it was. Because right now the remainder, they could do 1,250's in the R -2 that are shaded, and all that other area that's across the street could still go in at 1,000. Even you wouldn't like that, that's -- now, I don't know what they've got planned for there, but that's all they would have to do. So I kind of wanted to point it out to you. MR. BISH: Thank you. And what we would be asking for then is a minimum of 1,500 throughout the existing phases of I and II. These cul -de -sac lots that are undeveloped, they're already plotted for single - family homes, and this area here is what we're looking for. In the new R -2 of a minimum of 1,500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the new RD that wouldn't -- is all that that isn't platted. It would only be that shaded area. The platted areas you can go back and change the square footages on them, because they're already platted. But see the R -2 that's shaded down this side? That's the area that they're talking about, the 1,250. And where you're talking 1,500. MR. BISH: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, next speaker, please? MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Sullivan, to be followed by Barry Sullivan. MRS. SULLIVAN: My name is Kathleen Sullivan and I live at 1537 Birdie Drive. And I purchased my home just over a year ago in a single - family neighborhood. And I just wanted to say that since all this has come to light, I have realized a few things that I was never disclosed. I was a real estate agent for over 10 years, and I understand disclosure. And the Orangetree developers failed to disclose they own the lakes, they own the access roads, they own the drinking water, they own the sewage system. And they own the land our clubhouse is built on. And in my opinion, at a minimum, this demonstrates systematic bad behavior on the part of Orangetree. This behavior should not be rewarded by amending -- by approving this amendment. And I wanted -- I had a question, I don't know who to give it to, but my question is, are they going to split the existing entrance that we have now off of Randall Boulevard for this new area? It's quite a long entrance, and that was one of my questions. Page 35 of 78 1612 A 7 October 20, 2011 And the other question I had, if somebody could get back to me on, is they're multi - family homes. You said no carports. Will there be garages? Will there be parking lots? And that's pretty much -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, for your two questions -- up here, hi. I know the voice goes through these speakers, you never know where they're from. As far as the entrances go, they're showing a new entrance on Randall to the east. That's got to be approved yet, but that is one -- that's another entrance that is being shown. And as far as the carports, that was in reference to the R -2 shaded section on the plan, not the multi - family. So on the multi - family, that limitation doesn't necessarily apply. The multi - family occurs in the new area to the east. There's only one section of multi - family R -4 left on the property. It's narrowed down to a very small parcel compared to what it was. So, okay? MRS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just one question. Did you purchase a resale or did you purchase from the developer? MRS. SULLIVAN: I purchased from the developer. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Barry Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Barry Sullivan, and Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I will not repeat my objections that I already went through in my previous statement at the previous meeting of the Board. I would like to add that based on proposed changes to the amendment, I'm still very much opposed to the approval of this. The changes proposed by Orangetree do not mitigate the underlying concerns and as such would not justify surrendering our legitimate property rights and concerns as property owners. However, I will add that I have heard some discussion today about security and HOA issues that, depending on the outcome of those resolutions, we might be able to feel better about this and change our position. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, Tony Pezza. MR. PEZZA: Good morning, how are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Good. MR. PEZZA: I was disappointed that an evening meeting could not be arranged so that our large turnout of our HOA at our clubhouse could not be here today. I just find it kind of awkward that the Board cannot find time as to our nighttime schedule to address such an important issue as it is to us, so we have such few folks here. With 13 percent unemployment in Collier County, a lot of people feel the need to get to their job on a regular basis. I'm also equally disappointed that the Board has not felt it in their heart to grant us a continuance which we asked from the very start. Legal matters such as the verbiage in contracts that say whether it's 1,000 square feet or 1,250 square feet, what was the minimum, there's a lot of legal issues that as residents we really don't have the knowledge to stand here and protest and -- I always was a firm believer that someone should be granted the right to legal counsel, whether it's at a planning board meeting or whether it be in a court of law. And the fact that the Board did not grant us a continuance I think is sort of you're acting on our behalf as our attorney, but I think we'd feel more comfortable spending the money and hiring our own. And no insult, but I think we would feel more comfortable if we had our own counsel to look over these documents. And the fact that a continuance was not granted I think is a huge disadvantage to the residents of this community. I'm going to go back to the -- from the start. And when I moved in here, I did due diligence and I found out that -- I was under the impression that this once protected land, that there was a settlement agreement that capped this out at 2,100. Somebody tells me a judge put a stamp on a piece of paper and said that this is going to be capped out at 2,100 units, I took it to believe that that was the case, that capped out means capped out, that no further development could be added to it. So maybe I'm, you know, thinking from my North Jersey experiences, but I don't understand and I still don't understand how something like this cannot be changed or can be changed by commissioners or a planning board and not a judge. I'm just boggled at the fact that there's a settlement agreement that has been altered multiple Page 36 of 78 +� October 20, 2011 1612 times, as Diane had elated (sic) to. This went from one acre to a half acre and now it's down to multiple family dwellings. Well, then why did the judge put a stamp on this and approve this back in 1985? I don't understand that. So maybe if we have to -- you know, once we're organized a little better, then we might have to go and look at that route or avenue to find out what our legal responsibilities and rights are. You have to -- if we sound skeptical in front of these gentlemen, it's only because they have nobody to blame but themselves. We're in the process of a turnover and we find out just recently that their developer is turning over the association to us supposedly on the 9th after multiple waffling back and forth. But they're turning over an association to us that's over $100,000 in debt. So that's another issue that we find absolutely -- if we're skeptical and we come across as being coarse or callus, we didn't mean to inherit this kind of debt on an association. To me their developer did nothing more than keep the maintenance fees artificially low over a long period of time just to sell homes. And the attraction of a low maintenance fee was what sold homes. You get this, you get this, you get this, you get this, you get this. Well, the fact of the matter is that we are so far in debt that our fees immediately after the turnover are going to have to go up. And I think that should be brought out at this public meeting as far as our scepticism with Orangetree and their developer. Security issues I'd like to talk about. They did acknowledge the fact of gates. Well, we have a gate in the front of Approach, and I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, we have a gate that when it opens up, it takes a half an hour to close and probably 30 or 40 cars could go through. Of course I'm being facetious, but the gate is not a gate. It's not a gate that manually closes in between each car. And I would hope that any gates internally within our community are going to be gates that can be closed in between each and every vehicle and gates that will be adjusted as people come in and out of our community. The first speaker who spoke at 9:00, she had to go to work, this woman took a lot of time to be here for a three- minute sentence. And I hope you appreciate the fact that there's a lot of people missing work to come here and try to stand up for our community. There has to be, and I would guess, 3,000 clickers on residents, short sales, foreclosures, renters that are still out there. That the gate code has never been changed. There's clickers out there. And then when there's vandalism at a clubhouse, their security answer is to lock us out. If your son broke a window, are you going to lock him in his room for a month? They've locked us out for six months on property that we pay for, we maintain, and if we're one day late on an insurance payment, his contract said that he can take that land back. I had no idea. He's talking about disclosure. I had no idea that this land, our facilities are built on a leased property. Which brings up an interesting point. Is the new recreation facilities going to be a lease that people have to worry about? Is it going to be a lease /purchase? Is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, this is a zoning board. MR. PEZZA: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of the issues you just spoke about have nothing to do with issues we can be involved in. They're not zoning. MR. PEZZA: I understand that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but I'm just trying to let you know, you're trying to make points in regards to the issues you want to make. It's not within our jurisdiction. It's for another board, it certainly isn't ours. We can't MR. PEZZA: I understand it's not for your board, but it's interesting to find out why we're skeptical as residents of what has transpired since we have been in this community. Mr. Saunders stated -- we had a meeting at our clubhouse six weeks ago, and I want this on the record, that he stated that they would not be -- as the result of any new development in Phase II1, that there would not be any added assessments or impact fees. There was 150 people in the room that heard that statement, and I just want it on record. There seems to be -- Phil brought it up -- excuse me, I can't read your last name, but he brought it up and -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's Irish. MR. PEZZA: -- I would really like to somewhere on the record be -- the dates of this access road for the construction of Phase III be built prior to any permits being given out. We cannot have the construction vehicles coming in Approach. So that second road off of Randall east, the second entrance, if we could put some sort of a Page 37 of 78 s, p A ictobAO,2011 verbiage in writing that that road will be completed prior to any permits being given out, because then you're just going to have that many more construction vehicles coming in and out Approach, which is already a pretty heavy traveled road. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the audience like to speak, just come on up to the microphone one at a time. Andrew? MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Andrew McElwaine, speaking for myself today. I made The Conservancy's point last time. I won't reiterate them, they're on the record. There's been a lot of discussion about the old settlement agreement, and I just want to -- and in fact, it may be outside of a pure zoning issue, and so it may be ultimately be something that you decide is not correctly within your jurisdiction. However, I do want to put to bed some of the discussion about it. Because ultimately the old settlement agreement is a form of contract. And contracts can be broken, contracts can be ignored. And the only question then is who has rights under that contract, and what rights and how do they claim their rights. So under the old settlement agreement the first question would be are the individual homeowners either A, by virtue of being property owners successors to Golf American Corporation with rights under the old settlement agreement, or are they B, third -party beneficiaries with rights under the old settlement agreement which they can put forward? The next question of course would be was there any damage. Assuming they have any standing under either of those two cases, then the next question would be were any damages suffered as a result of not abiding with that old contract, that old settlement agreement. If so, can those damages be monetized in some way or a claim be asserted that a judge could act upon, such as -- I would suggest again, getting past the issue of standing, do the owners have standing. Then the next issue would be okay, diminution in property values, extra traffic, monetizing that time. How would you then give the judge something to rule on in terms of your damages or not having that contract followed? And of course another issue might be with Orange Blossom having been pulled out as a separate PUD, should that density -- do they have action already, given that that density was not deducted from the 2,100? So those are all judiciary questions that may not directly apply to the issue of zoning before you, but I do think you should have the full information on that, or at least the opinion and the opinion of several lawyers that have been consulted on this. And so if you're going to put the taxpayers' chips down on the roulette wheel, is it fixed in your favor, or as Clint Eastwood might say, do you feel lucky? Because if the homeowners don't have standing under the old settlement agreement, and if there are no damages that can be monetized, then the taxpayers are free and clear, they don't have to worry about these good people. If on the other hand they do have standing, they do have a legitimate claim and they can monetize it, then the taxpayers could be on the hook for some cash. So those are some things you need to be aware of. Again, they may not be specific to your zoning decision, and I understand that. There will be things that commissioners should know. And I expect at some point there will be a case filed under this to try and see if a judge could resolve those issues ahead of time and so that everybody knows what they're buying into here and we're not putting the taxpayers' chips down and spinning the wheel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andrew, you had raised the question to me once before on the settlement agreement. And I went through that agreement to -- MR. McELWAINE: You mentioned it the last time. I was listening. Page 38 of 78 161 October 20, 2011 CHAMCMAN STRAIN: Right. And the settlement agreement clearly refers to the exhibit that's attached as a document that is part of it. And that exhibit is the original PUD. The original PUD does provide for amendments to the PUD. Since the settlement agreement was enacted, there's been a series of binding letters issued, trying to define what is vested and how far the vesting can go within that settlement agreement. Then we had our GMP incorporate the settlement agreement by reference. In that reference it was incorporated into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I went through all that trying to figure out this cap that everybody seems to think is the cap, the 2,100 units. And I found just the opposite, that clearly it didn't -- it wasn't a cap, it was an amount that was vested as a cap. But above that, and let me read the language right from our GMP, and the GMP is what dictates this Board's actions: Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this district -- and the district and clause is the settlement area -- will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above referenced vested status. I need to understand what your argument is as to why you think that that vesting maximum becomes a maximum in contrast to the language that I just read. MR. McELWAINE: The question becomes really beyond what you've just read. It is an issue of state law regarding contract and common law regarding contract. And sure, you can amend a PUD. The question is, who does the amending? And if all the parties to the contract are not party to the amendment, then you're opening yourself up. So again, it's not a question -- and I understood, as you noticed I referenced at the outset, this may not be an issue for zoning. However, it is an issue of contract law. And contract law and 1,000 years of British common law have a higher legal standing than the Growth Management Plan. So again, I understand that you need to operate within the limits that the Board has given you, and you are justified in doing so. I think these issues do need to go before a judge, and I suspect they will be going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I appreciate it, Andrew. Next speaker, please? Sir, come on up. I'm sorry, he called everybody that was registered, so come on up. Heidi, did you want to comment on something? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know whether you want my comment or not, but the law -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always like your comments. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- does not support contract by zoning, and it does not support contracting what your zoning powers. So I'm really not concerned about the legal defensibility of going forward and exercising the the Board of County Commissioners exercising their zoning powers. So in making your determination today, you need to be looking at the criteria that our LDC looks at for PUD's and rezones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I was just trying to under -- I have a great respect for Andrew and the work he does and that's why I was trying desperately to understand his reasoning. I do understand his reasoning, but that doesn't change the perspective of this board in the sense that we have obligations that are dictated to us by the GMP and the LDC. And I understand those are what we have to go by. Okay, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. Howard Anderson, 1690 Double Eagle Trail, Valencia Country Club. First of all, I want to commend the panel committee. I didn't realize you guys were all volunteers, and you're doing a good job and I respect that, that you have to sit and listen to both sides of the story and make a good decision as to do what to do and what's in the best interest of the community, investors and the residents. I appreciate that. And I'm sure every one of you owns a house and you take pride in ownership. You did your due diligence when you purchased your house. You asked the questions that we spoke about earlier, you know, what is this neighborhood going to look like, what are we buying into. And we look at plats and we do all the things that everybody does when they want to buy a house. I'm a little concerned about the timing of this whole thing, to be honest with you. As you've heard from Troy, who isn't here right now, we're going through a change in homeowners association. With that it's been very difficult to get legal advice in some areas to understand what the limits are under a PUD, which I don't understand, versus what we have our rights of as residents, property owners of Valencia Country Club. Page 39 of 78 16 L A October 20, 2011 And I would urge the commission to put everything on hold until this gets done. Then we can come as a whole and try to understand it. But that may not be possible. We go back to the beginning of why did we buy in that neighborhood? You know, I think there's a lot of -- you brought up today, just now, I didn't even know this, but you had said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you -- I'm sorry, but you need a portable mic, because everything has to be on record, so Ray will get you one. MR. ANDERSON: You actually brought up a great point today. Our house is roughly somewhere -- our house is approximately right here, right across from the R -2. And that was a question. But when we went there, we asked questions of our realtor, of a developer, et cetera, what is this master plan community going to look like. And they explained to us that -- you know, they showed us the houses all were 1,500 square feet or above. This is Phase I and H. Phase III and IV they didn't really talk about. But now from what you had just told us, apparently the houses in this area that are undeveloped right now can be as small as 1,000 square feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. So who's held accountable for showing us, telling us what this community is going to look like and now all of a sudden be put under a PUD, quote, rezone and destroying the commonality of what the houses are now versus what the houses are going to -- well, multiple family homes or whatever it's going to look like. The last question I think I'll ask is on a statement today, and I think you had it, Mr. Saunders, I think you had right about -- yeah, right here. What is that going to be exactly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, you can't direct your questions to them. That is on -- MR. ANDERSON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, there's several different product that could go in there. But the difference between that parcel and the others is that one parcel could have what's called a multi - family product. The multi - families could go up to three stories. That's the biggest difference between it and most of the others. Everything else is limited to two stories. The density's a little higher, they could go a little smaller. But that's the only parcel that's unique with that classification. MR. ANDERSON: But in our last meeting that we had, did we not talk about -- I think he had wanted to put a hotel there originally? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not there. But they wanted to have 100 resort lodging units. Those have been eliminated. Those are no longer being -- that's no longer on the table. MR. ANDERSON: Then I'm missing something. It may be that somebody forgot to do it. On your announcement, advertised public hearings, under number nine, 100 units may be resort lodging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. When the advertisement's done, it's done for everything that would be possibly discussed at the meeting. Through the public process things do change, and hopefully they get to the better. I mean, if you look at the way the project started to where we are today, there's been a lot of changes. And that happens through the public process. But the advertisement, to let you know what could have happened there, and had you folks not shown up and objected to it and the developer not had any negative comments, he may have gotten 100 units in lodging. But the fact is, over the process in public that has evolved, those have been dropped. Those are no longer requested. MR. ANDERSON: Those are off the board then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. That's pretty much all I had to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your question about the use of 1,000 square feet, the lots around you are probably platted, so I think you're safe in the sense that they're platted at whatever they were intended to be. The piece across the street that could have been 1,000, they've agreed to do no less than 1,250. Now, they may do 15, they may do 2,000 square -- who knows? But the minimum there is better than the minimum surrounding you. MR. ANDERSON: Understood. But I guess what I'm asking both of -- for me to understand is you have Page 40 of 78 1612 October 20, 2011 Phase I and H, which included the ones off to the west that I show showed you. Those were never explained to us -- sorry, I'm looking at my wife on that one -- to us as being anything less than what we were shown by the builder /developer. In this case, it was D.R. Horton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, D. R. Horton's intention may have never (sic) to build less. But in reality a different owner or somebody else or they themselves could have built less if they desired to. What commitments they made to you we have no control over. MR. ANDERSON: No. But we have a contractural agreement, whether it's expressed or implied, that says this is what this community is going to look like. This is what everybody buys in a gated community, a true gated community. You're buying a lifestyle or a certain way. And now to be told in the middle of this, oh, well, I forgot to tell you, it will actually be 750 square feet. After you've laid down 250, 300, $600,000, and not even -- it's one year that we've lived there. And now all of a sudden we're finding out we can have homes that aren't even close to what we live in. That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And unfortunately that rule has been on the books since this PUD was written back in'85. MR. ANDERSON: Well, maybe they should be unwritten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. It's being changed. But I'm saying, it has been there a long time. It's been public record. Unfortunately most buyers don't know where to find those things when they buy a home and they rely on their realtors to tell them what -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, we went to the public records, that's why we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this was in public records. MR. ANDERSON: We did not see that zoning that small. That's my fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers? Ma'am, come on up. MS. MILNE: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Milne. I live on 1716 Birdie Drive. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please? MS. MILNE: Milne. M- I- L -N -E. I want to thank the Board for hearing us. At this point, though, I think that we are at your mercy to make a good decision as to how this could even be addressed at this time, seeing that the economy is in this position. Yes, things have changed. Some of us have paid over a half a million dollars for our homes who are -- we buy into a community that's single - family -- excuse me. I'm a little appalled at the changes that have been made. And it leaves us in a place where we're not able to respond to those changes. Excuse me. I will probably have to send a letter, because I have too many notes here now. I came with a sheet of paper and I now have about four sheets in front of me, addressing a lot of the changes that are made. I don't know how -- how do we rebut any of the changes that are made if we don't even understand them and we don't have the proper sources to find out this information? I called the zoning office this week. I spoke -- I called six numbers, and I just wanted to know the definition of the R -4 and what exactly might be on the dockets to be put there in that one spot that's designated R -4. And nobody could explain to me what the R -4 would mean. I am a licensed real estate agent. Don't sell homes presently. I'd like to sell my own. I don't know how you can build such a plan or even have thoughts of such a plan when there's -- I just found out the other day there's 69 people that aren't paying association dues, those of which we are going to have to carry the load and we don't have the money to do that. If there's 69 homes not paying dues, that means there's potentially 69 homes that may go into short sale or foreclosure. I can only wish the new developers good luck, because I don't know how you can proceed on developing places where there's 3,300 more residents coming in when we are in a position where we can't even do anything with our own homes. Irrelevant. That's my problem. Land use I guess is an issue. Land use is for highest and best interest. And it's for the community. I don't know where this is in our best interest, because it's conflicting with what we thought we had. Page 41 of 78 161 L A 7 October 20, 2011 As far as utility goes, the goods that are sold need to be put to good and -- it needs to be sold for a useful purpose. I don't see any use if what's there is not being sold. We have no control over what we even have at this point. Looking at the demand issue of it, demand is I thought an economical issue. It's either a desire or a need. We don't need it. This is somebody's desire. And it's not going to benefit the homeowners that are there presently. As far as value goes, that's determined by an appraiser. The county appraisers have already appraised our homes, half of what I paid for my home. I don't speak for anybody else. So if it's worth half of what I paid for it, the open market doesn't at this point need this community to grow in any way at this present time, I don't think. There's a lot of things that are (sic) been mentioned today, and I just jotted down some things. There's an issue with utilities, the roads, the drainage, the sidewalks. The ingress and egresses out of Oil Well Road, last I counted, it looked like nine arrows where there's ins and outs on that road. That road right now doesn't accommodate what's there now. There looks like three more arrows coming in where there's going to be more exits and entrances. I think another thing you need to take into consideration is there are three schools there, an elementary, a middle and a high school. I'm glad that I just sent my last one off to college, so I don't have to worry about the young ones. But I do have -- in consideration of the other children that are in that school, there's thousands of children in that school that are going to be crossing those roads and being transported on those roads that are now going to have construction vehicles once again going up and down. I own a home in Waterways, and I've been there since -- I've been in this neighborhood since 2001. We were supposed to get a Publix in 2002. The Publix thing is kind of hysterical at this point. There's been a Publix on our area, down on Wilson, the new Wilson thing, now on our corner. I'm going to be rambling here, now, I'm song. You have a commercial area zoned for commercial on the corner of Randall and Immokalee Road. As far as I see by the public maps CVS now owns that corner, and I may be incorrect, but it shows public record -- I think it's CVS owns that little point. And then Mr. Bolt owns the center part, and the bank owns the north end of that commercial area right there on that point. And I may stand to be corrected, I don't know, but where are we building all these things if there's only that little area in there? And that is also going to have to have an exit, and that exit, it showed an arrow going onto Immokalee Road. People that shop in there or going to be going to work in there won't exit that area if they had any common sense, because they could only go one way at that point. They will be using that Randall Road exit, which is going to cause another -- I don't even want to mention Randall Road, it was so under water yesterday from a little rain stonn that nobody could go past it anyway. So I don't know where all this building is going and who's coming in and who's buying. And I'm all for growth and management. I didn't come here to be set back the way I am. So I don't understand where the mentality is for growth at this point in time when the opportunity for growth was passed by. We're now in a downslide, and the market, if any economists are correct, and especially in our area, this isn't going to come back any time too soon. A lot of the people in the neighborhood bought without the knowledge of knowing that they needed to go to a public record. We buy thinking that the integrity of the builder is trustworthy, and it's been less than that. And I think that's an issue we have with the builder, so that's not your concern. But you need to go out to our community and see what we have there and where all this stuffs going, where all these amenities are going and all this extra stuff that's being added. We don't have the amenities that we were supposed to get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I need to ask you to start wrapping up, okay? MS. MILIAN: Yes, I will have to do this in writing. And I know that. I don't know where to start. I am all over the place with this. I have too many issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think we understand your point, so -- MS. MILIAN: And I'll end at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we appreciate it. Thank you. MS. MILNE: Thank you for allowing me to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Okay, I believe that -- anybody else wishing to speak? Sir? Two gentlemen, okay. Whatever one of you wants to come up. Page 42 of 78 161 ;A 7 t i October 20, 2011 Are we doing okay, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to wrap this up before we break for lunch. Were you sworn in, sir? MR. SEBOK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SEBOK: My name is Frank Sebok. I live on -- THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name, please? MR. SEBOK: S- E- B -O -K. I live on 2839 Orange Grove Trail. My only concern is that a lot of the residents /owners in our development are seasonal. And they not -- most of them are not -- I would say not aware of what's going on with that area and the area where they bought into. So if I could ask this board to postpone the decision to approve this PUD for the time being until all the people could be aware of what's going on and they can have their voices heard. So my -- that's the only reason I stand here, to ask you to please consider this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next gentleman, and our last speaker. Were you sworn in, sir? MR. DAVIDSON: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DAVIDSON: Robert Davidson. I'm not from New Jerry, I'm a Florida cracker. I live at 1444 Birdie Drive. And I'm one of the -- well, there's eight more houses being built on Birdie Drive. I'm at the end of the development before the cul -de -sacs and the other areas up and around that area. It's underdeveloped, but it's plotted out. I just want to make sure that those houses that are going to be built there are going to be single - family homes and they're comparable to the homes on the street already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on the map where that -- over by Ray that area in question? MR. DAVIDSON: Okay, right here is the road that is the one end of Birdie. And Birdie is a circle -- is a horseshoe kind of road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The zoning on those -- that area is still going to remain R -2. So it will be similar zoning to what you have now. As far as the size of the structures that are going to go there, they can put any structure in that the zoning allows and that they're platted for. And I just don't know what that is at this point. That's something outside the purview of this board. But your builder would build whatever size they want, as long as they don't go down below the minimum. MR. DAVIDSON: But wouldn't they have to be comparable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that is above the minimum is considered comparable. So if they've got a minimum of 750 or 1,000 square foot units now and they want to build 2,000's and 2,500's and then drop in 1,000, they can do that. MR. DAVIDSON: So they could have one type of architecture and a totally different kind of architecture? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. It's like you can a different color house. I mean, those are individual homes, so -- MR. DAVIDSON: Well, that's not what I bought into, but that's what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, most developments won't be developed like that. I don't know that any are. So there will be some -- there is consistency as put on it by the developer, but -- MR. DAVIDSON: I understand. So we could have another developer that develops the property. But they're all single - family, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to check your -- but whatever the -- I don't know what the -- usually when an area's platted, it has to be for similar product in regards to the use. MR. DAVIDSON: They're all platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you got a -- you can't like have a village split between multi - family and single- family. Usually if you have an area that's platted, the plat has to be all of the same use. Now, whether that use Page 43 of 78 r i' 12 A7 04 October 20, 2011 is the same size or not, that's outside our control. MR. DAVIDSON: All right. But the minimum at this point is 1,250? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the minimum in R -2 is 1,000. MR. DAVIDSON: They're requesting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Across the street in that one area of R -2, they're willing to go to 1,250. MR. DAVIDSON: Just in that one area in R -2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DAVIDSON: Okay. The other thing I'm concerned about is all the entranceways and when they're going to open the egress and exits and entrances. That's a very -- that's a big concern. Because if we're not given our security with gates, the construction crews can come in and out of there at will. So the concern is is the security in the gates. So that has to be in place before the construction takes place is my opinion. So if that could be addressed at the time, too. And the last thing that concerns me is the last R -4, the separation of that entity from the Valencia Golf and Country Club as it is now. It's not quite finished, but will be finished. The R -4 is a separate entity and that maintains that separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one single parcel is what they have for -- MR. DAVIDSON: But it will be annexed to that other development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's where it is on that plan. I mean, where it is is where it is. Ray, could you point to the R -4 on the plan so that the gentleman knows where that R -4 is going to go? MR. DAVIDSON: I know where that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the only piece of R -4 on the property. MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I'm concerned that it's not going to become part of our homeowners association and it become part of the new homeowners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that would be part -- all that area to the east will be part of the new homeowners. And that is something that's going to be worked out before this is settled. MR. DAVIDSON: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Okay, do you have any rebuttal comments, Burt or Bob or Matt or any of you guys? MS. SAUNDERS: No, I think that, you know, there are a couple of issues that we're going to have to address when we come back. But as far as the public comment and the comments from the Planning Commission, we're satisfied with where we are now, unless you have some questions of us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a quick question. And just for the public. Ray, the schedule on this thing, today a decision will be made. In two weeks or the first meeting in November it would come back for us for consent. So what is the schedule of decisions before the Board? MR. BELLOWS: BCC hearing date? MR. MULHERE: Is December 13th right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, December 13th it will be after their takeover date that it will go before the final decision - makers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this body just -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And that's a question I have for you, do you want to continue it and have the regular and consent heard at the same time at the next meeting, or are you going to -- because there's still a number of issues to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to bring those issues up to Burt in this discussion when everybody else finished. I was going to go through a list and see how it could be handled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been trying to take notes as we went through the document, Burt, and I was Page 44 of 78 161 2A7 October 20, 2011 trying to get some of the notes from the public. And we have about a half a dozen or so issues that I -- or maybe more that might need clarification. For example, the timing of when the construction entrance would be open for that R -3 section. We need to tie it to something. One suggestion was before any building permits were issued, it just needs to be done so that it gets tied to something in the document. MS. SAUNDERS: And we'll bring back something that does just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There needs to be a note added to the -- about the setback for the MU /U in regards to the Waterways site. These are just things that aren't on the plan. I still have a whole list of things that we've still already noted. Discussion on the crosswalks, I think staffs going to provide us with that to make sure that there's some opportunity to make sure the crosswalks are going to be installed like they need to be. The timing of the new recreation and park area. I think you showed us a schematic of it to the northeast corner. We need to get the timing nailed down on when that's going to be built. MS. SAUNDERS: We have no problem with the location. We may have a little bit of an issue in terms of timing. We'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, I'm not asking you for an answer now. I'm suggesting these things need to to get resolved yet. The security points that you added, we need a timing on those as well. They need to be refined and put on the master plan. Heidi's going to clarify Section 10.03.13. There's going to be language added for construction damage to the road system. The construction access. The location of the recreation areas, the location of the internal gates. To resolve additional HOA issues. You were going to do that and come back with an issue for that for the next meeting. And the other thing I wanted to suggest is your R -4 is still a stickler. It's kind of like a thorn that sits on this plan. And it has from day one. It is probably one of the most incompatible remaining issues to deal with. If that were to go to an R -3, it would probably make the plan a lot better, especially since everything you're then doing is compatible to itself to the east of the developed portion of the project. MR. MUL14ERE: I'm listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just suggesting. I'm just providing you with information that --because I listened -- the folks have a lot of issues. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I just talked to Mr. Lowitz about that. He's agreeing to change that R -4 to an R -3 designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would go a long way to keep this project more compatible. MR. MULHERE: One thing we'll have to do is look at the MU district and either put a set of standards directly in there -- because we were referencing the R -4 standards. If that goes away -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just move them to the MU. Okay, you've got the same throat that I've got today. I'm having a hard time sometimes. Now, with all those issues in mind, I need to ask this panel what they feel is the best way to approach this. We could consider a motion today with direction and then reserve some of the issues for a final vote on consent. But that's not necessarily what we do on consent. Heidi, do you have any preferences from a legal perspective? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you're better off continuing it to the next meeting for a regular item. But you could do the regular and consent at the same meeting so that they don't lose their date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that might be a better way to go. Because I'd rather -- there are so many tweaks that need to be done to your master plan and finishing up. We've walked through a lot of language today. And while we've made notes of it, we haven't reiterated it again. And I think it would be a good idea to get all that in solid form and then close out everything at the next meeting. Is that going to work for you guys? MS. SAUNDERS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, that will be fine. We'll have -- so at the next meeting we'll do the clean -up and the consent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 45 of 78 1612A7 October 20, 2011 MR. SAUNDERS: -- at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move the consent to the -- we'll do them at the same meeting. Does that work for the Board? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just a comment or a question on protocol, though. Each of us takes our own notes, you all take your own notes. Today we plowed through page -by -page trying to recall what commitments or changes were agreed the prior meeting and then finally saying okay, they're there. It would help me personally, and I don't know if this is protocol or not. As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you all. I mean, you took the notes, you heard all the comments. I would like to see something that comes back next time that says here's the commitments, the change that we made. Here's the reference in the PUD where we made that commitment or changed the language. I mean, for me it would simplify it a great deal. MS. SAUNDERS: And just for clarification, are you talking about the new list of issues, not what we've already gone through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the best way, and it might be simpler said, just to do a red line version of the changes from this meeting to next. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, then that would help also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And see, the reason we don't have a red line version now is because the prior document was so badly marked up. But now we've got a more basic point we can do a red line for the next meeting of the changes between today's document and the next meeting's document. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We can. It's just when you do the red line comparison, because you have a strike - through and underlying document, it's going to throw everything off and might be confusing as to which is actually going to be struck through in the final -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just do everything in red. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For this meeting we did a handwritten visual aid. I don't know whether that was distributed. But what I can do is highlight in yellow the areas that were changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, anything that you're going to -- anything you change from today's meeting till the next, just do it in red. If you do a new strike- through, do it in red. If you do a new word, do it in red, if you do a new paragraph, do it in red. Everything in red will be new. We know what we looked at today. Any changes as a result of today's meeting and today's commitments done in red. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does every -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I'm fine with that. It's just that I look around and I say who's the official record keeper here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I have been for 10 years. I mean, I've got everything written down, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not that you make a mistake, Mark, but I'd like to see these guys in -- MS. SAUNDERS: This may give you some comfort. But the County Attorney's Office has control of the document. So any changes that are made are going to go through Heidi Ashton, not through us. We'll communicate obviously to make sure it gets in there, but they control the document. And so I think what we're suggesting is that the stuff that has been agreed upon that's in the document currently, that's not going to be redlined -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. MR. SAUNDERS: -- it's just the new things that we talked about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Very good. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And we'll do that. And it worked really well the last meeting with Mr. McLean getting his changes to me and me making mine as well. I think it did anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I would like to ask this panel for a motion on behalf of the Planning Commission to request a continuance to November 3rd. Page 46 of 78 16 1 A / Obiher 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER AHERN: I make a motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -0. Yes, sir? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, that motion contemplates that the regular hearing and the consent item will be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SAUNDERS: -- heard at the same time? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they will be. Okay, thank you all very much. We appreciate it. Members of the public, thank you for your time and coming out to us today. In the end, while we may not hit every issue, we're going to try to hit as many as we can. With that, we will take a one -hour lunch and will be back at 1:15 to pick up on the Watershed Management Plan. (Luncheon recess.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Welcome back everyone. * * *We are moving onto old business. Mark had to step away. Hopefully he'll be able to rejoin us. Mac, you're up for watershed. MR. HATCHER: Good afternoon. Mac Hatcher with Land Development Services Department. We've been to you all several times over this year to work you through the development of the Watershed Management Plans. We'd like to present the recommendations to you today to go forward and ask for your acceptance of the watershed plans and your recommendation on our proposed recommendations to go to the Board of County Commissioners. The purpose of the Watershed Management Plans is to protect water resources. We started the Watershed Management Plans as a self - imposed commitment in the Growth Management Plan. We also wanted to try and use this opportunity to help meet regulatory requirements and move forward with projects. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you lean in a little bit? MR. HATCHER: The findings of the watershed plans were that water quantity impacts were the most critical items. And also pollutant loads from nutrients from development is a concern. Collier County is a naturally integrated system. The basins that we're working with are there primarily because roads and development have divided up what was once a continuum of a basin. Restoration and protection must also be from a county -wide perspective. Page 47 of 78 % 1612A7 Y� i k} i October 20, 2011 So the consultants, after evaluating the existing conditions in the watershed in developing the updated basin model, evaluated alternatives to try and overcome the short- fallings of the system. And they proposed a series of prioritized projects -- or developed prioritized projects, and also some nonstructural alternatives. And I've got 13 recommendations to present to you all, and we can either get your approval as we go through the recommendations or at the end at you all's convenience. The first initiative is the structural projects that are proposed. And these projects have been scored. The values that were on the presentation that I sent to you all have been corrected, but it didn't change the listing of the projects. So these projects are identified to improve the water quantity discharges and also groundwater recharge and water quality. And I should also add that the proposal is for the projects to be implemented with existing stormwater management funds as they become available after we complete the L.A.S.I.P. projects. And they'll be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program and be brought back to you for a final approval as capital projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this chart you don't have the Corkscrew, even though it has such a high benefit to cost ratio. Is there any order on this chart or are you recommending that maybe the Corkscrew thing, while it does have a high ratio, could have a lesser priority? MR. HATCHER: There's a lesser priority because it's such a small project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mac, maybe if I could interrupt a second before we move on. I think we would like to take these one at a time. And for clarification purposes, Mac's correct, you're not authorizing a capital improvement. This is going to come back to you as part of the CIE when it does come forward. And Jerry Kurtz is working on a surface water master plan. So this is one component of a larger plan that's coming back before you as well too, prioritizing both capital improvements, maintenance and enhancement projects as well. So what we're looking for is if you reviewed the plan that you think these projects are consistent with what's in the plan for the benefit, as Mac has pointed out, for the watershed plans. But it's not like you're authorizing these to be incorporated in the CIE specifically in any order, just that the 10 highest projects or so that are within the Watershed Management Plan. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And if we can, just will everyone ask questions after the presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. I mean, we're going to go through this one -by -one? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well, he's just going through this presentation. Then we're going to go through the executive summary pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HATCHER: Well, we can do it either way. I mean, we can go through, I mean, and get the recommendation now or -- or at the end. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We don't want to make a recommendation until we're at the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you want the recommendation's line item, I think why don't we just discuss the line item, decide at the end of that our recommendation and then go to the next item. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine. Just keep going, Mac, we'll visit them one at a time. MR. HATCHER: Okay. The second initiative is the low impact development BMP's. These are proposed as an incentive program. And what we plan to do is relax LDC standards if low - impact development BMP's are proposed to improve water quality and recharge characteristics. And what we'll have to do is develop basically design standards for the BMP's and equate those to reductions in LDC commitments. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What is a BMP? For my benefit. MR. HATCHER: Best management practice. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks. MR. HATCHER: Okay, the third initiative is a stormwater retrofit program. And this is intended to upgrade with primarily LID BMP's on public stormwater systems. And the idea is to use stormwater funds again for grants or assistance from other state agencies to upgrade the existing facilities prior to their redevelopment. Page 48 of 78 161 2' ` • October 20, 2011 Okay, the fourth initiative is to change to a fee -based stormwater utility to change from an ad valorem collection of revenues to a fee that would be based on the stormwater design treatment that the existing facilities are having. And what we have to do is evaluate whether or not we can provide an incentive for facilities to upgrade based on an incentive and fee, and offset that without raising cost to the public as a whole. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you explain that a little bit more, the retrofit program? Providing incentive for existing facilities to be -- MR. HATCHER: Right, the retrofit program is to upgrade existing public facilities, stormwater treatment facilities, with LID type best management practices so that we can get increased recharge and better water quality treatment out of those public facilities prior to their redevelopment where those upgrades would be required. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So this is isolated to only public facilities? MR. HATCHER: Correct. It's being paid for with stormwater public funds. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that the bulk of your problem? I'm probably not explaining this right, but stormwater treatment takes many forms across the county, you know, and you have commercial facilities, you have public facilities, you have numerous developments and so forth that retain, perhaps not treat, but at least retain stormwater within their premises. So you're restricting this to the public facilities? MR. HATCHER: Right. We're restricting what we're proposing to fix with public funds to public facilities. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. I think what he's asking, Mac, and the way your slide reads, is consider 5 -A (phonetic) credited to businesses to incentivize retrofits. At that point we can encourage businesses -- if we go to a stormwater utility, they would get a lower fee if they said -- you know, if they go forward and retrofit their existing commercial lots. Inverted swales, rain gardens -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're really not talking residential stormwater retention and so forth, where you may have aging systems that don't do an adequate job. MR. HATCHER: The residential facilities that would be affected by this initiative would be existing developments. If a PUD wanted to upgrade their stormwater utility or their stormwater treatment system, we want to evaluate whether or not we could provide a break in cost in the stormwater utility fee that would be sufficient to incentivize private treatment systems to do upgrades on their own. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So it goes beyond public, it goes -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- beyond commercial. MR. HATCHER: Yes. MR. HATCHER: Right, the prior initiative would have been limited to public. This one would be open to everybody. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would think that the private is more of your problem than the commercial, but I'm probably just speculating there. MR. HATCHER: I suspect it's a much larger portion of the pie. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac, hold on one second. We were going to do questions at the end, but obviously there's more, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry, I thought we were going to do it one -by -one, but -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this side has to do it at the end and that side gets to do it one -by -one? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: They're breaking the rules. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We're rebels down here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we can go back. I mean, we can make it through to the end. I mean, I do have questions on the prior components too, so -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: As do I. So is everybody in agreement -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: -- to wait till the end? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. Page 49 of 78 F i S 1612 A? October 20, 2011 VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. HATCHER: Okay, the fifth initiative is flood protection standards. And these are ranked primarily at quantity of flow reductions and flood protection. It includes adjusting the base and discharge rates. And on this figure the basins that are highlighted in yellow are the basins that are proposed to be changed. It also would be to develop LDC changes that would require an assessment of the quantification of discharges on downstream properties and also to the floodplain. The sixth initiative is to modify the flood protection level of service standards. And what we would do here would be to evaluate the proposed changes where the flooding on the evacuation, arterial and neighborhood roads is assessed based on 10, 25 and 100 -year storm events. And if we can identify improvements and positive benefits of the new change, then we would come back with Growth Management Plan amendments to try and change the level of service standard away from the existing. The seventh initiative is the TDR program in Golden Gate. And what we're trying to do is incentivize TDR transfers from sensitive areas, either under receiving areas or some sort of cluster development. The idea is to improve recharge water quality and also habitat benefits. It's proposed to set up a citizen committee to work through the development of this TDR program to see whether or not it can be accomplished. The eighth initiative is a mitigation bank in Golden Gate Estates. And this is to incentivize mitigation within the Golden Gate basin. There's been a lot of issues with mitigation outside of the basin losing the functions of wetlands within the basin. You lose the stormwater treatment, the water quality treatment, also the recharge and floodplain protection when mitigation occurs in a mitigation bank outside of the basin. So this would be a pilot project to see if we could encourage in -basin mitigation. The next initiative would be to modify the operations of the water control structures to try and reduce the amount of base flow, the groundwater that's coming back into the canal system and contributing to the discharges to the estuaries. And what we would try and do would be to maximize the benefits from the operation of the operable weirs throughout this county. The tenth initiative is monitoring, the monitoring program. And what we want to do is try and refine the existing water quantity monitoring program to focus on improvements and impaired water quality areas, and also increase our understanding of runoff quality issues. We have kind of a lumped additional protection program. And what we're looking at here are the possibility of implementing recyclable water containment areas. These are temporary water storage, primarily in agricultural areas. So we want to evaluate the resource protective lands that were identified in a habitat assessment portion of the Watershed Management Plans in the rural fringe neutral areas and a couple of areas in the urban area, and evaluate whether or not the preservation standards that exist need to be altered. The certification of stormwater systems and maintenance is an existing policy in the Growth Management Plan. And the proposed program would be to use checklists that are being developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as part of their stormwater rule amendment process to ensure that the stormwater systems that have been constructed are continuing to function as they were permitted. And the last initiative is the Florida friendly fertilizer ordinance. It was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July the 26th. They directed us to develop an education component. Pollution Control Department is leading that effort. The training for commercial and institutional applicators will be provided by Greenscape Alliance. We've developed a web page and will continue to work on the education program. And that's what I have on the initiatives. And I guess will be happy to go back and go through questions. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, do you guys want to take this one part at a time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Go back to the first slide, Mac, on the projects and start there. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, questions on the prioritized projects? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You want to hear from the public speakers first? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well, we also have to go through the executive summary. Page 50 of 78 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: If anyone has any questions. And then public speakers. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All of it, you mean, or just volumes two and three where all these -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Volume one. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Volume one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm confused. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Volume two and three are the ones that have the structural and nonstructural VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But volume one is the summary that summarizes everything in the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think what Mac's asking you to do is the memorandum has the recommendations in it, one at a time. It's consistent what his presentation was. It might be appropriate just to hear from the speakers just in case they bring up some questions that you didn't have, before we ask staff to go through and ask that you approve them one at a time. I think it was our intent to use the memorandum as a guide for recommendations going forward to the BCC. It's consistent with his Power Point he presented to you. MR. HATCHER: We're asking you all to accept the plan, not necessarily approve it. If anybody has any corrections or changes, we'd love to have those comments. But we didn't intend to go through the plan again. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So any questions on number one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are we going to do speakers, or are we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I like Nick's idea. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would recommend -- they may provide input to the Commission that you may want to ask further questions on. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: First speaker we have is Judith Hushon, followed by Tim Nance. DR. HUSHON: Hi. I'm Judith Hushon. I'm chair of the EAC, but I wasn't here the day they voted on it. So I have a few points that I would like to see that didn't get in here. So that's why I'm kind of coming to you as another voice. There's a need for another type of regulatory action: An inclusion in the GMP of a need to review relevant water quality data and quantity data. I suggested seven years the first time. Then every five -year basis. In other words, go through this exercise, re -look at the numbers. How are we doing. It doesn't pay to do something once like a Watershed Management Plan; you have to have a cycle of review of Watershed Management Plans. So I'm asking that you would include a recommendation for cycle of review. I suggested seven years, because it will take it two years to get it through the first time and that would be five and then five more every five years. You could just make it every five years to start. But because we're going to have data coming out of monitoring programs, we do need to look at these in light of our past history and where we're trying to go. We need to see what's working and what's not. In addition, I would like to see the potential in the future to look at what would happen and what it would mean to our watershed management planning for a one -inch rise in sea level. That's something that I don't think is off the board here in South Florida. We live so close to the water, so much water. And -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hold on one second. There's smoke coming out of this thing. DR. HUSHON: Uh -oh. I'm not using that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Orangetree burnt it up. DR. HUSHON: I would also like to see a program to deal with anthropogenic copper. This is a problem in the developed part of the county. Anthropogenic meaning man - applied copper, not naturally occurring copper that occurs in the soil just because it was a copper containing soil. Copper has been applied to keep weeds from -- copper sulfate used to keep weeds from growing in ponds. This has led to a buildup in a lot of the developed area. This is -- a lot of this plan is dealing with the undeveloped parts of the county. But this copper would deal with the developed part of the county. In addition, I would like to be sure that under the LID program we include taking care of permeable surfaces. Right now our Land Development Code isn't good on that. And this is kind of in your area. But what happens is that we have permeable -- if we let people put in permeable surfaces, they should get Page 51 of 78 1b October 20, 2011 credit for that. And -- this is more interesting, I can tell. Anyway, they should have -- they get credit for their permeable surfaces. And right now we say that if you put in a driveway and you have a roof and you have whatever else you have, sidewalks, these are all impermeable surfaces. If you choose to use permeable pavers or something, permeable asphalt or something like that, you should get credit for that against how much you need to set aside in terms of wetlands and things like that. That's a telephone. That's somebody's telephone. Never mind. So you should get a credit. Initially I suggested a 25 percent credit. In other words, .25 would be -- you'd take one times the amount of the roof and the sidewalks and .25 times let's say they have the impermeable pavers on the driveway. Since then I've seen that other areas have used that .25 number. So that's just -- apparently it's a fairly good number. But this is something that would be in line with a lot of your work and what you see when you review the plans for projects and things and how much they have to set aside. This obviously has to be done together with South Florida Water Management District. But they are not opposed to this. Right now people are having trouble, because even if we were to let's say cut them a little slack in a meeting like this, South Florida Water Management District sets the rule, and no, you have to have the wetland mitigation for so much. This would could that wet -- could cut that wetland mitigation. And they'd be billing to do that. So I think this is something the county needs to do together with South Florida Water Management District. But I would see including it in the LDC as part of the LID things that are going to come in. Let's see. One other thing. I kind of agreed with you, Brad, and I had said this before, on number three, start a stormwater treatment system retrofit program. I would like to see that designed for both public and private where we somehow give some credit to communities that are willing to take on a retrofit program. It's important -- we've got a lot more private communities out there with the problem than we do public venues. And I would like to see this as something that we do for both sides. The problem is if we don't put it in here, it will get lost. I worry that, you know, this is a list of things are going to get checked off and they'll say well, we did all 14 or 13. And I would like to see it be 15 because I would like to see that come back every few years and re -look at the data. And then I would also like to see the one -inch rise in sea level and I would like to see the anthropogenic copper included. I had some other grammar things and some other minors, but those are my major ones. And we've been through this I guess it was 13 times. I didn't realize that, 13 meetings. And we commented a lot as it came through at the various times. There are still typos, there are still some misstatements, there are still some things like that in the reports. But we were asked to focus just on the staff recommendations. So these are my additions to the staff recommendations. The -- you also have ones from the EAC that did come through. And you have three of those at the bottom that you certainly can look at. He didn't go over those with you. And I don't have a final copy. Staff is to comment on conformance -- can I have -- thank you. Staff to review and comment on the conformance of the plan in the staff reports. This would help us. There's a figure, it's number 1 -40 in the manual, and that lays out areas that are environmentally sensitive. And if projects are occurring in those areas, we from a watershed management planning point of view, we'd like to know that they're in those areas, and we would like staff to kind of make us advised of that. Staff is to provide an annual update on the status and implementation of the plan. That's just what they've been doing. Which projects have been implemented. You had two lists of long lists of projects. Which ones have they started? Which ones have they finished? What else has been going on? Whether they've been doing anything in terms of education, in terms of best management plans. One of the areas that is going to take a fair amount to put into action is this number 12, the stormwater treatment system certification program. This is really focusing heavily on communities. And one of the things that we had asked was that they come up with a set of inspection standards so that when you inspect stormwater retention areas, you might have standards against which you would inspect these so that you could tell how well they are attaining good stormwater management. We have a concern that a lot of the stormwater retention areas, as built and -- maybe are not even as they Page 52 of 78 16 ` z A 70cto*r 20, 2011 were built. They are not today what they were designed to be. That 1.5 factor, you know, that comes in. We design for 1.5 retention area. They fill in both for muck and also from sides caving in. We get two problems occurring. And this leads to holding less water than they were originally designed to hold. This is looking at that what was once going on, our stormwater management ponds working for us in the communities. So that was going to be an issue. And staff is to begin the process of developing a low- impact development manual. That's your BMP's. We were talking best management practices for low impact development. And as part of that, you probably would also get some credits somehow. And this hasn't been worked out for doing low- impact developments or retrofitting low- impact developments. And we were going to start by encouraging the county to start in their projects the schools, are a good example. The county parks projects, things like that should definitely be looking at low - impact development, incorporating that into their design. So do you all have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. DR. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Judith, on the -- you said a seven -year review would be good? DR. HUSHON: For the first review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that something we should work into number 10, which is for their refining the existing programs? And then can we just incorporate that requirement into number 10? DR. HUSHON: You could, or you could just make it a separate requirement. Because it's going to go into the GMP if that happens. It would be a requirement that would hit the GMP requirement, you know, they do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd rather it be a GMP -- DR. 14USHON: Yeah, I would rather it be a separate number. But you could put it into that. I'm just -- I think it's really important that we do -- I mean, this is the whole assessment cycle thing. You don't want to have spent as much money as we have spent to do this once and then forget about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it might be the review might be broader if we didn't put it in 10. DR. HUSHON: That's what I was thinking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. What fear do you have with a one -inch sea level rise? I mean, what do you think that's going to show? DR. HUSHON: I don't know what it's going to show. We have -- there's a couple of issues. We have a drop in the -- right now in the level of our aquifers. If you have a rise in sea level, you have that coming in further. I could turn to somebody like Peter to give you a good explanation of that. But our biggest risk here is that water will contaminate aquifers, sea water will contaminate aquifers. You know, migrate in horizontally and contaminate them. We have two things going on: We have dropping aquifers right now, and we have -- if we raise -- you increase the pressure -- every time you raise sea level, you increase the pressure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other item, when we had the fertilizer hearings, one of the horrors of those hearings to me was, and it wasn't the fertilizer issue, was how people were treating the ponds, you know, that had the algae blooms and all that in there. DR. HUSHON: Well, that's the copper one that I brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one fellow, essentially what I think he said is that they put copper sulfate into the pond and killed not only everything in the pond but anything within six feet of the pond, what he told us. So wouldn't -- DR. HUSHON: They did a very strange application. Usually they go around and do a very targeted application. I'll just say this, if they're applying it. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the scary thing to me, I mean, that was more frightening than the fertilizer results. So shouldn't we not have a system of how to treat these ponds? I mean, shouldn't there be a best management practice? DR. HUSHON: Well, that's part of the dealing with anthropogenic -- actually, you could expand that. I have a dealing with anthropogenic copper which is the problem that we are left with, having dealt with ponds. But the issue is how do you manage ponds down in South Florida? Page 53 of 78 16L2 kZ b er 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With algae blooms, especially -- DR. HUSHON: How do you manage algae in ponds. And then the other half would be how do you manage the anthropogenic copper that is now in your ponds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do they -- DR. HUSHON: And copper is an element, once created doesn't go away. You know, it moves slowly with water as a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do they have the ability now to do anything they want to clean those ponds? DR. HUSHON: I think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, my God. DR.14USHON: But, you know, the thing is that if you actually scrape the bottom and you have used a lot of copper sulfate, you may have a hazardous waste. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. DR. 1 USHON: I don't know what -- I don't know the copper number to make a hazardous waste. But if you get it concentrated enough, you could actually create a hazardous waste. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't really the best thing is to add something that's a best management practice for, you know, the cleaning and maintaining of ponds? DR. HUSHON: Oh, I think that would be wonderful. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, Commissioner Schiffer, we just finished a stormwater guide with South Florida Water Management District, City of Naples, City of Marco. We're going to release it at the HOA meeting in draft format. It talks about pond maintenance. So we have a guide that's coming out in coordination with our partner agencies that talks about some BMP's for pond management. DR. HUSHON: Very important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we incorporate that guide into here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd be happy to do it. It's done so it's an easy -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. DR. HUSHON: I think that would be a good thing to put in here and then potentially to require its use through the land development codes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to get there. One of the comments I was going to save for the end is we are one and a half --when you say staff is in plural, it's pretty much Mac Hatcher. So Mac's got his job cutout for him till he retires by looking at these recommendations. So it's a challenge, but we're going to get there. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is this your way of pushing him to early retirement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In that brochure, the best management, are you allowed to put copper sulfate into a pond? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It talks about best management in terms of putting in littoral plantings, putting in aeration systems, putting in -- stopping fertilizer from getting to the ponds, you know, what you're doing. So there are things in there, but it doesn't specifically mention copper in the guide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we should do something as to what people can do, what boundaries they can work in once they have a pond that has an algae bloom in it. And anarchy shouldn't be the answer. MR. HATCHER: If I can interject just a few comments on copper sulfate. This problem I guess came to light primarily through analysis from the City of Naples. And Naples Bay has an identified copper issue. It occasionally is above state standards. We have found that there are a couple of canals that occasionally have water samples that are above state standards, but it's not routinely above state standards. Copper sulfate is a labeled algicide. And EPA and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have both recognized its use as an algicide. And it can be legally used and we cannot -- this is one of the areas that we're preempted from making rules. And the city tried to restrict the use of copper sulfate and were told by the Department of Ag. and Consumer Services that they didn't have the authority to do that. So we can have an educational program, we can do everything that we can within the county operations and stuff to limit the use of copper, but it would be very difficult for us to have a regulatory program of copper sulfate. Page 54 of 78 � i 4 ,r• A7October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I still think we need to regulate how you can clean your pond up and make recommendations. Because if they're killing the pond and killing everything within six feet of the pond, I can't believe -- I don't think you're allowed legally to put copper sulfate in septic tanks to clean roots and stuff out of them, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's not typical, just so you know. You've got an example, with thousands of stormwater ponds you've got one, so -- DR. 14USHON: Yeah, most of them don't end up with the six feet around. They usually spray it right on the algae. But it still is a concern. And I do know that when we get into this lake cleaning out, it's going to be a concern in that environment as well because of the copper levels. We're also going to have to go through with water levels, because we do have some non - attainment areas for copper in Naples Bay and some of these canals. So we will get hit with TMDL's and have to come up with practices for managing so we can decrease those levels. So this doesn't just go away because you say you can do it. It requires a reeducation. And I think that's what you were talking about, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I'm done, thanks. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aren't all the -- anybody that treats the lake, they're licensed and they can't do it otherwise, they have to be -- DR. 14USHON: Oh, they can be licensed applicators, because it's on the list of things you can use. You're a licensed applicator and you can use it. It's a question of whether the community decides that it's not the best way to manage their lake. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, that's one of the things in the guide, natural ways to manage your lake versus chemical ways. And it's what's in our guide. And we'll give you a copy of the guide. It's in draft form and it's going to the HOA next week. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But we can't dictate that you cannot -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. DR. HUSHON: No, but we do have to figure out how we're going to manage the copper problem, the anthropogenic copper problem, which we do have. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. DR. HUSHON: That's where it's coming out of. Okay, so you have my suggestions for where you can kind of push a little further on these, and I hope you do. Thanks. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thanks. Next? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tim Nance is our next speaker, followed by Jeremy Frantz. MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Tim Nance. Today I'm representing -- I'm speaking on behalf of the board of directors and members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I'd like to confine my remarks to those parts of the Watershed Management Plan which relate directly to the Golden Gate Estates area. And they are a very central portion of many of the elements of the Watershed Management Plan. The things that I'd like to specifically address are one of your major projects, which is on this list here, which is the top one, which is the North Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration project, how it relates to initiative number eight, the Golden Gate Estates -- formation of a Golden Gate Estates mitigation bank, and finally initiative number seven, which is the creation of a transfer of development rights program for the Golden Gate Estates area. I'm a little concerned mostly about number seven. And I think it's just a question of the language. I'm going to ask you to take specific action and recommendations today to straighten out what I think is a little bit of a misunderstanding. I would like to say first and foremost that working with Mac Hatcher and with Peter deGolian from PBS &J and now Atkins and members of this Commission has been an absolute pleasure on this. I know it's been like passing a kidney stone, it seems like we've been working on this for a year. But we've also worked very closely with Nick. Page 55 of 78 161 Z A 7 _A October 20, 2011 And Nick, I'd like to thank you also for this. Because I think this is very, very important for Golden Gate Estates. Because we really don't have any sort of a drainage program out there, and there's a lot of things that are coming together. Let me say this about what Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association requested and restated and discussed in our many meetings: The basic gist of our recommendations were for a density reduction program for Golden Gate Estates. We thought that density reduction in Golden Gate Estates, which would be accomplished in two different ways, number one, an incentive plan to encourage people to recombine non - conforming lots out there. I think everybody realized at the last minute a bunch of acre and a quarter lots were created in Golden Gate Estates, and a lot of them are in the eastern part of it. So we suggested come up with a concept to recombine those acre and a quarter lots. And secondly, create some sort of a development rights program of transfer to allow parcels to be acquired in Golden Gate Estates that relate to these different projects, which is a mitigation bank within Golden Gate Estates, where somebody could take a real wetlands parcel that nobody could use, get it in a mitigation program, allow somebody like Nick who has a road project to acquire those, meet the mitigation requirements and do some good within our basin. And secondly, if it was not going to be in direct mitigation like that, to have a transfer program where those development credits could be moved out of Golden Gate Estates into an area that's more appropriate for development, like urban infill or perhaps the rural fringe plan or something like that. In initiative number seven there's language that suggests that there be areas in Golden Gate Estates of increased density. That is what we object to very, very strongly. I would ask you directly to strike that language from the Watershed Management Plan. I don't want anybody ever to come back and say this is where the concept of increased density of Golden Gate Estates got started. That was never our intention. I'm afraid that's something that's been an outgrowth of thinking of a TDR program like we did for the rural fringe. I know that Mr. Mulhere participated in this process. He was the primary author of the transfer of development rights program in the fringe, and I don't want anybody to think that that's what Golden Gate Estates Area Civic proposed here or that's what we endorse in any way. We do not endorse creating receiving lands in Golden Gate Estates. We think it's wonderful to allow some of that density reduction, but what we had envisioned overall is kind of like what they have in Lee County, which is a density reduction groundwater recharge concept for Golden Gate Estates. Because we have 80 square miles right in the center of the county that is maintained by residents in a low density fashion that allows groundwater recharge, it allows watershed storage at absolutely no cost to the county. It's really a great resource if it's thought of in that way. But I really hope you will see fit to strike that language to suggest that there should be higher density in Golden Gate Estates. Because that is not what anybody intended or endorses in any way. I think if we get into an opportunity where we can develop a program, it should be fully vetted. I really endorse having the concept here, but I think to put any detail in it is very dangerous and misleading. So that's just what I wanted to say to you today. Does everybody -- does that make sense to you guys? I don't know if -- it's been a long process and I thank you for your indulgence. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. MR. NANCE: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jeremy Frantz. MR. FRANTZ: Hi. Jeremy Frantz, representing The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm actually here in support of the Watershed Management Plan today. We've worked with staff for quite some time. We've submitted pretty extensive comments. And as a result of some compromise, a lot of provisions have been made that we're pretty happy with, and we just want to recognize that staff and everybody that we've been involved with has been really helpful. We did have some recommendations that we were waiting to see final approval on at the last time it went to the EAC. Did just get an e -mail from Mac yesterday that assured us that we would see all those in the final updates, so we are happy with that. Page 56 of 78 16 12 A 7 a t October 20 2011 The only other issue that you might want to consider, and you haven't really discussed it yet so I don't know what you had in mind anyways, but the only other issue was the fertilizer ordinance. Mac stated that it was -- the state model was passed -- adopted by the BCC, and you might want to consider updating that recommendation, maybe for some clarification on the direction that the Board gave to get some legal clarification. I know that Mac has said that he's in the process of doing that, so I don't know what exactly would need to happen today or what you might want to happen today. But that's the only other issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. So yeah, the last time that we were at the EAC, we still did have concerns, and I think that it's pretty significant that at this point all of our concerns, all of our recommendations have been included as revisions or compromises have been made, and I just wanted to recognize that. Thank you. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. Mac? Okay, you guys, we're going to go through each one -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I just -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --and just ask questions as we go. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can -- Judy and Tim, can you give your recommendations to Mac so he has them all? I mean, all your recommendations that you spoke about today. DR. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question before we go through these. Mac, one of the problems that I thought the Golden Gate Estates had is that with all the road systems and a lot of the development is being done on fill pads and stuff like that. There's no recommendations to review how we're doing that, or does the stuff in the existing LDC essentially, you know, encouraging stem wall and stuff like that, cover that already? MR. HATCHER: We believe that the stem wall and those changes will keep things from getting worse. And the projects and the changes that we're proposing we think will keep the drainage from getting worse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. So in other words, we've covered that in the past couple of years with the LDC amendments that was requiring if you put a mound up you have to essentially replace the storage that that mound's displacing? MR. HATCHER: Right. And in addition to that, the second project, the North Belle Meade spreader and the third project are diversions from the North Golden Gate canal system into Rookery Bay to try and offset the quantity of water discharges problems that those two systems are suffering. And both of those projects should help to alleviate some of the flooding issues within Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Brad, just to follow up, we do have a fill pad code -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: -- so it does limit the amount of fill you can bring. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, requires you that any displacement, to replace it on your site, which is going to have a lot of holes in sites. Okay, I mean, I'm ready to make a motion on number one, if you'd like. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well, I think we're going to do it at the end altogether. Isn't that what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can do them -- if you think you're going to have separate motions or additions, you can do them one at a time and say one is fine. You know, if you'd like to do it that way, we're happy that we would know exactly -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: When you say one -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the recommendation. What I'd like to do, since we went through all the recommendations silently, I would like to personally go back one -by -one and maybe at that time we do vote on it. That way -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So number one is prioritize projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item number one here. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that all right? Page 57 of 78 �K 1612 A7 October 20, 2011 VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does the Board want to go through the executive summary, or are you comfortable sticking with the presentation? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have questions on -- noted on the executive summary. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I mean the -- no, I mean the full packet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, no. be this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we're asking you to take action on that's going to go to the Board is going to VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. But Mark wanted to review. He had a lot of questions -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, comments on -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: -- on -- right, on this specific. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So I'm asking if anyone else had questions on the actual report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To go through all the volumes of the report? VICE - CHAIRPERSON A14ERN: Just volume one, the executive summary assessment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not up to me. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, let's take number one, prioritized projects. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment there. Prioritized -- how would you attach this? I mean, here's the prioritized projects, but would you do nothing until you got enough money to do the highest payback or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Why don't you let me answer that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know, I mean, how can you argue with any of them? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Moneybags here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Mr. Lack of Money more than anything else. Right now your stormwater funds are all going towards L.A.S.I.P. This Board has seen an Annual Update and Inventory Report in the CIE recently. L.A.S.LP. carries you out to 2014, 2015. Recognizing L.A.S.I.P. is coming to an end, we're working on a surface water master plan, which incorporates these projects in this well too. They're going to include not only projects like these but maintenance projects in there as well. So Golden Gate City, replacing some of the outfalls and the corrugated pipe. We would bring these projects along with those maintenance projects or other expansion projects to the Planning Commission and the Board as part of the annual CIE. But at least they would be referenced from the Watershed Management Plans that these are projects that due to the studies are important for water quality, things like that. So as we can fund them, we bring them in. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I would assume then you'd also keep this in front of you as a target of opportunity if you had a project side -by -side with something, hey, let's grab this one off, even though it's not a big return. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I hope Jerry's listening. That's exactly our intent, is once they're adopted as projects come in near these and touch these -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You look at them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- we reference these, exactly. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So really, funding's driving it, notwithstanding opportunity. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. Not for about four or five years. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But then once they're approved as priorities, they're available for grants. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are. And that's another opportunity. Or coordination with private development or, you know, as we get maybe to a stormwater utility funding can come back into the program. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac, how are the scores determined? MR. HATCHER: They were determined through an evaluation of benefits and then a comparison with cost. So we derived -- we -- Adkins derived estimated benefits for water quality, for water quantity discharges to the estuaries, for recharge. And, let's see, oh, yeah, wetland hydrology improvements to habitat productivity. So each of those four areas, the benefits were estimated, combined and then compared with cost, then that's Page 58 of 78 ` 6. 16 � 2 A 7 Octoier 20, 2011 your cost per benefit. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So why is the Corkscrew with the highest benefit to cause ratio so far down? MR. HATCHER: Because it's such a small project. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: With a low cost you wouldn't want to do that first? MR. deGOLIAN: For the record, my name is Peter deGolian with Atkins. That project you're talking about, the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, what we're talking about there is a very -- it's a very small project, do a little bit of backfilling of ditches and things like that. And really all you're getting is a very small lift in wetland hydrology. It's not making any difference in the flows to the estuary, it's not changing groundwater recharge. We're really not getting much water quality benefit because it's in the Corkscrew Regional Watershed anyway and the cost is dirt cheap. So it's kind of artificially inflated at the way it calculates. So when we looked at it and started doing a logical assessment of not just the numerics, it didn't make sense to have to prioritize that as the number one project, because we're only focusing on one very small -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So the cost -- I'm sorry. The cost bumped it up to a higher. MR. deGOLIAN: Yes. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Number two, low impact development. Oh, you want to vote on it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, if you're comfortable, just nods and then we can finish up with one recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me ask a question on that. You gave us in a handout today a table with a different list. Which one should we -- and again, it is the Corkscrew that's the floater in there. Or we can do it without using the word priority. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd rather you just did that, adopt the projects as identified in the Watershed Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I move we forward recommendation number one with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, number one moves forward 7 -0. Low impact development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have some questions. Mac, what kind of -- when you're saying you're going to incentivize the relaxation of the LDC, what does that mean? MR. HATCHER: The LDC specifics that Atkins identified initially as targets was a reduction in parking aisle widths, parking space, dimensions a little bit, the dimensions of roads going into very low traffic areas. A reduction in the width of a road at the end of a cul -de -sac of just a couple feet makes a huge difference in terms of the amount of runoff that it generates. So if we can relax the standards there a little bit in some instances, we get a benefit from the amount of runoff that's created. And if we can incentivize then further benefits through LID type best management practices we can get a huge gain in water quality and water recharge benefits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is stormwater harvesting an LID type project, or is that -- MR. HATCHER: It certainly could be, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And could we somehow incentivize that or -- other codes are, but -- MR. HATCHER: Right. The details of what will be allowed and the standards that will be set all need to be Page 59 of 78 161w A 7 October 20, 2011 worked out in the future vetting of the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) MR. HATCHER: The details that Judy Hushon was speaking of in terms of how impervious and pervious areas are treated, those are details that would be worked out as we come to, you know, decisions on the standards. VICE - CHAIRPERSON Al ERN: Are you targeting just PUD's, larger developments, or is this going to apply to individual lots and single - family homes as well? MR. HATCHER: It was proposed in terms of the larger developments. However, we do currently review for impervious coverage, even for single - family residences. But when we do those reviews, the details that Judy was talking about, we get full credit for pervious pavement when we do those reviews. But this could be part of that as well, because if you exceed the impervious standards you do have to provide stormwater treatment, even on a single - family residential home. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But it's pretty difficult to hit that, isn't it? I mean, you have to have a lot of the pervious area. MR. HATCHER: You do, yeah. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: What kind of incentives could you offer for individual lots? MR. HATCHER: We could adjust that impervious cover standard that is set. And we certainly could allow for LID BMP's to be used as the mechanism for providing the treatment. And stormwater harvesting cisterns would be a terrific example of something that a single- family residence could do to meet a stormwater treatment standard. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. And do you have an idea on timing? MR. HATCHER: This would be one of our high priority projects. The EAC, this was one of their recommendations was that we develop that design manual. So I would hope within a year and a half, two years, if the Board recommends it. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Before you start implementing the requirement? MR. HATCHER: No, we were start working on it right away. But it would probably take a year and a half or two years to -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I mean before you were requiring people to meet. MR. HATCHER: Correct. Before we could get an LDC amendment, it would take at least a year and a half or two years. VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Because the concern of it being not identified, at least, you know, Nick and I have discussed, is that you're going to implement this and people are going to be required to meet these standards, but you're not going to have, you know, a cause neutral incentive available for them to use. So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think that's our goal. I think when we met internally and both with some of the industry folks, we recognize the environment. It needs to be cost incentive or cost neutral. I mean, some of the median landscape, when we talked about inverted swales, rain gardens on -site, single - family homes where you could retain the water on -site rather than discharging into the swales, these are things that we can put into the guide as well as, you know, what's not just a guide and references the BMP. It could be the LDC, but we've heard it loud and clear, they need to be cost neutral. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. Because most of these are not inexpensive. MR. HATCHER: Correct. And we've approached this from a standpoint of the incentive goes in to incentivize the use of the LID BMP. So you've got to have an incentive that offsets that BMP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This appendix 3.A that was in our information here in volume three, that would be the guideline for this -- MR. HATCHER: That's an initial -- right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This would be what you're working off of the -- MR. HATCHER: That would be our starting point. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? Page 60 of 78 .F $„ F 161-2 A-7 w October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion we forward recommendation number two with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, number two moves forward with a vote of 7 -0. Moving on to number three, stormwater retrofit program. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now, you're going to modify that to include private as well, Mac? MR. HATCHER: Well, we can, but we won't be proposing to use any public money on private facilities. suppose if we could get a grant or something like that we could incorporate that into a private facility, or private facilities could be incorporated into a grant project. Where I see private facilities coming into this would be if we could revise the stormwater utility to incentivize upgrades through that mechanism. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And that would be on projects going forward? MR. HATCHER: Right. And that would be on initiative four. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, not really. But Mac, couldn't -- in a private development somebody could take advantage of the prior one, the low- impact stuff as he -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- remodels or renovates his site. So that's where the private work would come in. MR. HATCHER: Right. That would be another incentive that would apply to a private facility. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward recommendation three with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, number three, stormwater retrofit moves forward 7 -0. Number four, fee -based stormwater utility. Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question I have, right now stormwater essentially is paid through our ad valorem taxes, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an equivalent transfer. It's not on your ad valorem tax roll. It's an equivalent of 1 mill that comes to stormwater. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you know how much goes to stormwater? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're thinking of taking that out and using that number to develop a fee system for the existing projects? Page 61 of 78 i6ifa October 20, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, yes. You get rid of that ad valorem and work with like almost -- it would be on your tax roll as a fee based on impervious. You know, but that's the stuff that has to be vetted and figured out to see if it makes sense. And that would be a heck of an encouragement for folks to do better on -site treatment than what we have right now if they paid more, because they'd have a heck of a lot more impervious or didn't have an optimal stormwater system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent there, so once you isolate it, people can privately reduce it by doing projects that reduce the stormwater. MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially somebody could completely go off the stormwater grid, so to speak, if they're that well designed. Maybe we don't have to do that. But the point is it's up to them if they don't like the number to reduce it. And they know where the nobody came from. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they'll know what to do. It's a good program. MR. EASTMAN: For the cost neutral utility fee, is this from a -- I guess at its smallest example, an individual homeowner, if this were enacted they would be subject to a fee going forward in the future, but they would see a reduction in their tax bill; is that what you mean by cost neutral? That's the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's -- MR. EASTMAN: -- ebb and flow amount? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the intent. MR. EASTMAN: How would this work with the school district, for example, that is exempt from ad valorem taxes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think right now you're exempt from taxes. And, you know, you do have a stormwater impact. But right now I don't think you pay into any funds for things like that. So, you know, we'd have to evaluate with the school system to see how it would change or if it wouldn't change. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And would the fee adjust based on property taxes? I mean, if they -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, if they're based on a stormwater utility fee, it would based on an impact that you have for impervious. I think that's what we talked about. And so it would not be based on ad valorem value, it would be based on what type of impervious you have. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So everyone would be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's going to be a lot of work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It doesn't matter what your house would be worth up or down, it's a base value for impervious. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's difficult. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Yeah, it's very difficult. Mac, I notice this on a lot of them, but a lot of them say evaluate benefits. What is your plan to do this in terms of timing? And if you're evaluating at this point, I mean, these are your recommendations, but you really don't know what's going to come out of these, whether it's a committee or however you're setting this up. MR. HATCHER: Well, until we do some sort of cost study we're not going to know whether or not we can provide a sufficient incentive to make it worthwhile for somebody to improve their stormwater system. So we need to do an evaluation based on what the current projections for what we're raising are, how that would break out, you know, individualized for properties, and then whether or not you could structure it such to be able to provide a meaningful incentive. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And if not, you're starting from square one to come up with another solution? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. I have a question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one question I have on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all right. Page 62 of 78 161 2 Act?ber 20, �2'�11 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that would cover all these recommendations, in view of you're the man. Have you prioritized your time in attacking the approved recommendations here? I mean, I see 13 recommendations to use your time, essentially. What do you do, throw them up on the wall and see if it sticks or do you have -- I'm not being facetious, Mac -- MR. HATCHER: I understand. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- you know, this -- you've got 10 hours in a day and where are you going to start? MR. HATCHER: We have not gone through any formal process yet. The Environmental Advisory Council identified the low- impact development, singled that out as a priority. Some of these issues are almost normal course of business. The water quality monitoring refinement will be part of how we handle working with the DEP and the Water Management District on TMDL assessments. So that's something that we're already currently doing for, all intents and purposes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: This might help for clarity. Let's make a presumption that the majority of these recommendations are approved but then as you go forward, you know, it would help in terms of the next review if you said -- these recommendations were approved and here's our plan, here's how we're going to spend staff time, you know, attacking these things. MR. HATCHER: Well, the other agreement that we made with the Environmental Advisory Council was that we would provide them with an implementation plan and a report of progress. So the implementation plan is planned for the presentation to the EAC, but it is not developed at this point in time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac, and I'm thinking more of an economic base here. If a home or a project could have similar stormwater loading yet one's a millionaire's house and one is somebody of a lesser income, how are you going to adjust for that? Because you really wouldn't want to -- even though they're -- they could have the exact same rating for stormwater, you know, generation yet the economic base of the owners or the value of the properties won't be even. Will that be a consideration or -- MR. HATCHER: Well, that's a consideration on the way that we collect fees currently. It's not anticipated to be part of the proposed fee base system. I mean, that would be limited to -- you know, your fee would be based on how much treatment you're providing or how much runoff you're creating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point I'm making, though, is two homes of different economic value where you are now getting different fees could have exactly the same stormwater runoff. Therefore, it's kind of a regressive tax on people if you're not -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Once it becomes a fee it has to have a nexus. And the value of property is not a nexus for a fee in the essence of it has to be an impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my concern, is that a millionaire's drops and the poor guy's rises. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But when you take what's right now currently a budget of less than $10 million and you spread it over Collier County by commercial and residential, these stormwater fees could be very, very small, relatively speaking. You know, that's our budget. So when you look at a cost neutral to begin with, the fear is that the program, when we do the study it will come out positive, let's do it, but the implementation cost will be prohibitive because you have to do an assessment of everything that's out there. So you can imagine, it's almost like doing an impervious appraisal on each property. That might be prohibited in itself to start it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But you see my point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the impervious appraisal for a rich man's house could be equal to a poor man's house and something unfair could happen there. So somehow stir that in the mix. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We will definitely be looking at that. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And your idea is to keep it the same as what they're paying currently on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the base level. I mean, I can't see us coming in and raising a lot more money. But that way as development grows your fee grows. Stormwater is similar to roads, you've increased your inventory and surface water systems, management systems. Yet in a down market you're collecting less to maintain more. If it was a user fee base it would be, you Page 63 of 78 t A 7 October 20, 2011 know, level. And that's what other communities have done and said that's the positive of having that user fee. It's stable based on your inventory, not based on ad valorem. We'd have to evaluate what that impact would be. But when you look at less than 10 million spread out over all of Collier County, I would imagine that's going to be a small portion of the tax bill, probably less than 10, 20, $30 on a residential, maybe more on commercial. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: What if it's three million to regulate it or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the problem. I think -- what we're going to find is I think they're going to say it's a great idea, but to implement it might cost you several million dollars, which would be the problem. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So that's what we're going to look at. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Anyone else on -- what are we on, number four? Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Well, the cost of our stormwater maintenance right now may be in the neighborhood of $10 million, but in the future with perhaps a rising ocean, and this would be long into the future, that cost could rise substantially. And that would be a greater number that you're talking about in terms of a collection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it would be based on that, Tom. I think, you know, you're getting into sea level rise or other issues, I think that would totally throw the fee out of whack. That would be a bigger problem. But I think we're looking at a cost neutral first time around. And again, I can't answer your question about schools. MR. EASTMAN: I'm just saying, on the first go this may look very negli -- as a very small impact, a very small fee. But once that course is set in motion and things change and the cost of stormwater management rises in the future, 40, 50, perhaps long time down the road, this cost and this structure, the fees could be very substantial, depending upon what mechanisms are needed to protect us from stonnwater. So even though it's cheap now, it may not necessarily be cheap in the future. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For whatever costs you'd incur in the future, you're going to have to pay for them one way or the another. I don't disagree. But someone will have to pay either way. We've looked at other communities that have done it and some have been very successful, it's just cost limitation has been our issue. MR. EASTMAN: Right. But tying back into Brad's point about potential for a regressive fee here, as it rose it would become more regressive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it will come back to us. We'll see. So I move we forward recommendation number four with a recommendation of approval, being sensitive to the economic value of the people's houses. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Fee -based stormwater utility moves forward with a vote of 7 -0. Number five, flood protection standards. Questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. How does this interact, interplay, conflict with the floodplain management plan, Mac? Which also speaks to the same issue here. MR. HATCHER: These would be mechanisms that would protect the floodplain from adverse impacts from the stormwater. From new or redesigned developments. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So this Item No. 5 speaks specifically to stormwater treatment system standards. And I think the floodplain management plan in terns of -- that was to prevent flooding of structures and Page 64 of 78 1612 October 20, 2011 that type of thing, primarily. MR. HATCHER: Yeah, the floodplain is a much broader analysis of different types of measures. Whereas these are three specific LDC amendments -- or ordinance amendments, I should say -- that could strengthen floodplain protection, as well as just plain -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So there's no conflict is what you're saying. MR. HATCHER: There's no conflict. They're complimentary. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac, would this help our community rating, our FEMA rating if we do manage this? We'll have to get Bob Wiley in here. So you think this would help. But the intent of this is -- MR. HATCHER: It would make small gains, yes. The floodplain compensation assurance of that would be a small gain and the discharge rate would be a small gain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the real intent of this is to get people who are developing projects to not at all effect the floodplain. In other words, the solution to all of these things is for development to keep their water to themselves. MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Don't waste water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go get some big diapers or something. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac, I notice this one doesn't say cost neutral. MR. HATCHER: It does not. The impact would be to the developer, and it would be an additional assessment that they would have to make in permit review process. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: When you say assessment, what do you -- MR. HATCHER: Study. They would need to model their stormwater discharge to ensure that they are not increasing the quantity of water flowing downstream to such that it would affect downstream properties or the floodplain. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is that something that you anticipate would generally happen? I mean, is this going to be a huge expense to make a development meet whatever requirements you're looking to put in place? MR. HATCHER: I wouldn't anticipate that it's a huge expense, but it would be an expense over their existing -- this is not a current requirement. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. And my concern is, I mean, we always say that it's a cost to the developer, but at the end of the day it's a cost to whomever buys the home, which is ultimately the taxpayer. So, you know, what kind of increase are we looking at is the concern. And then you'd also mentioned redesign, so -- any projects that are I guess redesigned, but -- are you going to have to retrofit some existing projects? MR. HATCHER: You wouldn't have to retrofit an existing project, but you might have to modify the stormwater treatment system to accommodate the discharge requirements. And the discharge rates are directly related to the canal capacity. If we start exceeding these discharge rates, then we are very likely to cause problems on downstream properties. MR. CASALANGUIDA: May I recommend that when we come back we give you what I'll call three typical examples, small, medium, large development, what do we cost based on recommendations. That way this commission can evaluate the cost of benefit of something like this. MR. HATCHER: Right. When the LDC amendments were developed, I'd have those answer. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And that's what the concern is, a lot of this stuff we're approving but we don't really have all the answers. MR. HATCHER: And that's why we're pointing out I guess over and over again that you're not approving the LDC amendment at this point, you're approving us going forward to work up the LDC and the analysis. MR. CASALANGUIDA: On things like where I think there's going to be an increase cost, maybe we can come back and just tell you what they think they might be before we spend a lot of time developing the LDC. Because that may be something this Board may want to consider and say, you know, we don't recommend going Page 65 of 78 1612 A17 October 20, 011 forward. I don't have a problem doing that -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- if you put that as a condition of approval. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion we forward recommendation number five with a recommendation of approval. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: With the conditions that Nick just stated? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not as worried about it maybe as you. Because when we do the LDC amendments, they all have a line for fiscal impact. And that is when we'll know what it is really is, don't you think? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, we bring LDC amendments forward sometimes with what I would say in very rough draft form with some costs to benefit to it before we actually take it through. I mean, that way you could at least get a chance to look at it before we spend a lot of time on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't think at this level we'd know the fiscal impact yet. It's the line that's usually left blank, by the way, but -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well, that's the concern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your call either way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we can, you know, insist upon it on these things. And that way they'll know specifically what that is. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, flood protection standard moves forward. Moving on to number six, modify flood protection level of service. Anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I guess are you intending to change these or -- I mean, because after the last couple of days it should be based on types of vehicles as to whether they can get into the neighborhood and stuff like that. MR. HATCHER: Well, this is one of the initiatives that will require further study. We need to evaluate how effective this different type of level of service standard will be in terms of both addressing flooding issues and whether it will allow us to better define areas that need to be improved. So this is very much an evaluation at this point, rather than a change in level of service standard. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: When we're saying again evaluate or as you said study, you're going to be doing all of that? MR. HATCHER: I would anticipate that I will need some assistance on this particular one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mac would be the project manager on it. But we would have teams that would work with him on like some of the transfer development rights, the basins. Some of these we would sub out with assistant contractors to help him. But ultimately this is on Mac's work list. He's going to have assistance, but he's the guy. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So when we're saying studies, we're not going to have an additional million dollars to look at -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, this might be where the road department is, they work with stormwater to do Page 66 of 78 .a: 1612 A � October 20, 2011 that too as well too. MR. HATCHER: The current level of service standards, you know, all of the basins are either C or D. And none of those are identified as acceptable levels of service. So the current system doesn't do very much for helping us define or prioritize where we need to improve things. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: They're all equal? MR. HATCHER: Right. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. But first, I think Phil earlier volunteered to help Mac, so I don't think we have a problem. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Moving forward number six with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, modify flood protection moves forward. Number seven, TDR program in Golden Gate -- slow down? THE COURT REPORTER: Could we take a short break? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, let's take a 10- minute break and we'll come back at 2:50. (Recess.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Picking up where we left off, number seven, TDR program in Golden Gate watershed. Once Brad's finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't wait for me. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does anyone have any questions on number seven? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd just like some clarification from Mr. Nance as to how he would recommend that this recommendation be changed specifically. MR. HATCHER: Well, first, I'd like to interject that if I communicated that we were intending to increase the density in Golden Gate Estates, that was incorrect. We do not have any intention of increasing the density in Golden Gate Estates. The intention is to transfer density out of Golden Gate Estates. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, let me be clear. Not necessarily. We talked about you have your urban Estates as well too. Your coastal urban boundary is 951 and one mile to the east of 951. There's a lot of what's called Estates property west of that urban boundary. So what we're saying needs to be vetted to the community both for this project and the mobility plan is taking density for development rights from the eastern Estates and in this flow area and considering adding them to the urban area or the rural fringe receiving areas, which could be the urban Estates. In talking with Mr. Nance -- I'll let him elaborate -- as Commissioner Brougham has asked, he's not looking to see urban types of developments in the Estates developed because of this. In other words, a multi - family development in the middle in the middle of the Estates because they bought the development rights. MR. NANCE: The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association traditionally represents the people living east of County Road 951, which is considered to be the rural -- what Nick says, rural Golden Gate Estates. Now, this sort of language has been used in discussions, you know, informally for a long time, but it's not codified in any of our programs and so on, so forth. On the other hand, you have Estates lots that area over off of Livingston Road that actually have very little in common. Page 67 of 78 } 1612 A7 October 20, 2011 And I believe from time to time you do have those people come forward with those lots and say gee, you know, would you let me do something else with this property, and then somebody comes back and goes no, I'm sorry, it's zoned E, it's Estates, you can only do so on and so forth with that. So I think there's an opportunity to develop some of that. My concern is that this plan which is I think the first time this concept has ever been written down anywhere, is going to cause people to have -- you know, to jump to conclusions that a TDR program with receiving areas is something akin to what we have in the rural fringe, which I certainly hope that wouldn't occur at this point. So what I'm suggesting is that this language be cleaned up a little bit to indicate exactly what Nick and others perhaps are suggesting, or to say that, you know, rather than -- you know, when you have that top line and you say transfer the TDR's to receiving areas, that suggests that you have an area in the Estates that is recommended for increased density. That's the way I perceive that based on the other TDR program that exists today. So my suggestion was not to jump to any predetermined conclusions here or to endorse something that is at the very, very conceptual stage. And to go -- like I say, I think that this sort of a development, a credit system, can really help with your mitigation bank, it can help with your flowway restoration, it can help with mitigation that's necessary for Nick's transportation infrastructure. But at the same time, if you look at that Eastern Estates as a density reduction groundwater recharge area sort of a concept in your head as a whole, you can see where it's necessary to move density out of Golden Gate Estates and actually have density reduction. So if you could include language that so indicated that, I think it would be -- it would -- I think it would help the community really feel good about the Watershed Management Plan and maybe actually help this concept move forward. But it needs -- you know, it would certainly need to be fleshed out with a lot of public vetting and a lot of people contributing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Your concern is that the text of the recommendation have the appropriate disclaimers or caveats in it not to mislead people to -- MR. NANCE: Yes, Commissioner, that's what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned that they don't think this suggests density increase in Eastern Golden Gate Estates. And, you know, I'm very pleased to hear Mac say that. But I just wish -- you know, I hope we can get language in there that clarifies that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is there any problem modifying that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we can make that clear. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this something we're just approving to move along to be vetted by a steering committee with people from Golden Gate Estates? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My concern -- not speaking for these guys, my concern is that if we approve this recommendation to go forward, it's going forward to the next stop on the train line. And if that language remains the same, you could have even more problems at the BCC. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, I think we can -- I'm happy -- in talking to Tim and Mac, we're happy to clarify that as it goes to the BCC it's not intended for a receiving area in Golden Gate Estates. MR. NANCE: You know, when you start saying what this says, number seven, you're talking about something that's very, very complicated, it's got a lot of cross - connections and a lot of benefits. But also, if misdirected, it's going to be exceedingly controversial. It's going to cause a groundswell of reaction in the community. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That satisfies me. I think you'd be happy with that, right? MR. NANCE: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And Tim, I'm sure someone from your organization will be part of the committee to -- MR. NANCE: We would -- we really hope that would be the case. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think so. MR. NANCE: Welcome to my world. I liked you up to now, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm kidding with you. MR. NANCE: Thank you very much. Page 68 of 78 1612 A -i October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Matt, what do you really see? Give me an example of things that would establish a TDR. Can you -- you must have thought of something. MR. HATCHER: Right. We would identify areas to transfer density out o£ And also you would need to trans -- I mean identify areas that that density could be transferred into. The proposal was to consider the rural fringe receiving areas to receive the density. But it has not been, you know, vetted or analyzed to see whether or not that would be an improvement over the existing rural fringe TDR program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, so, I mean, the density, while that's, you know, the chip in this case, I mean, essentially you want something on the ground. And what is it you're looking for on the ground? Let's say for example one guy has a site that's all wetlands. So what you're saying is that you're going to let him take his development rights off of that wetlands and let you use that wetlands for mitigation or something else, right? MR. HATCHER: Correct. And increase water storage, get water quality treatment benefits and recharge benefits from the transfer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then where that TDR can land is something you'll be studying. And I guess obviously it's not going to land back in Golden Gate Estates. MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I don't see anything dangerous in this. I mean, even the way it's written. I don't see anything that says that the land could come back in the Golden Gate Estates. Do we want to add a sentence that says that, though? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, remember what we talked about, urban Estates as well too. So Tim's point's well taken. He will be on the committee, him and his folks. And there will be folks in the urban area that will be on. Because there's going to be a discussion -- I've already had people inquire, does that mean I'm going to be able to put a high -rise on the coast and buy TDR's from Golden Gate Estates? I said no, no, that's not the intent. But that's the fear that -- so we're going to make sure everybody's included in this discussion. And there's a lot of value in this, so we want to make sure we get it right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think at the same time, when you're looking at this, though, you also need to look at how we can improve the marketability of the TDR's that we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- currently have. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So you could be creating a whole new receiving area. MR. HATCHER: Could be. Or could be just adjusting the calculations for the existing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the goal is not to decrease density in the Estates, the goal is to provide land for watershed management solely, right? Because we're getting confused. We start talking about density and it's not a density desire, it's to get properties for watershed management, right? MR. HATCHER: I would agree. Density is not necessarily the primary mover, but density seems like -- I mean, the density reduction seems necessary to be able to mitigate or restore those wetlands that are in private property ownership. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anymore questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward number seven with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is that with the -- to clarify the language -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll note that in the presentation to the Board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want to put a caveat that no density increase in Golden Gate, that's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, what we talked about, Golden Gate's a broad word. Golden Gate Estates. Just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Golden Gate Estates. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Eastern. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Eastern Golden Gate Estates. Page 69 of 78 x 1612A7 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eastern Golden Gate Estates. Tim's neighborhood. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does the second agree? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I think so. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. MR. NANCE: I'm feeling the love there. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, TDR program moves forward 7 -0. Number eight, Golden Gate Estates mitigation bank. Anyone? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, just one question, Mac. What is your timing to do the committee? MR. HATCHER: Well, shortly after I guess Board approval, if we get it. And I see this -- the mitigation bank again is a complimentary piece of the previous initiative. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is a higher priority, if that's what you're asking. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's what I was asking. Okay, any other questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I'll move that we forward this on for approval. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay Golden Gate mitigation bank moves forward 7 -0. Number nine, modify operations, water control structures. Questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: No questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mac, in your presentation you mentioned something about -- were you thinking of hardening the walls of drainage structures, building like channels? I mean -- MR. HATCHER: This is simply looking at the way that the structures are operated. When the gates are opened, when they're closed. The consultants think that we can gain or prevent base flow into the canals just by modifying the current operational schedules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the problem being that if you lower the canal, groundwater will then start to seep in? MR. HATCHER: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing this now already. I mean, it's almost a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No- brainer. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward with a recommendation of approval. Page 70 of 78 1612 A 7 P -4 October 20 2011 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Just one question, Mac. Have you met with Big Cypress on this yet? MR. HATCHER: We haven't had any formal meetings, but we've discussed it -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: You're on board? MR. HATCHER: -- amongst staff. Yes. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, number nine, modify operations of water control structure moves forward with a vote of 7 -0. Number 10, monitoring program. Anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No, I mean, Judith in her presentation, I was going to try to stick that in there, but she's right, we'll keep it separate. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forward with a recommendation of approval number 10. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, monitoring program moves forward with a vote of 7 -0. Number 11, additional protection programs. Any questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward number 11 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Number 11, additional protection programs moves forward 7 -0. Number 12, stormwater system maintenance and certification. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have some on that one. Or at least a potential concern. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Page 71 of 78 161 Z A 7 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What are the implications if this recommendation was to go forward and take some meat on the bones with respect to existing developments and their existing stormwater retention, discharge systems and so forth that can fill up and do fill up over time and so forth. But what are the implications of an implementation of this type of a program on private developments? I'm worried about the word certification and inspection and the burden it would be putting on homeowners' associations and community development districts and that type of thing. MR. HATCHER: It is an existing policy in the Growth Management Plan. We -- development services tried to push it forward, and was requiring professional engineer certification, which added a considerable expense to the operation. We'd be taking a slightly different tact and perhaps requiring property managers to do the certification. But the I guess implication is that -- the reason for doing it is to ensure that the facilities are operating as designed. The implication I guess or the negative implication is that you would require someone to correct deficiencies, which would obviously be expensive. But, I mean, the permits require that they be maintained, it's just a matter of somebody stepping in and requiring review on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, I hear you. I mean, you can't quarrel with the goodness. But I know how much pushback you got the last time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, that's what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I just envision a storm of pushback as this goes forward, people saying, you know, we can't afford it, we're under water on our home values, little lone our HOA expenses. And even if you required the property management company to do it, they're not going to do that for free. And then you get downstream. Well, what if they don't do it, how are you going to enforce it? Are you going to levy fines? I just see a host of problems with this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know where that leaves me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The thing is, if these people are responsible for maintaining it, then they need to have reserves for it. That's what Lakewood does, we're responsible for the whole outfall system through Lakewood. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's a good question. And I don't think -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's dredging, it's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, so you need to have reserves for that. And if people don't have them, then they wait till there's a problem and there's too much flooding in their community, then they realize there's a problem, then it's too late. I understand if people are upset about it, but it's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not arguing against the recommendation, I just think it has to be really explored and really explained very, very carefully as you move it forward. And Karen, your point on reserves is well taken, but I would venture to guess that probably 50, 60, 70 percent HOA's and/or community development districts don't have a clue for a reserve for stormwater maintenance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are we going to cover this? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, they should. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not arguing that point. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: One at a time, guys. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I -- Commissioner Ebert had asked about this a while back before you joined the commission, Commissioner Brougham, how we're working with HOA's to identify the depreciation of your stormwater system over time. We know that over the course of 15, 20, 30 years you have to do a bunch of retrofits in your drainage system, no different than the county does. The county is suffering the same issue you have. We have a bunch of stormwater systems that we probably haven't properly depreciated and planned for replacement. I think we're going to have to look at this and more maybe to start is it informational. I think this is how we soften it. Go do your inspections, find out what it is for a period of three to five years that, you know, there is any ramifications. But at least it gives you a chance to do an assessment and start to build funds. Page 72 of 78 1612 •October 20 2011 I think your fear is you do the initial inspection and when you find out you've got a half a mile dollar price tag to come into compliance. We're going to have to balance that. Because I share the same concern you do. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know, if there were appropriate lead times put in to regulations that were enacted, this program is what it is, here's an explanation of it. You know, it's going to be phased in or become effective two years out three years out, four years out, then at least you're giving sufficient notice to these organizations. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your point, and maybe something we need to look at, Mac, is to say for -- you know, as we develop this, for the first one to three years they become informational inspections and you guys take them for what they are and they become more effective in the fifth year and officially effective in the eighth year. I mean, you know, so we stagger in compliance so you don't -- also not out of compliance. But the problem is with your South Florida Water Management permit, you're supposed to be in compliance all the time with your stormwater system. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me, Nick. Will we be covering this -- will you be covering this in the meeting coming up for the HOA's? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. In the same capacity we're talking about it now is that we're looking at it, we're going to try to come up with ways to work with HOA's. But once, you know, your district permit is not in compliance, you're supposed to fix it. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: The school district within the past year or two recently completed a certification for every school site that has a South Florida permit. So would this be -- could we just turn that paperwork in? I mean, are you thinking of additional things beyond that? How would your system differ? MR. HATCHER: What we're thinking of would be something like that on a recurring basis. And it would be based -- well, the proposal that the Department of Environmental Protection had for their proposed stormwater rule amendment was based on a type of stormwater treatment system you have, then this inspection period is based on how likely that system is to need upkeep or maintenance. Wet detention system is a little more frequent than a dry detention system. But I believe the frequency for the wet systems was every year for a couple of years and then it jumps out to five years. For the dry systems, they were like every five years. So I would anticipate that we would accept a recent certification and then require some sort of an assessment on a recurring basis after that, based on the type of system you have. MR. EASTMAN: So, in other words, the paperwork for South Florida would suffice as paperwork for this program under the county? MR. HATCHER: Yeah, what we're looking for is that the facility is operating as per the Water Management District permit. So right. MR. EASTMAN: So how does that differ than what South Florida does and its enforcement arm? I mean, with kind of this downturn in development they've had an upturn in enforcement. And that's what really happened with -- that's why we certified over the last year or two all of the school sites. Do you see any duplication of inspection and certification? I mean, if South Florida is already doing it, why would the county do it as well? MR. HATCHER: I wasn't aware that they had increased their enforcement, but we'd have to factor that in. And I'll talk with them before it goes any further. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac, on here you've got annual inspection, no submittal, but the recommendation is to develop, review and reporting standards. Are you going to then require a submittal? What are you thinking? MR. HATCHER: It would be based on that DEP time table, based on the type of facility it was, or is. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. So if you're -- I mean, currently I know we're talking about slowly implementing it. But currently this is a requirement, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only for your South Florida permit. Right now your system has to be -- Tom raises a good point. If South Florida does what they're supposed to do, we would accept that inspection and say Page 73 of 78 you've done it. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: You're done. 1612 A 7 #4 October 20, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. It would not be to duplicate those efforts. They just haven't. I know we all kind of chuckle, but they have increased their enforcement recently leg quite a bit. VICE - CHAIRPERSON Al ERN: So what type of review are you looking to create? MR. HATCHER: Whatever -- well, the minimum that would reasonably keep the facilities operating as they're intended. And like I said, for a wet detention facility it's every second year for two years, and then it's every five years after that, I think. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And then once this goes into effect, how are you going to monitor, you know, what's reported? And then what happens if a community fails to do so? MR. HATCHER: Well, it would depend on whether we adopt standards -- right now we'd have to refer it to the Water Management District if we got a report that indicated a facility wasn't operating. We don't have the enforcement capability. So that would all be part of a formal approval process to define how it would be enforced. We haven't spent a whole lot of time talking about that at this point. We've been trying to get through the assessment certification end of it. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1 have another question. Being that the Water Management District is now enforcing it a little more, you mean there's less for them to do right now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think from talking to the regulatory side, they've said since they've slowed down they've put a focus on cleaning up their permits. A lot of systems were built and never certified, including some of the road projects. We're going through -- we're getting letters as well, you did the road project four years ago, we haven't received final certification yet. So they're going through and doing the final certification. I think that's what Tom Eastman was, you know, responding to was a final certification that it's done. What they're not doing is coming back and checking after it's done and been filed certified on a regular basis. And what we'll do is coordinate with them to see who's going to do that. Do they expect the county to do that, are they going to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask next. Is there a way that we can talk with Big Cypress and maybe because of all these -- because of all the PUD's, that they could come in, if the associations paid them something, to look at it? I mean, just trying to be aboveboard here and get everything right for the -- for their systems. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to coordinate with them. I think what Tom's referring to is certification after it was built. File certification that it's built to compliance. It's an as- built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, rather than a maintenance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Rather than a maintenance every five years. We have requirements in our plat -- correct me if I'm wrong -- if the system fails and the drainage easements are privately maintained, we have the right to go in and fix it if it's doing harm outside the system. That's in a lot of the plat dedications we have right now, the county can come in and make a drainage improvement because you're not doing it and we can't wait for you to do it. We don't want to be in that situation. That's kind of the goal. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, right. MR. EASTMAN: And some of that final certification can also become maintenance. Because if the project were completed, final certification didn't happen until years later and you have to meet a certain slope or whatever. I know in order to obtain our certification we had to actually do projects and change banks around stormwater management ponds and so forth. So, I mean, it does bring you -- that final certification does bring you to a current state in terms of everything, including maintenance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. At that point in time. MR. EASTMAN: At that point in time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You mentioned soil -- bank erosion. And the development that I'm in now started 13, 14 years ago, and we're facing over a million dollars worth of bank erosion control -- or mediation on Page 74 of 78 f 1612' October 20 2011 roughly half the lakes in the development. So it's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: A big problem. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- a big number. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any more questions? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mr. Motion Maker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I recommend we move with a recommendation of approval number 12. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Stormwater system maintenance certification moves forward 7 -0. Thirteen, implement Florida - friendly fertilizer ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward with recommendation of approval. Well, we can discuss it after the motion. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That already happened, though. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, we already did. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I just wanted to clarify, Jeremy mentioned that we approved the state model. Wasn't it a little more stringent what we actually -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: -- sent forward, the state model? MR. HATCHER: When it got down to it, we ended up going with the model ordinance. You all had recommended provisions that were more stringent. The Board of County Commissioners wanted to evaluate conditions that were more stringent. We got a letter from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the Monday afternoon before the Board meeting indicating that they had in the recent legislative session received sole responsibility for the formulation of fertilizers, so they were threatening to sue us if we implemented more than the model ordinance. So we went with the model ordinance. I intend to contact them again. There were some of the more stringent provisions that you all recommended that the Board also wanted to evaluate that don't have anything to do with fertilizer formulations, like the prohibition period and the additional buffer requirements, and we'll see where we can get with it. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So right now it's just the base model? MR. HATCHER: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mac, I have another question then. What happened to all the other areas that pushed for the stringent, Lee County, Charlotte County, the rest of them? Did the state come in and threaten to sue them also? MR. HATCHER: No, the legislation basically grandfathered the existing regulations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we were a day late and a dollar short. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, there's a motion and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 75 of 78 161 �'A 7 tober 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, number 13 moves forward, 7 -0. And I think that is it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait, we could have more. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We could have more, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could have more. I do like the one about the best management practices for open water bodies. So can we add that as a recommendation? MR. HATCHER: You could add that as separate, or we could incorporate that into the stormwater system maintenance and certification. We'll incorporate an education and best management practice recommendations with that certification program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You'll do that though. Which one -- MR. HATCHER: That would be number 12, the stormwater maintenance and certification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you'll add it to there. MR. HATCHER: Right. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Are there enough nods for that to move forward? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it as a motion and then you can vote it down. I move that we add to recommendation number 12 a best management practices for open water bodies. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac, is that enough for you? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, motion approved 7 -0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about the EAC recommendations, do we want to incorporate those? VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I think the low - impact development is part of that. I think that's covered in that section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, kind of VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Because Mac, whatever incentives, you're going to bring back to us, correct? MR. HATCHER: Correct. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So -- MR. HATCHER: And we've already agreed to provide them with an annual implementation and progress report. I would anticipate that any evaluations of the watershed plan would be part of those reports. Plan for the anthropogenic copper, we can implement an educational program. But until we get formally declared impaired or get some other authorization, it's going to be difficult to implement any regulatory program. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Could that be rolled into the BMP? MR. HATCHER: Certainly. That's where it would be applicable would be the stormwater management systems. Page 76 of 78 M 161 2 A� October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then we'll let that go. And then I do like the idea of having a review cycle, at least the first term of it. The seven years seems appropriate. There's a lot of stuff that has to happen here. So I guess it would be adding 14, which would be an initial review cycle of seven years for essentially all of the above. Do I hear five? DR. HUSHON: Repeat after every five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can't they at that time decide what the next cycle should be? Okay, with a repetition of every five years thereafter. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Was that a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay, motion approved to reevaluate after seven years, then reduce it to five. Does anyone else have any additional items? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just kind of have one question on the watershed plan. Is -- VICE- CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that the right time? In the report you discussed, you started out by doing an initial modeling of the predevelopment I guess water flow of the county. That would be back in the days of the Indians, or before them even, maybe. And then you did analysis of the current, right? MR. HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's the biggest -- I mean, obviously it's all chopped up, it's canal, it's hacked. But was it a really extremely well - functioning thing prior to creative man hitting it or -- I mean, what's some of the major -- I mean, obviously the canals to drain it, to build on it. But back in -- I'm just curious as what back in time this county was flowing like. Do you have any comment, analysis, or -- MR. HATCHER: The reduction -- let me put it this way: There was a significant increase in flow of water, the quantity of water to the estuaries with the canal. And that predevelopment condition is basically a model that's based on the existing conditions, taking the canals and the roads out. So it's an estimate of what things were like predevelopment. You want to say something, David? MR. deGOLIAN: I guess in -- Peter deGolian with Atkins. I guess the biggest issue is historically the flows kind of went from Lake Trafford and everything went overland flow to the south into Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands. And with construction of the canal network you took what was essentially a 50 square mile watershed that drained into Naples Bay and made it 170 square miles. So you've more than -- I mean, almost 10 times the volume of flow is now going into Naples Bay than what used to go in there historically. And you're getting a subsequent reduction of flow is going into Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands as a result of the those canals also. So that's kind of the biggest effect of the development of the canal in residential developments that's going on down here is the change in flows to The Estuary systems. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. I mean, I was looking for the Discovery Channel answer, I guess, but that's close. That's good. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay, does anyone have anymore questions on watershed? (No response.) Page 77 of 78 1612 A7 October 20, 2011 VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: ** *Okay, does anyone have anything under new business? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does anyone have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We are done. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. V MAR STRAIN, C airman M LIS A AHERl , ice- Chairpers These minutes approved by the board on as presented t/or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 78 of 78 4 1612 A7 October 20, 2011 VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: ** *Okay, does anyone have anything under new business? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does anyone have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. VICE - CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We are done. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * ** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. V MAR STRAIN, C airman M LIS A AHERl , ice- Chairpers These minutes approved by the board on as presented t/or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 78 of 78 _+ • ■ / 1612 November 3, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE 3 019 1r V COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 Naples, Florida, November 3, 2011 1 DEC ;) % 10 1 i LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in aM*r6F tlii ;•'CMnty 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: Fiala — Hiller Henning Coyle Colette ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Phillip Brougham ABSENT: Barry Klein Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Misc. Cares: Date: 1 2 Item S. I Copies to: Page 1 of 93 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. Ray, do we have any changes? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is November 17th. So far on that date, Ray, I believe the only thing scheduled right now is the mobility plan, is that correct, on the 17th? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there is any continuations from today, they will continue to the 17th as well, and we would hear those first up. So at least we have another day we can move to if we need it. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on that day? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. Approval of minutes. September 29, 2011, the AUIR. Is there a motion to modify or approve? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have one very minor change. My first name is spelled with two Ls, for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no L in Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, there isn't. But on the first page it says "Philip," and my mother named me Phillip with two Ls, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll make that change. Thank you. No other change. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Mr. Brougham. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 2 of 93 1612 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, November 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) THAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is walking up the stairs. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? 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 is absent today. And, Mr. Brougham? Sorry. MR. BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. Ray, do we have any changes? MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any changes from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is November 17th. So far on that date, Ray, I believe the only thing scheduled right now is the mobility plan, is that correct, on the 17th? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there is any continuations from today, they will continue to the 17th as well, and we would hear those first up. So at least we have another day we can move to if we need it. Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on that day? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. Approval of minutes. September 29, 2011, the AUIR. Is there a motion to modify or approve? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have one very minor change. My first name is spelled with two Ls, for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no L in Brougham. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, there isn't. But on the first page it says "Philip," and my mother named me Phillip with two Ls, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we'll make that change. Thank you. No other change. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Mr. Brougham. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 2 of 93 k� 1612 A� •• November 3, 2011 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. With the exception of the correction that you're probably going to say for October 6, 2011, Mr. Brougham, is there any other changes anybody see in that -- those agenda -- or those minutes? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ms. Homiak again. Mr. Brougham, you second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. And those are 7 -0 both times. Ray, BCC report recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On October 5th the Board of County Commissioners heard the DRI and PUD rezone for Hacienda. That was approved 4 -1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any changes to our stipulations? You're looking at Bob. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Trying to look at Kay to see if she can remember. Doesn't look like there were any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. We had several dozen, if I'm not mistaken, so -- okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. Ray, a question on that meeting. There was some input on getting interpretations made by the director, that the commissioners wanted those sent to them also. Do you remember that -- MR. BELLOWS: In regards to staff clarifications and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We are putting together a program to get current and historic staff classifications, what you formerly referred to as a stealth code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: We're trying to put those -- even though they're online now, we are going to bring those to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and confirmation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I was going to ask you to send them to us. But better than that, send us the link to the online where we can keep an eye on them that way. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, speaking of those items, we used to get any clarifications issued by your office when Susan Murray was there. Every time she issued one, she sent copies to us. We haven't gotten any since you took over. Does that mean you haven't done anything? MR. BELLOWS: Well, I did -- I did an official interpretation for Mediterra PUD. I'll have that forwarded to Page 3 of 93 6i, A7 November 3, 2011 you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And as part of the program of bringing those things to the Board of County Commissioners, we also put that on their consent agenda so they could see a copy of that, since it wasn't appealed to the board, that OI. So that's going to be our new policy is to bring those things to the board, but we will copy you on all of those in the future, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the OI is different than staff clarification. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What Brad was asking about, are you proposing to give both to the board or just one of those? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff clarifications are a shorter, more informal abbreviated response to things. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And it may be that it's not sponsored by a private entity, which an OI typically is, that it may be something staff has asked for clarification on, and we will do the research, and we've put it up in a formal memo. And that formal memo will now be presented to the Planning Commission, as well as to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had just as soon you when -- not as -- it's not being presented for debate. Those are staff - approved actions, I would assume. I mean, are we going to be now in a position, or is the BCC going to be in a position to second guess everything that staff has been previously allowed to do administratively? MR. BELLOWS: Well, in regard to staff clarification, it's just to -- it's not changing the intent of the code. It's just maybe providing a little more clarification to the intent. And, basically -- which is an interpretation is also providing that kind of clarification in regards to a specific code provision. But if the board has questions about it, we'd pull it off the consent and talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And our code was written so that there were some administrative duties that could be performed by staff without public meetings to make the process more expeditious. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we fall back and now revert from that position, I'm just curious as to what the intent of this presentation has -- what format it's supposed to take. Because if we start debating everything that you are now responsible for doing, I'm not sure that's going to help anybody. But I just wanted to express that. I'm not sure what the intent is. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think some of those details we're still going to work out with the attorney's office and with the board when we bring back the first set of clarifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the past -- and I think it's back two or three years ago when Joe Schmitt was here -- we had asked Joe Schmitt to come up with a list of things that we could provide to staff to do administratively above and beyond what they currently do. You know, it's been several years, and every now and then we bring that up. We've still not ever had that list of proposed ideas. Are you still working on that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, we've had a turnover in our Land Development Code amendment staff, and I believe they are looking at those things as part -- and working with our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Administrative code? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Nick not coming today? MR. BELLOWS: His books are here, so I assume he'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. With that we'll move on to chairman's report, kind of the discussion we were just having. I'd like to let the audience know what today's meeting is -- how it's going to transpire. After these brief introductions, we will go into the -- I'm sorry. Diane? Oh, Nick just showed up? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm so glad he was able to get up this early. Good morning. Page 4 of 93 t, 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way it works, ladies and gentlemen, is that we will soon go into our advertised public hearings. The first item up is a continuation of the Orangetree and a finalization of that for today's meeting. That will be heard as both approval or denial and consent at the same time. Normally what happens, we hear an item and it comes back two weeks later on the consent agenda. The Orangetree item's been in front of us three times, so we're going to wrap it all up today in some manner or form. The second item up is the NABOR building, and that is a conditional -use application or change. And then the last item up will be the Alico Land Development, Inc., the mining issue on the border of Collier County and Lee County. We will take a break every hour and a half, and we will take lunch close to 12 o'clock. We usually look for convenient times to break. Speakers are asked to limit their discussion to five minutes with the exception of -- provided by the chair. So that's where -- anybody that would like to speak, you need to make sure you're registered or put a slip in with Ray; however, we're a little more informal here. I will always ask if anybody else has any comments after the last presenter is up who is registered. * * *So with that in mind, let's move directly into the advertised public hearings. The first one up is PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608, and that's the Orangetree PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- I have talked with a few residents from out in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? I received an email from Shirley Cothran, which I've shared with the applicant this morning. We had a discussion on that. We'll be discussing it as the meeting goes on. That's the only disclosure I have other than those that I have provided over the past two meetings. And so with that in mind, Burt, it's all yours. Hopefully we can finish this today. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Burt Saunders with the Gray Robinson Law Firm. And Matt McLean and Bob Mulhere are with me here today representing the petitioner. And Steve Lowits (phonetic) is on his way from Fort Lauderdale. He should be here any moment. I want to start off by thanking a few people. I know this is a petition that's going to be voted on here. But I want to thank your county attorney and your staff, Heidi Ashton and Kay Deselem, for really going a long way to help us make sure that we got all the changes into these drafts that the Planning Commission has been reviewing. And so your staff has really, really worked very hard on this. I want to highlight just a couple quick items, and then Bob Mulhere is going to go through the detail. I think we can go through this very quickly this morning. Just a couple things that we've talked about and added to the document. One of the big issues was the internal security issue. We talked a little bit about that at the last meeting. We have a document now that shows where sub -gates will go, and Orangetree Associates will pay for those gates to be installed at the appropriate time, and there's timing for that. So that was a big issue for the residents there. Another big issue was the issue of recreation areas. We've identified on another exhibit where the recreation areas will go for the new R3 development so that the existing recreational areas will not be impacted by this. There was concern about separate homeowners' associations, and we've -- we're attempting to add language -- and I think we'll do that this morning -- that shows where new homeowners' associations will be created for the R3 area, again, to limit the impact on the existing homeowners' associations. We have language restricting or eliminating carports in the R2 district, another big issue for the residents out there. We have language dealing with the minimum square footage size for residents in the R2 area. That's going to be a minimum of 1,250 square feet. We also have language dealing with the setback in the MU district for three -story buildings from the Page 5 of 93 z A7 * y�y 161 2 November 3, 2011 Waterways area. That's a minimum of 560 feet setback before there can be any three -story buildings. And we also have language in there dealing with the new access points, when those will be available for construction traffic. We've got that language in there. And so, Mr. Chairman, with that, I think those are the -- were the highlights. I want to thank the residents we've continued to meet. Troy Bish is here, I believe, and we've continued to meet with Troy to go through some of these changes to make sure that we've addressed everything. I think we have a petition that is far superior to the petition that we initially presented, and that's to the credit of the Planning Commission and to your staff for making sure that we've eliminated as much impact as possible on the existing residents. And I think we have something that the -- that Planning Commission can positively review this morning. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Bob Mulhere so we can go through the individual changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere. Did you want to -- we have some typos and things like that. There's some minor changes. Did you want to go through it briefly page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we'll do it as we normally do. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a chunk of pages at a time, because we're at the last review. The draft we received from the County Attorney's Office has a red highlight that shows the changes as a result of the last meeting which had summarized all of the changes from the prior meeting. So we should be down to a minimal amount today. And I do want to thank Heidi Ashton for her work on this. The document is done really well. It was clear. It was certainly helpful to see it the way you laid it out, Heidi. And, Jeff, for your department to handle these that you have taken on, it sure has been a help to this board, because we no longer have the applicant making the changes as they understood them, but it's your office that's doing it, and it has proven to be a big help. So thank you both for that. The first part of the document is the introduction, list of exhibits. So we'll move past that, and we'll start at section one. MR. MULHERE: Well, just for the record, I just wanted to say that there needs to be some --we just need to check the pagination and also the footer so that it incorporates the total number of pages in the document. It's off. And it's just -- we'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think when you accept the review, that will all hopefully come back into play. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. The ordinance, just for the record, is going to change slightly between what you're seeing now and what the board's seeing, because the red highlight shows changes from the document that you saw, and now I have to go back and compare it to the last ordinance that's been adopted. So some of the language you will see slight changes, not in the text that's going to remain, but in things that are strikethrough and underline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will just clean it up. I think we understand that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, yeah. MR. MUL14ERE: And just one substantive change on Page double I. One, two, three, four, five -- six items down, Table 2 -D should be Table 2 -C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's take the first ten pages, because they're the -- few amount of changes on those. Anybody have any questions from the Planning Commission on the first ten pages? Or, Bob, do you have any changes other than those shown, which is the -- you did add the absorption schedule that was asked for. It's an estimated absorption schedule, which is fine. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. On that Page 7, just the very first column that says current/NA, the numbers need to be tabbed over. It's just out of order with the column -- columns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I don't think those kind of issues are too concerning. Let's stick to the zoning issues. MR. MULHERE: All right. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You and Heidi can work out the typos. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Page 6 of 93 1612 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing else on 1 through 10 -- and by the way, some of the -- if you -- any of the issues you've brought up -- and I know in talking with Burt that there were a couple of issues that we wanted to correct where they need to be inserted as we walk through it, would you let me know? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll certainly point out the ones I have. And one of them is -- and I want to read it to you. It's from Shirley Cothran, who apparently has been working with Matt -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- back and forth on a number of issues. She had one outstanding issue. She said basically on the positive side, the applicant's team seemed to be very responsive to the comments from the public. Then she says, I was able to read the one -page document of changes, and here is my remaining concern. Is there language somewhere in the document that will require any residential development in the MUU area to have its own recreational amenities, especially a swimming pool, and include whatever timing language is agreed to for the BGCC multifamily residential, which I believe that's gone except for in the MUU. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Below is a more - detailed explanation as to why separate amenities in the MUU area for the residents is important. And I think we all know what -- why it's important. So as we go through the document, if you see a place to address that issue, point it out. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I guess there's -- my thought is that there's a couple places. One is that we have an exhibit that shows where recreational facilities are going to go generally, and we could add that on the exhibit, and the other thing is, we can, actually in the MU district, make a narrative statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think a narrative statement referencing the MU district -- because your site planning isn't even broached in that area because it's still a utility site. So just the fact that something's going to be there would acknowledge that the people there aren't going to be using facilities elsewhere in the project. MR. MUL1 ERE: We'll add it to that when we get to it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move up to Page 20. Does anybody have any question -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- Page 11, 4.05. And the guesthouse, in the '91 redo of this, that was supposed to be deleted. I can give Heidi where they just said the whole thing was to be deleted for guesthouse. I see you've added language after it, but that was originally supposed to be deleted, and I can give the information to Heidi. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't -- Ms. Ebert, I don't -- the language that you have here that's not struck through is the language that is in effect today. So what was supposed to happen in'91, I'm sorry, but I have no clue of COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The '91 PUD or DRI was modified. Each successive modification -- we have to fall back on the last successive modification as the vested modification for them to operate under. So that would be what we refer to. Anybody have any questions through Page 20? MR. MULHERE: On Page 14 -- again, I -- this is not a typo, so I'm going to put it on the record. But we just need to add, under maximum accessory structure height, Mr. Chairman, you wanted us to make sure we had a column that listed maximum accessory structure height, which we've done, but I think we probably need to add the term "zoned" there, and that was my only comment on those pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be on Pages 14 and -- oh, 15's already got it. You just seemed to skip it on 14. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Moving through. We're through Page 20. Okay, then through Page 30. MR. MULHERE: Page -- I'm sorry. Excuse me, Page 20, on No. 14, which is eating and drinking establishments where we've provided some restrictions. We feel it would be appropriate to add, at the end of that, after the words "hnmokalee Road or Oil Well Road, as the case may be" because of the MU. We're making the same commitment to any commercial along Oil Well Road in the MU, that the outdoor dining would be between Oil Well Page 7 of 93 1612 A/& A November 3, 2011 Road and the commercial structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, that's a good clarification, and it's -- works better that way. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had -- on Page 21 in my notes from last time I had that we took out No. 40, social services. MR. MULHERE: Well, one -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know you made the change, but I had it crossed out. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think what's left is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there was -- I think -- previously didn't you have it 8322 through 8399? MR. MULHERE: Right, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you do that you include some uses that were intentionally supposed to be out. So by dropping the distance between 8322 and 8351, you eliminated those, and then the remaining was to stand. So I think we did take some of it out, but only those specific numbers. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I guess I didn't understand that. I had it all crossed out. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're always better to start with them all crossed out and then work your way forward from there. They start with everything in, so it's kind of a happy medium. Through Page 30, anybody? MR. MULHERE: Page 27. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NIUL14ERE: And this change will occur in a few places, Mr. Chairman, but we might as well -- this is the first, I think, that it comes up. It's Footnote No. 2. 1 went back and looked at the Estates Shopping Center PUD. I couldn't find an exhibit. I'm not saying it wasn't there. At least what I downloaded, I didn't see an exhibit that showed location of dumpsters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There is an exhibit that shows locations, but the way it's located is a distance from the northern property line. MR. MULHERE: What we did, we had said 35. We've increased it to 50 feet. And we've said that -- so this would change to read, "Except that dumpsters, recycling, and refuse areas shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from residential." So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how -- your buffers are what, 25, 30 -- MR. MULHERE: The buffers are -- yes, and also there's a wall -- landscape buffer and a wall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- in every location, and a wall around the dumpster area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Estates zoning district, because of the lower level of background noise in the Estates, one of their plans actually had dumpsters in an area in front, in the parking lot surrounded by a wall and vegetation. Well, at first I thought that was kind of unsightly thinking it may not be a good place to put it, but it's better than up against the residences. I didn't say anything at the meeting, but I went out and tried to find places that have done it, and there are some. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they do them well. You don't even know they're there, so you've really got to look for them. So I think the intention was to make sure that these are not back behind the buildings where they're going to ricochet the sound off the buildings and disturb the neighbors that are close to there. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's why we thought 50 feet. That's more than the setback in the back, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but that -- I'm just trying to --Kay, do you have any idea how we worded that Estates zoning document for the shopping center? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Right off the top of my head, no, I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: I just -- it's there somewhere, but I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: We can look it up maybe -- ah, he has it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this thing has been like a piece of Scotch tape stuck to your hand. We can't seem to get rid of it, so today we want to get rid of it, so I don't want to -- Page 8 of 93 A' / November 3, 2011 MR. MULHERE: If somebody could look while we're going over the other stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe, Kay, you could take a look. MS. DESELEM: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did specifically address that. Now, unless the board took it out, it should still be there. MS. DESELEM: I don't recall that the board made that kind of a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I may have just missed it. I did look through it. I didn't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had thought it would be simple to find, so I didn't follow up on my own, so -- I should have, so -- okay. So we're through Page 30. Anybody else? We'll come back to the dumpster issue. How about through Page 40? Bob, I have one on Page 37. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is, by the way, the MUU district, so the reference to the recreational facility -- MR. MULHERE: We would add that as G -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe add it here, right, right. MR. MULI4ERE: -- under development standards, that the MU district shall have its own recreational facility -- facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll let you work the language out with the County Attorney's Office. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.03(e), I just want to make sure that we're talking about in that panhandle section that the use that's going be allowed in there is only residential. And you went from 45 feet down to 35 feet, which matches the residential height allowed in Waterside. But I want to make sure -- and I think the concern was -- they didn't have any noisy commercial operation up against their southern property line. MR. MULHERE: And I think we can add to E, "and that no commercial structures shall be allowed within that 560 feet." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be great. Thank you. Okay. We're through Page 40. MR. MULHERE: On Page 38, we have a request within the MU district where the -- it's the only place that multifamily is going to occur. It's the only place for the previous R4 standards. Under the multifamily minimum square footage, the client had thought that there might be an opportunity for some one - bedroom units if we do multifamily. There's not a strong market, but there is some market for that. And as a result, we thought we should have at least 750 square foot in that area. We discussed that with the Vanderbilt Country Club (sic) representatives, and they did not have an objection to that. C1AIRMAN STRAIN: Vanderbilt Country Club. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: What page are you on? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Valencia. MR. MULHERE: Valencia Golf and Country Club. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Bob, what page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 38. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Page 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're suggesting is your minimum floor size on the bottom row of that table -- MR. MUL14ERE: On the right -hand side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on the right -hand side will be 750. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the MUU is the area that's surrounded by schools on both sides that's currently Page 9 of 93 16Lo?"ber , 3 2011 utilities site, and we have a small panhandle to the north that is separated from the -- okay. MR. MULHERE: And that's going to be low. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. MR. MUL14ERE: It seems that -- you know, you could have a teacher or something like that or -- you know, there is some market for one - bedroom units. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So the whole bottom line will be changed to -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, just the multifamily structures on the far right side. And that's only in the MUU district that's currently being used as a utility site. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a mixed -use application only in that one parcel -- one parcel. Parcel is isolated from all the rest of the residential in the project, so -- Okay. Anything else through Page 40? Kay? MR. MULHERE: Do we want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay? MS. DESELEM: If I may jump in again. Kay Deselem, for the record. Ray and I looked through the Estates shopping center ordinance, and we didn't find any written text referencing the dumpsters -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is what we did. MS. DESELEM: -- but we do have the master plan that's on the visualizer. Hopefully it won't catch fire or do anything weird today. The dumpsters are shown with a "D" on the master plan. So they actually did show the locations on the master plan. MR. MULHERE: No wonder I couldn't find them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The only ones that were of a concern were the two to the north on the side of the main building, and that's why we produced this as an exhibit to the master plan so that they had to be located up against the building and not closer to the property line. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think with the 50 -foot setback that's where they're going to be. That's why we put that in there. But we -- if we want to add 50 feet and along -- and adjacent to the building or -- I think that 50 -foot probably really gets it. It separates us quite a bit from the residential border. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that will do. And you have a wall in there as well? MR. MULHERE: We have a wall, and then there's a wall around the refuse, the dumpster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bob. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Pages 40 through 50. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I have one on Page 42. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Down under Item 7 where we've added language regarding the construction entrances, I still have some concerns there. I mean, as I read this -- question. It says, prior to the issuance of building permits in the R3 District, one additional future access point to either Oil Well Road or Randall Boulevard shall be constructed, blah, blah, blah, blah. That leaves it optional as to where you place that entrance. And won't there be a lot of construction activity prior to the issuance of a building permit per se? MR. MULHERE: There would be infrastructure just building the road alone to get in there. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well -- stormwater facilities -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. MR. BROUGHAM: -- et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There's going to be a lot of heavy equipment coming in and out of those sites prior to the issuance of a building certificate. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's either -- I guess the earlier of that would be either SDP or plat. Those would be the earlier approvals that would allow site improvements, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What is the earliest? Page 10 of 93 r � e f i6112A7 November 3, 2011 MR. MULHERE: SDP or plat. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My intent is that we have a construction entrance identified specifically and that that entrance be open and functioning prior to the movement of heavy equipment, bulldozers, flatbed delivery vehicles, dump trucks, and so forth and so on. MR. MULHERE: Right, I understand that. I guess I -- there's two points to that. One is, is there really a harm in having the flexibility of which one we choose? As long as it's in -- open and operating -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not necessarily. But consider the -- it depends on where you start construction versus where the entrance is as to how much landscape you're going to travel. MR. MULHERE: But then -- that's right, but then we have to build a road further in at our expense. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But from my perspective -- I do understand -- your primary concern to me is that that construction entrance be in place before we bring in construction vehicles. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absolutely. MR. MULHERE: And -- so I think if -- my point was going to say, if we -- instead of saying prior to the issuance of building permit, prior to the issuance of any SDP or plat that allows for site improvements. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, then that would cover it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That makes me feel better. MR. MULHERE: Got it covered. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Because one of the major complaints in any new development, if there are existing residents present, is the movement of heavy equipment up and down the roadways and the noise and the dust and everything else that goes along with it. MR. MULHERE: Matt's got a concern, so I want to -- MR. McLEAN: For the record, Matt McLean. My concern on that is we're going to have to go through the platting process to create that entrance, and in order to create that entrance, it will be quantified and codified through the plat process, and we don't -- at that time, once it's platted, then you would build it. I'm afraid that we're trying to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Get the cart before the horse. MR. McLEAN: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You folks are the experts. My intent, as one commissioner, is that we want -- I would like to see some commitment that you're going to have a construction entrance in operation prior to heavy equipment coming in and out of that development. MR. MULHERE: We could just word it that way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: "Concurrent with," Commissioner, I think would be the word. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the County Attorney's Office could make sure it's worded correctly as it goes through the process. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through Page 50? On Page 43? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, Page 43. That's where I was at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, No. E, I know you guys were striving to meet the concerns of -- expressed by the public, but that sentence will not work, I believe, for enforcement purposes for county staff. It's very vague. It doesn't have any way of monitoring it, and I don't think it's possible for it to work. So I would suggest that -- I know what the intention is. But if a road's damaged, the road is damaged, and code enforcement can always be called to enforce -- and bring transportation if they need to on any particular damage anywhere on the project. To try to tie road damage to a specific act in a -- one single residential district is going to be impossible to do accurately. So I'm not sure that sentence should stay in here. It really makes the document vague. My suggestion is to drop that sentence. But in the other hand, I did notice in the sentence this little R -2 with the upper script, little 2. I could not figure out what you meant. I went through this document looking for a footnote to reference 2. And then in the 11 -- Page 11 of 93 `.' A7 161 6 November 3, 2011 8- and -a- half -by -11 little blurry page that is our master plan, someone pointed out to me -- I think it was the county staff -- that there's an area that has a little 2, subscript 2 on it, which is clearer in this than it is in our document. I would suggest that you change that subscript 2, or the upper script, to a capital A and make it as big as the 2 so it's R -2A. Then it's going to be clearer. Because in the future, I don't know how many -- I don't think that's going to get caught. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SAUNDERS: Back on that language, obviously we have no problem deleting that language from the document, but I will make a commitment to work with the homeowners' association to come up with some contractual arrangement to take care of the fact that -- if we do cause some damages to the roadways, the developer's willing to, obviously, pay for that. So we'll negotiate something with the homeowners' association to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that it would behoove staff to remember this discussion so that when it goes before the Board of County Commissioners that something's worked out between the applicant, the HOA, and you guys that can be effectively enforced if it -- to the extent that code enforcement may not already do it. If you already have an opportunity through code enforcement, all the public needs to know is that's how they've got to proceed with it, and that might accomplish it. But let staff look into that. Nick's shaking his head, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a private road. It would be civil. So it couldn't be code. If you're not going to put it in the PUD, then there has to be some sort of contract in place, because it becomes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think they're willing to work that out before the BCC hearing, and I think that's an ample time to get it done. And the Board of County Commissioners, I'm sure, will be all ears, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, and that would be a condition as we move this forward then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that will be one of the stipulations. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Because it was a concern of the residents at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that language will get everybody in trouble. It won't help anybody in the end the way it's written, so -- MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification. This would not be a condition of the approval this morning. We're going to make the commitment to negotiate an agreement. We'll have that ready before the Collier County Commission, but that agreement should not be a condition of approval. MR. BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, it's not. The agreement's simply going to be a reference. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But I used that word, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, we're just going to reference that you're going to try to -- you're going to accomplish that before the board meeting and present your findings to the board. MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all we're looking for. Did you have something else, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, No. 9. Just for clarification purposes, we'd like to add the change -- change it to read "additional security sub - gates." So we're really talking about not the main -entry gates here, but the gates within the project. And at the -- at the -- on the second line after the word "operational," I think we want to add, "and cost of installation shall be borne by the developer." Anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- within that sentence we'll make it clear that the cost shall be borne by the developer. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't think the word "sub" is necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to bring that up. Page 12 of 93 1612A7 f .� November 3, 2011 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you read the sentence again, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The way I proposed it -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Uh -huh. MR. MULHERE: -- without the "sub "? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, please. MR. MULHERE: Okay. "Additional security gates as designated in Exhibit E shall be in place and operational, and the cost of installation shall be borne by the developer prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in the" RC -- "in the R3 district of this PUD." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could write that better. I mean, must --instead of the word --just put at the beginning of the sentence, "the developer shall construct." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your mike closer to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you could write that a little better by just putting "the developer shall construct additional security gates." MR. MULHERE: Separate sections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 50? MR. McLEAN: Just to clarify on that No. 9 one there. Again, Matt McLean. I just want to make sure that if we're going to rewrite that with Heidi on that with reference to the -- to our client installing and paying for all those sub - gates, we want to make sure that there's not language tying to the requirement of installing both main gates at Oil Well Road and future Randall entrance before our first CO within the R3, because as the development progresses through there, you're not going to build both of those additional entrances to Oil Well Road and Randall immediately. You'll build them as they wrap around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you might want to tie the construction of those gates to the road system, if that's a better way to do it, than the COs in R3, because you're going to have them up there for construction entrance anyway. And if you're going to build the road for vehicle entrance of any kind, at the point that you're going to -- before you -- maybe before you get a final acceptance on the road. MR. MULHERE: That would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, does it matter? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm not clear on what the change is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On No. 9, they're talking about the timing of when the security gates would be going in, and I think for those gates -- for any gates on the new road system, they would go in at the time their new road comes in for its acceptance. MR. MULHERE: As opposed to the certificates of occupancy triggering it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because you can't get a CO without a road access. So the road's actually going to be first, so -- and that would be better timing for a gate than when you're looking at the buildings. You can't have a gate without a road, so it's a Catch 22. Does that work? You're clear now, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'll have to check it, but, yeah. Are the two gates -- are the two new gates going in in the new roads only or some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. There's two gates going in, I believe, on -- are those existing roads where your two sub -gates are going to go. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I referenced to the new roads -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because that would clarify the timing of those gates. And on the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The two black dots on the north and south. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what would be the timing of the two red dots? Page 13 of 93 1612 A 7 November 3, 2011 MR. McLEAN: The timing on the two red dots would be prior to the first CO within the R3 district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to make that paragraph reflect that then, because you've got two different timings for two different sets of gates. MR. McLEAN: Correct. That's why we're trying to include the sub -gate language with respect to that. So we just need to define both of those, the sub -gate timing and the main -gate timing through that. MR. MULHERE: Internal and external would work. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'll clarify the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you comfortable with it; are you comfortable with what we're asking? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I understand what's being asked, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's critical, thank you. I did notice -- and if you could slide this exhibit over to the right a little bit -- you've taken the R22, which will be R2A, and you've duplicated it over to the left, which previously wasn't done on the previous master plan. Is your intention that you intend to minimize -- or set your minimum standards for building size at 1,250 square feet in that area as well? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. The -- in the meetings with the applicants that was requested, and we agreed, and so that's why we revised -- all of the exhibits will be revised to show a larger -- the entire area that's hatched on that exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in this master plan you're going to change that upper script 2 to A as well. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, those areas are platted, because I did look at your layout. So you've already verified then that this isn't going to compromise your platting that you've done to date? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. McLEAN: Yes, that's correct. Those areas are platted, and those additional hatched areas are the lots which our client currently owns, and they're comfortable with the additional restriction of the minimum of 1,250 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good, and that's quite a bit above what you -- your previous minimum. Okay. That takes us through Page 50. Let's go to the end of the document. Anybody have any remaining questions up through the end of the document? MR. MULHERE: Page 51. The Planning Commission -- I think it was the Planning Commission, but anyway -- there was a requirement to identify in a document that there would be a specific homeowners' -- or homeowners' association for each of the -- for the new residential area. And what we've proposed was to add a Paragraph E that would read, the R3 area, as identified on the master plan, will include homeowners' associations specific to their residential development, or to the resident -- that residential development. So the R3 area as identified in the master plan will include homeowners' associations specific to that residential development. We can work with Heidi if there's, you know, something about that language that needs to be adjusted. But the idea is to have some language in here that identifies that there will be a separate homeowners' association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MUL14ERE: And the only other change that I had, that I wanted to talk about, was the R2A section that you already discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: That's it, just that, you know, we kind of already talked about it, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- that we'd expanded this area at the request of the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on Page -- ooh, I don't know which page it would be. It's your 3 of 4 in your buffer drawings. Page 14 of 93 x A 7 1612N 111111 ovember 3, 2011 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You did add that note, which is what we requested, but you didn't -- it's not in red, just out of -- if that's a problem. I mean -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I don't think so. We added the note, but I don't think Heidi could get it to amend -- we did this probably. We did this for her, I would think. MR. McLEAN: The exhibits, we have those as auto CAD files, which we corrected. You're correct, they're not red, but they were added per your direction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any other notes in the buffers than that? MR. McLEAN: No. Just -- there's a note on each one of those which basically reflects that, and we included a location map in front of that as Exhibit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. All right. Thanks. MR. McLEAN: -- C, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions from Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any wrap -up presentation from county staff? MR. MULHERE: Oh, sorry. MS. DESELEM: No, sir. Our recommendation remains the same. For the record, Kay Deselem. And we are accepting of all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to ask, they have no problems with your recommendations at this point? MS. DESELEM: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered for this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would anybody here to discuss the Orangetree application like to come up and address this? Go ahead, sir. Let's take the gentleman in the back first. He was fastest with that right hand. MR. BISH: If I could, could I come over to this? Good morning. My name is Troy Bish at 2212 Vardin Place in Valencia Golf and Country Club. I'm going to use this mike because I'm going to reference a couple things on their blowup again so we can discuss some of the latest things they just discussed. On the interior security gates that were in negotiations with the Orangetree Associates, these two dots -- again, they're going to show as black on yours, orange on this one. This first one here is within a residential area that's already completed. This gate in the back, this road, we don't need this gate until this road is getting ready to be tied in. This first gate, with their language they have, they have these gates not going in until there's a first permit pulled in this new section over in here. This infrastructure we already discussed and we know that they're going to come in and develop this R2A area along -- as well as along the Birdie where there are existing homes at this time. So what we're requesting is that this gate be installed or money appropriated to the homeowners' association to be installed when this R2A is ready to be -- pull its first permit, for security purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, if the R2A is within the area that's already built, which is the R2 -- MR. BISH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what security are you increasing for your existing area by gating them in like that? MR. BISH: Well, because of the growth that's expanded in here -- I don't know how many homes they're planning in here. I think they have a little bit of flexibility with the homes they've got coming in here. But this pre- existing -- because of the security concerns that we have at the first -- at the main - entrance gate that's existing now with the guard -- there's going to be some changes made there -- but this new interior gate, we would prefer that just with the additional construction traffic that's going to be coming through there and be able to monitor who's coming through and who's not coming through, keeping it separate from the golfers that we have no control over at this point. So -- Page 15 of 93 h 161 a ovember 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys currently don't monitor the golfers when they come in? MR. BISH: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BISH: So what we're looking for is -- when the first permit, if they attack this area first to develop, which -- in talking with this group, that seems to be one of their main things because the infrastructure's already in place. So it's going to happen a lot sooner than this R3 area over on this side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the applicant's going to have an opportunity to rebut after you -all get done speaking, and then we'll see what we have to -- how we're going to address that. MR. BISH: That's fine. The only other concern that we're having at this point, they have raised this R2A to 1,250 square -foot minimum. We're still requesting, as far as compatibility with the existing homes in this area, to be a minimum of 1,500 square feet, and especially over in this -- these cul -de -sac lots over off Birdie. Existing homes already on Birdie wrapping around range anywhere from 4,400 square feet to a minimum of 1,500 square feet. We'd like the language to indicate that the remainder of these cul -de -sacs in this Birdie would be compatible with the existing neighborhood that's there now and be a minimum of 1,500 square feet. The square footage they've put over on this side, we don't have an issue with. There's going to be a separate homeowners' association. So the R3 side of the development, the homeowners at this time don't have an issue with the square footage they're putting on except for this area right here. This street right there, when this goes in, because it's going to be out the back door and across the golf course of the existing homes, we would like the language there that those are a minimum of 1,250 (sic) square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BISH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next gentleman that wanted to speak. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself at the mike, and -- when we ask for you -all to be sworn in, did you two stand -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be sworn? Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: I'll just use this mike for -- briefly. I think the great words of Ronald Reagan are "Here we go again." I think this is, what, the third time we've been up here arguing the same thing. MR. BELLOWS: State your name for the record. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. Howard Anderson, 1690 Double Eagle Trail, Naples, Florida, Valencia Golf and Country Club. I urge you, once again, to vote this no. If you are property owners, which I assume all of you are, you looked very carefully at what you were buying into. I chose a planned community, not Golden Gate Estates. If you live in Golden Gate Estates, I mean no offense to anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I live there, so be careful. MR. ANDERSON: I'll be careful. I try to be careful. That was your choice. Okay. So you knew when you bought in that it was zoned ag. It was absolutely buyer beware. You could wind up with a tent next to you. We, the tenants of Valencia Country Club -- I know I'm supposed to speak to you only -- chose to live in a planned community. And now, for some reason, it's coming back up to the zoning board. I'm totally confused, but that's easy for me. We talk about accountability. Let's try this the easy way. I live, as -- I think I showed last time we were here, I live right about here on this side. It's a 4,500- square -foot home. You want to put across from me a 1,250- square -foot home and that's not going to affect the value of my property? Think again. Somebody has to be held accountable, whether it's the county or whether it's the builder or the developer. My understanding from the last conversation we had here is -- and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Diane mentioned that Bolt has a history of going beyond and past what the contractual agreements or agreements of the zoning board have put in place. If that's a fair assessment, then why are we sitting here doing it again? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, you can't have tents in Golden Gate Estates. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That I did check. Page 16 of 93 ., 1612 H�/ November 3, 2011 Okay. Are there any other folks that want to speak? Yes, sir. Come on up. Please identify yourself. I want to ask again, were you sworn in when we -- MR. HUERSTEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HUERSTEL: Eugene Huerstel at 1938 Par Drive in Valencia Golf and Country Club. We appreciate living there, and we consider it a nice place. We like that the homes were built so that the values would stay up and that. I guess, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the Planning Commission, I know that there's fine print in everything, and they can do maybe certain things in that, but I guess I would be for keeping the homes at 1,500 square feet. I think that's a good compromise. At this point when some homes are over 4,000 square feet, we do want to keep the values up. We know that they're going down. We take pride in our community. We'd like to keep it that way. The other thing is -- I guess there's ordinances and -- that have been in place, and I would hope that maybe we could keep some of those ordinances, instead of coming back and changing, say, well, let's see if we can push it this far and see how much we can get and stuff. I realize that people need to -- we want to have a good community and that, but you need to work for the people on this one, be considerate of the people. I like what you brought up, Mr. Brougham, about having an area where the trucks and everything go in. You're considering the people and what they think about. And I know Diane has said some stuff, too. And all of you need to think about -- it's got to be about the people now. We're getting away from personal rights and freedoms and that, and I would really appreciate if you would consider us. And I know that people can do what they want and they make a good point and stuff, but I would be for the ordinance as -is, not all these changes and stuff. And I would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Will the lady that wanted to speak please come up. MS. MILN: Sir, I have not been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will be our court reporter's duty. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. MILN: Good morning. My name is Susan Miln, 1716 Birdie Drive. I've been up here several times. I thought I wasn't going to come back up here again, but here I am pleading with you, once again, to please consider the effect that this will have on the families that are there now. Seeing that the economy has changed in the downward position, I don't understand all the commotion that's going to happen within our neighborhood. We contracted a single- family development. Our homes are a much different structure than what's planned on being built at this point. I came in with the understanding that I was aware that there were condos going on that R2, noted 2 area there by the golf club. I was aware that there were condos going there. That was pointed out to me when I purchased my home. At that time the homes were way over a half a million dollars. The condos that were projected to go in there were probably in the range of $350,000 at 1,200 square feet. At this point they can't be priced higher than $100,000, in my eyes, because we can't sell the homes that are close to $100,000 at this point, being brand new. We have, once again, over 50 people not paying their association dues in there. We are in distress in that neighborhood. There will be many foreclosures, many short sales to come because of the distress that we're in at this point. I don't understand the growth that's going in. I'm totally opposed to it, probably because of what I contracted into. It's like my contract doesn't exist, and I'm hoping that I could change my contract after this is all over. And if it is approved, maybe I'll seek legal to find out if I can change my contract that I contracted into. If -- I have a concern for the children. I have a concern for the construction, the construction entrances and exits. I live on Birdie Drive, not too far from this gentleman over here that has a larger home. I also have a larger home. The construction trucks go down my street and around Birdie to build their project. And we have asked DR Horton in the very beginning, could you please run your trucks down the other side of Birdie where there is no homes, Page 17 of 93 161 2 A7 November 3, 2011 and that was always neglected. Why, I don't know. There was never homes on that street. The construction always went down First Street to the left, right down my street. There's very heavy -duty vehicles going down that road. There are very many, many children on that road. My children are grown, but I have big concern for the little kids in my neighborhood. I have a big concern for the elementary, middle school, and the high school children that are going to have construction vehicles on that end also. Everything is tore up out there. There's no security. There's not enough security out there at this point. I don't understand. I could only plea that if you haven't been out there, how could you please justify your decision without being in our area and see what the lifestyle is out there at this point? It's pretty scary. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you for the work that you do. But, please, if you haven't been out there, your decision is going to affect my -- me and all my neighborhood. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll ask the applicant then. Do you have any rebuttal comments that you would like to make, Burt or Bob? MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah. Just a couple quick things. In terms of the security gate to the south there by the R2A area, we have no problem in installing that gate as requested by Troy Bish. There is some question about the funding for that, and we'll work something out with the homeowners' association between now and the next meeting. And then one other clarification. Again, back on Page 43, we're eliminating the language dealing with the repairs to the road. I just want to make it clear that you're -- assuming that you vote for approval of this, that agreement is not a condition of your approval. We will negotiate something with the homeowners, but we don't want to have a situation where that's a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already said it wouldn't be. MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. I just want to make sure for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we're trying to do is we're going to stipulate it as a request that should be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Let them decide if they want to make it as part of a condition. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to -- again, just wanted to clarify that. And then again there were a couple other items that we were discussing with Mr. Bish outside. So as we go through the discussion, there may be a couple other items that we've agreed. I'll have Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is no other discussion. When you get done, we're going to close the public hearing and entertain a -- or have discussion and entertain a motion. So whatever you needed to get on record now, you need to do now. MR. McLEAN: For the record, Matt McLean again. We have discussed with Troy the comments that he had out there. And we're in agreement to limit this area in here to 1,500 minimum, and this section through here on the east side of the existing roadway to 1,350, as well as this first sub -gate location, place a condition of approval that that sub -gate will be installed prior to a CO inside of the R2A area that's the 1,350. That's what we went back through with Troy. And I would like Troy to come back up and -- at least on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need Troy to come back up on the record. You've already stated what you're going to do. It's up to us to make the decision. But let me understand what you're -- put that back up, please. R2 -- the R2A section to the west will be 1,500 feet, and the R2A -- I mean minimum. And the R2A section to the east will be 1,350, and the gate will go in prior to CO in any of the R2A sections; is that correct? MR. McLEAN: Any of the R2A sections that are within the 1,350 limited area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any of the R2A in the east? MR. McLEAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how else -- unless we start putting more acronyms in there like R213 or -- I'm not even going to -- MR. McLEAN: We'll have to work that out with Heidi. I mean, if it comes in to where we have to define it as an R2A section and R213 section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I don't want to see that happening, because then we're going to change the development standards table. I'm trying to keep this simple. But every time Bob lately touches a project, it gets real Page 18 of 93 161 z November 3, 2011 complicated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, you noticed that, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question I have, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those square foot that you gave us are in excess of the current PUD, correct? MR. McLEAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Current PUD -- yeah, the current PUD is a thousand square feet, which -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman who talked about the tent in Golden Gate Estates, the thousand square feet would have -- was in the original PUD, so you guys have gone above and beyond that thousand in some cases by 50 percent. MR. McLEAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you please explain -- in the memorandum on doing this, you want to delete the environmental commitments. Could somebody please explain that to me? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We discussed that at one of the previous hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was at the first meeting. MR. MULHERE: That's just a title that the staff prepared for -- and approved for advertising purposes. When we said delete the environmental conditions in that title, the environmental conditions are being deleted because they have either been fulfilled or they apply through other policies and ordinances or through the Land Development Code. There is a -- consistently the Planning Commission has eliminated duplicative language in PUDs, and that language, if it's already required somewhere else, shouldn't be in this PUD. That's why much of it was eliminated. So every single environmental condition that was in the original PUD has either been adhered to or will be adhered to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the black areas that you have here on your map, that will be your -- MR. MULHERE: Preserve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- acreage for preserve. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain either discussions or a motion, whichever way this board wants to go. Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will be voting against this today, and the reason for it is, if this was -- this was done 25 years ago as a settlement. This was a very special piece of property. The people that bought in Orangetree, it was supposed to be a very low density, 2,100 homes, and they bought into a lifestyle and a timeline. I know market conditions are not good now, but this developer had 25 years. He had a great timeline to do these. He went beyond the absorption schedule by ten years. Had he come to us in 2002 when he originally started this out -- the market was doing just great at the time, and we would have -- this would have probably been completely different. I understand there is quite a bit of distressed properties there that peo- -- that the people that are left there have to make up a lot of the payments to Mr. Bolt. And I had asked at the last meeting, if -- show me the need, and they did not show me the need for the homes or for the commercial property. I went back and I looked, and in 25 years that you had -- that he had it, out of the 2,100 homes, there are still 623 to be built. In the new absorption schedule, I see that they're going to do 53. I figured 59, 60 homes a year. Just to finish the 623 that are not done yet is going to take another ten years. And adding these other homes in there at this time, I just -- I just can't see it. It'll take people's property values even down more. As far as the commercial, you have 22 acres of commercial in there already and 60,000 square feet. In 25 years you only have one tenant, which is E's Gas and Convenience Store. Page 19 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 I remember when the ranch portion came on, in reading that, that people were very much in favor of that because they figured that is going to be 44 acres and 200,000 square feet of commercial. They were hoping for a grocery store desperately. At this time, in looking at what has already been approved there, you have Randall Boulevard at 401,000, you have Orangetree at 200,000, you have yourself at 60,000, and within 4 miles you have the Golden Gate on Wilson. That's 851,000 square feet. You want to add another 272 -, which would make it over a million. When we were doing the last one, we figured that the commercial places that are vacant right now, it would be till 2030 before they could even be filled. So I just want to let you know I would be voting against this today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. BROUGHAM: My concern with this petition centers around what I've already discussed -- and we've had some concessions and movement -- and that is, you know, the protection of the current residents and owners in Orangetree, you know, from the increased or planned increase in construction traffic and potential damage to roadways and so forth. We listened to the residents over three sessions here express their concerns about the lack of concern in the past on the part of the developer, and it ranged from security issues to HOA issues to clubhouse issues and so forth. Over the last three hearings, I've seen considerable concessions, in my opinion, and a realization on the part of the owner /developer that he must pay close attention to the concerns of the current owners, because they are the best customers and the best salespeople for future residents to come in there. And I'm encouraged by the concessions that have been made over the -- these last three hearings. I have changed my opinion from initially. I was -- I saw many negatives, but I am going to vote in favor of this, because I do appreciate the concessions that have been made. I think that they have gone a long way to alleviate the concerns of the residents as long as they are followed through. But I would encourage you to continue to pay close attention through your current owners. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me finish with a statement first. I want to read the changes that we just discussed, at least the more intense -- we went through the document and cleaned up a bunch of small language. There's some points that I wanted to make, though. Number 1 is that they -- between now and the BCC meeting, the applicant is requested to work with the homeowners to come up with the solution to the road - damage issue and discuss that at the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. That is -- and then Section 11.02.(C)(8) is the section in reference, and that has been noted as being too vague to be enforceable, and that's how that issue came up. Number 2, there are -- gates and the timing are going to be amended to what we discussed, and the developer will pay for those changes and the gates. Number 3, the R2 will be -- R2, upper script 2 will be referred to as R2A. There's going to be an HOA reference added under the R3 section. Under the MUU they're going to add language concerning a recreation area and limitation of R uses in the panhandle. Number 6, they're going to install a security gate to the south -- the sub - security gate, it may be called -- prior to the CO of units in R2A to the east. There's a lot of direction here. R2A to the west will be a minimum of 1,500 square feet. R2A to the east will be a minimum of 1,350 square feet. Now, that's the stipulations that are more noteworthy in regards to today's walk- through of the document. The document encompassed dozens of stipulations we have made over the last two meetings. This board -- this is our third meeting on this and our final. The motion maker, if -- whatever motion is made is going to be both acknowledged as the final for this Page 20 of 93 s 1612A7 November 3, 2011 meeting and consent as well. In deference to the discussion that just occurred, this is a zoning board. The only matters this board is supposed to be weighing in on are matters relative to the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan and zoning. It's fine there was a settlement agreement. There have been many legal documents and issues involving that settlement agreement. That's outside the realm of this board. We can use it as a reference, but that's not a reason to vote. The developer in this case has gone far beyond any I have seen in recent years on this board to compromise. This is a much better program. We have all -- always encouraged density in urban areas. We have discouraged urban sprawl. This settlement is an urban area, and it's -- if it becomes a viable urban area with good commercial with more opportunity for homes to be built, your property values will increase because it's going to be more convenient. You will have a self - contained community or more self - contained community. By not allowing those expansions of those changes with the market and changes with our demographics and society, it is going to do more harm in getting your development to be -- how do I say -- acceptable or progressive. So I think the changes announced are worthy of approval. I think that they are better than the compatibility that currently exists, developer could go in with thousand -foot units everywhere, and he's agreed voluntarily to increase those unit sizes to standard above the current minimum. And the only changes are areas for far to the east separate from the current built areas. So I can't see where some of the -- where some of the concerns have been. I firmly believe this is a better opportunity for this development than a lease -- the less opportunity. Much of the control that you are concerned about, or some of it, is addressed in these new amendments. Some of it this board can't do anything about. We are -- HOAs and how they're operated and how your gates are operated and how the clubhouse is operated is beyond the terms of zoning. It's not our board. So we're sticking to what the Land Development Code and the GMP allows us to be involved in. And that's mostly why I'm going to be voting for approval if the motion is made with the stipulations that I've previously announced. So with that, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, one housekeeping item you asked for -- the transportation brought up -- just to give you a presentation real quick about the sidewalk connections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you want that real quick, we can take care of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for information only because the county's responsible for getting this accomplished anyway, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is Oil Well Road. It's going to a four -lane condition, and there are sidewalks on both sides, with the signalized crossing at Corkscrew Middle and Elementary School here, the current Orangetree PUD. Existing under construction area here, Palmetto Ridge High School, sidewalks on both sides with crossings along the way, signalized intersection there with crosswalks there, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? If not I'll be -- Brad, you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608, the Orangetree PUD, with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Brougham. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, is that subject to staff stipulations and the stipulations that I just read into the Page 21 of 93 record based on the changes made this morning? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second accept those? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, I do. 161�ember 3, 2011 Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can have a document at the end of the meeting if you'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your abilities to correct things are -- I'm comfortable with them. I think we're very clear today in the few remaining items. Anybody else have a -- okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -1. Okay. Thank you all. I appreciate all the input from everyone in Orangetree, and I especially appreciate the cooperation we've seen from the developer and his staff. So thank you all. And with that, we'll take a break until 10:30 and resume with the NABOR application. Just one moment. If there is a gentleman here by the name of Chip Block -- I don't know. I don't think I've ever met the guy. I'd like to have -- I'd like to talk to him for a moment at break. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ray. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats. It's 10:30. We'll move on with the meeting. ** *Okay. The next item up is a conditional use PL2011 -0855. It's the NABOR building. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission. Anybody? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: None. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I spoke with Bill Poteet yesterday at the county offices. Basically we discussed a couple issues that I'm going to be bringing up for discussion this morning, at least one issue. Okay. With that, does the applicant want to make a presentation? MR. URBANCIC: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Planning Commission members. Greg Urbancic, attorney on behalf of MSL of Naples, along with Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady Minor & Associates, will be presenting today. We're going to be discussing the building located at 1455 Pine Ridge Road. Sketch up there just to give you a property location so you know where it's at. This is the -- even though it's only by MLS of Naples, it is the Naples Area Board of Realtors' building. We're seeking conditional uses 4 and 5 under the C 1 zoning district which would allow for churches, civic, social, and fraternal organizations. Nothing is changing in terms of the Board of Realtors' uses. These would only be subordinate uses to what we do today. And, frankly, we're just taking a proactive approach, because this building was built in the early '90s. I think it was finished in 1993, and we've been renting our conference center and training center since that time. And so we felt it was a little gray to make sure some of the things that we were doing and some of the organizations we were renting to -- we just wanted to be proactive as realtors and come in and make sure that we were compliant with the LDC. Page 22 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 We have 295 seats in the conference center and training center that are used. Most often, as -- if any of you have been there, these are used for training of -- on real estate issues and other educational programs. But we have had, historically, some other uses, and that's the reason for the petition today. As mentioned, these proposed conditional uses will be off -hour and incidental uses of the property. And, again, we just want to be proactive. The building is a place where we have many functions, so these civic functions would -- we believe would be compatible. We think we're compatible with surrounding uses. We're sandwiched in between two commercial shopping centers, and we're also in close proximity to Pine Ridge Middle School. And, again, staff has offered a few conditions that, I believe, were in your packet. We have no objection to conditions -- those conditions. There was an additional condition. I don't know if it made in into your packet. It was a Condition No. 4 regarding limiting church services to occur only during off -peak hours. We don't have an objection to that condition as well. A little wordsmithing that we thought on that condition. And if -- Mr. Chairman, if you'd like, I could put that up on the monitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. URBANCIC: Okay. Those were the conditions. Number 1 through 3 are exactly as staff has proposed. Condition 4, we just thought it probably made more sense in terms of enforceability and understandability for everybody if we just put a period after the word "hours" and that the church services will occur during only off -peak hours, which, historically, when we have had church organizations there, that's when it's been. So that's not a concern to us whatsoever. With that, if there are any questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You actually -- in conditions for approval at No. 4, the language you crossed out is the language that your office provided to county staff in the application. Did you not mean to provide that in the application? MR. URBANCIC: No, I think that --I think that's true. I just don't know how you would --in terms of listing conditions for approval, that seemed to be, in terms of readability, enforceability, it seemed to make, you know, most logical sense in terms of wordsmithing a condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, my concern, and the only thing I mentioned to Bill about, was the fact that they aren't -- they -- in their application they said they would be on off -peak hours, but there was no limitation, because they wanted it 24/7, that they're limited to off -peak hours. I think this does that. But I'm also concerned that even if off -peak hours does -- do have some operational or significant impacts on Pine Ridge Road, if you take out that kind of language, would we still be able to require them to augment their traffic control with off -duty officers or anything like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not if you take out any language. But, sir, I'll be honest with you, that location, with that commercial center and the school, if they're in off -peak hours -- that's a signalized intersection to the east of the project. Pine Ridge is six - laned. It's an urban area. I don't expect any problems from this use and -- based on the number of seats they're providing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dropping that language has no impact on you then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm very comfortable with the location and the geometry and -- the way that property's designed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. URBANCIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a presentation by county staff? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of the NABOR building conditional use. It's consistent with the Land Page 23 of 93 . � A November 3, 2011 Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. And just for your information, Condition No. 4 has been -- been developed within the last 24 hours. And so it will read -- thanks, Ray. It will read as shown on the visualizer. And it states, as stated in the petitioner's application, the church services will occur during off -peak hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of county staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are there any members of the public registered to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: We have one speaker. William Poteet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an opportunity to make this difficult. MR. POTEET: I shall waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good choice. Thank you. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from this board? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: To forward CU- PL2011 -0855 for approval -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- and including condition No. 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the conditions of approval recommended by staff at presented at today's meeting? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries. What are we, 7 -0? Thank you. And that's -- that's typically how our conditional uses go, which brings us to our problem child here today. ** *The next petition up is Petition CUPL- 2009 -1412, the Alico Land Development, Inc. All those wishing to participate in this item please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures by the Planning Commission? Brad, we'll start on your end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I spoke with some residents. Page 24 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I have none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? Karen? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I spoke with the members of the Conservancy, or -- let's see. Nicole and the lady that was with Nicole. I think she lived in Immokalee, but I don't remember her name. I also spoke with the applicant and two of their representatives. I've had a series of, as all of us have, copies of correspondence going back and forth between county staff and Lee County. I spoke at break with members of the Lee County staff who are here. And just so we can go forward in a clear avenue -- first of all, I'm -- when this started I had no idea that it was as controversial as it's turned out to be, and I welcome all of you that have attended today, and everybody will be -- we will seek to listen to everybody. We'll make sure you all get heard. I don't know if we'll finish today, but we'll try to get through all the speakers today. So, you know, all of you wishing to speak, we're not here to rush you through. I ask you be considerate of the time and that if you have -- if someone before you said something, we -- redundancy is something we don't really need. We understand the points made usually. With that in mind, we also have a contingent from Lee County here. We have an intergovernmental coordination element of our Growth Management Plan, and it does require us to cooperate with adjoining municipalities whether they're within our county or whether they're outside or adjoining to our county. Through that plan we have a series of interlocal agreements that also require us to work with them, inform them, keep them coordinated with what we're doing. In that regard, we will have a presentation from Lee County after staffs presentation today. Normally we allow speakers five minutes as a minimum, if that's what they want, and then we allow people to go a little bit longer if they stay on focus. Lee County has a series of speakers that they were going to bring in. Instead they're consolidating their time into one presentation. And then we will be asking questions of them, just as we've asked everybody else. So that's kind of the ground rules for today. We will break at close to noon for lunch. We'll come back after one hour, resume in the afternoon. But I can assure those here today who have traveled a distance, we're going to try to get all of the public speakers up today, and if we do run out of time, it will be after that, I would assume, and we will go to about five o'clock, as we usually do. So with that in mind -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm sorry. I did speak with Nicole Johnson on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. If you want to -- the applicant want to make its presentation, we'll start there. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Problem child? I haven't been called that since my mother. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this one kind of snuck up on me. I didn't realize the intensity of it until after we got into it, so -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: Like I proved to mother, I think we'll prove that wrong as well, Mark, so -- for the record, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development, the applicant. Thank you, Chairman Strain and fellow commissioners, for the opportunity today to present this petition for the Lost Grove Mine, and in advance I'll also thank you for your patience, because it looks like it's going to be quite a long day for all of us here today. So thank you. Chainnan, perhaps a couple housekeeping items, if we might, just for clarification before we get started. Really, the first one is your preference on how you wish to handle questions from yourself and your fellow commissioners during the presentations, whether you wish to do it after each presenter has concluded with their Page 25 of 93 -161 x £ K L November 3, 2011 portion of it or whether you would rather -- prefer to wait till the end and ask them all at one time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone on this panel has a question that is -- that might be lost if they wait too long, they'd more than -- we'd like to use -- utilize the time after each speaker. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll probably try to hold mine off until the end, because I have quite a few, and I can then work through the various elements at that point, so we'll see where it goes. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Perfectly fine. Thank you for that clarification. And also, as you've already pointed out, and despite -- you know, their not having any legal jurisdictional standing in today's hearing -- as you pointed out, Lee County is doing a presentation -- and as the applicant, we would like to reserve the opportunity to ask additional questions and provide some further testimony after that presentation, if we could, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And I also think that -- Mr. Anderson asked for ability to cross - examine, that is -- that is fine. That will -- that can occur. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would request that you wait till each individual speaker of those from Lee County finish before you proceed with your cross - examination. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you. Alico Land Development, as I said, as I'm president of, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alico. Alico is a privately -held company and has been in existence for 62 years and is -- most recently has moved into the Fort Myers area with its headquarters. Alico has an extremely strong recognized history of being outstanding stewards of the land and the management of their lands. Alico is one of the leading landowners in the preservation of the panther, being a very active participant in the Florida Panther Protection Program right here originating out of Collier County and beyond. Alico has sold and /or donated over 65,000 acres of land either to the state or various agencies, including land within the CREW that it donated a number of years ago as well. Today Alico owns approximately 100,000 -- pardon me -- 180,000 acres in five different counties. Approximately 12,000 of those acres are right here in Collier County, of which we'll be talking about one of our pieces of property today. Alico also has land holdings in Lee County, some of which are located in the DR/GR. And you will be hearing an awful lot today about the DR/GR. And the DR/GR, for those who obviously are present and may not have heard of that acronym, which might be the majority of you because Lee County has really not been forthcoming to other counties regards to their land use in regards to the DR/GR -- but the acronym stands for Density Reduction/Groundwater Recharge. And I guess the sad part about that whole thing is that we are going to spend today a tremendous amount of time hearing about the DR/GR and how you should utilize that in your decision making. It's sad for a couple reasons. One is because the DR/GR has been around for -- existence for a number of years but has most recently gone through a Comp Plan amendment in Lee County. And to the best of my knowledge -- and you will see a timeframe of the DR/GR presented by Lee County -- nothing in that time frame, including public hearings, was in any action with Collier County to bring you up to date of what they were doing to implement restrictions within their plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, just -- are you able to keep up okay? Yeah, she's trying to record everything, and we've got to be a little aware of the speed in which we speak. So you're moving pretty fast. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah. I know you're guilty of that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I am. And if it wasn't for Terri being here today, and Cherie, Cherie would be on my case already. So, thank you. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good. You know, the second disappointment with that is that, because we are going to spend so much time today or you will be hearing about the DR/GR, it's really a -- it really doesn't come into play, because you as the Planning Commission cannot legally judge another county's Land Development Codes or Growth Management Plan against a project that is in an abounding (sic) county. So we wish you the best with your patience about learning about the DR/GR and its implications and what it Page 26 of 93 1 2 ovem7 ber 3, 2011 is about, but there is really no play in today's hearings regarding the DR/GR in your decision. Before I go too far into the presentation, let me introduce the rest of our Lost Grove Mine project team: Our legal counsel present today is from Roetzel & Andress, and that is Bruce Anderson and Bob Menzies; addressing our engineering, environmental, and compatibility issues is John English, Tim Durham, and Margaret Perry from Stantec; addressing the mining operations is Dennis Rosa from Dennis Rosa & Associates, some 30 -plus years in mining operation experience. Our hydrologist is -- for Schlumberger Water Services actually directed by Scott Manahan, and addressing our transportation issues today is Ron Talone from David Plumber & Associates. Although not part of our main presentation today, we also have present to provide testimony or rebuttal, and that is Jeff Straw from Geosonics, who is a blasting expert, as well as Dave Depew from Morris and Depew, who is an -- expert testimony in the DR/GR. The subject property of Lost Grove Mine is located on the far northwest corner of Collier County, and it is completely contained within the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the RLSA, an acronym I'm sure you're fully familiar with. The mining boundary encompasses 1,382 acres, of which approximately 50 percent or 693 acres will actually be mined. Under the baseline standards of the RLSA, mining is an allowable use. The Lost Grove boundary is inclusive of a larger piece of property that Alico holds, and I think I can show that a little bit better on this map. The black line that you see encompasses -- whoops, I'm sorry. I don't know if that was my jacket or -- pardon me for that. The black line that -- you can it, encompasses the boundary of the entire piece of property, which is 4,642 acres. Over 75 percent of this property is an active orange grove, has been in (sic) over 25 years, and that is inclusive of the mining portion of this application as well. The Lost Grove Mine property is identified on the screen that you can see here. The boundary for the mine is kind of outlined in red that you can see. The blue indicates the mine lake, proposed mine lakes areas, the light yellow in the center is the operation center, the green is preserve native vegetation that will remain, the hatched yellow line along the two perimeters are the proposed setbacks, and the remaining uncolored area is open space. As can you see, the Lost Grove Mine property is bound to the west by Lee County, to the south by Corkscrew Road, and to the north and to the east by our own property, which is obviously a good portion of our citrus operation. The property is bisected by State Road 82 to the north and to County Road 850, Corkscrew Road, to the south. A fairly extensive community outreach initiative commenced a little over two years ago for this project. The information on the slide, I know, was part of the packet, was an information piece that was part of the packet that you received in advance of the meeting. But, in general, it's a chronological list of the outreach among environmental groups, agencies, and neighbors over the past two years. As you will note, there's been several meetings with the Florida Wildlife -- Wildlife Federation, Collier County Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife, two meetings with the CREW board, as well as two neighborhood meetings, one with Lee County residents and one with Collier County residents. One additional meeting recently took place. That is not included on this list. On October 13th there was a meeting held between the Collier County staff, Lee County staff, and us as the applicant to discuss the Lee County's proposed conditions. Needless to say, unfortunately, this meeting was less than productive or satisfactory. Lee County, unfortunately, pretty much sat on their hands, indicated that they were unable to have a constructive dialogue with us regarding our proposals to -- or settlements to or proposed settlements to their conditions because they had to report to a higher authority. Keep in mind that this meeting was requested by Lee County, and they brought five staff down to Collier County for that; however, despite that disappointing meeting, the community outreach over the past two years has proved beneficial in addressing numerous capabilities or compatibility issues, which most of them, if not all, are contained in the proposed conditions that your staff will present to you and you'll hear more about later in this meeting. Unless there's any questions of me at this time, I'm going to turn it over to John English to begin the full -depth presentation with a project overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions that need to be asked now? (No response.) Page 27 of 93 Q: p 161 p� November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: Good morning. For the record, my name is John English. I'm a licensed professional engineer with WilsonMiller Stantec, and I'm going to continue on this morning by giving you a project overview and talk about surface -water management. I thought I would start by -- I thought it might help to explain how we created the land plan for this project. We began by identifying the area that had the best and most suitable material for use to be mined. We then looked at the existing native vegetation areas that are being -- currently being used for reservoirs in the agricultural system, and they are identified as WRAs in the rural lands mapping. We set those aside to keep those. We then identified two logical points of entry to the property to support the use. You can see there's one proposed on Corkscrew Road as well as one from State Road 82. Next we identified an ideal centrally located operations center and route to the required scale house to connect to the entry points. And then what was -- then we crafted the lakes around those areas. It's important to note that we are proposing a lake edge that is set back 300 feet from the surrounding property lines, which is to the west -- to the west and along Corkscrew Road. North and to the east is internal property lines that have no setback requirements. We also are proposing to provide an enhanced berm along those same edges. That will include a -- an enhanced berm -- or buffer that will include a landscape berm, and that will be discussed later in the presentation. So as mentioned, we have 693 acres of mining, lakes. We provide the required native vegetation, propose a 300 -foot setback from adjacent properties, enhanced landscape, and we meet all applicable standards of Collier County. It's important to note that we have applied for and received an environmental- resource permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. That was obtained on -- in May of this year. Next I'm going to talk to you a little bit about the current condition or the pre- mining condition. The topography of the site ranges -- the high point is in the northwest. The low point is to the southeast. And so naturally that is the pattern of drainage on the property, from the northwest to the southeast. It is currently an agricultural operation. It's citrus. It has a water - management system that operates under a permit obtained from South Florida Water Management District in 1979. And generally how it works, citrus trees are arranged in blocks. The blocks are surrounded by drainage ditches. The drainage ditches convey stormwater runoff by gravity to downstream rim ditches that circle the reservoirs, which is where stormwater is stored. Stormwater is pumped out of the rim ditches into the reservoirs where it is stored until it can be released through gravity control structures. That water is released downstream heading south and east to the Corkscrew Road right -of -way where it then crosses under Corkscrew Road through existing culverts and then through cut ditches into the CREW area adjacent. The mining phase. How the water - management system will work there, runoff will be conveyed to the on -site mining lakes for storage. The mining lakes will be surrounded by a perimeter berm, each lake. The top elevation will be set at 3 feet above the 25 -year, 3 -day storm event peak stage. These lakes will retain the 25 -year, 3 -day storm event peak stage and will have zero discharge during the life of the active mining operation for that lake, and thereby will provide the required water quality and quantity storage volumes. Now, as the lakes are mined, agricultural citrus operations that are not impacted by that excavation will continue, and they will be phased out over time as the lakes are excavated. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the environmental- resource permit was approved by DEP in May of 2011 with the findings as I -- and I quote: The results of the preliminary well water testing have shown that the site can be mined without adverse effects to the regional groundwater quality and, quote, the eventual replacement of that portion of the citrus groves and reclaimed quarry lakes should result in net improvements in water quality and quantities for the CREW lands through decreases in agricultural discharges and groundwater pumping. After each lake is completed, we will move into reclamation phase. The discharge -- at the end of -- when the lake is completed, the -- a control structure will be installed in each lake, which will then allow discharge from the lakes by gravity into the on -site reservoirs, where they will then continue downstream and discharge as previously mentioned. Also, as a part of that reclamation, the surrounding perimeter berm will be lowered the 3 feet to the 25 -year, Page 28 of 93 161 2A? November 3, 2011 3 -day storm event peak stage. I mentioned the findings from the ERP approval earlier. And with that, if you have any -- if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to take them at this time. If not, I will turn the mike over to the next presenter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you the -- you're not the hydrology expert, right? MR. ENGLISH: I'm surface water, not groundwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you said that -- the groundwater pumping that exists in the agricultural, is that from an aquifer or is that from a well? Is an open -- is an open -- how is it pumped? Is it open wells, or is it driven well down to a certain aquifer? MR. ENGLISH: We have a hydrogeologist that will be speaking later to groundwater pumping. But just a quick answer, I believe there are wells on site is the source of the pumping for irrigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the wells are -- well, again, I mean, I've seen agricultural wells in two forms: Wells going down in the fonn of casing to a certain aquifer to draw water out with a diesel pump on top or whatever, and then an open well where there's a large cut where the water just keeps filling up the hole, the water's pumped out of that into the dikes and then drawn out into the rows of crops. Which are you using here? Are you doing deeper wells, or are you doing shallow wells? MR. ENGLISH: I apologize. I should really allow Scott Manahan, our hydrologist, to talk to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll wait till he speaks then. Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a series of questions, but I honestly -- they're going to be -- there's so much data on this project, I'm just going to wait till most of you get done speaking and then ask, and whoever can answer it's going to have to. That will probably be my way of approaching it, so -- but any other board members who have questions right now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I'll turn it over to Dennis Rosa. MR. ROSA: Good morning. My name is Dennis Rosa. I'm the mining consultant for the applicant. I have some 35 years of experience. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're not being picked up on the speaker. MR. ROSA: I'm not standing close enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. That's great. Thank you. MR. ROSA: There we go. All these tall guys came before me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I noticed. Don's pretty tall. He must be having a very -- what do they -- projected voice, so -- MR. ROSA: We either have to get me a ladder or move this thing down, so. If you look at the site, the excavation for the site is going to be phased. The amount of material that we take out every year is going to depend on market conditions. And at peak production, I think we're talking about four - and -a -half million tons per year, but it will take quite some time to get to that level. That's typical for the area. There are three or mines in Lee County that operate near that level or above it. The hours of operation are proposed to be 6 a.m. in the morning to 6 p.m. at night. Blasting permits will be obtained from the state fire marshal's office, and blasting itself will be limited to five days a week from nine till five. It won't be continuously blasting all that time, but those are the hours within which we would blast. The vibrations from the blasting would be monitored by Geosonics, and we have a representative from Geosonics here to explain that if need be. The excavation will start in the northeast corner of Lake 1, which is near the -- where the entrance road enters from the north, and it will progress to the south in successive cuts to the south with the stockpile material being stockpiled on the south side of the excavation so that the stockpile is between the west property line and the dragline. The --that material will be crushed in the field with field crushers, jaw crushers. They'll be located on the east end of the stockpile and progress to the west, again, moving in successive cuts with the progression of the excavation. The operations area will be in that center portion, the yellow portion in the center. The crushers and the Page 29 of 93 �l No ,j 1612 vem ber 3, 2011 screens will be located there for aggregate production. The crushers will be shielded. We'll put a cover on the outside of them to cut down on noise. And the screens on the crushers will be electric at that location. They won't be diesel operated. We will control the dust on the inside of the project by using -- wherever possible using conveyors to move the material rather than large trucks, although there will be some large trucks moving within the boundary of the project. Dust at that -- on those haul roads will be controlled by mobile water trucks. We will also provide monitoring wells on site to check the groundwater for pollution. The depth of the pit that we've proposed is variable. From the north it's -- at its shallowest point would be, I think, 44 feet or 43 feet in depth till we get to the south end where the depth is, I believe, shown on the plans at 143 feet. And that variable depth, we will control that inside the quarry. And that depth was determined because that's the beginning of the confining layer. And we're going to control that depth by -- through the blasting operation. When we drill the holes to place the blasting agent, the driller will log the hole so that we know what the depth is at every location. The charges will be placed on about a 20 -foot grid, 20 by 20. So every 20 feet within the lake area, we will know the depth to the confining layer as we progress across the project. And that log that the driller provides will be used to give to the superintendent, and he'll direct his operation, his excavation operation through that -- through means of that driller's log. They actually -- when they're digging, they control the depth with a dragline by marking the cable so that they know how deep they're digging in the water. And as each successive cut goes across, it will get just a little bit deeper every time we make a cut until we get to the far end. But we will know before we start the excavation where the bottom is supposed to be. So with that, I'm going to let Ron Talone speak on the traffic issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not so fast. I have a number of questions about -- MR. ROSA: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- about the mining operation, per se. MR. ROSA: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The first is, how do you determine where the confining layer is? I heard you say that the driller goes down, you know, to the confining layer. Is that like, all of a sudden the drill stops or what? If you could explain that to me. MR. ROSA: The pressure changes on the drill. There's a pressure gauge on the machine that's hydraulically operated. As he goes through different hard layers and soft layers, the pressure on the pressure gauge will change. As the rock gets harder, it may even lift up the back of the drill rig. But when it gets to the softer clays, the pressure gauge drops and he needs less pressure on the down side so that he can record that bottom. The other thing to note is that that clay is am impurity. We don't need that in the rock. It's actually going to be a problem in processing the rock. MR. BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. You mentioned that on the -- excuse me -- on the crushers they're going to be electric motor? MR. ROSA: The crushers at the processing site would be electric. The crushers in the field will be diesel. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Where is the field, sir? MR. ROSA: Out at the cut, where the dragline will be cutting. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I have no conception of how far noise from a crusher travels, particularly if it's going across water. Is there any analysis of that? I mean, for me to judge the noise from an electric crusher versus a diesel crusher across an expanse of water to the west, I'm a little mystified as to how far that noise is going to travel to potentially disturb things. MR. ROSA: The water should be to the north of the cut. We're moving from the north to the south. And then they'll create a stockpile to the south so that the noise is going to be traveling to the north or into the pile of material. That stockpile of material will actually provide a shield for the noise traveling to the west. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But you don't have any history or statistics on the intensity of the noise, the dBAs of the noise? MR. ROSA: Not off the top of my head, but we could provide that. There's -- in other mining operations there's a mining or- -- a noise ordinance, and those machines comply with that noise ordinance. Page 30 of 93 161 2A7 November 3, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I would be interested in seeing some of those in the future. Just one more question. Blasting activities you're requesting Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. If you could go forward and this was an operation at peak level and so forth, how often are you going to set off charges? Is there any way to predict that? Is it continuous? Is it once an hour, once a day? You just can't -- MR. ROSA: More likely twice a week, and it would be over probably three seconds. The charge will actually go off in three seconds' time. And I would say you'd be doing that twice a week throughout the project. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time of this gentleman? Sir, I've got a couple. Did Bruce share with you the Jones Mining stipulations -- there are 42 of them -- that this board and the board above us placed on that mining operation that is in a similar corresponding location to residential that this project is? MR. ROSA: Yes, he did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I ask is, I'm not going to take it step at a time right now. I'd rather wait for the presentations to be complete, but at some point I want to ask how each one of those 42 stipulations relate to this project in regards to its air blasts, the numbers and seconds of drilling, the depths, the charges, and all that other stuff, but I wanted to make sure you had that. And if you did, then I hope you read it because we'll walk through it. MR. ROSA: We did. And not only myself, but Jeff Straw has analyzed that, and we'll be able to address that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Straw was one of the people who accepted that. MR. ROSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I hope he still thinks we did a good job. MR. ROSA: He's guilty by association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is Bruce. So -- and I wanted to make sure that -- I mean, that mine did have a lot of concerns from neighbors, and it was as intense as this one is being with the attendance in the audience and all that. So I wanted to make sure that we understood -- we had some starting point from the past. And for those of you that are new on the board, you weren't here when that occurred. Depending on how much time we have, whether we finish today or not, before -- at some point it would be handy to get a copy of that from staff and read it. The other thing is, on the map in front of us -- and I do have, like I said, a lot more questions, but I'm going to wait till the presentation, for the most part, is done. But on the map in front of us, you have a mining area in the north, a mining area in the south, and I'm not sure what the idea was for the one in the middle and to the east. It says, lake, parenthetical, mining area. Why did the word "lake" get added to that with a parenthetical for mining versus the way the other two are denoted; do you know? MR. ROSA: No. I think all three locations are going to be the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're all going to be treated the same? MR. ROSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The crusher that you're going to have that apparently is portable that will move with the pile -- MR. ROSA: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the minimum distance you're going to have between that crusher and the western and southern residential boundaries? And those, by the way, are where my concerns are going to be stressed today, is because those are the most sensitive boundaries. What you do adjacent to your own property, that's different. But I'm concerned about those two boundaries. MR. ROSA: I would say we're going to be within 350 to 400 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it necessary that the crusher follow that closely to the pile? Could the pile be moved -- I mean, your dragline is going to go down over a hundred feet, so your stick on that's going to be pretty long. MR. ROSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could swing out a longer distance. Why would you need to be that close with your crusher? MR. ROSA: Well, the crusher is going to be fed by a loader. Page 31 of 93 G 161 Z A November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even better then. Your loader could travel easier than the dragline could swing. MR. ROSA: It's a matter of production, I guess. It's the closer he gets to the -- between the pile and the crusher, the more efficient the operation becomes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think from a zoning matter for this board, compatibility is one of the biggest drivers, and if there's better ways to accomplish compatibility through compromise by on -site actions, we may want to be considerate of that as we go forward today. MR. ROSA: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got at this time. I'm going to have a lot more. MR. ROSA: Okay. Ron Talone will be our next speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. TALONE: Good morning. My name is Ronald Talone. I'm with the transportation consulting firm David Plummer & Associates. We prepared the traffic study in support of this application. The traffic study that we submitted was consistent with Collier County regulations, and it was reviewed and approved by the county staff. We provided copies of the traffic study to Lee County, Hendry County, and the Florida Department of Transportation. As mentioned previously, the mine will have access directly to State Road 82 at a point located across from Church Road and to Corkscrew Road. The mine will generate approximately 700 daily truck round trips. And per county regulations, the anticipated mine traffic does not have a significant impact on the State Road 82 or Corkscrew Road or State Road 29. I should mention that six out of seven of the segments had a de minimis impact per county regulations. Only 10 percent of the mine traffic expected to use -- is expected to use Corkscrew Road. I have a slide in a minute that I'll show, and I discussed the distribution of project traffic in a little more detail. It's important to know that most of the mine traffic will occur during daylight hours, and the trucks that are on Corkscrew Road will be subject to whatever regulations are imposed by Lee County in -- on that road. The -- and it's -- also I'll have additional slides to review some of the things that the State of Florida is doing regarding State Road 82. There's a lot that's been programmed for that corridor. And, finally, the applicant has agreed to contribute $1 per truckload exiting the mine, and that will be available to Collier County for maintenance of Corkscrew Road. The distribution of the mine traffic was carefully considered based on market conditions. Most of the mines that would be our competitors are located to the south and southwest of us. And we feel that those mines will handle most -- will take care of the market to the south and southwest of us. So we've projected that our markets would be primarily to the north and northwest, and that was the basis for our traffic distribution. I wanted to point out three aspects of the daily variation in traffic, the hourly variation during the day. First off, again, as I pointed out, most of the project traffic will occur during daylight hours. Second, mine traffic peaks at late morning, midday, and that's at a time when it's between the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of the State Road 82 traffic. And, finally, when State Road 82 traffic is at its peak during the p.m. peak hour, our traffic is dropped off to a very low level. So the peak of our traffic does not coincide with the peak of the traffic on State Road 82. Now I'd like to review a few things that are being done by the state at this time. Right now a 4 -mile section of State Road 82 is under construction. The state's invested nearly $60 million in widening that section of 82 from Ortiz to Lee Boulevard to six lanes. Also, the state has recently completed a 7 -mile section of State Road 82 as a resurfacing project, and previously they had resurfaced another section. So there's -- there has been substantial resurfacing done in the corridor. And as part of the resurfacing, that includes both improving the roadbed itself and improving the shoulders. And previously, also within the last five years, the state has resurfaced the portions of 82 within Collier County. In addition, the state has been providing turn lanes at key intersections along the corridor. As this shows, the state recently completed the installation of left -turn lanes on sections of State Road 82 past Lehigh Acres. There's also been improvements to the Columbus Boulevard intersection and at State Road 29, and there's a scheduled Page 32 of 93 A 1612 � November 3 2011 improvement to provide turn lanes at Homestead Road. So that was three point million dollars (sic) worth of improvement. And, finally, the state has programmed preliminary engineering for the widening of State Road 82 throughout its length in both Lee and Collier Counties. They're investing $18.4 million in preparing the preliminary design plans for the widening. And in my opinion, the state would not be investing that much money if they didn't foresee dollars coming at some point in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask whoever's got that cell phone to please turn it off. Thank you. MR. TALONE: And last, I wanted to point out that based on the current adopted MPO long -range plans, the section for Lee Boulevard to east of Alabama Road is included in the cost - feasible plans and a remainder is included in the needs plan. So based on what's been in the recent state work programs and in the upcoming or current work program, the state is investing $92 million in State Road 82 improvements. So I think that's significant, and we can expect more progress in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away. Questions first of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioners -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On site, where do you intend to gate the project? Because essentially you're going to come off of 82 with a roadway. You're going to have to build to access the site, and then you're going to, on your site, provide access down to Corkscrew. So where will you be gating in that access? MR. TALONE: Someone else would have to point out the location of that access, but I -- but we have been reassured that there is sufficient distance on site so that any trucks that are queuing in the morning or throughout the day will have sufficient room to be able to queue and stack up on site without any use of the state rights -of -way or the county right -of -way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you plan to do is you'll turn in directly off of 82 onto this new road you're going to be building through the existing citrus? MR. TALONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will remain citrus, I guess. MR. TALONE: The gates will be further on site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know. So every -- we can use that road to queue up any traffic? MR. TALONE: Yes, that's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's going to be off of 82? MR. TALONE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of traffic at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few, sir. You said that there was no significant impact on any of the roads. MR. TALONE: That's correct, based on county regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read a section from our county staff report, SR28 impacts. The only concurrency link that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 88.0, State Road 82 between county line and State Road 29. The peak impact that is proposed on State Road 82 during the peak hour of the site, which is between 10 and 11, is 47 directional trips. This represents a 5.3 percent, parenthetical, significant, end parenthetical, impact on State Road 82. What does that -- how does that -- what does that mean in relationship to what you said? MR. TALONE: I can explain that. And I have discussed that with the staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By "the staff' you mean Collier County staff. MR. TALONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. TALONE: That's a reference to -- at the peak hour of generation of the mine, which is late morning, that that would be the percent impact. But for the p.m. peak hour, which is the time of day that is relevant for the Page 33 of 93 ANoembeiA2011 county's review of traffic- impact statements, our traffic will have dropped off considerably and our impacts are below the threshold for significant and are de minimus on six out of seven impacts during the p.m. peak hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that the significant measurement only applies during a time of which the road is considered the peak hour? MR. TALONS: That's the standard by which traffic is reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the standard by which Collier County reviews it? MR. TALONE: That's -- yes, sir. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe I need to -- I need you to respond to the following comments, and it's a transportation review that was issued. I imagine you've gotten it. Collier County staff recommends inclusion of a commitment to provide proportionate -share payment for the following improvements: SR82 widening identified in the ongoing PD &E study by FDOT, including contribution of right -of -way frontage. To the extent -- what extent has that been accomplished or to be accomplished or committed to be accomplished? MR. TALONE: The applicant has agreed to provide for stormwater management along the length of its property on State Road 82, and that was to satisfy that proportionate -share obligation. And the condition states that with that commitment and agreement by the applicant, that no further proportionate -share obligation would be required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, of course, when county staff gets up here and transportation after their -- when they get into their presentation, we'll be going over similar questions of them to make sure they agree with your comments. Provide water management along SR82. That was in addition to proportionate -share payments. So you're saying you provided the water management along 82 and for the use -- for the use of FDOT's 82 widening project. They stated that was both. But in lieu of both you provided the water - management facilities; is that right? MR. TALONS: That's my understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the next one is contribution of proportionate -share payment towards SR29 and SR82 intersection. Are you believing that's covered by county staffs acceptance of the water - management area as well? MR. TALONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I go further, do you know how the valuation of those proportionate shares were originally considered versus the valuation that utilized the contribution you provided in the water - management area? MR. TALONE: I don't have any particular information on that at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll rely on county staff to tell me what they value the proportionate -share contributions at and then how they found the -- it equitable between the proportionate share right off that they used when they -- when you provided the water - management area. Water management is acreage, so there's a value in acreage. And I just want to make sure they valuated it right. We have a Code of Laws that tells them how they should have valuated. I hope they abided by it. They also -- you also were supposed to have provided a survey of road right -of -way conditions for a radius of 2 miles at each project access, include at least one cross - section of both 82 and Corkscrew Road within the study area demonstrating the thickness of paving and base for each road. Was that done? MR. TALONE: It's my understanding that our agreement to contribute a dollar per truckload was -- would address the issue related to the condition of the roadway and that we would not have obligations to assess the condition of the roadway if we've made those payments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2009 that dollar per truckload was tolded (sic) by transportation staff to the Board of County Commissioners. It was for maintenance purposes only. So I don't know why it would have an impact on the study that was asked for in regards to the intersections and the road thickness, but I'll find out when staff comes forward. MR. TALONE: Well, I would agree, the dollar per truckload is maintenance related, not related to the proportionate share. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it would be nice to know that the road in which you're beginning your process on as -- on pavement and base, enough so that the maintenance expected as a result of the thickness of that base would be equal to the value that you're being charged for -- on a per -truck basis. Page 34 of 93 1612 A/ November 3, 2011 But staff would have some way of valuating that; otherwise, they wouldn't have, I assume, made the agreement. So I'll find out from them. And, John, all this discussion I'm having is for your benefit so you'll be more prepared when you come up today. Also, one of the comments was compensating right -of -way will be required for the turn lanes on both SR82 and Corkscrew, and I'm assuming that you've agreed to do that. MR. TALONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that compensating right -of -way include an acceleration lane after you make a left turn out of the facility so that eastbound -- or westbound traffic would be able to get around the trucks? MR. TALONE: Yes. The language in the condition related to compensating right -of -way refers to compensating of right -of -way equal to 12- foot -wide acceleration or deceleration lane, so that would cover compensating right -of -way in either case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But usually when they talk about decel and accelerating, they're talking in a right -in, and then as you right -out, you're accelerating, and when you're right -in, you're deceling. So if you're coming in from the east traveling west and you want to make a left -- and you're a dump truck -- into this facility, you're going to have a left -turn lane, I would assume -- MR. TALONE: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but normally they don't provide left -turn westbound lanes at an intersection like that. Are you intending for acceleration? So, in essence, you'd have an extra lane for traffic to move around you. This is a similar condition that we talked about in the Jones Mining issue. Have you -- is that part of what you're proposing? MR. TALONE: Have we specifically addressed an acceleration lane in the conditions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise, what happens, traffic coming on a two -lane road will be forced to severely slow down as the back of the trucks come upon them, or they come upon the back of the trucks, I should say. MR. TALONE: For clarification, you're referring to an acceleration lane so that left - turning traffic will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not block oncoming westbound traffic. MR. TALONE: That's not shown in the drawing I'm seeing here. I think that's something we could certainly discuss, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we'll be discussing it. I just wanted to understand where you're at now, because that's kind of another point I wanted to snake. Last Friday we got our packages. Some of us got CD ROMs in lieu of the standard three ring binder that would have been about 4 inches thick, for the EIS, the EIS supplement. And at that time I don't believe I had asked for the hydrology, but I did ask for it over the weekend. That CD -ROM was failed. It only had a link that did not work. I gave my copy of that failed one to staff. They have verified that it didn't work. I don't know if the rest of you had a similar CD -ROM. But what that meant was the thousand pages of material on there -- 400 of which were duplicate, so that left about 600 new reading -- couldn't get started until the new CD -ROM was distributed to this board, and it did include hydrology and many other items. I'm just letting you -all know that, because that was quite a lot of reading to put on the back of this board in two short days. Needless to say, I didn't get through it all in detail. I'm just making sure I've got all I need to get on questions for you right now, Ron, so just give me just a second here. MR. TALONE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the survey that they asked you to provide wasn't done because staff, again, accepted the water management in lieu of that survey; is that correct? MR. TALONE: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. TALONS: You're welcome. MR. MANAHAN: Good morning. My name is Scott Manahan. I'm with Schlumberger Water Services. Page 35 of 93 ice, r LNovember 7 161 3, 2011 We conducted a hydrogeologic investigation of the Lost Grove Mine site. And 1'11 just go over what we did and what our results were. Our initial investigation included the drilling of some soil borings across the site. Initially ten borings were drilled. The purpose of these initial borings were simply to determine if there was, in fact, limestone or other minable deposits there. The initial results looked good, so an additional 10 soil borings were conducted and confirmed that hard limestone suitable for aggregate was present across the property. And then, finally, an additional 15 soil borings were drilled across the property. And the purpose of those borings was to, again, confirm the rock depth and thickness, and also those borings were converted in the monitor wells. And so there were a total of 23 monitor wells constructed on the property owned by Alico there. The hydrogeologic investigation continued with some aquifer testing, and we also did water - quality sampling with the monitor wells that were constructed out there. In general, the water -table elevations across the site follow the land - surface elevations and slope from the northwest to the southeast. As part of our soil borings, we identified the depth to the confining layer out there. A confining layer is a layer of clay or other low- permeability sediments that separate the water -table aquifer from the underlying sandstone aquifer. So the lake depths or the mine excavations will be based on the depth of that confining layer. And we found it varied across the site, particularly from north to south. That depth varied from roughly 45 to 145 feet below land surface. We estimate the confining unit to be approximately 40 to 70 feet thick underneath the site. The excavation or the depth they'll dig to will terminate one foot above the top of that confining unit. And as Dennis Rosa had pointed out, that when they drill holes to blast the rock, they'll reconfirm the depth of the confining unit. Another part of our investigation or analysis was we conducted some groundwater modeling. The groundwater model was used to assess the impacts to the mine on groundwater levels. As our -- we used a base model that was created by the South Florida Water Management District for our modeling study. So instead of starting from scratch we used an existing model. And what we did is we kind of updated the model or the -- in the area around our mine with the information we had gained from the on -site hydrogeologic investigation, and we used that model to assess the impacts of the mine being excavated there. The MODFLOW code was used. It's the most commonly used groundwater model. It was developed by the USGS, and it's a frequently used model code. Our modeling approach and the results obtained were reviewed and approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And, basically, we used the model to compare the existing agricultural operations to the post mining conditions. Essentially, we did a model of the way the site is now with citrus trees and irrigation, and then we did a model of with the trees gone, lack of irrigation, and the presence of the mines. And those model results showed what water levels would be, and we subtracted one from the other, and that gives us the impacts of the mines themselves. The results showed that groundwater levels will likely increase slightly. That's primarily due to the reduction in the irrigation water use out there. Right now, particularly during the winter and spring, there's pumpage from water -table aquifer wells to irrigate the citrus trees, and that pumpage causes drawdown. And basically, by eliminating that pumpage, we're going to see a little bit of a rebound in the water level -- groundwater levels. One of the most significant impacts of actually constructing a lake is right now we have where there's rock and sand and aquifer material, that will be excavated and it will just be water. So that's probably one of the bigger differences is instead of roughly 20 to 25 percent water, now we'll have 100 percent water where the lakes occur. There will be a reduction in the total site water use by the change from citrus irrigation to mining. During the mining operation, there will be some water use, you know, washing the wheels of the trucks, rinsing the rock, and assorted minor uses, but the net result will be a reduction in water use. And then, ultimately, when the mining is done there, there won't be any consumptive use of water. Again, the water is used for dust control, wheel washing, and minimal potable needs at the site. And the -- our model results showed that there'd be no adverse drawdown impacts to the adjacent CREW lands. Page 36 of 93 1612 Al Y, November 3, 2011 This figure just kind of shows what's going to happen out there. Right now we have water -table aquifer, the confining unit, and the underlying sandstone aquifer. When the mine is excavated, you'll have that limestone removed, and it will leave you a lake, basically, within the water -table aquifer. And that's all I had on the hydrology. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mr. Manahan, on one of the previous slides you mentioned that you're going to be using mine water to do truck washing, et cetera, et cetera, and potable, and then you said minimal potable use. I'm trying to visualize drawing water out of a lake, washing dump truck tires and so forth, and where that water ends up, number one, and how could you possibly -- I mean, if it's going back into the lake, you're not going to use that lake for potable use, certainly. MR. MANAHAN: No. The potable supply,,they'll probably have a couple of trailers out there, you know, maybe a workshop. We would put in a small diameter well, you know, like a 4 -inch or 6 -inch diameter well. MR. BROUGHAM: So it's not from the lake? MR. MANAHAN: No, not directly from the lake. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I interpreted mine water to be -- MR. MANAHAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- is from the lake. Where does the residue from the truck washing go? Where does it drain to? MR. MANAHAN: It would drain back into the mining lake. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It wouldn't go -- flow off site into other areas? MR. MANAHAN: No, no. The entire mine property will have a berm around it, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I heard that earlier. MR. MANAHAN: So, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I was just a little concerned about people drinking that water. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. No, we would have a small well for that --those purposes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got to watch you, if you go out in your lake, you don't scoop some of it up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Sir, I know you're calculating that a certain amount of agricultural water is pumped in order to lift the water table to about 2 feet below the soil surface in order to feed the orange groves. Doesn't much of that water filter back down into the aquifer? How much does the grove actually transpire? And does -- when you say that you're pumping so many million gallons a day, are you really actually using that much? MR. MANAHAN: For the irrigation water use? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. MANAHAN: Yes. The groves -- and some of the guys may correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe they use a micro -drip irrigation system out there. So there's -- that's a very efficient -- you know, some of these farming operations, for example, like tomato farms or truck crops, they will just flood furrows between the crops, and that is a very inefficient irrigation method, and a lot of it does go right back down into the aquifer. But at the citrus groves, they typically use a micro drip, so it's very small little pipes. And each tree has just a little spray head, and so it just gives the tree enough water that it essentially uses all that water that is pumped. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It uses all those millions of gallons a day? MR. MANAHAN: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what Paul was trying to find out is most your agricultural pumping operations have a huge capacity of water that they're allowed to pull. One I'm familiar with is 4.3 billion gallons a year. But they don't use that much. Their pumping discharge is peak during the dry months and are nothing over the Page 37 of 93 6 A7 9,ovember 3, 2011 1 water -- the wet months because they don't even have crops in the ground. And so the total of the 4.3 billion might be 3.5 billion, something like that. I think the question was, are you using, by your pumpage charge, which are on record with South Florida, the full pumpage amount that you're allowed to use based on your water - management permit? MR. MANAHAN: No. There is an annual and a maximum monthly water -use allocations included in the water -use permit. You're not allowed to exceed those values. And you're correct, those values are based on the amount of water that a crop would need in a one -in- ten -year drought. So typically, you know, every year is not very dry. So you're correct, we don't use those full allocations every year. But when we did our analysis with our groundwater modeling, we did look at actual pumpage data, not permitted allocations, when we did our analyses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think that gets to the point of Paul's question, and I -- that's good -- that's good information, thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In one point in the report you say you're going to be going down 140 feet -- 144 feet. In another place it says you're going down 120 feet. Which is it? MR. MANAHAN: The 144 or 145 feet is the maximum depth of mining that will occur, at least the permitted maximum depth. The actual depth they go to, it may vary based on operational, you know, needs or capabilities. For instance, you know, maybe their dragline can't get that deep. But, yeah, I recall from our report, I think early on in the investigation our thought was 120 would be the max depth. But based on the depths to the confining unit, 144 or 145 would be the maximum. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does it make any difference if you go up to one foot from the confining layer as opposed to five feet, which some people had suggested? MR. MANAHAN: Well, the biggest difference is you would just lose that amount of rock, you know, essentially lose production. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you wouldn't have more leakage down through the water table that way -- I mean through the confining layer? MR. MANAHAN: No. As long as you don't breach the confining unit, you should be fine. So the one foot should provide adequate safety factor there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you talk about that term "leakants" that I saw there? MR. MANAHAN: Okay. Let's see. This figure is pretty good. It shows the general situation. You have the water -table aquifer and the sandstone aquifer, and the confining unit is that low - permeability clay zone that separates those two aquifers. So the water quality and the water levels in the water table and the sandstone can be quite different, and particularly in the wintertime or the spring when a lot of the farms or areas are pumping out of the sandstone, those water levels can be way down, like 40 feet below land surface. Where in the water table the water levels don't fluctuate quite as much. There's maybe a seasonal fluctuation of about three to four feet. So, basically, that confining unit separates the two aquifers, and so there's just different levels and water quality in the aquifer units. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And leakants, what is that? MR. MANAHAN: Oh, yeah. The leakants is -- the way the water gets down into the sandstone aquifer is by leakants downward through that confining unit. And typically the water level in the water table is higher than in the sandstone aquifer. And the actual tern "leakants" is a hydrogeologic term that's defined as the confining unit thickness divided by or, actually, the -- yeah, divided by the hydraulic conductivity. So if you have low - permeability sediments and a very thick sequence of those sediments, then the leakants is very low. And -- so that just gives an idea of how well the aquifer's confined. Almost every aquifer in nature is not perfectly or totally confined, so they're almost all leaking to some extent. And so that -- again, when those water levels are higher in the water table, they'll tend to leak down into the sandstone aquifer. So when they're pumping the sandstone in the spring and the winter, the water levels in that aquifer decline, and then you induce leakage from above. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So now all the wells are in the sandstone aquifer? Page 38 of 93 1619. A7 November 3, 201 MR. MANAHAN: The irrigation -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The irrigation wells. MR. MANAHAN: Actually, most of them are in the water -table aquifer within the mining site itself. Again, Alico owns a bigger piece of property there, and they do have some sandstone aquifer wells, but the majority are water -table aquifer wells. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But when the -- when the agriculture stops, the sandstone aquifer pumping will stop, and then that will reduce the amount of leakants down from -- from the water -table aquifer down? MR. MANAHAN: Well, actually, right where the mine pits are, I believe all those ag wells are water -table wells, so they wouldn't have any reduction in sandstone pumpage right there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My final question is about the pan coefficient. You say that usually -- you used the figure 0.7, which is the average for the United States. But wouldn't -- us being in Florida with a lot more solar heat, wouldn't a higher pan coefficient be more accurate than to use the national? MR. MANAHAN: Well, the -- well yeah. There's a lot of differing opinions on which, you know, pan coefficient to use. They say they range from .6 to .8; .7 is frequently used. A lot of people down here think .75 might be a better number to use. There's been a lot of different studies of ET rates. So there is some uncertainty in that parameter. And what we do to address that in our modeling studies is we do our model to the best of our knowledge or using our best judgment, and then to look at the uncertainty in the results, we typically do what's called a sensitivity analysis. And what we did in this case is we used an open -water evaporation rate of 46 inches, which was based on, I believe that .7 pan coefficient, but to -- since, you know, there is some uncertainty, we also did a sensitivity run using a rate of 50 inches per year to see what the difference would be if it was higher, in fact. And the results -- it didn't change our modeling results significantly. You know, we developed contour maps, and you could hardly tell the difference between the two. So it appeared that the model was not too sensitive to that parameter. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In the package you have some charts showing a recharge trench, retention trench or lake, and how is that really going to work? I mean, I can tell you what it appears is happening, but you're going to be building these around the wetland areas or -- MR. MANAHAN: I believe it looks like you're referring to some figures that refer to the dewatering plants or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, so you're pumping out of the mining area into these trenches? MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. Dewatering will be conducted just for the -- what they call the upper part or the overburden in the mines. The -- like, for instance, this mining lake that you see here, that won't be dewatered just because that rock is very penneable and you probably couldn't dewater it. So -- but when they dig that first, let's say, 10 feet or so, that's mostly sand, and then below that is the rock. So the dewatering will be limited to just the sand or overburden. And -- so, yeah, they pump the water out, and then if there's a wetland area or anywhere of concern, what they do is they put a trench in between where you're dewatering and the area of concern, and you put that water in the trench, and that kind of rehydrates the water -table aquifer and prevents drawdown to -- you know, to any sensitive area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MANAHAN: And that process is regulated by the South Florida Water Management District. So they don't have it yet, but ultimately they would have to get a dewatering permit, and the Water Management District would review the plans and then approve or deny or recommend changes to the plan and ultimately approve a dewatering permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is only really used at the beginning of a new surface area? Page 39 of 93 1 overkr3 2011 MR. MANAHAN: Yes, yeah. And typically what they'll do is -- you know, some of these lakes are pretty big. I think they're several hundred acres, so they typically do the dewatering in a cell. It would likely be 10 -acre cell or something along those lines, and they'll excavate the overburden and dewater there, and then once they're done with that, then they'll move to another cell. So they don't -- they don't try and dewater, like, to a whole 250 acres or anything like that, but it's more of a -- as they progress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else for the hydrologist? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got a series of questions, but before I can ask you yours, I need two answers from the mine expert. MR. ROSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. How do you see them excavating the top 10 feet of this sand overburden? MR. ROSA: They have to excavate it with a small dragline. They would dewater half the distance of the overburden. So if the overburden is 15 feet, you'd dewater about seven, seven - and -a -half feet, and then excavate that. And it's done right behind where you're going to form your next cut, your next pad for the dragline to dig the rock. So you're trying to remove the overburden right behind the rock pad, and you would just do half the dewatering depth to the -- from the surface to half the distance of the overburden. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why have you chosen for the overburden, especially in the way you're going to strip it, to use a dragline when you could accomplish that job with a track- mounted hoe? MR. ROSA: You have more reach can -- what we're trying to do is get it out of the ground as dry as possible. And you would pull it out and you can -- you can put the excavated material further away from the edge of the hole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you use a track- mounted vehicle, you could put it in Yukes (Phonetic) and move it to wherever you wanted to. Plus it's sand. You're going to stockpile it for a while anyway, aren't you? MR. ROSA: You'd only stockpile it as long as you had to. It's dry -- you want to get it as dry as possible so you can move it as quick as possible, and hopefully you can load it directly onto a truck and sell the overburden for fill dirt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm mostly concerned about the dewatering. That's why I wanted to understand why you thought that that was the way to go. MR. ROSA: The way the dewatering works is when you do dewater, the water that is pumped out is returned back into the cut, back into the mining lake. It doesn't go anywhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dragline that you're proposing to do your main excavation, what kind of bucket are you putting on it? MR. ROSA: To start with, it would be a seven - and -a- half -yard bucket. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROSA: But as we progress, it would probably end up going close to 20 yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of teeth are you going to have length -wise on the cutting edge? MR. ROSA: They'll be in the vicinity of, let's see, on the big -- on the big bucket they'll be about a foot long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that -- the reason I ask is it's going to affect the confining layer. Your teeth will hit that confining layer if you're even -- if you're a foot above it. You won't even know it until you hit it with your teeth, and that would -- and their foot -long teeth are going to have then -- actually be cutting into the confining layer in some manner or form. That's what I was concerned about. MR. ROSA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now back to the hydrology. Did you use the fetch formula for the depth calculation on how deep you'd go, or did you check with that to see -- because Collier County uses what's called a fetch fonnula to determine how deep they're allowed to go in the excavations. Are you within that fonnula range? I mean, I'll be asking the county engineer this, but I'd like to hear it from your side. MR. MANAHAN: I'm sorry. The fetch formula? Page 40 of 93 16l k November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't know about it? That's fine. County engineer will. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: So -- MR. MANAHAN: What was it for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we -- we establish the depth we're allowed to dig by a formula. It's called the fetch formula. MR. MANAHAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And our county engineer loves to answer those kinds of questions, so -- it will be his turn soon. You said there will be no adverse impacts on adjacent CREW lands. Is that at the finalization of your excavation, or is that at all times during the excavation? MR. MANAHAN: That would be at all times, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about the WRAs that are in the -- in the property? Those are water - resource areas, so that means their hydrology should be protected. Do you see their hydrology fluctuating or changing at all as a result of the mining operation? MR. MANAHAN: Not really. That might be a better question for the surface -water engineers. As far as groundwater -- I'm mostly in the groundwater area -- we will see some increase in the water level, so presumably that might help those areas stay wet longer. But I believe the way those features function really is to receive the water pumped off the groves right now. So probably more of a surface -water question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- your presentation seems to present a connotation that this lake isn't going to be bad for the water -- for the water -table aquifer. And I don't know anything about this DR/GR thing, but I thought it was something that concerns the wellfields where the municipal water comes from for portions somewhere in Lee County. How -- they seem -- from what I understand in the correspondence I've seen and the discussions that have occurred, Lee County seems very protective of the wellfield -- of their wellfield sources, and that's why this -- part of the reason this DR/GR area was created. If a mining lake like this isn't a negative for the water -table aquifer, then why would -- why do you think they're concerned? MR. MANAHAN: I'm not sure. I don't think it's really a concern that the mining lakes would impact their wells, but -- well, for one, because we're about five miles away from the nearest Lee County production well, and they're -- both of their wellfields in the area -- the Green Meadows Wellfield and the Corkscrew Wellfield, they're right basically within mining lakes. Some of their wells are actually almost like islands with inside mining lakes. So the mining lakes actually provide additional groundwater storage -- or water storage and increased recharge. So I'm not sure, you know, why they would have a concern over that. Because, again, their two primary wellfields are right -- literally right inside of mines almost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know if that's what their concern is. I've just been trying to under- -- I don't know anything about the DR/GR land use in Lee County. And in my few comments I've heard, it seems like it's something to protect the water resources. And I'm trying to figure out if this mining lake -- and from a hydrology perspective and your perspective and the way you've done your presentation seems to have no negative effect; in fact, at some point you even thought it had a positive effect on the water table. I need to understand. And I'm kind of setting the tone here so maybe when Lee County discusses -- does their presentation I can understand it better, because it's an important issue, and I'm trying to understand it based on what you have said as a hydrologist. Then the only pumping the current agriculture operations do within the area of the CU, conditional use, is from the water -table aquifer. You responded to that to Mr. Midney; is that correct? MR. MANAHAN: That's correct, in the area proposed for mining. On some of the other property a little further to the east and north, they do have a -- some sandstone aquifer wells, but the majority are water -table aquifer wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how -- you know what? I'm not even going to ask you this next question. I want to get my final question from the fellow who does the mining. Page 41 of 93 S 7 T. ' � r•'6�; 7 1612 November 3, 2011 MR. MANAHAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I've been involved in some excavations both with draglines and with hoes, not to the depths you're talking about. So I'm understanding some of your terminology. I also want to understand in a dragline, if you're going down 140 feet and you're going down to the confining layer and you know you've only got one foot before you hit it or you want to stop at one foot above it, what mechanism on the dragline provides you with the knowledge to know that you're at the depth that the previous bore holes indicated that a confining layer was at so that you are always maintaining that buffer between confining layer and the point that you're dropping your bucket. MR. ROSA: The dragline cable is marked with paint so that the operator can see when the cable breaks the water that he's at the right depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're using what size cable; three - quarter, one -inch stranded? MR. ROSA: At that depth it will be probably three - quarter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on a three - quarter inch cable from inside the stick -- MR. ROSA: One inch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One inch. From inside the cab he's going to have a reach on a stick of, what 60 -- how many feet long is his dragline going to be? MR. ROSA: He's going to have a reach of about a hundred and -- well, equal to the depth, 140 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you look at the base of that triangle out to where he drops his line in the water, it's quite a distance from the cab. And he's going to have a paint mark showing him where the depth that he needs to go to that day? Because as we've heard, you're going to have a variable confining layer over the site. So he's going to run out each day and put a new paint mark on that cable as he drops it in the water to make sure he doesn't go -- how do you do that? Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. ROSA: Yeah. You drop the boom on the -- out on the pad -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ROSA: -- and then the bucket is close to the machine. The cable lays out on the ground and they paint the dragline cable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'll have to do that pretty much as they cross the site and they get their new readings as the confining layer drops from 44 feet in the north to 145 feet in the south, or whatever the numbers are. MR. ROSA: Probably every other day they'd have to refresh the paint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. Sounds a little archaic. With all the digital instruments we have, you just -- they couldn't put something in the cab that says, off the spool we had this much line drop in the water? MR. ROSA: Sometimes simple is good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but when you're getting so close to -- what's the level of tolerance you think that operator's going to have looking at that paint mark from his cab as he's dropping deep in the water continually? MR. ROSA: I would have to say it depends on the operator and his proficiency and -- MR. BROUGHAM: How about an eye test? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I mean, all these things are factors into a level of tolerance, and you don't have much when you're talking about one foot above a confining layer. That's where my concern is going with this line of questioning. And, unfortunately, I've got so many of these lines of questioning. We're going to have a long day. MR. ROSA: The other thing you have to consider is the confining layer is 40 foot thick here, so -- and that the clay itself that we're -- that makes up the confining layer is detrimental to our operation. So when it -- when it appears on the pile, then we have to go after the operator and change his method of operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you feel confident that that thickness is maintained throughout the entire site? Because the soil tests that I've seen -- I didn't have time to read them all. MR. ROSA: The thickness of the confining layer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I didn't know if it -- I didn't see enough to tell me it was consistent throughout the site, but I may not -- there may be a lot more that I have not seen or I have not had time to read. MR. ROSA: Scott could probably tell you better than me, but I believe it does. It's that thick or thicker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Scott, if you could verify that for the record, I'd appreciate it. He put the burden on you now. Page 42 of 93 161 2 A 7 November 3, 2011 MR. MANAHAN: Yeah. Well, we believe the thickness of the confining unit varies from roughly 40 to 70 feet, and that's based on drilling conducted in the area. We did not go through the entire thickness on the site in our cores, so that number is -- there's some uncertainty in that. But, again, it's based on a lot of wells drilled all throughout the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience so far. It's noontime. We need to break for lunch. I'm sorry we haven't got further this morning. We're going to have a long afternoon. We'll come back at one o'clock and resume the meeting. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from our break. And -- okay. Let's vote on this project really quick. I think the applicant's watch is off compared to -- Ron, do you want to make their -- rest of their presentation for them? Did you enjoy the last time? MR. TALONE: I could give it a try, but I don't think I could get very far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I haven't had an applicant show up late before, but I guess we'll have to go back off record, Ray, and we'll just have to sit and wait a little while for the applicant. Let's just do that. I don't want to say anything that they're not present for because I want to make sure that they're available for everything that's discussed, so let's just hold off. We'll go back off record until the applicant returns. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please have their seats. The applicant has been kind enough to return from lunch. Tim, do you want to proceed with a presentation? Because I'm tired of waiting. We said one o'clock, and that's what time this meeting should have started, so -- MR. DURHAM: I sacrificed a piece of General Tso's chicken to be here, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. DURHAM: It's still sitting on the plate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean, those of us that knew we had to be here didn't necessarily leave to get something to eat. We planned for it. MR. DURHAM: Understood. For the record, Tim Durham. My name is Tim Durham. I'm with WilsonMiller Stantec in the environmental group. I'm going to touch on more of the bugs and bunnies aspect of the project for just a bit. Certainly open to questions as we go. From the beginning, we've been very open about this project. Before the first application went in, we met with various NGOs and, you know, discussed concerns that might be out there. We've met with the CREW board several times to provide information, take questions from them, and try and respond to those questions. Alex Sulecki, with Conservation Collier, and I have had numerous discussions about various issues. So we've certainly been as open as we can about this process. And the resulting plans you see are there because of input we've received and adjustments we've made. On the project site -- let me jump ahead. You okay, Ray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've got to push it down first. MR. DURHAM: That is not part of the presentation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a sympathy vote there. MR. DURHAM: Yeah. Good job, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He didn't want to be noticed. You know that, don't you? MR. DURHAM: It's all Collier County citizens. It's good. Just quick, wanted to touch one historic aspect just real quickly. Just recognize that when this property was converted from forested habitat to citrus agriculture, permits were obtained at that point, and the offset or the mitigation for that permit are those chunks you see in yellow on this exhibit, we put aside and are integrated into CREW. So the project we're talking about now is a site that has been converted to agriculture with some, you know, offset that came about. Page 43 of 93 ..• 1612 A 3 2011 I'll backup a second, if I could, just quickly. And we do not have any Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands on site. I don't say that about too many projects you see anymore. And I'll explain the significance of that a bit later. Within the site there's 123 acres of the property that are technically designated as primary zone. And, again, I'll talk about that some more. And we have had some ongoing discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and I'll, again, bring that up a bit more. One of the items, the primary zone, the thing -- the areas you see in bright green there are primary-zone habitat as designated by Fish and Wildlife Service. You'll see there's a little thumb or little portion of that protrudes up into the proposed mine site. If you zoom in a little closer on that, you'll see that approximately 70 percent of that area is actually citrus, 30 percent is native vegetation. We have said from the beginning on this project that we are perfectly happy stipulating this is in the primary zone. Panthers have always had the potential to use this, panther have used this area, and we would expect to see panther in this general area moving forward. We understand that, and we have started appropriate negotiations and discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service about what is the appropriate compensation for any impacts of that sort. In regards to that, we have recently received a response from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that wasn't really available earlier in response to a proposed wildlife habitat conservation bank. On this exhibit you see it there on the right. This piece of land is intended to offset a couple of projects that Alico has coming up, including the Lost Grove Mine site. Early on when we realized there would need to be panther compensation provided for this project, we had meetings with the game commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service and had discussions about how to maximize the benefit of any kind of compensation measures for panther. What you see there proposed on the exhibit is 3,707 acres of primary-zone habitat that both the service and the game commission are very desirous to have put in a conservation easement and be subject to enhancement and perpetual management. We are in the process of working on that now. The primary species that are of concern here are the Florida panther and wood stork. Indigo snake, other species, are also going to be considered, but these are the -- kind of the deriving species, if you will. We know they'll need to be compensated for. The mitigation -- the habitat conservation bank -- and I have to be careful and say that correctly. We're calling it Grand Marsh Conservation Bank, and you can see the size. The location helps to connect existing conservation lands that are out there, further strengthens that linkage. A part of that site, we have plans and have discussed with Fish and Wildlife Service converting some of the pasture on the conservation bank site to marsh, short hydro period wetland marsh, which is what the wood stork is in short supply of right now. The area that would be converted on the Grand Marsh site is approximately 14 miles from the Rookery at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which is within the foraging area, you know, meaning it's a valuable piece of forage for the wood storks during the nesting season. The process that will -- there have been some questions about the process we'll go through. As I said, we have no Corps wetlands to impact. Typically when you impact a Corps wetland, that triggers the federal process, gives them a nexus, which involves the Corps, which then gives a route for Fish and Wildlife Service to become involved in the project. Lacking that particular federal nexus, there's a couple of options out there. And I understand somebody from Fish and Wildlife Service provided an email response this morning or late yesterday, and there's -- I want to talk about that just for a minute to clear up a few things. We do not have a federal nexus through the Corps permit process; however, there are a couple of other possibilities for a federal nexus. But the most defined one -- as part of the habitat conservation bank, we are proposing that bank. There is a federal nexus. We have an application in for that bank. That is a federal action. That bank will most likely be tied to Lost Grove Mine and the other future mine Alico's looking at, and that would be the federal action that would initiate the consultation. Alternatively, we could submit for technical consultation, go through the same process as if we were being Page 44 of 93 16 A 7 November 3, 2011 reviewed, make what they call voluntary commitments to Fish and Wildlife Service, have that evaluated and issued. Those are a lot of words basically to say this: Without a federal nexus, theoretically, the client could go out there, as far as the Corps is concerned, and do that mine. If he does, though, he's subject to the Endangered Species Act. Anything bad that happens to a panther in the area he's liable for. Fish and Wildlife Service made the point, if the applicant goes out there and digs his mine based on the county's approval without anything from Fish and Wildlife, then the county might be liable, too, for being party to that. It has never been our intent, never will be our intent to do this project without having appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval in hand, all right. So the comment from Fish and Wildlife Service is -- you know, they are correct in what they say, but the other side to that is, if it was a condition before they ever do any mine operations and they have the appropriate permit from Fish and Wild Service, once Fish and Wildlife Service issues that approval, the incidental take statement and the associated conservation measures to the applicant, there is no liability to the county. That's a thing between Fish and Wildlife and the applicant. So to sum up, we fully intend to compensate for impacts to wood stork and panther through the appropriate avenue, the Fish and Wildlife Service. Our main effort to date has been to establish a really good compensation, part -- parcel in project, which will then be tied to Lost Grove Mine. We have no intention of doing the project until all those approvals are in place. I just want to clear that up. I'll -- I think there were probably a few other points I wanted to make, but I'll stop at that point and just assume there'll be questions down the road or now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see if there's any right now. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Of that 3,707 acres, how much would the 100 - and - something acres of panther habitat purchase? MR. DURHAM: It would be just about half of that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Half? MR. DURHAM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple, Tim. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The telemetry, could you put that back up. MR. DURHAM: It only has -- on one of the exhibits on the -- this one, some incidental telemetry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The date of those telemetry points then -- because when I had met with Nicole Johnson, she had a much more intense series of the telemetry points, and I was just wondering what the discrepancy would have been and why you wouldn't have used hers, or if you don't think hers are relevant for some reason. MR. DURHAM: From what I've seen, what we're being shown on some of their exhibits is telemetry and GPS mixed together. They're all the same color red with dots and triangles. This is through June when we started working on the habitat conservation bank, putting exhibits together for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: June of what year? MR. DURHAM: I'm sorry, this year, 2011, excuse me. And what -- the reason they're on this exhibit, this is something we used in conjunction with the conservation -bank application. We obviously had it in the mine later for this meeting today. What we're showing there is the general trend over 20 years of what the telemetry points are showing. The data since June of this year through September adds more telemetry points but also very graphically some GPS points which are -- I can't apples and oranges, but there's a slightly different flavor to the two. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this says it's GPS and telemetry data, so -- MR. DURHAM: I'm sorry. This one may be, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how would this one be more relevant? If you're saying the GPS data isn't relevant -- or isn't as relevant, how come this one's being used by you guys? MR. DURHAM: This is being used primarily for what you're seeing over here on the east side which the conservation lands in -- lands are. Page 45 of 93 A 7 t 6 1 `2 >, November 3, 2011 The point of this was how the focus of the existing conservation lands out there -- Dinner Island (sic), Spirit of the Wild, Okaloacoochee State Forest, how all those are being -- you know, have a value to that clump of telemetry points out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're discounting the GPS as not as relevant, then we don't know how many GPS points are in the area that you're considering the 3,700 acres because you've got a -- it doesn't differentiate whether it's GPS or telemetry, so how do we know that the area you're providing is any more in telemetry than the one that you're working on? If your points represent GPS and telemetry both on both sites, you could have one represent -- I mean, you could have all GPS sites on the site that you have out east, couldn't you? MR. DURHAM: Mr. Strain, if we had started to create an exhibit specifically and only for this presentation, we would have built it differently. Frankly, we took an existing exhibit that had a different purpose, cropped it, and added the Lost Grove Mine to it. I'm sorry if we're trying to infer any conclusions with those dots. Those are ancillary information to assist us in a sit -down discussion we were having with Fish and Wildlife Service. I should have purged them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I wasn't -- I wasn't really going in the direction this is now being discussed, but when you kind of discounted the GPS sites, yet this one brings -- uses both, I couldn't figure out why you'd want to use it if you're discounting it. MR. DURHAM: We were talking to the Fish and Wildlife Service officials who -- that was not really a valid point. And I'm not discounting GPS points, let me be clear on that. I think you have to be careful to distinguish between them and telemetry as having slightly different significance generally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's assume then we'll just discuss the points that are on the Lost Grove Mine as they're on this map for this discussion. How many of those points are from the same animal; do you know? MR. DURHAM: A vast majority of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that means over 60 percent? Over -- I mean, so you've got, what -- is there 12 points there? So you're saying eight of them are from the same panther one from the other? So you've got two panthers? I'm trying to understand how -- because telemetry, I believe, is unique to each animal. MR. DURHAM: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many animals have been going onto your site? MR. DURHAM: Several over the years have been on the site at one time or another. The vast majority of the points, whether GPS or telemetry, are occurring from a cat that actually denned on the site and spent a lot of time on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know where the den was? I mean, in that aerial you showed, it's most -- 70 percent citrus. Were they in the WRAs -- MR. DURHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that are supposed to be water? MR. DURHAM: My knowledge is with conversation over the phone with people in the game commission, so I can't tell you with absolute certainty. I know the impression I have from my discussions, but I did not record those calls. It is not unusual for panther to go into things like the WRA on an opportunistic basis within citrus areas. It happens in numerous places. Citrus areas do have deer and hog in there on occasion. When there's no panther around, they wander in a little bit more. When a panther shows up, he kind of does some ambush hunting out of some of those more covered areas. The deer and hog figure that out after a while and kind of go away. So we do see panther come in and use some of the natural areas of citrus groves all over South Florida. But when you analyze the total use of habitats by panther, it's weighted more towards the other habitats. But that's why we stipulated from the beginning, yes, panther do come through this area. They also get hit by cars in this area. There's no doubt there's panthers in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The denning that a panther does is what time of year? MR. DURHAM: It's not quite as seasonal as you see for wood storks or things like that. There can be some variety in that. Page 46 of 93 1612 A? November 3, 2011 One point I did want to kind of bring up -- it had been mentioned before -- but one of the main things we look at with projects and panthers is trying to avoid nighttime traffic as much as possible. There have been panther mortalities on Corkscrew Road, as on other roads across the county. A majority of those do happen at night, so there is some benefit to restricting, you know, the mine operation as a daytime -hour deal. The other thing I did want to discuss was the EAC had made some recommendation about the potential to save the primary-zone habitat that's on the mine site. If I could have a second here to jump back, my concern with that is you see Corkscrew Road separating that. If that site becomes mine and that one little piece becomes habitat for panther with Corkscrew Road right there, I think that may be kind of setting up a problem. I will tell you that Fish and Wildlife Service, should we not -- should we save that piece, will not give us credit for that piece, being disconnected as -is. So we're going to be compensating for that piece whether we save it or not. And I think it may be a little bit misguided to be saving that one little piece with, again, Corkscrew Road right there separating it from the native habitat to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you were involved with the RLSA overlay; were you not? MR. DURHAM: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you remember the discussion involving that piece north of Corkscrew Road? If you notice on the RLSA overlay -- the RLSA overlay does not show that primary north of Corkscrew Road. I remember there was a discussion. I can't remember all the details because it's been, what, six years, seven years. MR. DURHAM: Longtime, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that piece is pulled out, and the preservation lands or the preferred lands are stopped at Corkscrew Road, and from Corkscrew Road north it's considered open lands. MR. DURHAM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering if you remember if -- how that discussion -- how that evolved versus the plan that we have here today. Do you remember it better than I do? MR. DURHAM: I have a vague recollection. I would presume that there was some discussion that Corkscrew Road kind of isolated that a bit and made -- since it does not have it there. But I do not remember the specific conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember it came up. I just can't go back that far. MR. DURHAM: You do bring up a good point, though. In some of those discussions, there was quite a bit of talk about panther corridors through this area. And one of the main desires for a corridor was one that runs to the east of this project that would then run north and towards the east. So this area has been looked at in terms of panther use as part of that RLSA you're mentioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had testimony that there was no -- from the hydrology perspective, no adverse impact on the WRAs or the CREW lands. With your experience, do you see any issues with that statement? MR. DURHAM: I do not. And let me expand just a bit, because I don't think you got one of your questions answered adequately earlier. The WRAs which we are preserving on site, in their current condition, they're of a moderate quality. Their hydraulic regime is just totally affected by what the citrus operation is. So they're wet enough to survive, but just not a very natural hydroperiod. With the mine operation, we would expect that water level to be slightly beneficial to those WRAs and follow a more natural cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you feel like when the mine's water level goes up and down, the hydrology in the WRAs will go up and down with it; is that what you're -- MR. DURHAM: More or less, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, I'm going to have other questions -- MR. DURHAM: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I'll wait till we get into general questions, and I've got plenty of -- they've been popping up once in a while. Thank you. MR. DURHAM: Thank you. MS. PERRY: Good afternoon. I'm Margaret Perry from WilsonMiller Stantec. I am here to talk on just a few slides very shortly about the issue of neighborhood compatibility and what we've proposed to do to try to address these issues. Page 47 of 93 161 %. IA November 3, 2011 Section 22.112 of your Code of Laws and Ordinances calls out the requirements for setbacks for an excavation. These are 50 feet from right -of -ways, highways, abutting properties, et cetera. What we're proposing is a -- is a setback from both the western property line and Corkscrew Road of 300 feet, roughly the distance of a football field. Within that 300 feet, we're proposing a 70- to 80- foot -wide buffer, that is -- I'm sorry -- berm that is 8 feet high; along the western property line a Type A buffer modified to include a single row hedge, and along Corkscrew Road your typical Type D buffer, which is trees and a double row hedge. So these first three slides are just various cross - sections. The first two are two samples along the western property line, and then this third one is the buffer proposed along Corkscrew Road. Kind of in summary, this kind of tells the story. The area along the western boundary you can see the 300 -foot setback, including the 70- foot -wide, 8- foot -high berm. Some other things we wanted to talk about relative to neighborhood compatibility, what we have proposed. First of all, we're -- as you saw in our master plan, the operations center is centrally located, and internal paved roads will be provided to the operations center. We plan to use best - management practices relative to dust control, as Dennis mentioned earlier, water trucks to -- water roads to keep the dust down. We're proposing the wheel wash system off -site -- on -site, I'm sorry, at access to internal roads so it will be paved -- they won't go back to dirt -- with a minimum setback of 150 feet from perimeter boundaries. We're also proposing the installation of deceleration/acceleration lines on 82 and Corkscrew Road, and I think those were discussed earlier, and we're working out the specifics of those. We're proposing the queuing staging of all haul trucks on site, not backing up on either Corkscrew or State Road 82. And, of course, we'll be in compliance -- we'll have to stay in compliance -- with the county's noise ordinance. To expand just a little bit on blasting that Dennis talked about earlier, we will handle any complaints and claims as required by Florida Statute. We have offered and have agreed to preblast and post -blast surveys provided to abutting property owners, and the associated cost for those surveys will be incurred by the mine owner or operator. We've agreed to the formation of a neighborhood committee to select an independent engineer to assess any damage. This is similar to what was done for the Jones Mine mentioned earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read that 42 -page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- those 42 stipulations? MS. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they're going to be issues here today. Thank you. MS. PERRY: Okay. And make a commitment to repair structures or wells, the cost, once again, to be incurred by the mine owner /operator. Kind of switching gears here, getting away from compatibility, more about what a mine in this location would mean economically to both the county and the region. At full operation the mine is expected to employ approximately 54 people with an annual payroll of approximately $1.8 million. The other value for Collier County we believe is the value of the approximately 21 acres that we're providing for stormwater- management lakes for State Road 82 estimated to be in the neighborhood of $327,000. And, eventually, the increase in tax base as the agriculture operation is turned over to mining, because there's a higher rate for mining as opposed to citrus. With that, I'm going to turn it back over to Don to summarize, but I'll be happy to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stay right there until we get done with you. Anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you go back to your sections on the boundary lines? MS. PERRY: Sure. That's along Corkscrew Road. This is one point along the western boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. PERRY: Another point along the western boundary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And a couple things. Is there going to be any fencing around this -- on this site? Page 48 of 93 16 it 2 ko7embert,12011 MS. PERRY: We were not planning to fence. We figured an 8- foot -high berm, you know, within a 300 -foot setback would be adequate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the future use of this thing, that would probably down the road become residential, do you think, or some sort of -- ' MS. PERRY: It's probable, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there --so the people from Lee County will be able to just walk up that berm and then go into the -- have access to the quarry? MS. PERRY: You know, that I don't know. It could be -- who knows what the future would hold for a future residential development. But are you talking right now or in future? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just on this section alone. So there's no perimeter fencing, nothing that would restrict access. MS. PERRY: That is what we're planning right now, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On the staging of trucks and queuing of trucks on site, mining operations commence at 6 a.m. daily? MS. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: When do you anticipate the first trucks to arrive? MS. PERRY: We'd anticipate, you know, 5:30, 5:45. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And how many trucks can you stage on site? MS. PERRY: That one I don't know, because I'm not really a mining expert. Perhaps Dennis, our mining expert, could give you a better -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What if you have 500 trucks show up at one time; can you hold them all? MS. PERRY: Well, I don't -- I really don't think that would happen. I think they would go, you know, through the day, but perhaps Dennis could more respond to that -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm just trying to get an idea of what the capacity for the staging queuing is on site beginning in -- first thing in the morning, for example. MR. ROSA: It's -- we're probably going to be a couple thousand feet from State Road 82, so it's almost a half a mile. And that would queue up quite a few trucks. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're not going to -- there's not going to be any gate, per se? I mean, there's going to be an access road. The trucks will traverse down and then wait for the operation to be -- MR. ROSA: There'll be a gate at the north end of the staging area, or the processing area, yeah, the operation center. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And where do you stage; inside the gate? MR. ROSA: Couple thousand feet. No, there'll be -- from that gate back to State Road 82 would be the area they would queue up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. All right. Thanks. MR. ROSA: And to answer your question about the fence, federal mine safety laws requires a fence around a mine. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All the queues would be on 82. There wouldn't be on Alico Road -- I mean on Corkscrew Road. MR. ROSA: They'd all be within the property limits. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you might also have a queue on Corkscrew Road? MR. ROSA: Coming off of Corkscrew Road there may be a couple trucks that would queue, but there is a pretty good distance also from Corkscrew to the operations center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fencing, where does that fence have to be? Is it -- MR. ROSA: It would be basically on the property line. We could have an internal fence that would fence off the mining area temporarily as the phases progress. But we have to have it fenced off and protected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the picture that's on the screen now, somewhere in that profile Page 49 of 93 16! c A 7 November 3, 2011 would be -- how high a fence would that be? MR. ROSA: It would probably be 6- foot -high fence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So somewhere there'll be a fence added to that profile? MR. ROSA: I would say the logical place is along the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. How about -- so obviously down around the panther area -- are you going to fence around that or -- MR. ROSA: To start with, we probably wouldn't. There would probably be an intermediate fence south of our first phase. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ROSA: That would not be fenced. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the regulation is such that you have to fence off access to the open -water surface, right? MR. ROSA: Yes. To the active mining areas, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. When you're mining the other lake, can you remove the fence on the past lake? MR. ROSA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So open water has to be fenced? MR. ROSA: As long as it's a mine, it has to be fenced. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess after you complete it and you sell it to residential lots, it's no longer a mine then; you could remove it? MR. ROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else at this time? About your fence. You said on the property line, so that means all those residences to the west and east, if you were to get approved, we would have to be looking at some, probably, rag -tag (sic) chain -link fence in back of their property. MR. ROSA: Well, I said the logical place, and I think logical from our standpoint. But if we had to put a buffer out there, we could -- we could do that and back the fence up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just want to make sure -- there's going to be so much to write down about this. Thank you. And I have some questions of Margaret. MS. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margaret, your slide said $327,000 worth of donated land. How many acres are you involved in that? MS. PERRY: That is 28.1 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that for -- what? What 28.1 acres are you do- -- are you donating for that value? Which is -- what's -- who required it; for the road right -of -way? MS. PERRY: Yeah -- not for road right -of -way. For the water management for -- from State Road 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you -- that's -- divide that out. What kind of numbers we got on that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Strain, if you want us to talk about compensation, we can do that now, but the road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just responding to her slide, and she says that their land value is 327,000. MS. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you divide 28 acres into that, that's -- what is it? MS. PERRY: Fifteen thousand an acre. And that amount came from a recent appraisal that was done on other Alico property and the same type of citrus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have been making really bad deals on land purchases. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, it's not -- let me explain. State Road 82 -- State Road -- State Road 29. Page 50 of 93 1612 A ov ember 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting a little tongue -tied, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We met with DOT, and they're both state roads. They have enough right -of -way. And we said, what do you want from this project? It's a conditional use. Proportionate share is not required. DOT said, we have the right -of -way, we have preliminary designs, we need water management. We said, that's fine. In -- under the recommendation that's in front of you, it's not acreage. It's acre feet. You have to provide X amount of acre feet of water management. They can do it at their discretion through the lakes that they're going to dig, through property they provide to DOT. So when DOT or the county asks for it -- and it's going to be DOT, not the county, they'll provide that acre feet of water management. How they provide it is up to them. It can be through ponds that they dig right now. So to assign a value to it is arbitrary, in my opinion, right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have other right -of -ways in the county that different values have been assigned to, and that's quite low. So anyway, just to be fair, I'm surprised at the value that you assigned to your rural land. Twenty -eight acres, do you agree with that -- that calculation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I haven't looked at it, you know, and I don't think DOT has. They've stipulated it as acre feet, which is impervious to be put into the site. You know, if they provide it as part of their lakes, then that calculation wouldn't apply to anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know proportionate share isn't required for a CU, but a CU isn't required to be approved either. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This buffer shows -- well, first of all, you talked about roads previously, that they're going to be 150 foot back from the perimeter boundaries. Perimeter boundaries of what? MS. PERRY: You mean the wheel -wash system? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, you -- one of your slides you had it on. You can keep going forward. I thought it said roads, but I could have been wrong. It moved pretty fast. Wheel -wash systems at accessed internal roads, and a setback of -- minimum 150 feet from perimeter boundaries. So where do you -- so is that just -- okay. Let's start with two questions. Where do you intend to put the nearest internal paved road to the western or southern property line that isn't an exit road? MS. PERRY: I'm going to -- if you don't mind, I'm going to go back to the beginning showing the master plan that perhaps that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to lose your place, you know. MS. PERRY: I know, sorry. As you can see, the majority of the western property line contains the mining lake area. So I would presume the internal roadways would be on the gray area that you see here for the paved internal - roadway network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gray area, or is it -- okay. One guy -- if you're talking about the area that says "mine operation center" -- MS. PERRY: Mine operation center, and then if -- it's kind of another color gray down below that wraps around the WRA. In essence, it appears that the mining area along the western boundary, there isn't going to be internal roads next to the western boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. So you are not intending in the setback to put any internal roads? I don't care about the -- I understand the buffer, but the setback to whatever that comes out, you won't be putting roads in the setback? MS. PERRY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You won't be putting a wheel wash in the setback? MS. PERRY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way that reads now, a wheel wash could go within 150 feet of the boundary, and that's what my concern was. MS. PERRY: Yeah, you're right. Page 51 of 93 1612 A7 a November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your buffers, you showed a series of citrus trees. MS. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to maintain those citrus trees for perpetuity as part of the buffer system? MS. PERRY: We cannot guarantee perpetuity because we don't know about greening or canker or something. Our intent is to leave three to four rows there, keep them viable, hopefully. But, you know, perpetuity, no, because we can't -- we can't guarantee that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you show a buffer system or a set -- or a system like that on an exhibit to a conditional use. I'm wondering how -- if it goes away just because the trees die or you have to maintain it. That's where I was wondering why the word "perpetuity" came into play. MS. PERRY: Well, I think our description, our written description as opposed -- I don't think these illustrative cross - sections should be attached to any kind of approval. They were just given to you to show what it would look like. I think our written description of the Type A buffer and the Type D buffer and the height and the width of the berm, plus the setback adequately describes what we intend to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll have to run that with staff then to make sure that the language in your description is comparable to or -- comparable to what your graphic shows. Because it's one thing to show something, and it's another thing to make sure it's written down the same way. I'll have a lot more -- all the slides that you showed that showed the standards you were going to maintain on the site as far as things you saw as compatible, increasing the compatibility. MS. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those -- I don't know how many of them are actually worded into the document, because some of them, I think, came as a result of maybe your review of the Jones Mine stipulations. I would assume then that you're accepting all those -- or as a beginning of a stipulation list? I mean, if you're going to -- MS. PERRY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? MS. PERRY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't say something you can't do, because as far as I'm concerned anything you say is going to be stipulated. So why don't we go back to that list and you can tell me what ones you're now concerned about stipulating. MS. PERRY: Okay. Not our list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm asking about, your list. I know you got some of them from the Jones Mine list, and you acknowledged, yes, you did. My question is, the ones that you have on the list you presented to us, this page and the next one, if they were stipulated to be part of your project, do you have a problem with that? MS. PERRY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. That's all I was trying to get to. MS. PERRY: I got confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Thank you. That's all. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you. And we'll try to get this wrapped up here. Mark, just to answer that last question, we were under the impression that you were saying that the Jones Mine conditions would be a stipulation. We just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not yet. MR. SCHROTENBOER: We just heard it incorrectly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My intention is to get to those 42 stipulations and walk through them one by one to see where we're going to go with them all. MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think you've made that very clear. Thank you. Good. I just want to kind of wrap briefly, kind of in summary form what are some of the things we've heard today. Some of them may be repetitive, so bear with me, but we will work through it. Page 52 of 93 16 4.- A 7 November 3, 2011 2 First and foremost, probably one of the more important things that we need to recognize, as you've already heard, is that the Lost Grove Mine has obtained and is in receipt of its environmental resource permit from the DEP on May 25th. And I know it was quoted to you, once again, but I think it's worthwhile to reiterate these quotes from that permit itself. The results of the preliminary well water testing have shown that the site can be mined without adverse affects to the regional groundwater. It doesn't talk about just the site itself. It's talking about the region. The eventual replacement of the portion of the citrus groves with reclaimed quarry lakes should result in a net improvement in the water quality and quantities for the CREW lands through decreases in agricultural discharges and groundwater pumping. So the testimony that you heard today is testimony from the experts themselves, but it has also been proven by the DEP. The ERP is one of the crux of the issues between the two counties itself. Lee County, although it requires an ERP permit, obviously state sanctioned, they totally disregard its findings and task their own staff internally to find and justify their own, you know, findings to the same type of things. They use different type of modeling; they use different types of science to achieve different results, but there is no recognition for the DEP permit within Lee County, as they have their own staff. Conversely, in Collier County your staff here puts full merit into the DEP knowing that it is well - proven science, well - proven modeling behind it, and years of experience, and the result -- or not the result, but the excruciating detail that the DEP puts into those permits. This permit was obtained -- I think it was almost two years -- I think it was a good year and a half, maybe two years of working with DEP, having them personally come out on site and doing their own modeling and looking at their own science and achieving their results. Big difference between the two counties in that respect. Furthermore, Lost Grove Mine does not impact any jurisdictional wetlands as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers and also the DEP. Lost Grove Mine received unanimous approval earlier from the Environmental Advisory Council. As was stated earlier, as the project progresses and upon completion, over 692 acres of lakes will provide groundwater benefits and enhance the environment to support further wildlife. Surface -water management is designed to not discharge during the mining season -- during the mining phase. During the entire mining phase, there is no discharge from the mine. Upon completion of the mining phase, the surplus -water management will discharge at its pre- mining discharge rate, which is established by the county. The community outreach program that I spoke about earlier resulted in numerous compatibility issues, and it resulted, thereof, as many of what Margaret has talked about and also in the conditions from your staff. As determined by the Collier County staff that you'll hear from in just a few minutes, the Lost Grove Mine is found to be consistent with the -- Collier County's Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code and thus will be approving or recommends approval of the CUP (sic) and the excavation permit before you today. And we, as the applicant, agree with the staff stipulations that will be brought forward. And, again, as a reminder, and I'm quite positive that you'll be hearing this throughout the day possibly from your county legal staff, Heidi and Jeff, Lee County has no legal standing or jurisdiction over this petition. Furthennore, Lee County's LDC and Growth Management Plan cannot be legally utilized to evaluate this petition here before you in Collier County. With that, I think our presentation is concluded, and myself and the rest of our team are available for your questions or comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question. Your last two comments about Lee County. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think this board has taken the position on any legal standing or jurisdiction. We're treating them as though they're another interested party offering comments, number one. I just want to keep the record square. MR. SCHROTENBOER: And it is square. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, number two, I don't believe any of us had anticipated or reviewed the -- Lee Page 53 of 93 1612 A November 3, 2011 County's LDC or Growth Management Plan. That's worse than our plan as far as trying to understand it. So I wouldn't even want to attempt to understand their plan. MR. SCHROTENBOER: It's worse in a lot of ways other than just understanding it. But I appreciate it. You are on the record, and we fully recognize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- there was something else I wanted to ask you. Oh, yes, sir. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. You stated community outreach results in resolution of numerous compatibility issues? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you talk about some of the things that you've changed in your plan in response to community input? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Going the wrong way here. Yeah, many of them Margaret Perry touched upon in it. We have expanded the buffer. We have widened the berm. We have enhanced the landscape that was presented today. We have committed through this to do the paved roads that were highlighted from the public roads into the operational center. What else was there? Oh, the queuing and the staging of the trucks on site was not originally a part of this application, and we have agreed to fully accommodate that. Part of what came out of the EAC was the lighting limitation to 20 feet and, obviously, we have agreed to that. And some of the blasting issues -- I think I've got to go back here. The blasting issues, as far as monitoring, setting up a neighborhood committee, a commitment to repair for any repairs or structures that are deemed to be from the mine are all commitments we've made during the community outreach. And that may not even cover all of them. I know they are covered in your staff stipulations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. I think the statement implies that you sort of satisfied the community, but you're just saying that you moved in their direction? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Phil? MR. BROUGHAM: Question, sort of a follow -up. The preblast survey and post -blast survey would occur when? Before and after every blast? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That -- I'm going to have to turn that question over either to Jeff Straw or to Dennis Rosa, if you don't mind. MR. BROUGHAM: I mean, the word sound -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. I understand what that says. I want to clarify it so you understand. CHARUV AN STRAIN: You're a popular guy here today. MR. ROSA: Not me, I'm telling you. I've never been. Preblast survey would occur prior to any blast -- preblast survey would occur prior to any blasting. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So earlier you said that on average you'd be blasting twice a week? MR. ROSA: Twice a week. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On average. MR. ROSA: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So before and after every blast? MR. ROSA: No. Before we start any work, we would do a complete preblast survey of the structures in question. MR. BROUGHAM: And then -- MR. ROSA: And then a post -blast survey would be after damage would occur or a complaint for damage. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's not -- excuse me for interrupting. MR. ROSA: So the -- after the blast if somebody complained that there was damage, then a post -blast survey would be started. MR. BROUGHAM: So a preblast survey would be prior to the onset of any mining operations. You would survey all of the adjacent properties within a certain footage. I'm not sure what. Page 54 of 93 1611,2 A47Noveliber 3, 2011 MR. ROSA: Whatever the agreed -upon footage is in the -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Then you commence -- perhaps you commence mining operations and blasting. MR. ROSA: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And only -- tell me if I heard you correctly, only if and when you receive a complaint from someone about damage would you then do a post -blast survey? MR. ROSA: That's correct. MR. BROUGHAM: And this would be for the period the mine's in operation? MR. ROSA: For the entire period it's in operation, that's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And is there -- I'm trying to phrase the right question. Some of these homes may or may not be occupied full time. MR. ROSA: That's correct. MR. BROUGHAM: Okay. So you do a preblast survey, and hopefully you get the majority of the homes surveyed and provide that documentation to the owner. And you commence mining operations, and a certain owner comes back to occupy his home six month later, eight months later and says, whoops, something happened. What's that process then that you would do a post -blast survey and come to some resolution? Is there a time limit between the blast that caused the damage and the reporting of the damage? MR. ROSA: I think we would have to assume that the blast that caused the damage was fairly close to the time of the complaint. So, you know, it could be -- it could be two years after mining started, or it could be -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That could be problematic if that home is not occupied 100 percent of the time. MR. ROSA: But if that person could establish that they were not there -- we have no idea -- if there is a complaint, we would have no idea what particular blast caused that problem. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand that. MR. ROSA: So when we go out and do the post -blast survey and it indicates there's damage, at that point it would initiate a remedial action. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're not --what I understood you to say just then, you would not be tying the complaint to a specific blast or a specific period of time? If there was damage that you -- that was determined to be caused by a blast, after the preblast survey, then there would be no argument about compensating or doing remedial action for that damage? MR. ROSA: There would be no argument if it could be established that it was blasting that caused it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I'm just trying to get to the point that you're not going to tie homeowners necessarily up to a specific blast, a specific time to report the blast, et cetera, et cetera, which could be months. MR. ROSA: Yeah. I understand your concern, and we would not do that. It would be -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So noted. MR. ROSA: Yeah, so noted. My boss is back here ready to hang me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just want answers. We appreciate you providing them. And I had a question of Tim Durham. Is he still here somewhere? He ran off. Oh, okay. MR. DURHAM: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Tim. MR. DURHAM: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I meant to ask this when you were up there before. You had some state permits and some federal permits. Were they retired? You talked about a series of permits. You said that you're outside the Corps of Engineers process. MR. DURHAM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the required permits that you were -- you had to have from the state and Feds -- MR. DURHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- can you tell me which -- which of them you had to have from state and which you Page 55 of 93 had to have from the Feds? MR. DURHAM: 1 required. 1612 A 7 November 3, 2011 The DEP for example, that was state. South Florida Water Management was state. orrect. And then the environmental aspect, those are the ERP permits for the site. That is CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Feds? Did you have any required permits from the Feds? MR. DURHAM: There are no wetland- related permits required from the Feds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any permits required from the Feds? MR. DURHAM: We had a wetland jurisdictional determination done to officially evaluate whether wetlands were -- Corps just said whether wetlands would be impacted or not. That was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me -- MR. DURHAM: That was required, but not the permit afterwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me the date of issuance of the state permits that you had and the date of issuance of the federal permits you had? MR. ENGLISH: May 25, 2011, the ERP from DEP. MR. DURHAM: The ERP from DEP, the date -- looks like it's right here -- say it again. MR. ENGLISH: May 25, 2011. MR. DURHAM: May 25, 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one state permit from the DEP. Does that also coincide with the South Florida Water Management District? And I just need a general year or month, and I'm not looking at specific days. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English. The agricultural operation, its water - management system operates under a South Florida Water Management District permit. And under that permitting process, the -- any wetlands issues were handled at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had to modify the pennit, though, when you went in with the mining excavation or mine -- and either the excavation permit or the -- yeah, for the excavation permit, didn't you? MR. ENGLISH: Yeah. And the agreement we had was -- between DEP and the Water Management District is, we would apply for an ERP through DEP, and then we would file a letter of modification for a paper trail to remove that area from the Water Management District permitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about the wetlands jurisdictional lines? Do you know the date you attained those? MR. ENGLISH: When we received the letter from the Army Corps stating no jurisdiction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ENGLISH: I do not have that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the year? MR. ENGLISH: The year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ENGLISH: It was 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I needed. It's going to help Kay answer some questions. MR. ENGLISH: If you need a specific date, I could probably call the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The year is fine in this case. MR. ENGLISH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SC14ROTENBOER: Anything further, Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. I think we're fine. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that concludes your presentation for now. I have a huge amount of questions that I know not many people are going to want to sit through. So what I'm going to do is hold all my questions off -- or at least the bulk of them. I shouldn't say all of them because then I'd be lying, because I already started too many questions -- until I hear all the presentations, including the comments from the public, because I want them to be heard first. And then I'm going to ask to go back through all the questions that I have on the -- from your various experts and start all over, but I want to make sure the public -- we can get to them as quick as possible. Page 56 of 93 to .i t6i 2. A7 ovember 3 2011 MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think that's an appropriate procedure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the rest of you, it's up to you on call, but I think that ends the -- so far the presentation by the applicant. Kay, I think you're up next. Then after Kay will be Lee County. After Lee County will be the members of the public who are here. We'll start with you, and we'll go forward. Hi, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal planner in zoning, and I've been the project manager for this particular petition. We also have on staff with us today Mike Bosi. He can address comprehensive planning issues; Jack McKenna, the county engineer; and Steve Lenberger, who can address environmental issues; John Podczerwinsky, who can address transportation issues, along with Nick Casalanguida; and we also have Ray Bellows here if you have any specific zoning issues that I'm not able to address. You have received a copy of the staff report with its numerous attachments. The staff report is a document that was revised 10/26/11. The staff report goes into detail beginning on Page 2 talking about the surrounding land uses in zoning. It contains a map on Page 3 that shows the general outline of the subject site and its relationship to the Lee County line and Corkscrew Road. The Growth Management Plan consistency is discussed beginning on Page 3 addressing the Future Land Use Element, the RLSA issues, and the transportation element beginning on Page 5, and continuing with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element on Page 6. The Conservation and Coastal Management Element issues are further discussed in the EAC staff report that was presented to the EAC, and that was also included in your packet. On Page 7 of the staff report is a brief discussion about the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Staff was unable to find any active interlocal agreements with Lee County, but we have, since the onset of the project submittal, worked with Collier County -- or with Lee County and provided documents to them. We also contacted Hendry County and asked if they had any interest. They recognized that they received our letter, but we never got anything in follow -up from them. The overall analysis begins on Page 8 of the staff report, going into the issues that are required to be addressed for conditional -use approval by the Land Development Code. The first item talks about the conditional uses allowed in the rural agricultural zoning district, and this particular request is addressed as potential conditional -use application. It talks about the consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, which ties into the prior discussions about the Growth Management Plan. It also goes into detail about some of the issues of the Land Development Code and how the particular project is in compliance with those issues. On Page 9 it talks about the effects the conditional use would have on the neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects and discusses our position on those. And this Article Item 4, it does talk about the interactions between Lee County and Collier County staff and the applicant. And we've tried to incorporate the concerns that have been given to us by Lee County. We've looked at the conditions they wish to have adopted, and we've evaluated them and worked with them and the applicant to try to come to some resolution that was agreeable and fair to all parties, and we think we have accomplished that. On Page 10, Item No. 5 talks about compatibility with adjacent properties and, of course, this is linked to Item 4 as well and talks about the setbacks. And since this was written, you know, the applicant continues to make concessions as to what he's going to do to address compatibility and setback buffering. There is a brief discussion about stormwater and just some additional comments regarding the environmental review and the transportation review. We have provided the motion from the EAC. That particular meeting was held on September 7th. The applicant conducted a neighborhood information meeting in Collier County pursuant to the Land Development Code requirements, and there is a notation and some comments, synopsis, about that meeting that was held on January 12th. As you noted in the applicant's presentation, they also had an additional NIM, neighborhood information meeting, in Lee County at the request of Lee County residents. Page 57 of 93 :3- 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 Going onto Page 16, the staff recommendation is provided to you. There are several conditions. And Heidi has looked those over, and in the last few days has drafted some changes to these. I don't think there's substantive changes as far as changing any conditions, but I believe she will want to address that herself rather than having me do it for her. But suffice it to say that staff is recommending the petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval with the conditions provided to you in the staff report. And I'd be happy to address any questions you have or direct them to the appropriate staff member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I ask the bulk of my questions, I just have one question about procedure. And it -- I'm -- it was one I meant to point out when Don was up here talking. In his discussion here he says under the third bullet from the bottom, thus recommends approval of the conditional use and excavation permits. I just want to make sure that the excavation permit is not an issue for discussion at this board because that is -- doesn't go through this board. So we are not going to recommend approval or denial for the excavation permit because it's not within our purview. Is that a fair statement from staff s perspective? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. Thank you for mentioning that. I also had put in my notes that I would mention that, too. The only thing that was advertised for consideration today is the conditional -use application identified as CU- PL2009 -1412. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that distinction is important. With all the material received, basically, the conditional use is the only thing that goes through the three boards. The excavation permit, by our code, only goes to the EAC and the Board of County Commissioners. So it's not one of our issues. Now, as far as questions of Kay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. At some point I don't know -- you're probably not the one to answer this, but I'd be interested to know what happened at the Lee County NIM, because we don't have any information about that at all. MS. DESELEM: I did not attend that meeting, and I don't have any notes from it. The petitioner's agents would have to provide that information to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you attend? MS. DESELEM: I was not required to attend because it wasn't a neighborhood information required by Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not a requirement, but we have an intergovernmental coordination element that says we're to cooperate. And I'm just wondering, wouldn't it have been good cooperation for our staff to be participatory on any of the actions on this mine so we could have a better picture of what we're doing? MS. DESELEM: In hindsight, it wouldn't have been, you know, detrimental, but I mean, I don't know that it would have served too much purpose one way or the other. I would have been there, but I wouldn't have been a participant. I would have just been listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I -- well, I think in the spirit of cooperation it would have been -- in hindsight, maybe if this ever happens again, we can be more cooperative in the way we interact with our neighboring county. Paul, do you have any more you wanted to ask? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to ask any? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, just a comment, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: At some point it was said that the neighbors in Lee County were not notified of the meeting here, and the reason was because it was not a requirement. If I lived in Collier County on the border and Lee County did something, I would certainly want to know about it. I think that we should do something to modify that rule so that neighboring property owners -- I mean, it's not an international boundary here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They ought to be invited or at least be notified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better information -- MS. DESELEM: If I may just -- Page 58 of 93 161;2 k/ 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- helps everybody, and we should have had that in this case. MS. DESELEM: If I may respond. The Land Development Code only requires the applicant -- remember, it's applicant's meeting, not staffs. And it only requires the applicant to notify persons pursuant to the Collier County tax rolls. I believe I was in contact with Lee County staff members and asked them to pass the word along, but that was the best avenue that we had available to us at the time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to see the rule changed so that if it's a property that's on the border, that the bordering property owners would be notified, even if they were in another county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we ought to be looking at is a -- we have a jurisdictional limitation. I'm not sure -- a notification limitation for when we send out notices of zoning changes, and I think it should apply regardless of where municipal boundaries are, whether it be the City of Naples, Lee County, Hendry County, or anywhere else, and I think that's something that could come up on our next round of LDC amendments as far as consideration. Is that reasonable, Nick, from your department? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, but I think more appropriate would be for us to do what we've done and contact Lee County, have Lee County do notice to their residents and invite them to our meeting, so Lee County representatives would attend also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But why would the burden of cost to make that notification be put on the backs of the adjoining county when it should be the applicant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Shouldn't be. The applicant would pay that notice, but Lee County would make sure it's properly vetted, and they would attend the meeting as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, though, it just brings out what Paul has said. Our code needs to be looked at to make that change. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, I don't disagree with you. Let it be known I don't disagree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions of Kay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But just to lighten it up a little bit. In No. 4, going to Page 10, it said that Collier County doesn't review elements beyond the scope of Collier County. And county staff, in compliance with the CCME Goal 13, a policy decision to avoid unnecessary duplication of reviews by other agencies -- and I was looking at the agencies and kind of had to start laughing because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have you seen what they've done to the Everglades? I just -- sometimes I think they should be looked after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, during break I mentioned to you that I needed to get the dates that you established a completed submission for the conditional use and the excavation permit. Have you been able to get those dates? MS. DESELEM: Okay. I asked Jack McKenna to check into the excavation permit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DESELEM: -- because that's under his purview. The conditional -use application was accepted on 10/28/09. When I say accepted, the way it works in our system is if the application is complete, that is they have all the information that's been required through either discussions and agreements with the staff and the applicant and the preapp. notes, it's deemed to be complete at that time. They accept it. And they're allowed to make the payment, and it's processed for review. The difference between complete and sufficient is sometimes questioned, because we get a complete application but staff hasn't reviewed it, and until we have gone through it, reviewed it, and are satisfied that we have adequate information to evaluate the petition, it's not deemed sufficient. Once it's deemed sufficient, it's scheduled for hearing. But as far as complete, this application was accepted and deemed complete on 10/28/09. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that contradicts what you just said, because I told you a little while ago Page 59 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 during -- we came back from break, and I showed you the preapplication notes where it said the copies of the state and federal permits were required in order to be complete, and I just got acknowledgment from the applicant that they weren't done till 2011. I also have an affidavit from the owner -- or the CFO of Alico that was signed on May 21 st of 2010 authorizing representation for the project to Mr. Schrotenboer. So based on those dates, how did you come to the completion date prior to the submission of the federal and state permits that were required by the preapp.? MS. DESELEM: We can only have them submit the permits that have been issued to that date. We don't commonly make them wait to submit their application for a conditional use until all the permits are issued. So normally they just give us what's been issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's not what the preapp. note said. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, can I make a clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: Our process is designed to reflect a completed application if the application has -- provided documentation that they've applied for those permits, not that they had them in hand, because in most cases that isn't possible until late in the review process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read the ordinance to you. It says, existing usage shall include mines which have been approved by the county in mines for which a completed conditional use or excavation permit application has been submitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance. My concern -- and maybe it's the County Attorney's Office who has to address this. We have an ordinance. The letter of the law requires us to stick to it. If you guys have a determination of completeness in regards to the reference to that ordinance, it seems contradictory so far from what I've heard under testimony. It sounds like it is complete when you accept it subject to the criteria of the preapp., but the criteria of the preapp. included the permits that are state and federal. And the applicant has testified that those didn't occur until 2011. I'm just curious -- and you had -- and, Kay, I got a copy of a letter from you on May 14th on the or May 24th of that year saying that it wasn't complete. And I understand now that you are looking at being complete in a different manner than you did then. But I guess from the county attorney's perspective, what is complete in regards to the request in the ordinance? And it's the impact -fee ordinance I'm reading about. Because in -- and I know there's a dollar difference here, and we need to understand, regardless of whose favor it is or it not in, that we've met the letter of the law. We just can't arbitrarily make the rules. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: As I understand it, they've submitted everything that was required with the application except for the permits, which they did not have at that point, correct? MS. DESELEM: That is correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Then my opinion is that they have completed the application to vest themselves under the impact -fee ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: And if -- I'd like to clarify. We won't deem it complete unless they have provided documentation that they've applied for those state permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the application requirement for the preapp. says copies of state and federal permits. If they don't have them, they couldn't provide them. If -- they couldn't provide them or they couldn't be complete if the criteria was that they provided all the things required from the preapp. And, Nick, I understand it means we get less money out of them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not about the money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to make sure we meet the letter of the law. And I don't understand how we've done it with the conflicting testimony I've heard today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you've permitted a lot of projects, so you know. They're multi jurisdictional permits. So if they submit a permit to DEP and the U.S. Army Corps showing X amount of impervious access points, how much they're going to dredge, and they get approved and go through our process and we change all that, what does it do to their permit? So you submit at the same time, you get comments from both agencies at the same time, and they run concurrently parallel. So we want to make sure that they've submitted application so what they're providing to us is consistent to what they're providing with the agencies. They get their RAIs from the agencies, they get their RAIs Page 60 of 93 161 2A7 November 3, 2011 from us, and they run concurrently. For them to go through and get a DEP permit or a Corps permit without having been reviewed by county staff in terms of buffers, setbacks, those things wouldn't make any sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think at some point down the road we need to understand the definition of complete submittal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've had that discussion internally, and I think that's a point well taken that will probably be clarified by the Land Development Code update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For right now, I mean, I understand from the county attorney's position what it is. I don't necessarily agree, but we'll move forward, because the county attorney basically has opined the ordinance has been met. So we can go forward from there. And, Kay, I think everybody else had asked their questions. I had just a couple other. They talked about the buffers and whether or not the graphic was the -- they were going to use written narrative in lieu of the graphic. Have you reviewed the written narrative to assure that it meets the intent of the graphic? MS. DESELEM: I don't think they're the same. I noticed I was looking as the discussion was ongoing with the applicant, and they don't show the citrus area as such, and -- but I do agree with Margaret's interpretation that the written material takes precedence over the graphic. And I'm sure Heidi can opine one way or the other if she sees it differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, my question was not that. I know the written material take preference over the graphic. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I wanted to do is, they presented a graphic saying to the world this is what we're going to do. I want to make sure that what they're going to do is adequately stated in the narrative to match up. That's all, so -- MS. DESELEM: It doesn't precisely match. It mentions existing vegetation in some things, but it doesn't say that that will be maintained in perpetuity or replanted or anything of that nature. My understanding, not being an expert, obviously, in agriculture, but citrus trees have a certain life, and then they die. That's just the nature of how they are, just like everything else. It's not like an oak tree. They're not going to usually be around for a hundred years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, that was my concern is that if the citrus are shown in the graphic and it really wasn't going to be part of the graphic in perpetuity as a conditional -use requirement is, then let's write down what is going to be and make sure that it's accurate and then make sure everybody's aware of what it's going to look like. MS. DESELEM: Yes. If there's going to be vegetation in there other than the citrus or to replace the citrus, that should be clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the staff report there was a reference to concurrency, and it said -- and it was after the SR82 impacts. It said, no subsequent concurrency links in Collier County are significantly impacted by this project. And I understand what that says, but did we look at Lee County? MS. DESELEM: I would have to defer that question to John Podcz, because he did that review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. He's right behind you. MS. DESELEM: Oh, darn. Thank you. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, transportation department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, the comment in here that there are no subsequent concurrency links in Collier County significantly impacted by this project, I understand what that is. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we check Lee County? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, sir. I do not check Lee County's concurrency records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Even though we have the ICE and the intergovernmental cooperation and all the things back and forth, did we make any attempt to find out if there was a concern with Lee County's concurrency issues on State Road 82? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We required the applicant to contact Lee County and let them know the situation Page 61 of 93 B s 1612 November 3, 2011 that they did have a significant impact on Collier County roadways up to the border. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- that they did have a significant impact? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying that on 82 on our side of the road there is a significant impact? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: On 82, I'd have to take a second and look. I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just say that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I think it would be more along the lines of Corkscrew. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, your first link is always considered significant by our rules. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Always. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So whatever driveway they put on, that's the first link, that's significant. I'm the one who said to John, make sure Lee County, Hendry County get a nod on this thing. Rob Price is in the audience. We said, contact them, let them know. We can't force any rules on the applicant that's within our -- you know, that's with -- outside of our jurisdiction, but as a courtesy, make sure their transportation department knows, contact FDOT and let's get them all together in a room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're saying the concurrency issue wouldn't go beyond our county border because the first link is all that you consider -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It doesn't go beyond our border because of our Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just trying to -- and concurrency is important, whether it's in our county MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or another county if the road connects. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 82 is a hurricane evacuation route in Lee County and so is Corkscrew. So my concern was, did we bother to make sure that the impacts there were at least addressed if there are any and to what extent they are? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We made sure that Lee County was aware of it so they could coordinate with us and tell us what they were concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jack, you've been patiently waiting. MR. McKENNA: Yes. For the record, Jack McKenna, your Collier County engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The DEP's reference to a gently sloped shoreline in regards to 5- -- 50,299 linear feet, do you know what slope that gently sloped shoreline is? MR. McKENNA: I am not sure of the reclamation slopes, but the -- I've seen reference that says that they're going to be varying slopes, but the graphic seems to show 4 to 1. I'm going to ask the applicant to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the standard, like a littoral zone slope would be? MR. McKENNA: It's got to be flatter than 4 to 1, typically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McKENNA: They can vary from flat to 4 to 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fetch formula, can you tell me how that would or would not be used in this particular application? MR. McKENNA: The fetch formula is a -- it's in our excavation ordinance, particularly applicable to private and development excavations, and it's referenced also under commercial excavations. But under the commercial excavations, it's to be utilized unless there's a hydrogeologic report that shows evidence that there wouldn't be any negative impact to the groundwater table. And in this case they provided a report that didn't show any negative impact. It's not close to the saline boundary, and the -- so the fetch formula isn't utilized in this case in a mine application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I mentioned to this -- mentioned this next item to you as a heads -up yesterday. Policy 5.3.16 of our CCME. I think it -- yeah, CCME. It says, Collier County Engineering Services Department shall work with the DEP and Florida Geological Page 62 of 93 A 7 :4 1 November 3, 2011 Survey and local mining industry officials to inventory and assess the existing mineral reserves in Collier County. The inventory and assessment will incorporate use of GIS -based database .4 all areas within Collier County that are permitted either by right or through a conditional -use permit to conduct mineral extraction operations as well as the volume of fill that is permitted to be removed for each such active mineral extraction operations. And I know you've been looking diligently to find that information. Have you been able to find it yet? MR. McKENNA: What I have -- we have approximately 103 million cubic yards that have been permitted within Collier County, and of that approximately 31 million has been excavated to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have 133 million -- MR. McKENNA: A hundred and three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A hundred and three, so we've got about a third of the -- MR. McKENNA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. So we still have over 60 million yards of excavated -- permitted excavation available to be dug in Collier County from what you can tell? MR. McKENNA: Based on our current records, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't expect that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How much? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have 103 million yards permitted, of which only 31 million yards have been utilized. So -- wow. We didn't have that information readily available when I asked you about it, so we've had to kind of hustle to get that together, you feel it's fairly accurate? MR. McKENNA: It's my best information available at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you get any corrections on that and if this gets continued, I'd like to make sure we're as accurate as possible. MR. McKENNA: You got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all I've got for now, Jack. Thank you. Anybody else have questions? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jack, down the road 40 years, what is this lake going to be, 145 feet deep? I mean, what is this thing? I mean, we may battle out a littoral zone. MR. McKENNA: Well, I -- you know, I look at some of the other areas that were mined. The -- what's -- the quarry up off Immokalee Road. You know, from my point of view, they formed very functional, attractive lakes. The Quarry, the pit that is up on Airport Road, that was a Bonness pit. Don't know that those went to the 145 -foot depth, but they're deep, you know. And I can't say that as an engineer that I find it dysfunctional, let me put it that way. And -- you know, and I would be happy to live on one myself COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The service, but we've had testimony in the past that these things -- they call it rollover, and all of a sudden all the dead vegetation in the bottom comes up and stuff, so we don't know what kind of an organism this thing's going to be, this lake, do we? MR. McKENNA: I -- my understanding is that when you -- once you get that deep, you're not -- it's not that there's dense vegetation at the bottom that's going to roll over. And we don't have the tendency to roll over as much in our southern climates as you see up north where the nighttime temperatures can get so cold and cause the warmer water on the bottom to rise up and actually overturn the lake. I haven't seen any evidence since I've lived down here of those pits that I just mentioned, that -- really turning over and becoming an ugly -- or a, you know, major fish kills or anything like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're not creating a monster here? MR. McKENNA: (Shakes head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is, what's the quality of the product from this quarry? Do we -- is it going to be high - quality stone useful for everything, or -- do we know or -- MR. McKENNA: I'm sure the -- I don't -- I can't answer that specifically. I'm sure the applicant is intending for it to be DOT - quality stone, and that's why he's making this investment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Jack. Anybody else? (No response.) Page 63 of 93 1612 p7 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I have one final question before we'll take a break. Terri's typing away, and I'm -- I don't take caffeine anymore, so I can't believe I talk as fast as I used to. So sorry, Terri. Maybe because we have so much to get through and I'm trying to get through it. Kay, this mine is going to be accessing to two -lane, basically, rural roads, one state and one county. Do you know any mine in Collier County that doesn't start out on two -lane roads? MS. DESELEM: I couldn't tell you for sure. I haven't really looked at them based on that criteria. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Doesn't? Does or doesn't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't start out on two -lane roads. The reason I'm asking is there's been a lot of issues about the two- lane -road application. And traffic is a major consideration, and I absolutely agree it is, but at the same time I'm trying to understand why you would have a four -lane road in a rural area so that the mine would have a four -lane road to access to, and what are the mines like in other places in Collier County where they could go? Do we have four -lane roads in those locations? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The mine on 951 is on a new six -lane road that was four. The Brown mine, which -- the APAC mine on Golden Gate Boulevard comes off a two -lane local road and then goes onto a four -lane road. The Jones Mine is on a two -lane section of Immokalee. The sand mine that was approved is on a two -lane section of 82. The other mine that's on the Immokalee bend is on a two -lane section. So these typically space out their trips. If they have an acceleration lane, you're talking 47 peak hour p.m. peak when there's our traffic on the roads, directional trips, so it's not a lot in the nighttime time when we have experienced the high traffic volume. hl the morning sometimes I think they have more of an impact, but that's not what we measured against in our Comp Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the road impacts are concerning. But I'm trying to understand how we've always handled them, because if we've always had two -lane roads -- I mean, most of the time when you go in with a four -lane road or larger, you've got to have the rooftops to support it. So it makes sense that in a rural area we're not going to have too many four -lane roads unless it's like an I -75 or something plowing through. But I'm trying to factor where a mine would go where they'd have a four -lane road access that would be still permittable today without being up against residential. I don't know of any. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jones was the closest one I could think o£ MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And then we had some maps there I printed if you want to look at them, but there's residential all around Jones, residential all around APAC, which is the Brown mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Willow Run. So I don't see it as a compatibility issue with what's been in Collier County historically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break, and we'll come back at 2:40. We'll give Terri 15 minutes, so-- (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off with wrapping up the Collier County discussion and presentation. If any of the Planning Commissioners have any further questions of Collier County -- again, I have more, but I'm going to hold off until we move further into the public's testimony. So, Kay, it looks like you're off the hook for a while. And at this point I'd like to ask Lee County to come up and make their presentation. We had a pre- discussion on their time frame. They said they needed 30 to 45 minutes, and then commissioners' questions after that, and so I will be holding you to that time frame. So please come on up and introduce yourself for the record, if you'll state your name, and we'll proceed through your comments. DR. RIX: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Glen Rix. I'm a professor of civil -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- the mike, unfortunately, doesn't pick up too well sometimes. DR. RIX: Is that better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Page 64 of 93 1612 7 a ovember 3, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Point it up. DR. RIX: How's that? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Closer. DR. RIX: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go, sorry. DR. RIX: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, you're a bigger county, so you've probably got all those fancy microphones you can attach to your lapel and makes life real easy. DR. RIX: No, no, no. This is standard practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: For the record, once again, my name is Glen Rix. I'm a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. I'm here representing today a group of property owners and others that are affected -- potentially affected by this project, including the Estero Council of Community Leaders, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Judge Hugh Starnes, Mr. John Ban, Mr. Neal Hot (phonetic), Mr. Joe Steiger, and Mr. Kevin Hill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, this time was allocated to Lee County. So what's your connection to Lee County? DR. RIX: I have worked closely with the Lee County staff and, in fact, a portion of my fee is being paid by Lee County for my work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NOBLE: If we could, Matt Noble, for the record. This is basically a partnership between the public and private sector. Due to financial constraints in Lee County, we've agreed to pay for the actual review of this project as we do with all mines in Lee County. Dr. Rix is on a retainer to do that work for every single mine in Lee County. We were looking to the public -- private individuals to help pay for today's expenses, as we didn't really have that budgeted. So this is a joint effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was a needed clarification. Thank you. DR. RIX: By way of education, I have a bachelor's, master's and Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering. I've been a faculty member at Georgia Tech for 22 years now, and my expertise is in a field that you might describe as sole dynamics and earthquake engineering, and that includes the measurement and analysis of blast vibration, the propagation of seismic waves through the ground, and other issues that are -- I think are relevant to my presentation today. I have a copy of my vitae should you wish to enter that into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, that's something you -- if you want it entered into the record, you need to do so. These hearings, if there is a challenge, you will need to have everything you want on record. So I would suggest that anything that you're going to do like that, make sure our court reporter gets copies of it -- DR. RIX: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then we'll get it in the record. DR. RIX: So very briefly today I want to talk a little bit about the blasting process, talk a little bit about how structures respond to blasting, and also talk about how humans respond to blasting in terms of their perception and annoyance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're -- unfortunately our system's not picking you up very well. DR. RIX: I'm sorry. I've got to get right on top of this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There it is. DR. RIX: So please bear with me as I explain some rather technical material today. I want you to understand as clearly as you can the process by which I have come to the conclusions that I have. So when a blast is detonated at a point of interest to us, say a nearby structure, we measure the ground vibrations, and we measure them in three perpendicular directions, as indicated by this sample plot here. We then characterize each of those with the largest or peak value of each of those three directions, the longitudinal, the vertical, and the transverse. And that's really the raw data that I'll be talking about today in terms of assessing the impact of blast vibrations. So in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Bureau of Mines did a very comprehensive study of blast - induced Page 65 of 93 November 3, 2011 vibrations that serves as the basis for many of the guidelines that we use today, including the State of Florida statutes. And I just want to show you an example of that or one type of plot. Each of these three plots shows the peak particle velocity as a function of a quantity called the scale distance, which is -- one term that enters into it is the distance from the blast. And so as you see, this is data from 171 blasts at 26 different sites that were cited in their report. And right now I want to draw your attention to these upper lines in each plot. These are the maximum, the upper bound of the data in those plots. The individual data points are not shown because there would be too many and they would sort of obscure the plots. The thinner lines below are the average trends for each of the sites. But that upper line is the maximum or upper bound of the data. And I'm going to come back to that curve in just a minute. And just so that we all understand this quantity that's on the axis of the plot, it's the scaled distance, which is the actual distance, measured usually in feet, divided by a term that is proportional to the amount of explosives that are used in a particular blast, the charge weight per delay. And so as an example, if we're a thousand feet from a blast and they have used 300 pounds of explosives per delay, the scaled distance would be 57.7 feet per square root of pounds. It's a little bit unusual units, but you can see the origin of that term. So that's how we incorporate both the distance from the blast as well as the amount of explosives that have been used in the blast, both of which have a very strong effect on the amplitude of the vibrations that we experience at any distance from the blast. The other thing that the U.S. Bureau of Mines did was they looked at the levels of peak particle velocity that would cause threshold structural damage. And just so that we all understand, these two illustrations here really demonstrate how a structure responds to blasting and how damage is caused. In the upper plot you get sort of diagram -like bending of the wall that often leads to rattling of windows. Pictures and plates and other things mounted on the wall are often knocked off the wall due to that type response. In the lower plot you see a shear, or what they call racking. That's often responsible for causing cracks around existing openings, like doors and windows, as is illustrated in that figure. So those are really the two types of response than tend to cause damage in structures as a result of ground vibrations from blasting. And just so we're clear, what the U.S. Bureau of Mines was setting, their vibration limits deal with threshold damage, which is the first entry here. It's the opening of old cracks and the formation of new plaster cracks, dislodging of loose objects, for example, loose bricks and chimneys. And you can see there are other, more serious levels of damage, but the vibration limits that the State of Florida has adopted, based upon the U.S. Bureau of Mines criteria, are intended to limit the potential for threshold damage. That's a very important point. So this was one of the key figures from the U.S. Bureau of Mines study. It shows the vibration limits, which are peak particle velocity as a function of the frequency, the predominant frequency in the blast. And, in fact, it's exactly that figure that is used as the basis of the State of Florida Statutes, Section 552.30 as indicated by that quote there. Now, there are multiple levels of peak particle velocity. But given the frequency of the blast that we're talking about here, quarry blasting, the most pertinent of these, I believe, is the 0.75- inch -per- second limit that you see in the center of the plot there that I have circled. So that, again, is what I believe is the most relevant of the numbers shown in this plot for the case that we're dealing with today. The other issue here -- and I think it's important. It's a very subtle point but important, okay. You'll find that many say that if you maintain less than 0.75 inches per second that there will be, quote, zero potential for damage. That's inconsistent with the intent of the U.S. Bureau of Mines. If you look at what their intent was, they said the 0.5 inch level -- which if I may back up just a minute, that's the lower level. They sort of -- for plaster, there was a lower level there as opposed to drywall. The 0.5- inch -per- second level will provide protection from blast damage in greater than 95 percent of the cases. So anyone who claims that maintaining less than 0.75 inches per second will preclude any damage or zero potential for damage, that's not truthful. The intent was that it would severely limit the potential for damage but not Page 66 of 93 A 7 ;, 161-2 November 3, 2011 preclude it. Again, a very subtle but important distinction. Let's focus now on the minimum setback, okay. This is a figure the applicant showed just a little while ago along the western boundary. It shows a -- the 300 -foot minimum setback to the property line, and they show the distance from the nearest home to the point of blasting to be 498 feet. So the question is, with that setback can they keep the peak particle velocity below 0.75 inches per second? So to help answer that question we went to the state fire marshal and we requested blasting data from Lee and Collier County, and also shown in this plot is data that I have acquired as a result of previous work that I've done in both counties. So this represents a total of 151 blasts in Lee and Collier Counties. This is the same plot that we looked at earlier. Peak particle velocity, which is -- I don't understand why that came out. I'll have to fix that. I apologize. And then on the X axis is the scale distance. I have no idea why that happened. It looked great on my computer, let's put it that way. But the plot is the same as we showed earlier. And, again, this is data from Lee and Collier County. So now the red line represents a line that lies above 95 percent of the data. So it's a reasonable estimate of a -- sort of an upper bound. It's not quite exactly the upper bound, but it's a reasonable estimate. How do I know that's right? Well, the black dashed line here is that maximum line from the earlier U.S. Bureau of Mines data. So the fact that those two lines are reasonably consistent tells me that using this data from Lee and Collier County, it makes sense. The upper bound is consistent with all of the earlier data that the U.S. Bureau of Mines obtained. So I have confidence that we've made a good estimate of an upper bound, if you like to call it that. So now we can use this data to answer the question: How far away do they need to be to keep 0.75 inches per second? So I would enter the vertical axis there at 0.75. We go over to the red line and down, and that gives me a scale distance of 113 foot per square root pound, all right. So now let's use the charge weight to convert that to an actual distance. Remember how we defined scale distance. So in the absence of a blasting plan from the applicant, what I did was I went back to the data provided by the state fire marshal and I found the minimum charge weight per delay in that data. It was 176 pounds per delay. You use that with the scale distance of 113, you get a minimum distance of 1,500 feet that they must be from the nearest structure off property. By the way, the maximum charge weight contained in the data by the state fire marshal was 447 pounds of explosive per delay. If you use that charge weight, then you must be nearly 2,400 feet from the blast in order to assure yourself that you can maintain peak particle velocities less than 0.75 inches per second. I'd now like to talk about the human perception and annoyance from ground vibration. The first one I want to make is humans are much more sensitive to vibrations than are structures. So we've been using 0.75 inches per second for structures. The International Standards Organization -- ISO, International Standards Organization, actually defines an annoyance level for daytime residential occupants of 0.35 inches per second, about half of that that is regarded as important for structures. So, also going back to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which also looked at human annoyance and things like that -- this is the plot from that U.S. Bureau of Mines report. At 0.75 inches per second, using the 95th percentile, which is reasonable, you're expecting probably about 20 percent of the people who are going to be, quote, very annoyed by that blast. Human response is subjective, so that's about the most we can say is, quote, very annoying. Here's another plot from an earlier U.S. Bureau of Mines study. Nicholls and others, 1971. Again, if I go in at 0.75 inches per second over and down, it's somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the people will complain. And so that's not inconsistent with the previous slide. And, finally, I'm not going to address it in detail, but all of the data that I've shown pertains to ground vibrations. There's also, of course, the air blast from the blasting, from the explosive, okay, and that also has the potential, independently of the ground vibrations, to cause human annoyance, okay. So I don't really have any data that I can use to sort of do the same type of construction here, but I do want to make you aware that there is another source of, quote, annoyance for human beings, and that's the airborne vibrations of the air blast. And, finally, one of the few studies we have that has looked comprehensively at the frequency of blasting is, in fact, based upon artillery fire, but it's remarkable in the sense that they sampled over 2,000 people. And it's almost odd, because it goes without saying the more frequently these blasts occur, the more people are going to be annoyed. Page 67 of 93 1612 November 3 2011 So we heard earlier testimony from the applicant that the blasting would be about twice per week. I guess, of the data shown here, several per week might be the closest to that. So you're -- again, you're looking at 25, 30 percent of the people who are going to be annoyed by that. So I think, although subjective, all of this human - annoyance data sort of points to the same trend, and that is you're looking at 20 or 30 percent of the people who are going to be annoyed and are going to complaint about this type of blasting. So in conclusion, blasting's a complex process. It's difficult to predict ground vibrations in advance with any level of certainty, and that's why we do the kinds of analyses that I've showed you today where we look at previously recorded data and try to make reasonable interpretations of it. The State of Florida statutes allow up to 0.75 inches per second in the frequency range of interest. Maintaining peak particle velocities less than that reduces the likelihood of threshold structural damage but does not preclude it. Based upon data from other quarries in Lee and Collier Counties, a 300 -foot minimum setback from the property line is insufficient in order to achieve those requirements. And in my opinion the minimum setback should be at least 1,500 feet if one assumes they're going to use relatively small amounts of explosives. If they increase the amount of explosive, I would prefer to see a setback on the order of 2,400 feet in order to protect property owners on the western and southern boundaries. Humans perceive ground -borne and airborne vibrations at levels that are significantly lower than those that cause threshold structural damage. And, finally, human annoyance increases with the amplitude of vibration, the length of exposure, and the frequency of events. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We want to ask some questions of your expert. I won't use that as time against you in your overall presentation, so -- and rather than wait till the end, do you guys have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman while he's here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the blasts are occurring, they'll start higher up at the surface, then they go down deeper and deeper into the ground. What -- how does that change the frequency? DR. RIX: The frequency? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or whatever. You know, your .75 inch per second. DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm visualizing that as movement, so -- DR. RIX: Yes, it is, it is. It's a movement of the ground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Three - quarters of an inch in one second; is that what it's saying? DR. RIX: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So as I go into the ground, what's happening, same distance? DR. RIX: Well, the peak particle velocity that I'm referring to is that of the surface measured at some point distant from the blast, say, at the location of a home. Those are not velocities that are measured at the blast hole. Those are ground velocities measured at some point of interest far from the blast. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I got it. But -- so the depth of that blast has nothing to do with that velocity? In other words, if I stayed -- from your background, if -- DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you did blast tests at different heights -- DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- would the highest one be the most -- cause the most movement or the lowest one? DR. RIX: The blasting near the surface would likely cause the largest amplitudes just because it excites a Page 68 of 93 i 1612A7 November 3, 2011 particular type of seismic wave -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. DR. RIX: -- a surface wave that propagates the furthest and attenuates the least. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So from the distance -- I think they had 489 feet or something. DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you ever calculate what that blast would be to keep it at that .75? DR. RIX: Well, that's the point; they can't. If the distance from the blast to the nearest structure off site is 498 feet, even if they used what I regard to be a very small explosive, charge weight, based upon the data that we acquired from the state fire marshal's office, I don't think they can maintain 0.75 inches per second with an offset of only 300 feet plus the additional 198 feet from the property line to the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Another question is, you can see what we've done in the past; we've had engineers analyze the structures before and then after blast. Is that something you believe is good method to detective damage? DR. RIX: Yes, I do. I think the idea of conducting a pre -blast survey to document conditions before any blasting is done is generally a good idea, and then there has to be appropriate followup to make sure that there has been no damage caused as a result of blasting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of this gentleman at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. You talked about the vibrations being the cause of damage to the structure. DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the last mine that we had -- and I know you probably haven't read the documents on the Jones Mine. I wish that we had had time to distribute those, because it may -- DR. RIX: I have, in fact, seen that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, have you? DR. RIX: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know we tried to limit some of the issues that you actually have brought up. I don't know if we were successful based on what you've said, but we did try. But during that case one of the things that seemed to happen is the blasts would cause vibrations so the soils would more or less liquefy and cause differential settlement which produced the cracks in the buildings. Now, you seem to believe -- you seem -- your indications were that the blasting caused vibrations. DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's caused the damages to the building? DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about settlement from the liquefaction of the soils underneath the building that would then cause differential settlement causing the cracking of the building? DR. RIX: That is another independent source of potential damage to a structure, yeah. But you're exactly right, the U.S. Bureau of Mines focused on -- or most of their measures were performed in soil conditions where that particular issue was not a problem. So they focused on the vibration. But here in Florida with the type of sands you have and the shallow groundwater table, absolutely, settlement -- you know, vibration - induced settlement of sands is another potential cause of damage to the structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that seemed to be where the concerns were from the neighborhood that was around this other mine, and because of those concerns we had a lot more seismographic requirements -- DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and a lot more studies done and a lot more involvement with the mine operator with the local neighborhood. DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that cause of damage affect the presentation you made? Because I don't know if you're -- if you're talking about soils typical to Georgia, I believe you guys have got a lot of clay up there or more clay -like material. You do not have the same problem we have here. So I really need to be more relative to Page 69 of 93 A7 161 s ovember 3, 2011 what the conditions are here in Florida versus maybe what your direction was in regards to the presentation. DR. RIX: I think you have raised a valid point. I would be unable to sort of estimate, say, the relative magnitude of settlement right here, right now. But if that's something that you think is worth looking at, I'd be happy to consider that and try to estimate a potential magnitude of settlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- I just want to make sure we stay focused on facts that will be more pertinent to Florida than they will elsewhere. And our ground conditions here being water and soil -- and we learned that in the Jones Mine thing, the vibration didn't affect the houses it seemed as much of a concern at the time as it did the settlement from the ground being shaken. That's a different application than what I think you've talked about. DR. RIX: That is exactly right. Your point is valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean, I just want to make sure when we go forward with understanding this that we address those kind of issues. The air blast, I believe from that application, too, we learned that the air blasts would be reduced by leaving the overburden in place, and we required them to blast prior to the removal of the overburden. Is that consistent with your understanding? DR. RIX: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The air blast. DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The air -blast effect, if the overburden -- and they have 10 to 15 feet of sand -- DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they were to remove some of that prior to placement of their charges, the air blasts would be greater than if they left the overburden in place and did the charges with the overburden in place. DR. RIX: I'm going to pass on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: The actual blasting process is not my area of expertise. My expertise is, you know, constrained to the propagation of seismic waves through the ground and the effect that those seismic waves have on structures and humans. So I think there are others here who understand the blasting process better that could answer that. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you brought up air blasts, so I figured maybe I could ask you about it. DR. RIX: No. You're right. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: I did, and it was just to sort of make the point that the ground -borne vibrations on which I focused are not the only source of human annoyance, and that was really my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the air blasts, they could drill and set their holes if they're dewatering after the overburden's removed. It's a little sloppier and they're down in muck -- DR. RIX: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but it saves them drilling 10 or 15 feet of additional bore holes to drop their charges down, or they could do it from the surface. And I believe in the prior mine we had learned that if they left it in place, drilled their holes first, even though it was a longer drill -- and I think they pay by foot and blast size -- there was a difference to the public's perception of -- DR. RIX: It sounds plausible to me. But, again, I'll refrain from presenting myself as an expert on that particular topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we talked about a blast vibration of 7.5 (sic) versus .5 and the blast weight. DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the blast weight, if I'm not mistaken, is relative to the size of the charge that's used to blast the hole. DR. RIX: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The greater the charge, the wider the grid pattern, the less holes you have to drill. So as you tighten down the -- if you reduce the charge, grid pattern reduces, you've got to drill more holes, and you're using less charges to do it with, but the reaction to that is you keep your vibration down, and you don't have -- you just pay more because you're drilling more. Page 70 of 93 2 A 7 November 3, 2011 DR. RIX: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- okay. DR. RIX: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The incentive is to drill less and use bigger charges. DR. RIX: Well, I suppose so, yes. But what the U.S. Bureau of Mines found in their study was the most important parameter related to the amount of explosives used was the charge weight or the amount of explosives used per delay in the blasting, because that's the way the blasting is performed is in a series of millisecond delays. Rather than setting everything off at once, it's set off in a tightly spaced sequence with a delay of only a millisecond between blasts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they used the blast weight of the 176 pounds blast weight -- DR. RIX: Per delay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- per delay, and the delay would have to be what to minimize the effect then? What do we -- I mean, if we need to factor in a multiplier -- DR. RIX: It's on the order of milliseconds, which doesn't seem like much, but it really does help to do that. Rather than setting everything off at once, it helps to delay it. But, again, that's already been factored into that U.S. Bureau of Mines number, because the relevant parameter is the charge weight per delay, not the total amount of explosive; the charge weight per delay. So it's already been factored in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they -- if they reduce the amount of explosives and go to more bore holes, that would produce a less of a vibration, is that -- or does it still go back to the delay factor? DR. RIX: It's still comes back to the delay. The key parameter is the amount of explosives that is set off in each delay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you were to consider a -- let's say a volume, amount of explosives per delay to put it into narrative text -- DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for a project like this to protect the neighborhood to some of the standards you suggested, how would you do that? What would you do? What would you say? Your terminology is tricky. And if it's not right -- DR. RIX: Yes. Yeah, no. I under- -- I appreciate that, and I'm trying to be as clear as I can, I really am. The scale distance is the most important thing, and we saw that the minimum scale distance is 113 foot per square root pound. And that scaled distance is a function of the distance and the charge weight per delays. So you can't specify one of those without specifying the other, okay, because they both are used -- enter into the calculation of a scale distance. So, you know, if you want to ask me, you know, what distance or what charge weight, I can't give you an answer on those individually. I have to say, what is the combination of distance and charge weight that they should use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Part of the point we try to do is strive to understand a way to protect the neighborhood. DR. RIX: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this project were to be approved or even considered for approval, one of the things we'd want to make sure of is that the standards in which the neighborhood was protected were properly articulated in a -- in whatever it is you're trying to say. DR. RIX: I hear you, I hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand what you're saying; you need some parameters. I'm asking you for the parameters. I'm asking you for a suggestion that we can then debate with the applicant to see how their concerns are, because we're not going to do anything in a vacuum here. I want -- everybody's in participation. So based on that statement, how -- DR. RIX: I'll answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: So if you limited them to a charge weight of 176 pounds per delay, then you could reasonably say that there should be a 1,500 -foot minimum distance from the location of the blasting to the nearest off -site structure. If you increase the minimum charge weight that they are allowed to use -- let's go as high as the maximum Page 71 of 93 1612 November 3, 2011 value that was present in the data we acquired from the state fire marshal's office, 447 pounds per delay, then you've got to say, no, 1,500 feet's not even good enough. You've got to go to 2,400 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Okay. That makes it clear, and it also explains why this issue didn't come up so much in the Jones mining, because the nearest -- the nearest blast area was 2,200 or plus feet from the nearest neighborhood, and the excavation went outside that, up to about 1,500 feet, but the blast was further pulled back. So it's a little different -- DR. RIX: Yeah. My recollection from the Jones Mine is that along at least some of the property boundaries the offsets were on the order of 2,200 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. DR. RIX: -- to 2,600 feet, as I recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they were substantial, yes. DR. RIX: Yes. And so I guess maybe I'd like to make the point that those distances are not at all inconsistent with what I have found, that if they use a relatively large charge weight, then you're going to need that kind of distance in order to provide adequate protection for those homeowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I believe they were limited to charge weights, too. I can't -- I'm going to have to go back and pull the records. But there was some discussion with charge weights. The .5 came up numerous times. DR. RIX: Hundred pounds per hole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: Sometimes multiple holes would be detonated. So in some -- if you look at some of the data from the state fire marshals, if they use 100 pounds per hole and they detonate two holes simultaneously, the charge weight is 200 pounds per delay, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. RIX: I think the stipulations in the Jones Mine are very consistent with my analysis in what I'm suggesting to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's why it's important that we're going to walk through this before this hearing is done, whether it's today or two weeks from now or two months from now. I don't want to break any records in length of hearings, but we've got to make sure we're right. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just to follow up on what you're thinking there, Mark. If we did the blasting, and maybe softer, closer to the perimeter, closer to the properties, first, wouldn't that be better; in other words, rather than marching towards them with the artillery, if we actually protected and fractured that connection close to them as -- then went back from there, wouldn't that be a better method to protect? DR. RIX: I don't think it would make any substantial difference. And I can think of one or two reasons why that might actually be worse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the reason I think it might be better -- I'll share mine; you can give me yours -- is that it breaks up the ground, I mean. So essentially the idea of being able to transfer that vibration through fractured soil and everything at that point, or fractured rock, might lessen the movement of the vibration. DR. RIX: That's a reasonable thought, yeah, I mean, because there's no question that the propagation of those waves through the ground is affected by the properties of the ground. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. DR. RIX: What I would think is if you do that initial blasting quite closer, because there is no free face that would absorb a lot of that energy, you would, in fact, propagate much more energy through the ground in those initial blasts that now you've placed right up against their minimum setback. So I don't think that would be a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, I was proposing we could be really soft, multiple delays, and do it a little bit tender, because once we did get it open, if we actually were quarrying and actually quarrying at depth, that would protect the vibration from ever going that way at a much closer distance. DR. RIX: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we can talk to our mining guy to get that. DR. RIX: Yeah. And I would think that that would have to be stipulated very precisely in order to protect those homeowners if you're going to start that blasting up against that setback. Page 72 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, Mark's shown we can be very precise, so we'll get it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something, Melissa? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: The .75 per second you -- DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- said was a Florida Statute max? DR. RIX: Yes. That -- in the range of frequency that I think is most relevant for quarry blasting and the problem we're discussing today, yes, that is the -- I think the best single number to use off of that plot. The State of Florida adopted the plot, but it's helpful in discussions like this to pick a number from that plot to use in calculations and things like that. So in my opinion that 0.75 inches was the most relevant number to extract from that plot and use. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So this isn't a figure where the applicant would have to demonstrate that they're not going to exceed it -- DR. RIX: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- or that they're -- DR. RIX: That's part of each blast monitoring is -- the data is recorded by a seismograph that's placed on the ground. And, in fact, the output is shown relative to those limits on the plot. So that's part of the blast- vibration monitoring. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So if that is the case, how will they be able to go closer to the nearest structure than the 1,500 feet that you established? DR. RIX: How would they be -- how would they be able to blast closer? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. If they're required to maintain the .75 and you're -- DR. RIX: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- stating that in order to do that you have to be 1,500 feet away -- DR. RIX: Yes. Well, but by suggesting that number, I think I'm suggesting to you, respectfully, that you be proactive in specifying what that minimum is so that you protect those property owners and it's not necessarily left up to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what he's suggesting is when -- we establish and recommend a setback that meets the criteria he's come up with. DR. RIX: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: No, I understand that. I'm just -- DR. RIX: I'm just -- you know, that's the purpose is I'm trying to recommend what I think is a reasonable minimum setback beyond which you could take some comfort in that, you know, you have done your part to satisfy the State of Florida statutes, respectfully. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thank you. CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? One other question. The -- if there was a perimeter water column -- DR. RIX: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- down the top of where you would blast -- obviously you wouldn't want to blast at the very perimeter because then you'd be too close -- would that water column help reduce the vibrations that the damage caused from vibrations or the feel or perception of the vibration? DR. RIX: By water column, you're thinking sort of of a linear trench? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. DR. RIX: How deep do you have in mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably down to where you'd have to start blasting. In this case I'd have to look at the soil test to know where the rock starts. But to create a water column and blast down -- but you're saying the vibration's going to travel through the rock layer regardless of the water column? DR. RIX: Yeah. That trench -- trenches do have the potential to serve as barriers for ground vibrations, but the depth of the trench would have to be far greater than 10 or 15 feet in order to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was afraid you'd say that. Anybody else have any questions? No? Sir, thank you very much. We appreciate your expertise. Thank you. DR. RIX: Thank you. And may I give my vitae to -- Page 73 of 93 2 A 7 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do, yes. By the way, that gentleman's PowerPoint, could that be sent to county staff so we could have copies at the Planning Commission level? Hello? Earth to speaker podium. Sir? I asked you a question. I'm sorry. The PowerPoint that he showed us, could you send a copy of that, and yours as well, to county staff so that they could distribute it to the Planning Commission? MR. NOBLE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. NOBLE: For the record, Matt Noble, division of planning with Lee County. I first wanted to apologize to you. I'm sorry that Don had to have those disparaging words about Lee County and Lee County staff. I don't really understand those words. I've had nothing but good luck working with Don on projects in Lee County, so I'm a little discouraged by his words today. The meeting that he referenced, yes, Lee County staff asked to meet with Collier County staff and the applicant. We had never sat down with the applicant or Collier County staff. It was, I think, an unfortunate meeting, in a couple of different regards. I don't think the Collier County Attorney's Office was actually very open to discussing the issues. We pretty much got an attitude from the Collier County Attorney's Office that it was Collier County and we were going to decide these things in Collier County, and I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me give you a little advice. We're not here to discuss your feelings towards Collier County or Collier County's towards you. We're here to discuss facts of the case, so I'd ask that you move towards those, if you could. MR. NOBLE: I am. I love Collier County. I've had nothing but good feelings and I've had good luck working with Collier County staff. I don't have anything bad to say about Collier County. I just wanted to make the point that that was the first time that Lee County staff sat down with everybody, and the applicant provided some conditions. It's not typical that Lee County staff responds in that kind of meeting on the fly as to what we feel about those conditions. We need to take it back and evaluate it, think about it, and then respond. So I will move on. I will address compatibility and consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and other issues that affect Lee County. I will be followed by additional Lee County staff. Rebecca Sweigert from our environmental sciences division will address you, will address environmental issues, followed by Rob Price. He's the senior engineer with Lee County. He will address transportation. Following him will be Anura Karuna -Muni. He's with our natural resources operation. He will be dealing with hydrology issues. And then we will have Chip Block kind of wrapping it up providing a summary and a recommendation from Lee County staff. My name is Matt Noble. I have been a practicing planner in Lee County about 21 years now. I am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm a member of the American Planning Association. I have provided expert- witness testimony in a variety of forums from court cases to Department of Administrative Hearings to a variety of other boards and other jurisdictions in the State of Florida. I'd like to start with this, which is a rendering of where the residential properties are in relationship to the mine as well as the conservation lands that are owned by the public in both counties. As you can see from this exhibit, that the property has residential uses to the south in Collier County as well as the Wild Cat Farms residential area as well as a little appendage of Lehigh Acres hanging down just south of State Road 82. I'd also like to -- like you to note just to the west of the Imperial Marsh is what we call in Lee County the Alico Road traditional mining area. That is where all of the operational mines are in existence today. You may notice there is some disturbance. That is a mine that was operational, the Westwind mine, Preferred Rocks on Corkscrew Road. It is no longer operational as of today. I need you to understand what a mine is. A mine has uses, activities, and typical equipment. Typical uses are, of course, the excavation, administrative offices, scale houses, a laboratory for testing of the materials, maintenance and storage areas. There might be in the future -- I know it's not being requested today, but it's typical with a mine you have ancillary uses. And so are uses such as a sand plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete block, concrete batch plant. These are all typical uses that you find around mines in Southwest Florida. And the other thing I need to say is, this is probably the most intense land use that we have in Southwest Page 74 of 93 6.,� 2 A 7 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do, yes. By the way, that gentleman's PowerPoint, could that be sent to county staff so we could have copies at the Planning Commission level? Hello? Earth to speaker podium. Sir? I asked you a question. I'm sorry. The PowerPoint that he showed us, could you send a copy of that, and yours as well, to county staff so that they could distribute it to the Planning Commission? MR. NOBLE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. NOBLE: For the record, Matt Noble, division of planning with Lee County. I first wanted to apologize to you. I'm sorry that Don had to have those disparaging words about Lee County and Lee County staff. I don't really understand those words. I've had nothing but good luck working with Don on projects in Lee County, so I'm a little discouraged by his words today. The meeting that he referenced, yes, Lee County staff asked to meet with Collier County staff and the applicant. We had never sat down with the applicant or Collier County staff. It was, I think, an unfortunate meeting, in a couple of different regards. I don't think the Collier County Attorney's Office was actually very open to discussing the issues. We pretty much got an attitude from the Collier County Attorney's Office that it was Collier County and we were going to decide these things in Collier County, and I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me give you a little advice. We're not here to discuss your feelings towards Collier County or Collier County's towards you. We're here to discuss facts of the case, so I'd ask that you move towards those, if you could. MR. NOBLE: I am. I love Collier County. I've had nothing but good feelings and I've had good luck working with Collier County staff. I don't have anything bad to say about Collier County. I just wanted to make the point that that was the first time that Lee County staff sat down with everybody, and the applicant provided some conditions. It's not typical that Lee County staff responds in that kind of meeting on the fly as to what we feel about those conditions. We need to take it back and evaluate it, think about it, and then respond. So I will move on. I will address compatibility and consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and other issues that affect Lee County. I will be followed by additional Lee County staff. Rebecca Sweigert from our environmental sciences division will address you, will address environmental issues, followed by Rob Price. He's the senior engineer with Lee County. He will address transportation. Following him will be Anura Karuna -Muni. He's with our natural resources operation. He will be dealing with hydrology issues. And then we will have Chip Block kind of wrapping it up providing a summary and a recommendation from Lee County staff. My name is Matt Noble. I have been a practicing planner in Lee County about 21 years now. I am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm a member of the American Planning Association. I have provided expert- witness testimony in a variety of forums from court cases to Department of Administrative Hearings to a variety of other boards and other jurisdictions in the State of Florida. I'd like to start with this, which is a rendering of where the residential properties are in relationship to the mine as well as the conservation lands that are owned by the public in both counties. As you can see from this exhibit, that the property has residential uses to the south in Collier County as well as the Wild Cat Farms residential area as well as a little appendage of Lehigh Acres hanging down just south of State Road 82. I'd also like to -- like you to note just to the west of the Imperial Marsh is what we call in Lee County the Alico Road traditional mining area. That is where all of the operational mines are in existence today. You may notice there is some disturbance. That is a mine that was operational, the Westwind mine, Preferred Rocks on Corkscrew Road. It is no longer operational as of today. I need you to understand what a mine is. A mine has uses, activities, and typical equipment. Typical uses are, of course, the excavation, administrative offices, scale houses, a laboratory for testing of the materials, maintenance and storage areas. There might be in the future -- I know it's not being requested today, but it's typical with a mine you have ancillary uses. And so are uses such as a sand plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete block, concrete batch plant. These are all typical uses that you find around mines in Southwest Florida. And the other thing I need to say is, this is probably the most intense land use that we have in Southwest Page 74 of 93 16 1 kc7mber 3,'b I I Florida. You're not going to find many other land uses that have these kind of attributes that generate this kind of traffic, have these kinds of impacts. This is a use that can shake the ground, can have a lot of noise and a lot of external off -site impacts. You know, you will have trucks operating from the site. You'll have front loaders. I don't know if you've all experienced the backing sound of the front loaders, the beep, beep, beep. Clearly that will travel great distances in these kinds of environments. You have excavator drill rigs lighting at night. I'd like you to note the lighting in the bottom right -hand corner. That is an operating facility in Lee County. These things are quite extensively lit at night. This is going to change the environment for those surrounding residential uses. It's going to light up that neighborhood. I mentioned the ancillary plants and, of course, there are no ancillary plants with this request, but it's a typical thing. Collier County staff has advised Lee County that there is no requirement for Lee County government or residents to be notified of these uses being added. It's going -- if they are added at a later date, if this is approved, that would be additional impact to the Lee County environment, to the Lee County residents. And we're certainly not taking that into account today. How do you say no to those ancillary uses if it's approved? I mean, it's a typical thing in a mine. This is a use that is high -- it's hard to hide. The stacks can be quite extensive. I've seen stacks in Lee County to be 70 feet tall. I have the rock - crushing plants close to 100 feet in height. I think they're 90 feet in the left -hand picture. It's a use that can operate 24 hours a days. I know we have conditions here, but I've got to tell you, when the State of Florida comes to the mine operator and says "I need rock" at two a.m., it's been our experience the rock gets delivered. I'd like to relate those kinds of pictures to the site plan. You know those stacks that you might have observed on the previous slide, that's what's going to be in the operations center. That's where the conveyor belts will all convene, that's where the main rock - crushing houses will be. You'll have extensive height at that location. That's not to say that that's the only part of the property that you'll have that kind of effect on. I don't know if you know much about the process. When they dig this material, they first stack it. Those are known as muck piles. Those muck piles can be quite large in height. I've seen muck piles 50, 60 feet in height in Lee County. The use inherently impacts its surrounding. It's a hard -to- control use. It has outside or off -site effects such as dust. One of the first activities of a mine is to strip off the ground cover on the property. This opens up the property to our windy climate here. This is a photo that was taken at Youngquist mine off Alico Road almost at the corner of Alico and Corkscrew Road. That mine has one of the best operations that I've observed. It has trucks running around spreading water, it has the wheelhouse, the wheel -wash facility, yet on the that I observed this, because of the climate conditions, they could not contain -- even with everything they were doing, they could not contain the dust on site. It's inherent in a mine. They're just dirty, dusty kinds of places. As I've testified, it's hard to hide. It's almost impossible to hide. There's height issues with all kinds of things with a mine. We have draglines in Lee County that are 280 feet in height. We have no idea how tall the draglines are going to be with this operation. It's a very large mine, 740 acres that could have very extensive draglines. Do you remember the applicant showed you a couple of cross - sections of their buffers? You should disregard those cross - sections. There's problems with those cross - sections. They didn't depict anything behind the buffer. It didn't show you what the property was going to look like. Is it going to hide the muck piles? Is it going to hide the operations center? My experience is an 8 -foot berm will not hide it. You will see it; the neighbors will see it. It's hard to hide. This next two slides were taken in the review of a mine on Corkscrew Road and, and this makes the point about just how far the impacts can be felt. I'm on Corkscrew Road, and I'm looking back kind of to the north and to the west towards the Youngquist mine and also the Florida Rock mine. Clearly visible over the treeline where the dragline's operating. This gives you an idea, clearly visible two- and -a -half miles away from the operation. This is a picture of Alico Road in Lee County. I kind of wanted to touch on the two -lane -- it's not that Lee Page 75 of 93 Y t A 7� 161ZNovember 3, 2011 County's objecting to the mine having access to a two -lane facility. All of the mines on Alico Road access a two -lane facility. It's the type of two -lane facility that Lee County is objecting to. It's -- with Corkscrew Road, that's viewed in Lee County as a residential road. And so this mine is attempting to place traffic on a residential road. In Lee County, you don't put industrial traffic on a residential road. There's policies in our plan, in Goal 7, as well as in Goal 10, that preclude that type of activity. Eighty -two, we've got issues with concurrency. It's actually exceeded its level of service. But I want you to understand Alico Road, too. Alico Road is an industrial road. It was built by the mining industry. It was built stronger, has a deeper bed. It can withstand the weight of the haul trucks. It has direct access to I -75, U.S. 41. That's -- gives it a much better place to disperse its truck trips to the rest of the world. Corkscrew Road, on the other hand, is a windy, narrow rural road that provides access to a series of residential communities that are wholly dependent upon that road. Of course, utilizing Corkscrew and SR82 requires long distance to disperse the traffic. It's long distance to 1 -75 and U.S. 41. 1 also want to mention a topic that hasn't come up yet, and I've personally experienced it, and that's being intimidated operating a passenger vehicle in and among the mine traffic. I know I've felt intimidated before driving on Alico Road. I have felt that, you know, the truck's fully loaded, of course they take longer to stop, and if they're right on your bumper, it doesn't take much to imagine what could happen. This slide is a collection of slides that have been entered into the public records in Lee County. Additional mining traffic can cause hazardous driving conditions due to the debris that's left behind by the individual haul operators, and that's another point that we need to make. The actual mine operator has very little control over the haulers. The haulers are all independent contractors. This also is a slide that was entered into the public records in the review of mine cases along Corkscrew Road. And what you can clearly discern from that on the direction of the haul of fully loaded trucks versus coming back, the empty trucks, the damage that's been done to Corkscrew Road. I wanted to touch back on this, the location of the public lands. The county has been acquiring a lot of lands in the density - reduction groundwater resource land -use category with our 2020 program. We're also a participant in the CREW project. We have expended millions of dollars in conservation activities out in this general area. We're concerned about that level of investment and what that means with this proposal. This proposal could negatively impact some of those resources. This system, this property, is actually connected to the Estero -- Estero River, Imperial River, and Cocohatchee River systems. This is at the headwaters of all those systems. The natural systems are also connected down into the Everglades via Lake Trafford and the Fakahatchee Strand. I want to mention compatibility with those neighboring uses. Those conservation uses. I'm aware that schoolchildren from both communities are brought to properties immediately opposite this proposal. I think there's probably -- you'll hear other testimony from the public about that. I don't find it, as a practicing planner, to be a very compatible activity against what I would call one of the crown jewels of our region. You know, we're going to invite our tourists and our schoolchildren to come out and learn about the environment right opposite an active mine. That doesn't seem compatible to me. This is the panther telemetry slide. There's a couple points I want to make with this, that we have learned a lot about the movement of panthers in the environment through the landscape over time. And one thing that I would point out is you kind of see there's, like, a hole in the doughnut, if you will. There's a lot of panther telemetry to the north and then a lot to the south where the Corkscrew Swamp is. What we've learned over time is panthers tend to move in a circular fashion through the environment, that this property is located in a critical collection point between our counties for the movement of panthers. And I think you've seen this, so I won't dwell on it. You know, this is, of course, the habitat. But I don't think anybody really pointed this out. This is the master concept plan with the latest telemetry. It really shows that that panther on the site was utilizing the whole property, orange groves and all. If -- let me back up. We've learned from Florida panther experts in Lee County in a variety of Lee County Page 76 of 93 1612 Aler 3, 20l 1 hearings, such as one that just concluded last week, our DOA hearing on our plan amendment, that if we are to sustain a viable Florida panther population, we need to conserve their habitat and actually plan for a larger area, a larger habitat, if we expect to not only preserve the species but actually restore the species. If we actually allow this property to be mined, there is no more chance of restoration of panther habitat on this property. I mean, I don't believe the panther's really going to use the mine pit the same way he was using the orange grove. The development of the mine will foreclose any possibility of restoring the property in the future for any species. And then I just wanted to show you this. This came out of our study of the density - reduction groundwater resource category. This is the location of all of our residential communities in the DR/GR, the southeast part of the county. And, of course, you can clearly see Wild Cat Farms detected on it. But then I'd also like you to note along Corkscrew Road all of those residential communities that are going to be impacted by this proposal if this is approved. There's the 6L Farms residential area, Burgundy Farms. I don't know if you know the Corkscrew store, but there's a residential area kind of in the woods and around the Corkscrew store, Carter Road, for example. And this is a good representation of where the single - family homes are in the area. This shows the actual location of the adjacent homes in both Collier County and Lee County. These communities will be adversely impacted by the mine. They will suffer from the increased traffic, noise, dust, changes to surface and groundwater hydrology, all generated by the proposed mine and very difficult to keep on the mine's site. Again, this is just another image that shows you that within a mile and a half of this site there's at least 310 homes that we cataloged. Essentially the mine is being proposed in a residential neighborhood. Although it's a rural residential neighborhood, Lee County has recognized that rural residential neighbors have slightly different characteristics. I know the staff report talked about vacant land. Well, that's all land associated with the residents that are living there. Lee County has recognized that as a residential subdivision. This is just another graphical representation of distances from the proposed pit. This represents the new 300 -foot setback. I would also note that I think Lee County is helping Collier County in this regard. I think it's becoming a better project by Lee County's involvement. You know, when it went to the environmental council, we had a setback of 50 feet we were talking about. At least now the applicant's talking about a 300 -foot setback. We still don't believe that's sufficient. We're having issues with this use in this location given the surrounding uses. Keep in mind that the equipment used to operate the mine; draglines, trucks, drilling rigs, conveyor belts, rock crushers, all that good stuff, it could be very close to these homes. You know, I haven't heard anything that they couldn't use some of that equipment within that 300 -foot setback. I've heard particulars about the buffer, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't use some of that adjacent lands, unless somebody wants to correct me, for some of these other ancillary parts of the mining operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not nearly done yet. By the time we get done, there will be other issues that we will discuss. So I just wanted you to know we're not finished. And as we finish, we usually get into those other issues, so. MR. NOBLE: The point I wanted to make is, you can see there's quite a few homes within a thousand feet of the pit, you know. And Dr. Rix was talking about 1,500 feet, we could go out further. When do we start wondering about the appropriateness of the use and the location? And this is the southern end again. On the southern end we actually have homes that are closer than on the northern end. And then I just wanted to provide a series of the residential neighborhood, too, so that the record reflects this kind of rural lifestyle that is being pursued by the residents of Lee County and Collier County. This is a home in Wild Cat Far ns right on the property line. This house would be impacted by the mining activities. This is one of the homes on the northern -- if I go back two slides, it's the closest home on that northern part of the proposal. This is a home on Wild Cat Farms Road. This is a little bit further away, but I wanted to give you not only pictures that -- of homes directly interfacing with the mine, but this home is a few hundred feet further into the Page 77 of 93 R 1612 A 7 November 3, 2011 community. And you may -- you may remember it if you've ever driven along Wild Cat Farms Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Matt, did you have other people that you wanted to speak today? Because our agreement was for 45 minutes, and you're going to be up in three minutes with a full 45 excluding the time this commission asked questions. I don't -- and we'll look at more time for you. I just kind of wanted to get a handle on how far and how long you think you're going to speak, because if you have four or five other people that you mentioned, I just need to be aware of that. MR. NOBLE: Yeah. And I can pick it up, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you -- Matt, I think you've got three minutes to finish. MR. NOBLE: I don't think I can finish in three minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what did you expect your other presenters to do; anything? MR. NOBLE: Yeah. They are going to get up -- they're a lot shorter than I am, you know. I'm going to take up the bulk of the county presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, honestly, we welcome your information, but we have to have limitations, you know. So we already -- we already met the agreement that we basically had. So I'm asking you to expedite it quickly. We'll -- at five minutes to four, we're going to take a break for the court reporter for ten minutes. When we come back, it will be time for cross - examination, so -- MR. NOBLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- between now and five minutes to four, you need to wrap up your presentation. MR. NOBLE: I can move right along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NOBLE: And I'll just briefly go through, this is just a -- represent the folks in these areas have a lot of livestock, too, and I know a lot of them are concerned as to the blasting activity and the effect on their livestock. So I -- this home is very close, right -- almost at the right -angle corner. It's the first house in Lee County in Wild Cat Farms directly abutting the mine, would certainly be impacted. This is one of the closest homes to the mine. He's within 4- to 500 feet of the proposed pit. And then I just wanted to show you that, yeah, we did drive down Wooden Loop Road. We do appreciate those residents there. This is kind of an iconic end -of -the -road kind of picture for me that shows, you know, we've got residents down there as well as their livestock. Homes along Whidden Road, more homes along Whidden Road, the haul route. You know, 70 percent of this is going to affect Lee County. That's why we're concerned about this mine, one of the main reasons we're concerned about this. We're going to bear the brunt of all the truck traffic. I do want to note at this point that there's no -- there's no requirement that the applicant use 82. And I know Chip is going to cover that point in more detail, but in the end, given the regulations in the county code, requiring them to access roads that they front on, you know, this proposal only fronts on Corkscrew Road. And, of course, this is our point; Corkscrew Road is very narrow, several windy, difficult corners, no shoulders. Even though it says narrow shoulder, there is no shoulder. Can you imagine another truck having to pass this truck on this stretch of Corkscrew Road? It's an accident waiting to happen. And you're going to make residents interact with this level of truck traffic on a daily basis. You know, I went to that school bus turnaround. I think that would be a horrible thing to have school buses turning around on that corner with 1,400 dump trucks a day. And that's the corner where the school buses turn around. Eighty -two, on the other hand, is much wider; it has paved shoulders, straight shot for the most part, much better facility. I think Rob will talk about that as well. I did want to blow through the DR/GR. I know it's -- the point with talking about the DR/GR today is the conclusions that we arrived at through those studies, all the same issues are involved in this case that have led us to our conclusions. And I won't take time, but this has been going on a long time in Lee County, you know. And, yes, this is the area in which 80 percent of Lee County gets its drinking -water supply, so the county is protective of that area. It is our drinking -water source. There are many stakeholder meetings. We hired a whole team of consultants. This went on for several years. We looked at all the issues; truck traffic, wildlife issues, hydrology. There were many components to the study that Page 78 of 93 1612 A 7 November 3, 2011 we looked at. And it's not quite complete. We just completed our administrative hearing for the amendment last Friday. Now we're down to a single issue in that process, which is our preferred mining map. This study I only throw up here is -- because this provided a summary of all studies in the DR/GR that told us, this is a very important area. We need to plan very carefully because of our reliance on potable water from this area as well as the wildlife resources in this area. This is home to many protected species. We created an action plan to deal with all of these issues. We initiated a Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had a steering committee, which was our sounding board. It had members of the mining community on it. I think Scott McKayla was on it, for example. They provided a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The plan amendment was initiated and, you know, this is just --the public involvement was unbelievable. And that's another point I'd like to clarify with Don. Collier County did have an opportunity to review the DR/GR plan amendment. It was a -- it was reviewed at the Regional Planning Council. What we learned from our truck evaluation study is mines are wholly dependent upon the economic conditions of the time. If the economy's booming, the mines are booming. So you should view the TIS that you have with a little bit of skepticism. You know, the mine traffic is going to be related to how busy they are, what kind of contracts they have and where it's going. You know, this is a work of art, the TIS. This just shows you some of the documents that we went through. One of the solutions was to create a TDR program for the area to try and save as much of the area as we could. We realized that we didn't have the money to buy it all. I throw this up because we're prioritizing those lands that we would target for acquisition. And if you see all those properties on Corkscrew Road north of it, the point I want to make with this was we were -- we gave those property owners extra credit, if you will. They get more TDRs if they preserve the southern half of those properties. Why? Because we realize that that is the panther connection corridor between our communities. And so that is one of our priorities to preserve. And, of course, this property is right adjacent to it. This was out of our hydrology study. It just is an indication that a mine will change the hydrology of the area. It has two effects. It has an upstream effect as well as a downstream effect, and Anura will talk about more -- more about that. It causes a flattening of the water table. This is the existing map out of the Lee plan that shows you the mines in Lee County are concentrated on the Alico corridor. This is the mine -- the map that we adopted that's under litigation now. Again, concentrating all of the mine use at Alico corridor. Part of that study, we evaluated the entire market. We evaluated Collier County in that study. You know, we looked at the transportation costs associated with hauling; that really determines the market. And what we concluded through all of this -- you know, historically Lee County has provided 80 percent of the rock in the region -- that we have now approved or pending approval more mines in this area to accommodate the regional demand all the way out to 2030. So my conclusion in that is, we don't even need this rock from this mine. We don't. We have enough already permitted in Lee County to take care of the regional need all the way out to 2030. This is just an example of the Board of County Commissioners' determining of -- Corkscrew Road is a residential road and denying these mine requests along Corkscrew Road. Again, just where the mines are, showing it concentrated on the Alico corridor. And I've already told you that one of the operational mines on Corkscrew Road is no longer operational. And I want to talk about consistency with the -- with your regulations and plan. Collier County staff highlights this, but approving a mine in this location will not promote the continued utilization of these lands in a rural manner. The approval actually displaces the rural uses in favor of an intense industrial use. I understand the land -use category allows the proposed mine use; however, approval of the mine request is counter to the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay in what that overlay is attempting to do. You know, it's attempting to achieve protection of the agricultural activities, prevent the conversion of agricultural lands to non - agricultural uses, and directing uses away from wetland and upland habitat. Proposing a mine adjacent to the Corkscrew Swamp, the Wild Cat Farm residential subdivision, and the Old Corkscrew residential community is not a creative land- planning technique. Can an application for a conditional use be denied? Certainly it can, certainly if the three factors in your code Page 79 of 93 1612 A7 November 3, 2011 are not met. Doesn't meet the intent of the zoning district. It fails to meet your criteria in Chapter 10 or consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed mine use is not compatible with maintaining agricultural use of the property. The use would be displaced in favor of natural- resource extraction, as the limerock extraction, and the proposed use is potentially -- will potentially endanger the agricultural, environmental, and wildlife resources located in the two counties. And this is a difference between Lee County and Collier County. We consider potential ramifications of a proposal. The use does not promote public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed use will reduce the comfort, the quiet enjoyment of those neighboring properties with the blasting activities. It creates an inconvenience, that being the truck traffic. It negatively impacts the appearance of the area. We can't hide it. And not -- and it doesn't further the general welfare. It's -- certainly not of the nearby residents. It actually represents a threat to them. The proposal is not consistent with Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code or Growth Management Plan. It doesn't have adequate access to a roadway. You know, and 82, it's failing. Corkscrew Road is a rural residential road. It's going to negatively impact the adjacent residential properties. It has the potential to cause glare, ground vibration, and other hydrological impacts on those neighboring residential properties. It's also incompatible with the CREW lands to the south. Approval of the proposed mine will not better to serve (sic) to protect environmentally sensitive areas or maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other rural land uses. The proposed use will displace agricultural uses and potentially affect the economic viability of other rural lands. The use may, in fact, cause increased county maintenance expenditures due to the hauling associated with the mining operation. Roads may have to be rebuilt several times over the life of the mine. This, of course, is the compatibility -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Matt, apparently you thought I was kidding. I'm not. We're going to take a ten - minute break. We'll resume -- Bruce, you wanted cross - examination when Lee County finished. They're finished. At five after four when we come back, you can start your cross - examination. MR. BROOKS: I object. This is a quasijudicial hearing. You can't cut off -- a Lee County staff person is an expert. He's been offered as an expert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you want to talk, you come up to the microphone, identify yourself, and speak. Heidi Ashton, it's up to you to find out if his comments are legal. Let me know if we have the right to cut this man off. I have told him numerous times we are participating until five minutes to four. They commented they needed 45 minutes maximum. It's going to be 55 minutes before he even finished, and he commented about five other people. This isn't run by staff. This meeting is run by Collier County, and you will adhere to our rules. So state your moment (sic) and then, Heidi, finish. MR. BROOKS: My name is Attorney Ralph Brooks, for the record. For future court review, I want to lodge an objection that the county staff has been prevented from introducing their expert testimony in this hearing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is there any grounds as to why we cannot go on like I had proposed, or do we have to go through the rest of their proposal regardless of their, say, disregard for our established time rules that they had actually asked for? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, from what you said is you gave them 45 minutes. They agreed that time would be sufficient, and now they've gone over. So I think you've given him ample opportunity. And if he has written records, he can introduce those into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When we get back from break, you can introduce what written records you want, and we'll resume at five after four. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We're back on record. It's 4:07. I'm trying to work out a reasonable solution to the lack of complete presentation by Lee County. It's important that we hear from everybody. We are going to continue this meeting till the 17th regardless because we can't get through the public speakers in the next -- well, we stop at five of five. So we don't have that much time to finish up Page 80 of 93 161 4A7 vember 3, 2011 today. Chip Block, if you wouldn't mind coming up to one of the podiums, I'd appreciate it for a minute. MR. BLOCK: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Of the people in the room from Lee County staff, are you in charge of all of the -- are you the highest ranking individual staff member here today? MR. BLOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who is? MR. BLOCK: Between Matt Noble and myself and maybe Rob Price, the senior engineer, we're all kind of in the same level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- would you be considered the spokesman? MR. BLOCK: Yes, sir. I will speak for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I want to under- -- what I want to do is get a reasonable agreement with you as to the time frame that you feel Lee County needs to finish up, and we'll make a decision whether it be today or the 17th. MR. BLOCK: After Matt's presentation, my expectation is -- correct me if I'm wrong, rest of the team. Rob, you're how long? Five minutes. Anura, ten minutes, and then I understood Becky was ten minutes, and I was less than ten minutes. So 10, 15, 20. 1 will commit to 20 minutes and have our staff do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at 4:30 we can finish up, approximately. MR. BLOCK: Do you think we can do that today, guys? Particularly if we can get Rob Price on board. I think we can do that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll be much better off if we finish today and give a little bit of time for cross -exam -- if that's what Bruce Anderson still wants to do, because he asked for that and I granted it -- and then we got done with your presentation today. That means the public wouldn't really have any time today to get into their issues until we got -- on the 17th. MR. BLOCK: I will ask our staff to be as brief as possible so that we can reserve as much time for the public after our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you agree that we did have an agreement that it would be 45 minutes? MR. BLOCK: Absolutely, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. If you'll have your people come up one at a time, we'll start finishing up your presentation. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: We will wait on our cross -exam so you can bring the public up to speak first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem with that is I don't want to force Lee County to come back here in force on the 17th and -- their taxpayers are paying for their time here. So I'd assume -- or I presume that if we can get rid of some of your questions of their specific people, they may have a lesser contingent coming so that can save their department money. So I'd rather proceed that way. Unfortunately, that's probably the best way to proceed. Okay. Next speaker, if you'd come up and identify yourself for the record, we'll move forward. MS. SWEIGERT: Good afternoon. I'm Becky Sweigert with the division of environmental sciences. I'm going to try to go as fast as I can. So I'm here to address the environmental -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you bring it down? You're not quite on the -- MS. SWEIGERT: Sorry. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Okay, thank you. I'm going to speak to you on the wood stork and panther issues that you heard earlier. The first map before you is a slide of the core foraging areas for wood storks. The next slide actually identifies Lost Grove Mine in red, and then the dots are actually four colonies for wood storks in the area. One of the concerns we have for wood storks right now is that the reclamation plan as proposed does not include adequate or optimal foraging areas for wood storks. Wood storks -- successful foraging sites for wood storks are identified as those where the water is between 2 and 16 inches deep and states, good feeding conditions usually Page 81 of 93 k7 1 16l Zovember 3, 2011 occur where the water is relatively calm and uncluttered with dense thickets of aquatic vegetation. Often, dropping water level is necessary to concentrate fish at suitable densities. This next slide is a slide you saw earlier that identifies the primary and secondary zone for panthers. This slide actually shows the most recent current telemetry for GPS and telemetry- collared panthers in the DR/GR in northern Lee County. You can see the triangles actually identify panther deaths on Corkscrew Road, and then there are several dots throughout the area that represent kind of that circular panther movement that Matt had mentioned earlier. This slide is actually just a close -up of the telemetry points that are on Lost Grove Mine. And you'll see that the agricultural fields, as well as the water - resource areas, are being utilized by the panthers today. And this telemetry is -- or GPS data is through September 2011. And this map has both telemetry and GPS. So if there's any questions on that. And just so you kind of understand that when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is assessing for mitigation purposes for panther, they value a lake at a value of a zero, which means it's not very good, and they value the agricultural lands at a level of 4.7. So the agricultural lands do provide value. It's shown through the telemetry points that panthers are utilizing the site. And then -- today was the first time we heard about the habitat conservation bank that the applicant is working on. We had heard some mention of it, but we did not know that an application had formally been made. But it's really not connected with this Collier County conditional -use permit that you're reviewing today. That's kind of my presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You showed two mortalities almost in the same spot there. What were the dates of those? MS. SWEIGERT: I don't know off the top of my head. This is a map that's generated through FWC. They actually generate the telemetry points and provided it to us with that mortality data. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, was it recent? Was it, you know, the Eisenhower administration or -- MS. SWEIGERT: I think it's something that was actually in the last seven to ten years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MS. SWEIGERT: So it's something a little more recent than -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SWEIGERT: Thank you. I hope I was speedy enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you were fine, thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Rob Price. I have actually testified in this forum previously when I was in the private sector, so -- I'm presently senior engineer with Lee County in the Department of Community Development, and I'm here to talk to you about the traffic issues related to the proposed mine. Based on the applicant's hauling rate of 5 million tons per year, the proposed Lost Grove Mine is expected to generate approximately 1,300 truck trips per day over the 35 -year life of the mine. The traffic- impact statement that was submitted to Collier County indicated that approximately 70 percent of those 1,300 truck trips per day would be entering Lee County and impacting roads within Lee County. Specifically, 60 percent of those trips were shown on State Road 82, and an additional 10 percent were shown on Corkscrew Road in Lee County. What's really important to note is that we have failing roadway link in Lee County on State Road 82 from Daniels Parkway -- that's also Gunnery Road to the north of State Road 82, all the way to Alabama Road, and I'll show you where that is here in a second. Basically, this is a blow -up of the traffic distribution that's in the traffic study, and it -- also that has been submitted to you in the PowerPoint by the applicant today. We've extended it a little bit further to the west so you can see the roads in Lee County. Page 82 of 93 161 �' NovAer 3, 2011 The failing roadway link -- and if I use the mouse here -- is from this location here to Alabama Road. So this roadway link here. And what we want to point out is, there -- 60 percent of their traffic is shown to the west. Mine traffic is not local traffic. It's not going to get captured by uses along State Road 82. All 60 percent of that traffic is going to impact that segment of State Road 82. And another important fact, I know the applicant submitted a document this morning in his PowerPoint where he showed a bar graph of the traffic volumes along State Road 82. The capacity on this segment of State Road 82 is 960 vehicles. On that bar graph that was submitted to you this morning, all but three of the hours of -- there was 15 hours displayed. All but three of them are over the capacity just based on the background traffic alone. So, yeah, we agree that the mining traffic is really not impacting the p.m. peak hour. It's a morning and a midday peak. But we're showing that road failing during those hours as well. One other important factor that I need to point out is the TIS showed two access points to the proposed mine. One was through an easement through the property to the north all the way to State Road 82, which is under common ownership. The second access was directly to Corkscrew Road. Your conditions of approval in the staff report only require the access to Corkscrew Road. We have some serious concerns about having access not on State Road 82. If that access is not constructed, we're putting 100 percent of the mine traffic onto a residential, rural two -lane road that's just not built to withstand mining traffic. And I have some quick figures hereto show you. I'm just going to blow through this slide here. Basically, our -- for our purposes, Corkscrew Road is a two -lane rural residential road, and we have placed an emphasis on channeling our mining traffic onto Alico Road, because it was built by the mining industry, and it's built to withstand that traffic. FDOT did recently complete a surface -- a resurfacing project in which they did widen the shoulders on State Road 82, and they do have a PD &E study underway for six - laning of that road; however, there is no funding in the foreseeable future for any improvements to that roadway. What I have here is just a couple quick photos of Corkscrew Road and State Road 82. This is just a side -by -side shot. You can see the shot to the left. It's Corkscrew Road. There's actually a black strip of -- a darker strip of asphalt on the edge of the pavement. What that is -- it's not a shoulder. That's actually a strip of pavement that's been put down after the roadway has been paved to help stabilize the edge of pavement. What you see here is the lanes are so narrow, when you get the loaded dump trucks on the road, it actually starts to deteriorate the edge of pavement because there is no shoulder to help stabilize the edge. So what we've had to do is come in and actually repave some of the edge to kind of add some stabilization. But you can see on State Road 82 there isn't that problem. There's plenty of wide lanes. There's wide shoulders. It's really built to handle this kind of truck traffic. So that's why Lee County has concerns about the access being on Corkscrew Road. Again, you can see, wide lanes, straight road, lots of wide shoulder, plenty of room for truck traffic. Corkscrew Road. There's even signage pointing out the narrow shoulders. It's a curved road. There's curves -- from the mine west into Lee County it's all curves. So we're talking about a situation where it's not going to be as safe for the dump truck -- for a loaded dump truck and the mixing of passenger cars with the dump truck. Last slide. Again, I point out the black pavement that's put in here in the curve. That is something that's put in to help stabilize the edge of pavement because it has been deteriorating. That's really all I have. Next is Anura. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, Bob. Your AUIR that was done last year, if -- I'll pull that up online between now and the 17th. I'm assuming I'll find on the AUIR that 82 is failed in that location and that it's in your five -year plan for upgrading or fixing? Or how would you -- how did you look at it? MR. PRICE: It is shown to fail in our concurrency report, and we -- honestly at this point it's a state facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRICE: So we don't have the funds to upgrade the road at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The gentleman that made the presentation earlier today said there was almost 92 million allocated to be spent on 82, but I heard you say there's been no funding allocated to fix 82 or do -- work on 82. How does that -- that doesn't seem to balance. MR. PRICE: The work on 82 that's being done, the six -laning that's occurring is actually ongoing, and that is Page 83 of 93 161 L A7 Y � November 3, 2011 from Ortiz Avenue east of I -75 to Colonial Boulevard just east of Colonial Boulevard. That was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PRICE: That one was failing before the link that we're talking about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Anybody else have any -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, isn't the fact that 70 percent of the traffic's going into Lee County because it's serving the needs of Lee County? MR. PRICE: I would say that we really -- we've demonstrated, and Matt demonstrated, that we don't have a need for the aggregate. We have rock mines that have the aggregate. I think it's going to Lee County because it's going to I -75 and it's going to parts north and parts, you know, further north of Lee County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, I mean, it's the market that's going to draw through Lee County. MR. PRICE: The market's going to drive wherever it is. We don't even know if it's really 70 percent. It could be all 100 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or it could be -- you know, if you get better prices with Lee County mines, it could be zero, so -- MR. PRICE: It could. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any traffic questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. PRICE: No problem. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Anura Karuna -Muni, Lee County Division of Natural Resources. I'm going to talk about surface and groundwater issues. And this map is based on LiDAR data. The LiDAR is -- this data was obtained from State of Florida in 2007. They flew over this area and collected data, and there are billions of data points on this. And what you see is, like, brighter the color, orange and yellows, are the high elevations. Like, for example, like in the middle I show Elevation 30, and the green and blues are the low elevation. And as you know, the surface water flows from higher elevation to lower elevation, and groundwater levels generally follow the ground elevations. And this is a zoom -in into the previous slide that shows the project area. Let me see what I can do -- yeah. This is the county line here, and the project is in this area here. And as I said before, same thing, the surface water follows the -- goes from high elevations to low elevations, and the groundwater follows the ground elevations. This is an important concept you need to keep in mind as we go along. And what this slide shows is domestic water supplies in the area, and this is strictly on the Lee County side. And I don't show anything on the Collier County side. And this -- this slide shows the domestic supply plus the irrigation where it's permitted by Water Management District. And as I said before, the groundwater follows the ground elevations. The applicant record the same idea. So what happens when you change the ground elevation? It's very simple logic. The hydrology is going to change. Very simple logic. Let me show you -- let me give you a better graphic /illustration of what that means. And this is the pre- mining water levels. And you can see around -- I have a well -- water well on the upstream side, and I have a residence on the downstream side, the water table on the top, confining layer in the sandstone aquifer. Let's see what happens after you put a mine on. What's in the red is the pre- mining water level. And what happened to it after mine? It flattened to groundwater level. And this is not something that I'm saying here. First of all, this is common knowledge, plus this is a finding of the detailed (sic) study that the county done several years ago. So, for example, what happened in the upstream side? Your water levels -- if I can get mouse -- in the upstream side what you see is the pre - mining water level's going to drop, and if you had a well, you will see it will go dry faster. And on the downstream side, what you see here is that you had the pre - mining water level in red and the post- mining water level in black. So what happened there is a mounding of water. So you can expect flooding on the Page 84 of 93 161.2 A 7 November 3, 2011 downstream side. So if you have a septic tank here, you're going to get flooded. Okay. The applicant did not provide how to establish baseline conditions for surface and groundwater levels and qualities. Understanding the applicant has an ERP permit, but does it tell you what are the baseline conditions? Let's say applicant goes to construction; three years, two years down the road, you will be collecting data. Okay. Now we have the data. Let's see. The water levels are 20. Okay. What does that mean? That is why we need to establish the baseline condition. That is why we need to establish the background elevations, what this means, and that's the reason we ask these water levels be monitored at least about three years prior to start of the construction. Okay. Once you have the water levels and water - quality data then, you know, someone has to analyze those and tell, okay, these are the standards that we -- that triggers, make triggers. That's where we have the red flags, and that has not been identified. And, also, what happens when the water level drops or when the water qualities go bad? Do we have a contingency plan? I haven't seen one. Do we have remedial action? I haven't seen one. Okay. The applicant should be denied because the applicant failed to address domestic and irrigation water supply; because wetland hydroperiods are -- they impact the wetland hydroperiods; because data impact to septic systems, as I demonstrated in my cartoon; and, also, it's going to cause flooding and surface water storage. I think I did it in five minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got some questions and, of course, they won't impact your time. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question. How far would you want a well to be away from the property line or -- let me ask it the other way around. How far would you want open water to be away from a well in Lee County? It will be a private domestic well. MR. KARUNA-MUNI: It really depends on the water levels. It really depends on the, you know, slope -- you know, I mean, you saw that cartoon graphics. If it gets very steep, yeah, you're going to have -- you need to have your well way down there. I mean, I haven't seen that information to tell you what. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you could go back to that a second. And, actually, I can't resist asking you a question on that, so go back to that one. What are those little things running around on top of the wells and stuff? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Those are the property owners who own the water wells. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So to prevent that, what would you recommend we set as conditions as to water location? I mean, it's easy to say it depends. Of course it depends, but we have to come up with something that's safe. They're 300 feet away with open water now. I mean, in the design of distance between wells and septic tanks, that's far exceeding what you would normally do, so isn't that a safe number? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Again, I cannot give you -- it really -- I need to have more data to give you a safe number. But like in conceptual manner, if I were to recharge that area where the wells are going dry, you know, then I probably will avoid that situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we don't have -- this is like the hills in Maryland. Fortunately we're pretty flat here. MR. KARUNA-MUNI: Flat. But if you'll recall, one of the slides, I believe John English had, showed the elevation difference -- I believe it's somewhere around 4 feet across the site. Again, I'm just -- I'm just thinking of, you know, what he had in his slide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you're saying they're not addressing these concerns. So if we were to address these concerns, you don't think that 300 feet is enough to protect a -- I mean, a well shouldn't be on the property line. That person should have been smart enough to put it some distance back to protect whatever somebody did over there anyway. MR. KARUNA -MUNL• I think that is the whole idea of having to monitor the wells and establish the baseline so we know, if our baseline is 20 today before the mines are started -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, okay. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: -- if it goes below it, 19, yeah, we have a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We can monitor. That's good. All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Page 85 of 93 161NZ mber 3 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could you go to a couple slides forward here where they don't -- can you go a couple forward here that -- where they did not provide. Okay. I have a question for you. Has Alico Land Development -- do they have any mines in Lee County? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I believe so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And they have answered all these questions for you, but -- MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You approved their mines? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I didn't know. Maybe someone else in the county can approve -- answer that question. MR. NOBLE: For the record, Matt Noble, division -- Lee County division of planning. The old Cemex mine on Alico Road was on -- is currently on Alico property. It's a finished mine. That mine was approved in a different era, back -- way back in the '80s sometime, '90s, '70s? Yeah. I just -- I might remember one of the updates in the late'80s, but it's been around a long time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So they have no active mines in Lee County at all? MR. NOBLE: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Alico's here to answer it for themselves. Go ahead. MR. SCHROTENBOER: That must be appropriate. For the record, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development. To answer your specific question, Alico Land Development does not have any current active mines. Let me reverse that question. Alico owns property in Lee County currently that is being currently mined by Cemex on the north side of Alico Road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Were a lot of your issues not addressed by the DEP permit? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: No, I didn't -- I didn't see -- the DEP permit -- again, I don't want to talk bad about DEP because I worked for DEP several years ago. So, yeah, the -- again, the key issue is, you know, you had to address the baseline condition. You have to establish the background levels today before you start mining. And that -- without that information, everybody will be scratching their head three years down the road, are these water levels okay or not? How would -- one would say, I mean, it goes back to what this other commissioner asked. You know, what is the (sic) water level should be? Yes, I can answer that question if we have enough data today. See, when we collect the data, you have to collect the data. But some years are dry years, some years are wet years, and that is why, in Lee County, if it's a mine in Lee County, we ask at least we provide -- the applicant provide at least three years of data so, you know, you kind of try to arrange (sic) the wet years and dry years. Unless you have that background condition, you will be debating three years down the road or two years down the road. Once they start mining -- they will still give you their monitoring data, that's what the DEP says, okay. What are you going to do with that? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I guess I would ask staff if that's not a requirement for the permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean staff, our staff? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- well, I think our staff relies upon the DEP's permit, so you really -- probably want to ask the hydrologist from Alico if they have done that kind of work when they -- at the chance we get. That's probably the best way to go, if we've established the baseline data, okay. Okay. I have a couple questions as well. Could you go back to that page that showed the red and yellow dots for the wellsites, or the red dots for the wellsites. Right there. Are the yellow dots -- okay, they're Lee County permit. So that's where your single - family homes would all have their wells located in the yellow dots, right? MR. KARUNA-MUNI: That's correct. Page 86 of 93 1612A7 November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't see the note down at the bottom. That's fine. That's all I need. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you'll have to wait till we fmish Lee County. They have more time. MR. BLOCK: Chairman Strain, for the record, my name is Chip Block. I'm also known as Alvin. Alvin's the real name; Chip's the nickname. Commissioners, thank you very much for the additional time. I greatly appreciate it. I'm sure Lee County does, too. Commissioners, I'm going to be very, very brief in my presentation. I may not be Becky, but I'll try my best to. The Lee County staff has reviewed this application, has reviewed it per the Collier County Growth Management Plan, per the Collier County Land Development Code, and per the Collier County Code of Ordinances, and we have provided you what we believe is substantial and competent evidence for your consideration today and in the future for this case in your decision - making process. What I've placed on the screen is something that you saw Matt Noble -- and which you are all very familiar with. It's Land Development Code Chapter 10, Section 10.08.00, and Letter D, and these are the findings that the Land Development Code specifically requires you to take a look at and matters that you have to take a look at for a conditional -use pen-nit. I'm not going to read it to you. You know what it means, and you know what it says. In our presentation, though, I believe that what we have pointed out to you, that the conditional use is not consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You have heard and may hear additional substantial competent evidence from the public regarding the requested conditional use, that it's inconsistent with a number of policies with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. That we also believe that the designation -- we understand that the designation allows for earth - mining activities as part of one of the permitted uses on that, but it doesn't mean it has to be granted. There are other uses under the Growth Management Plan designation for the subject property that permits other uses on the subject property. This is not the only one. Please take that into consideration. This is not the only one that they are allowed to have. They have other uses. And, in fact, the uses they have on the property today, agricultural, is a permitted use. The proposed vehicular access to the subject property is of concern to county staff, the Lee County staff, and I hope to Collier County staff as a whole also, because when you look at the conceptual conditional -use plan that has been provided to you -- not the color version that you saw on the screen today -- but the black- and -white version, the two access points that they show, one to State Route 82 and one to Corkscrew Road, both say "potential road access." Doesn't mean it's going to be provided. The only thing that's going to be required is when you look at the Growth Management Plan. And there's a requirement under the Growth Management Plan that property is accessed from the closest or abutting arterial or collector road. That's only Corkscrew Road. That could mean when they come in for permits for developing this site, unless conditions are established, sole access is Corkscrew Road and, and their entire transportation analysis that has been provided to you, to Collier County staff, is no longer valid. Yeah, it's going to go out to State Route 82 and everything else, but if they only have access to Corkscrew Road, all of that access, all of the analysis and the transportation analysis is thrown out the window. The proposed conditional use would have a negative impact due to noise, glare, and dust. You have heard and may hear again additional substantial competent evidence as to why this should not be approved based upon the Collier County codes and Collier County Growth Management Plan. Please, keep an open mind. Consider that. You do not have to grant a conditional -use permit, just as you said, Chairman Strain, in the very beginning of this hearing. The proposed conditional use is not compatible, at least in our opinion, with the adjacent properties and other properties in the district. A mine, due to noise, odor, dust, vibration, truck traffic, potential impacts to ground and surface waters, potential impacts on environmentally sensitive areas, habitats and species, is not compatible. You, again, have heard and may hear additional substantial competent evidence that would support that Page 87 of 93 161NZbeA,711 finding. Finally, I would ask in the break that we're going to have between hearing dates that your County Attorney's Office go back and take a look at something, because I haven't heard it today in this public hearing, but I've heard it a lot in Lee County -- and mind you, I've handled a lot of mining operations since 1987. Florida Statutes 552.3 specifically provides for the provision that, under blasting, the sole authority for granting blasting for construction materials mining operations is the state fire marshal's office. And, in fact, let me read from that provision under 552. It says, they have the sole and exclusive authority to promulgate standards, limits, regulations regarding the use of explosives in conjunction with construction materials mining activities. Such authority to regulate such use shall include, directly or indirectly -- directly or indirectly the operation, handling, licensure, or permitting of explosives and setting standards or limits, including, but not limited to, ground vibrations, frequency, intensity, blast pattern, air blast and time, date, occurrence, and notice restrictions. We have been told by our county attorneys in Lee County when this was brought to our attention in 2007 that we have no authority to regulate blasting operations at all for construction materials mining operations. In fact, we received a declaratory statement from the state fire marshal's office back in 2007 that specifically said that. So I would be careful if you consider conditions, and I would ask that the County Attorney's Office for Collier County take a look at those standards and also take a look at the standards for remediation purposes that the applicant has addressed today, how they're going to remediate it if there's a blasting problem and there's a complaint. You're also going to find in that section -- if I remember correctly, it was 36, but I could be wrong. No, I am wrong. Well, again, I would just ask the county attorney -- here it is. Division of Administrative Hearings under 552.36. The Division of Administrative Hearings has exclusive jurisdiction overall claims for damages to real or personal property caused by the use of explosives in connection with construction materials mining activities. Regardless of what they have offered today, the Office of Administrative Hearings is the one that considers it. So I would go back and think about that condition also and think about whether or not you have enough authority under these regulations to establish reasonable conditions which may protect the adjacent property owners, not only in Lee County that I'm representing, but in Collier County. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I can only say that I've been directed to explain to Collier County that Lee County objects to this zoning application for conditional -use permit for construction materials mining operation on the subject property, and we, therefore, recommend to the Collier County Planning Commission consideration for a recommendation of denial of the request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before you leave the podium, we may have some questions, but I've got a couple clarifications. First of all, I want to thank you for your focused presentation. That is a lot more effective for us to understand, and I appreciate that. MR. BLOCK: My pleasure to help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You correctly pointed out that conditional uses are a "may" in Collier County, not a "shall," which provides the opportunity for boards to render decisions that could be in favor or against. In that regard, I don't know what happened at the EAC meeting, but they were looking at two points. One was an evacuation per- -- an excavation permit, and the other was a conditional use. This board is only looking at a conditional use. MR. BLOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are not approving or disapproving blasting. We are simpling saying, if blasting occurs, this is the conditions under which it might occur as a minimum standard for us. Now, that doesn't mean we're saying they can do blasting. That's -- the permit process for that is up to them to attain. And about -- a few minutes ago during your presentation you started out a sentence that said, and Mr. Chairman, as you said, and then you started saying -- referencing some incompatible issues with the project. I don't believe I ever rendered any kind of comment about incompatibility or anything. MR. BLOCK: No, sir. I apologize for my placing that statement. But I saw you nodding your head as soon Page 88 of 93 161 A 7 ovember 3 2011 as I reminded everybody that a conditional use is not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BLOCK: -- something that has to be granted, that it may be granted when it is found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, Land Development Code, and Code of Ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's correct, and I appreciate that because that is an issue that gets confused many times. So thank you. Now, are there -- MR. BLOCK: Commissioner Strain, if I may, you -- I, again, would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider caution in the consideration of the conditions that you talked about for blasting. You're not granting an excavation permit, and I understand that. But you're talking about or have discussed in some fashion, as has the applicant and as has Collier County staff, the potential for conditions related to blasting, whether they be hours of operation, when it's going to -- you know, to what extent it's going to happen, and a lot of other different things that have been included in the conditions either by the applicant or Collier County staff. I would just ask for caution to see if the Collier County Attorney's Office would go back and look at Chapter 552 and see if they concur with the county attorney's opinion for Lee County which says Lee County has no authority whatsoever to grant blasting through conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me -- the process here -- we are purely a recommending board. We do not make a final decision. MR. BLOCK: I do understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so what happens from here, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and it goes to -- it usually gets on their agenda on a day that they're packed with three -ring binders that deep of information that they have to get through, and it involves all kinds of things. They don't normally spend the kind of time on an application for land use that this board is able to spend, because we focus strictly on land -use issues. MR. BLOCK: And I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we try to -- we try to package everything up with as much in it so that if they were to approve it and that -- the stipulations that we add to it would help with whatever conditions are there on the site. So lacking any conditions in blasting, if it were to go before the board and it was approved and they didn't get into the fine art of the blasting process and they did it elevated above the state minimum, then you would be left with state minimums. So we are more like a cautionary avenue to make sure that at least if it were to be approved -- not by this board necessarily because we don't approve it we just recommend -- but if the other board does approve it, they can look to our stipulations as an added protection, let's say, in regards to some of the issues that were brought forth. MR. BLOCK: But to make it more restrictive than Florida Statutes, you don't have the authority to grant such a condition, and I would just -- if you pass on a package of conditions, should you recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners, Board of Zoning Appeals, please be cautious about the blasting conditions, because I would not want Collier County to adopt a conditional -use permit that could fail in the approval because it's illegal, potentially violating state law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your comments. Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let me make sure I understand that point. So if we said, we'll give you this conditional use if you make everybody wear purple helmets on the day of blasting, you're saying the state fire marshal could eliminate that requirement? MR. BLOCK: Actually, I think Florida Statute has already done it per the interpretation of our county attorney staff, because it says, the state fire marshal shall have the sole and exclusive authority to regulate -- to promulg -- excuse me -- promulgate standards, limits, and regulations regarding the use of explosives in conjunction with construction materials mining operation. They are the sole authority -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- Page 89 of 93 161 2 3, 2011 MR. BLOCK: -- regardless if it's local or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they also are for fireworks and other things. So the point is, we could never do anything more restrictive than the state. So in other words, our purple -hat rule would just be pushed aside and they still have their conditional use? MR. BLOCK: Hours of operation would not be existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're going to have to have the county attorney weigh in on that, because -- MR. BLOCK: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- honestly, that would turn a lot of our stipulations upside down that we've been doing for years, and those have been very effective to get a better -- better product for the people of this county and for your potential people as well, to be honest with you. MR. BLOCK: Chairman -- and I sympathize with that, and if they come back with the opinion that you can do that, certainly you have the authority to do that in their opinion. I'm just passing on a concern that has been ours for many years now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have to wrap this up. I want to get -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have one more. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Then Melissa's got a question, then I've got to ask him some more questions about who's going to return for cross -exam on the 17th. So go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question also, you're really concerned that this road's not going to go up -- or the access isn't going to go up to 82, but it is. I mean, they're testifying that we're going to have -- that's going to be the queuing area and everything, so I don't think I'd worry about them denying that access. MR. BLOCK: I have had way too many opportunities in the past years since 1985 where an attorney has come before me and said, this master concept plan says I can do this or I don't have to do this. If it has "potential access to 82" -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BLOCK: -- it means it's only potential. They apply the rule in Collier County which says they only access to Corkscrew. If you condition it differently, fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, because the "potential" might be left behind here, so -- it might be "actual" before it leaves here. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: How does the blasting code affect the mines in Lee County? MR. BLOCK: Which blasting code? COMMISSIONER AHERN: The one that you're referencing with the fire marshal. MR. BLOCK: The state fire marshal specific -- we have in Lee County interpreted that the state fire marshal has the sole and exclusive authority to regulate it; therefore, we have to consider that any construction material mining operation will have to comply with state law, and then we consider the impacts of state law, the extent of blasting that could be allowed on that subject property and then a determination, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan, and is it compatible with the surrounding with the surrounding land uses -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: So -- MR. BLOCK: -- based -- solely using state law. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So the mines there can operate 24/7? MR. BLOCK: If they want to blast and state law permits 24/7, they can blast 24/7. We do not regulate blasting. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And how many mines do you have approved? MR. BLOCK: How many? I'm sorry, I haven't counted them recently. I would say anywhere between a half a dozen and a dozen. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad that we have followed a different path. Right or wrong, it's been a better path for the mines we have because ours don't operate like yours do. And now that you've told that to Bruce Anderson, I'm a little worried about what he's going to try to do. But maybe we'll get lucky and we'll find that our county attorney disagrees with you. Page 90 of 93 1612 p7 November 3, 2011 With that, Chip, next meeting, how many of your people will be here? MR. BLOCK: I think all of us could be here on November 17th with the exception of Rob Price, our transportation expert, who is on vacation that day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bruce, did you have any cross - examination you needed to do to Rob -- with Rob Price in the next few minutes that we can accomplish today? Is -- that being necessary? MR. BLOCK: Also Dr. Rix, I apologize, our first expert on blasting, he is a -- he'll be flying out. We don't have the ability to bring him back in November. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Nicole from the Conservancy asked me if we would go ahead and dispose of the professor from Georgia Tech, and so we're prepared to do that this afternoon so they and the neighbors don't have to fly him back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about Rob Price; you have any questions of him, cross - examine him? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then you can live with the rest of their staff coming back on the 17th for any potential concerns you have? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that will work. It's close to quitting time. We have to -- the lights go off at around five of five, so to speak. The lights being K.D. across the hallway. So I want to thank everybody for their time today, and I appreciate very much the public's attendance. I'm very sorry that we couldn't get to you. We have -- this has gone on a little bit longer than our rules allow. We generally allow five minutes per person with the difference being that the chair can allow additional time. I've allowed a lot more additional time today. But I'd like to ask if you could come back on the 17th. We will certainly hear from everyone in the room. And so I appreciate that very much. And with that, we'll adjourn this meeting -- or continue this meeting. I've got to have a vote for a continuance. Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the Conservancy asked us to go ahead and question the professor from Georgia today so they don't have to pay to fly him back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I thought you said you -- I thought you said you agree to dismiss him. You mean you wanted to hear him. Oh. MR. ANDERSON: I said dispose of him, and that was probably -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought you misstated. Okay. Well, let's get that -- welcome, sir. Sorry for the confusion. MR. ANDERSON: And I'm going to turn this over to my partner, Bob Menzies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, you are confusing at times. This was one of them. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. MENZIES: I only question witnesses I don't dispose. I'm Bob Menzies on behalf of the applicant. I'm one of Bruce's partners. Doctor, if you could pull up your PowerPoint, if that's possible. DR. RIX: Let me try. MR. MENZIES: I'll be as brief as I can. DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: What I want to go to is your first slide with the raw data, the slides with the data. DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: I want to go to the first one of those. DR. RIX: This slide? MR. MENZIES: Right. DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: I think that's the one you testified that exhibited 151 blasts from records you received from the fire marshal. DR. RIX: Yes, as well as those that are in my own files from previous cases that I have been involved with here in Lee and Collier Counties. Page 91 of 93 „i 0 .. bl N7 November 3, 2011 MR. MENZIES: And all of those records -- well, some of those records you retrieved from the state fire marshal? DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: And other ones you have in your own files? DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: And could we get copies of all those records and that raw data? DR. RIX: Certainly. Yeah, no problem. MR. MENZIES: What would be the yearly -- how many blasts? You said 151? DR. RIX: Hundred and fifty -one. MR. MENZIES: Over what span of time? DR. RIX: I believe the earliest blast I have is from 1998, and the most recent is probably within the last two or three years, I think. Something on that order. MR. MENZIES: And, again, that's all from your records -- your personal records with respect to your work here in Lee County and records from the state fire marshal? DR. RIX: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: And if we could have those before the next meeting, that would be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that be possible for you to provide them? DR. RIX: Yeah, I think so. I'm just trying to think through my mind of where I have that raw data. I think 1 can get my hands on it quickly. MR. MENZIES: Can you go to the next slide with data? DR. RIX: Sure. MR. MENZIES: There were some ones -- graphs and charts, I believe. DR. RIX: This slide? MR. MENZIES: No, that's the same one. Keep going, if you would, please. There. I'm actually looking -- scroll down some more, please. DR. RIX: No, that's my summary. I'll go back up. MR. MENZIES: The data with the Bureau of Mines. DR. RIX: Yes, that was -- yes, yes, yes. MR. MENZIES: Right. DR. RIX: That data, yes. MR. MENZIES: Can we get that raw data? DR. RIX: Yeah, that's part of a published report, and so I can certainly provide the report, but I have no access to the raw data that's cited in the report. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Thinking back on your entire report -- DR. RIX: Yes. MR. MENZIES: -- what other raw data went into making the report that you've presented to the commission today? DR. RIX: The data that I primarily relied upon for -- to draw my conclusions about distances and charge weights was, in fact, this set of data. MR. MENZIES: All right. If you could get us a hard copy of that, the data that we've referred to, that would be great. DR. RIX: I'd be happy to. MR. MENZIES: I don't have any other questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Go ahead -- you're going to cross - examine, too? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But could you replace that slide where the legends are in a language -- DR. RIX: Yes, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for humans? Pick a language that a human would use. DR. RIX: I'll try. See, I'm a Mac person, and this is a PC, and that's the nature of the problem there. So I'll work on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Page 92 of 93 1612 A7 f November 3, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're good. I'd seek a motion to continue from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue this until the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventeenth. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Of -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion, and seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Does that work for the applicant, since it's the applicant's hearing, the motion that's going to be continued to the 17th? And if you needed more time, you could -- that would work as. But the 17th it is. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. We will continue this meeting till the first up on the 17th at nine o'clock in this room. We'll see you then. Thank you. And is there a motion -- well, we're continued, so that's it. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:57 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MA STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved b the Board on 2 �' l i , as presented r as corrected _ pp Y TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 93 of 93 161.2 7 'November 17, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 17, 2011 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: ALSO PRESENT: J0 o �Ja2 BY........................ CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham P I Bill Lorenz, Comprehensive Planning � .� Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning 00 p%1 Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle f Cofetta —` G Misc. Cones: Date:_�l 13l l 2_ Item M L (_o Z 24�j —1 Page 1 of 85 'o. 161 2 A1Y November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Will you -all please have your seats only so I can ask you to stand up for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome to the Thursday, November 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have two items on today's agenda. One is the continuation of the Alico Land Development application for the Lost Grove Mine, and that will be the first item up. The second item up is under the item of old business. It's been, unfortunately, continued several times. It's the Master Mobility Plan Phase II Report. I've asked Mr. Mulhere to attend today, if he would agree to another continuance at the request of the Planning Commission until our first meeting in December, because it's obvious today's meeting is not going`to get over with much quality time left to discuss the mobility plan. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that makes sense. We know you've got a full agenda today, and we'd rather have your undivided attention when we do get here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be hard enough to focus on this without having to worry about the second one. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you very much. And for those members of the audience either watching or here today, the mobility plan will be continued to December 1 st on the vote of the Planning Commission. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion that I just made carries, 8 -0. Okay. That's December Ist, so that will be our first meeting of the month: " And, Ray, if you can avoid putting other things -- well, I would expect we'll spend half a day on the mobility plan, so we still have time left, but -- Page 2 of 85 6'. 9h t St v 161 2 A1Y November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Will you -all please have your seats only so I can ask you to stand up for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome to the Thursday, November 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We have two items on today's agenda. One is the continuation of the Alico Land Development application for the Lost Grove Mine, and that will be the first item up. The second item up is under the item of old business. It's been, unfortunately, continued several times. It's the Master Mobility Plan Phase II Report. I've asked Mr. Mulhere to attend today, if he would agree to another continuance at the request of the Planning Commission until our first meeting in December, because it's obvious today's meeting is not going`to get over with much quality time left to discuss the mobility plan. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that makes sense. We know you've got a full agenda today, and we'd rather have your undivided attention when we do get here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be hard enough to focus on this without having to worry about the second one. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you very much. And for those members of the audience either watching or here today, the mobility plan will be continued to December 1 st on the vote of the Planning Commission. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion that I just made carries, 8 -0. Okay. That's December Ist, so that will be our first meeting of the month: " And, Ray, if you can avoid putting other things -- well, I would expect we'll spend half a day on the mobility plan, so we still have time left, but -- Page 2 of 85 ,t ti:. X62 AlNoWiober 17, 2011 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, there are currently no items scheduled, and for advertising purposes, I don't think it would be possible to get any other new items on there, so you should have all day on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be December 1st. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll have a quorum. Approval of the minutes from October 20, 2011? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8 -0. Thank you. Ray, do we have any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: During the last board hearing, there were no land -use items presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll see if we can change that. Chairman's report. I really don't have anything to move into today. So we have no consent agenda items. Then we'll move right into our advertised public hearings. ** *The first item up is CU- PL2009 -1412. It's a continuation from our last meeting for the Alico Land Development, Inc., Lost Grove Mine application. It's a conditional use. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures from the Planning Commission? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Emails. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? Yeah, Nicole Johnson and I did have a phone conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I spoke with Nicole, and also -- I think it's Mr. Van who's a resident on Whidden Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. In fact, I visited the site yesterday and saw -- with Nicole Johnson and Mr. Van. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I also, on Tuesday, saw the site with Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys didn't do that together, did you? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just checking. Page 3 of 85 161[ A% November 17, 2011 Phil? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I went yesterday. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Nicole knows better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I received several emails, as probably most of you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had talked with Nicole. I didn't -- I didn't get an invitation to see the site, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, I'll be happy to take you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you can't take me. I did get a lot of emails, and they've all been forwarded to Kay. Some of them have been redistributed, but I think they were the ones that all of us received. I met with the applicant and went over the 42 various stipulations of the Jones Mine to see where they stood on those, and we're going to be discussing all those today. And I had an email from a gentleman who lives near there asking if I had the time to tour his property. I wish I had. It's been an -- unfortunately, a very difficult and busy week for me, so I didn't get a chance to catch up with him, so I wasn't able to make that. But I -- that was one of the other emails I'd gotten. So that's the last of mine. Okay. With that, we left off last time with a discussion, or with a presentation by Lee County staff. We were running out of time, and there was an opportunity for cross - examination provided to the applicant. Before that opportunity for cross - examination goes forward, the Planning Commission may have some questions of the Lee County staff that we didn't get time to ask at our last meeting, so we'll start out with those. But before we do, I've had questions from another one or two attorneys regarding the ability to cross - examine. We certainly have provided that to the applicant, and I feel, in all fairness, we should provide it as well to those attorneys representing other groups. Heidi Ashton, I asked her to comment on this and set any procedural standards that we need to in order to make sure it doesn't get carried away. So, Heidi, can you comment on the ability to cross - examine? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. The law requires that the parties are able to cross - examine, so that would include the county and the petitioner's agents; however, as a courtesy, you could set reasonable limitations on some of the other interested or potentially affected parties. So I would suggest if you do allow the cross - examination you limit it to five or ten minutes, or whatever time period you feel is reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And is cross - examination limited -- when you said parties, what's -- what is the reference to a party? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the law requires the parties, and that would typically mean the county and also the petitioners -- petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what if an attorney that is representing either himself or somebody else in the area would like to cross - examine and he's not part of the petitioners or part of either county, is that allowed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think that's an unclear area of the law, but I would suggest that you allow them to do cross - examination but to limit it. It's within your power to put a limitation on the amount of time they spend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- from my personal preference, I would rather hear everybody's comment and questions so that every piece of factual data we can have is on the table. So I'm not -- certainly not against cross - examination. I just ask that you recognize that there has to be limitations in order to move this meeting forward. As it is, it's probably going to take a lot more time to get through the many issues we have here today, so -- and for those people that do end up speaking or cross - examining or any of that nature, redundancy is something that just takes time. We've been here for a long time. We understand things when they're said, or we try to understand them. So if you're going to come up with redundant comments, it'd be better if you launched into new material. It would be more useful to us. Okay. With that in mind, I guess the -- we left off with Lee County staff making their presentation. Members of Lee County staff, if you're here, could you just raise your hand so we know -- okay. The hydrologist, the planner, and the lady -- I believe you're the environmentalist. Okay. So I have a few questions of Lee County staff from last meeting I had written down. Does anybody else have Page 4 of 85 q7 , November 17, 2011 any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I guess I'll start out with mine. I guess, Matt, if you could come up for a minute. And, by the way, for the applicant, if you want to cross - examine while any of these people are up here, when I finish with the questions that I have, if you want to ask yours at that time, that would probably be most convenient. Matt, first of all, thank you for attending today. You had mentioned some things during your presentation that I wanted to clear up. You brought up a reference to the Yunquist mine in Lee County. How long ago -- that's an old mine? MR. NOBLE: Yeah, it is, relatively. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You -- does it have the -- does it operate by the best - management -- BMPs, best - management practice or not? Or do the rules require them to? MR. NOBLE: I believe it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you find that mine to be acceptable for the area that it's in, or has that been a problem with your residents up there, and are there many complaints that you know of? MR. NOBLE: There have been complaints specifically along the Burgundy Farms Road area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What went in first, Burgundy Farms or the mine? MR. NOBLE: That's a tough call. I think the subdivision -- I'm not sure if there were any houses built in it at that point in time, but certainly the land, I believe, had been subdivided before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I got a map from I think it was your department, and I'll try to pull it up here. And it outlined the mines in Lee County. You have mines that are in application for -- that would -- that abut 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is -- what's the status of the -- now, the reason I'm asking this is relevance to the location of this mine. The mine that is being applied for here today -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He wants to know if you want to put that up on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a starter, but if you're going to put stuff up on the screen, you can put this one up after that one. But, yeah, throw that one up first. The second one that I did last night trying to understand the relationship to 82 with your mines and this particular mine is one I'll have some questions from, but the areas in orange -- great, it's not orange. It's upside down, too. The areas in yellow -- the map we got in the email from your department was orange. But the ones in yellow in here are mines that have been applied for. What's the status of that application process? MR. NOBLE: The Florida Rock Mine No. 2, I'll start there. That's the long east/west proposed mine. That has been found sufficient and has been scheduled for a board hearing. I think it's some months into the future. It's in a little different circumstance, as that's basically a reinstatement. It had previous approvals, but there had been some litigation activity between the applicant and the county. We've resolved all of that. We've resolved our differences. As far as the litigation, now that plan will go forward to the board for their review. It's straight to the board, too, with the reinstatement. It goes straight back to the board, not through our hearing- examiner process. The next one, side of it, the long north/south one, the Troyer Brothers application is going to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you point that out, please, on there. MR. NOBLE: Yeah. This was Florida Rock, Mine No. 2 that I talked about. Now I'm talking about the Troyer Brothers mine, north/south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. MR. NOBLE: That goes to the Board of County Commissioners Monday, November 21 st, for a final deposition (sic) of that request. Much like this case, we've raised those issues about State Road 82, level of service with State Road 82 and that. The hearing examiner did find that there was an issue with level of service on State Road 82 and did recommend denial of the request. The staff had recommended denial for a variety of other reasons besides the level -of- service issue. The next one to the east is Old Corkscrew Plantation, a relatively large application, but it is insufficient, still Page 5 of 85 1612 NovAber 17, 201 T in the review phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those are the main ones I was concerned about, because they all look like they're trying to access 82, which is the -- MR. NOBLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- one of the major issues with the application that's in here today. In Florida Rock's, which seems like it's a reinstatement, are they required to do any upgrades in 82 to get onto 82? MR. NOBLE: They do not have access to 82. All of their access will come down through Alico Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the Troyer Brothers, when they -- if they were to get approved, is that -- MR. NOBLE: That was one of the conditions of the hearing examiner, that if they were to go forward in this time frame, they would be responsible for bringing up 82 to level -of- service standard, which would essentially require them to multi -lane State Road 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did their TIS show that their traffic counts that they would put on 82 would cause 82 to fail? MR. NOBLE: The circumstance was level of service on a segment of 82 had already failed. So what we were doing, or what the application would do, would have the effect of, would be to add additional traffic to a failing link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So am I to understand that Lee County has a moratorium on 82 for any development that might access 82? MR. NOBLE: It is an issue with our concurrency system. But you have to keep in mind that the vast amount of development, such as Lehigh Acres, the Lehigh Acres plat is vested from concurrency. So each and every one of those lots in Lehigh could still develop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your -- it's not just the mine; you're not allowing any new development on 82. New development, not pre - platted. MR. NOBLE: There would be issues if a project were accessing on State Road 82, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you put that second map up that I gave you. The area outlined in red and pink, or whatever better color I could call it, those are the mines we just discussed. And I know you say they're going through the process. Troyer Brothers is going before the board with a recommendation from the hearing officer, and Florida Rock, basically, is going for a reinstatement. But over on the right in black is the -- in what was yellow, is kind of greenish -- is the application today. And I'm wondering, if the applications in Lee County go through, which are much larger in appearance than the one that's being applied for today, has anybody done the groundwater modeling to see really what effect those larger mines have in comparison to the smaller one proposed for Lee County and for the people in between those two mines? Because it looks like the neighbors that are concerned in Lee County about Lost Grove aren't that far from those other mines. So I was just wondering how the hydrology has been looked at or analyzed. Do you know of any? MR. NOBLE: Well, that was an issue certainly in the Troyer's case. I mean, there was concerns expressed from our staff about flooding issues with neighbors to the south of the mine. Do you remember the drawings that we put up that showed the flattening of the -- but -- so we had those concerns with the Troyer. It's still being analyzed with Old Corkscrew Plantation. But, yes, those -- there are concerns. It's the same circumstance with everybody on septic in potable -water wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, also, those mines -- and especially the one to the -- the biggest one in the middle, according to the panther - habitat overlay, there's a lot of that in primary panther habitat. How have your -- MR. NOBLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that being considered as an issue in regards to the development of this mine for your -- MR. NOBLE: Certainly it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And speaking of panthers, when you referred to the panther telemetry during your presentation on Lost Grove, you referred to "that" panther. Are you saying all that telemetry is from one panther? MR. NOBLE: I believe a lot of that telemetry was from one panther, yes. Page 6 of 85 2 1612 � November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NOBLE: Panther 188, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And another statement was that you basically -- I thought the statement -- I thought it was put forth, and I -- you know, it's been two weeks, so it's hard to remember all of it -- that you believe there's enough mines already in Lee County. Is that a -- how do you decide that in Lee County? How do you decide if there's too many or not enough? I mean, that's a land -use issue, basically. MR. NOBLE: That's correct. We've looked at historic trends. We've looked at all of the literature, and this basically was work that was done by our consultant, Bill Spikowski. He looked at all of the known data, all of the known core samples, he looked at the bathymetric surveys that are required to be done after the mines are completed in Lee County, so he gave an estimate of what we've done to date, and then he looked at regional demand out through 2030. And, historically, Lee County has provided about 80 percent of the aggregate to the entire region, the seven - county region, and he projected that out. And we looked at how much rock we still have in the ground that's approved. And the conclusion was we've already approved enough rock to take care of the 80- percent supply for the region all the way out through 2030. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in your -- MR. NOBLE: We actually have access, several thousand acres' access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've -- we keep a track of excavation quantities in Collier County as well, not necessarily finding in our code, using that as a premise for either approval or denial, meaning if we had -- didn't have enough, that's a reason to approve, or if we have too much, a reason to deny. Is your code -- just out of curiosity, are your codes set up so you can deny something because the local government feels there's too much of it? MR. NOBLE: Need can be taken into account under the Lee County code, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. In the -- there was a comment -- I'm not sure if it was made at yours, so if you don't know the answer, that's fine. There's going to be $92 million to be spent on 82 for various improvements. Does anybody know what time period those improvements are over? MR. NOBLE: Well, the main improvement right now is under construction, and after that is completed, there is no more construction dollars at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think it was Margaret Perry's presentation, so maybe at some point I'll ask her for some clarification on that. And, lastly, I -- when you guys met with, I think it was the applicant and/or Collier County staff, there was apparently a round -table discussion about the mine application. Is that true? MR. NOBLE: I believe so. I was not there, you know. I'm just hearing it from other staff members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll have to wait. And if any of your staff members are here today who were there, I'll probably ask them a question. MR. NOBLE: Yeah. I believe Becky was there at that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa, did you have something? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Have either one of these mines received permits from the state or Army Corps? MR. NOBLE: Which mine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ones -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: The ones that are on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In pink. MR. NOBLE: In Lee County? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. MR. NOBLE: Yeah, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Matt at this point? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Matt, I don't know -- I guess I asked Chip, I believe his names was, to bring a picture of all your -- of the mine areas. How deep do they plan on mining these two that are just behind the Alico one; Page 7 of 85 161 2A7 November 17 2011 do you know the depth? MR. NOBLE: I believe relatively deep. I mean, off the top of my head, I know it's over a hundred feet. I think the Old Corkscrew went down to, like, 145 feet. But they all are unique, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Matt? Does -- Bruce, do you have any cross -exam? MR. MENZIES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, sorry. MR. MENZIES: I'm Bob Menzies for the applicant, one of Bruce Anderson's partners. If I could give to staff a couple of the PowerPoint slides just to put them up. Mr. Noble, I'm Bob Menzies at Roetzel and Andress. I represent, along with Bruce Anderson, the applicant here. I had a few questions. Sir, could you put up the first slide that Mr. Strain gave with the yellow portions. Yeah, that one. I think you described the new Florida Rock mine that's been approved by Lee County at the top, the long horizontal mine there. That one. Is that correct? MR. NOBLE: Correct. MR. MENZIES: Has that been approved by Lee County? MR. NOBLE: It has in the past, yes. MR. MENZIES: And has the state DEP issued an environmental resource permit for that mine? MR. NOBLE: I believe so. MR. MENZIES: So as part of the approval process, Lee County's own environmental staff would have approved that application, correct? MR. NOBLE: Correct. I would caution one word though, that the staff report on this reinstatement has not been issued. There still may be some minor issues with the mine. MR. MENZIES: Okay. With that application, I understand that that applicant, Florida Rock, made an unrelated donation of road right -of -way to Lee County as part of the process of getting your agreement to approve that mine; is that correct? MR. NOBLE: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: So where was the road right -of -way granted to Lee County from Florida Rock in relation to that mine? MR. NOBLE: It does pass through a portion of the mine. MR. MENZIES: But not entirely, correct? MR. NOBLE: Not entirely, no. MR. MENZIES: I had another quick question about some of Mr. Strain's comments on the economic and the market - demand issues. MR. NOBLE: Sure. MR. MENZIES: Is it your position or is it Lee County's position that market demand is a valid basis for an agency such as yours, or Lee County, to deny a property owner's right to use their land? MR. NOBLE: Specifically in relationship to our goals, objectives, and policies in the plan, yes. MR. MENZIES: Okay. The rest of my questions, Mr. Noble -- and I'll be as quick as I can, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. MENZIES: -- related to the specific comments that you made a couple of weeks ago in your testimony. We have a -- we've got a transcript. In your testimony you referred to the area around our client's property as a residential area, residential properties, residential uses, residential areas. Isn't it true that the area in Lee County adjacent to the Lost Grove Mine is zoned agricultural? MR. NOBLE: Certainly it's zoned agricultural, but what I was pointing out was the extensive residential neighborhood that sits on top of agriculturally zoned land. MR. MENZIES: Correct. And that means that residential uses are permitted in an agricultural zoning district, right? Page 8 of 85 A 7 i 16 1'2 November 17, 2011 MR. NOBLE: Certainly. MR. MENZIES: Okay. And -- but the primary designation remains agricultural, correct? MR. NOBLE: Well, as I've pointed out in my testimony, Lee County considers this a residential neighborhood. MR. MENZIES: Okay. But it is agricultural by -- MR. NOBLE: Certainly. MR. MENZIES: -- official designation? MR. NOBLE: It's a rural kind of estate area. Folks there have cattle, they have horses. They've, you know, enjoyed that agricultural zoning lifestyle. MR. MENZIES: My point is simply this: The property is legally designated as an agricultural zoning district, correct? MR. NOBLE: It has AG2 zoning, yes. MR. MENZIES: Thank you, thank you. And in other comments, Mr. Noble, you referred to -- you were talking about our client's property and our client's application, and you referred to possible ancillary uses that might occur in the future, and you said, "I know it's not being requested today, but it's typical with a mine that you have ancillary uses, and so are uses such as a sand plant, asphalt batch plant, concrete plant, block concrete batch plant. These are all typical uses you would find around mines in Southwest Florida." Do you remember that testimony? MR. NOBLE: Certainly. MR. MENZIES: Okay. You're aware, aren't you, in fact, that my client's application includes none of those ancillaries uses, correct? MR. NOBLE: I believe I stated that, yes. MR. MENZIES: Okay. And you're also aware that if my client wanted to add those ancillary uses to this conditional -use permit, they'd have to actually go through this whole process again and seek another conditional use, right? MR. NOBLE: Yes. I think my testimony was to the point of Lee County would like -- if this is approved, would like to know of those actions in the future. MR. MENZIES: Okay. I think Mr. Strain's made clear that you would find out or get notice of those things in the future. You also testified that my client -- you gave testimony regarding lighting and the unsightly noise and lights at night for this mine operation, and you said, "You have excavator drill rigs lighting at night." I'd like you to note you were referring to one of the mines in Lee County, a picture you'd brought with you. "I'd like you to note the lighting in the bottom right -hand corner. That is an operating facility in Lee County. These things are quite extensively lit at night. This is going to change the environment for those surrounding residential uses. It's going to light up that neighborhood." You weren't talking about my client's application or property, were you? MR. NOBLE: I believe that your client's property will be lit at night, that it will change the characteristics of this neighborhood. MR. MENZIES: Have you reviewed the application and the conditions that my client's agreed to with respect to the operation of the mine being restricted to daylight hours? MR. NOBLE: I understand that, but I believe it will still be lit at night for security purposes. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Are you aware of the fact that my client's had -- my client had agreed to comply with the Lee County development code with respect to the lighting that would be used at night? MR. NOBLE: I'm aware of the conditions that have been agreed to, yes. MR. MENZIES: Is that the same equipment requirement you would impose on a property owner in Lee County? MR. NOBLE: Certainly it is. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Is there anything wrong with it? MR. NOBLE: There's nothing wrong with that requirement. MR. MENZIES: Okay. MR. NOBLE: I think my testimony was more to the location of the use vis -a -vis the neighborhood. Page 9 of 85 } 1b11 2A7 November 17, 2011 MR. MENZIES: All righty. Again, in your testimony you talk about -- you refer to the prospect of the 24- hour -a -day operation, and you said, "It's a use that can operate 24 hours a day. I know we have conditions here, but I have got to tell you, when the State of Florida comes to the mine operator and says 'I need rock' at 2 a.m., it's been our experience that rock gets delivered." My question for you is this: Is it your experience in Lee County that when the state or some other agency comes to a mine operator in Lee County, and says "I need rock" at whatever hour of the day, that that mine operator gives them the rock? MR. NOBLE: I don't personally know of any experiences with that. I know of applications that have relayed that kind of information to us. MR. MENZIES: You said, "It's been our experience that rock gets delivered." What's your experience? MR. NOBLE: My experience is reviewing the applications in which people are telling me that that's what happens, that they want to see happen. MR. MENZIES: Okay. If there was a restriction in Lee County for that kind of operation, to restrict that kind of thing and it happened, what would Lee County do about it? MR. NOBLE: If -- I mean, you're now talking about a code - enforcement action really. MR. MENZIES: Would there be a code - enforcement action? MR. NOBLE: It's one of those things, you know, the code - enforcement officer would have to really witness it. MR. MENZIES: I understand the factual situation. Let's assume for the sake of argument that a mine operator did violate the terms of and the conditions and deliver rock to the state at three o'clock in the morning on a Saturday or Sunday or any day of the week, would Lee County, if they learned of that, take action to enforce -- to correct that violation? MR. NOBLE: Perhaps. I mean, it would all be the specifics related to that incident. MR. MENZIES: By saying that to the commission, did you intend to suggest that my client will deliberately violate the terms of its permit? MR. NOBLE: No, not really. I think it's the characteristics of the industry, though. MR. MENZIES: So we have rogue industry we can't control? MR. NOBLE: No, I didn't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Menzies, kind of stick -- MR. NOBLE: I think that I was testifying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to facts that have been testified to, please. MR. MENZIES: All right. There's a lot of supposition going on, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand that. But factual matter is different than the suppositions you may feel. MR. MENZIES: Sure. In your testimony, Mr. Noble, you also referred to Corkscrew Road as a residential road. You said it was in a residential road -- it's viewed by Lee County as a residential road. Isn't in true, in fact, that Corkscrew Road, along the boundary of the mine, is an arterial road? MR. NOBLE: It is an arterial road, but it has been considered in Lee County as a residential road. MR. MENZIES: Don't arterial roads collect from residential roads; isn't that how it works? MR. NOBLE: Certainly, it does, and I think that's the point of why the county considers it a residential road. It collects from all of those residential neighborhoods that line up and down Corkscrew Road, such as Burgundy Farms, 6L's. MR. MENZIES: Right. Sir, can you put up the slide with the -- all the mines, the wells shown, the DR/GR -- the one in your right hand with all the little red dots, yeah, please. Excuse me, the green dots. Mr. Noble, do you recognize that as the boundary of the DR/GR in Lee County? MR. NOBLE: I do. MR. MENZIES: And my client property is the red boundary to the right? MR. NOBLE: I do, yes. MR. MENZIES: There was a mine that was discussed real briefly, the Old Corkscrew mine recently in Lee County. Where is that on that drawing, if you could show us? MR. NOBLE: It would be the other side of Wild Cat Farm, in here. Page 10 of 85 1612A7 November 17, 2011 MR. MENZIES: So Wild Cat Farms is between the mine that Lee County's already approved and the one my client seeks to create? MR. NOBLE: No. That is a pending application. MR. MENZIES: Oh, I see, okay. In your testimony before you talked about the road, the condition of Corkscrew Road, and how it would be damaged or harmed by this haul traffic, and you showed a photograph with the road being rutted, that kind of thing. What kind of traffic uses this road now? MR. NOBLE: A variety of traffic from the residents to agricultural operations to the one -- in the past the one lone mining operating, the Westwind mine. MR. MENZIES: And so that haul traffic includes those big semi - tractor trailers hauling citrus, correct? MR. NOBLE: Sure does. MR. MENZIES: Sure. And that could contribute to the condition of the road, right? MR. NOBLE: I'm sure everything contributes to the condition of the road. MR. MENZIES: Who was responsible for building or improving the road the last time that was done, if you know? MR. NOBLE: I believe Lee County built the road in the early'90s. MR. MENZIES: Is it possible, for the sake of argument, that the road wasn't constructed properly or appropriately? MR. NOBLE: I think that's very positive -- possible that the road wasn't built to withstand haul trucks. MR. MENZIES: Okay. In your testimony -- this referred to some of the species issues around the mine. You made a statement where you said, "The development of the mine," my client's mine, "will foreclose any possibility of restoring the property in the future for any species." Do you have any basis for that statement? MR. NOBLE: I think it would be next to impossible to restore the property for any terrestrial species, for example, because it's going to be open water. MR. MENZIES: So is it your testimony that what -- you said "any species," so is it your testimony that there will be no lifeforms of any kind on the site? MR. NOBLE: No, of course not. I'm sure there's going to be fish in the lakes at some point. MR. MENZIES: And what about the reclaimed property after the mine -- the mine operations have stopped; what do you foresee? MR. NOBLE: I think that's been an issue with our testimony, too, is it takes whatever year till you get to that finished state, that up until that point there's going to be impacts that are not going to be mitigated, such as impacts to the wood storks. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Mr. Noble, in your testimony you said that you were very concerned about this application because this property was close to your county's DR/GR, which is on the photograph there. And you said, "This is the area in which 80 percent of Lee County gets its drinking water supply, so the county is protective of that area. It's our drinking water source." If you look at that photograph, those green dots show the existing wells or proposed wells in Lee County for potable water supplies. Is that -- would that be fair statement? MR. NOBLE: There's a fair statement. There's additional wells to the south, but in that part of the DR/GR, certainly. MR. MENZIES: And you're familiar with the -- for example, the Bay Meadows Wellfield in Lee County? MR. NOBLE: Yes. MR. MENZIES: Many, many of those wells are directly adjacent to or on top of existing mine operations from that photograph; would you agree with me on that? MR. NOBLE: I would. MR. MENZIES: And so is it your testimony that removing the wells from my client's site that are used for agricultural purposes and putting in this mine will affect your county's DR/GR water supply sources? MR. NOBLE: No. I think we've been more concerned with the individual domestic potable -water wells in the area than the actual impacts to the Lee County wellfield. MR. MENZIES: Okay. But that's not your area of expertise. That would be some other member of your staff? Page 11 of 85 r` 12 A 7 16 November 17, 2011 MR, NOBLE: That would be correct. MR. MENZIES: Would that be Mr. Muni? MR. NOBLE: He would be better at those topics than I am. MR. MENZIES: And I'm almost done, Mr. Noble. You would agree with me that the Department of Environmental Protection is the sole agency in the State of Florida that has jurisdiction to regulate water uses in Florida? MR. NOBLE: Well, I mean, the district does water- consumptive permits, too. MR. MENZIES: Right. But in this instance, my client has an environmental- resource permit, correct? MR. NOBLE: Correct. I mean, the DEP issues the permits for mines, yes. MR. MENZIES: Right. And are you aware of the conclusions that are in the ERP that my client received from the DEP? MR. NOBLE: I believe I read it at one point, yes. MR. MENZIES: Do you disagree with them? MR. NOBLE: I am -- I think that would be left best to -- most of those were hydrological in nature. MR. MENZIES: Do you think that the State DEP doesn't have scientists or experts who are qualified to make these kinds of judgments? MR. NOBLE: I believe they probably do, and they're looking at their requirements. MR. MENZIES: Now, you understand that in Collier County, that Collier County defers to the State DEP in these issues? MR. NOBLE: I totally understand that. MR. MENZIES: But in Lee County you add a layer of examination through your own environmental department, right? MR. NOBLE: We do. MR. MENZIES: And your own environmental department reviewed the Florida Rock mine and concluded that it wouldn't harm the hydrology or the wells in Lee County? MR. NOBLE: Well, I -- that conclusion hasn't been issued yet, so I wouldn't testify one way or another with that. That's something that's still to come in the next few weeks. MR. MENZIES: I understand. I don't have any other questions. Thank you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. MENZIES: Thank you, Mr. Noble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Matt, I have just two quick questions as a followup. Does Lee County have a noise ordinance? MR. NOBLE: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you compared it to Collier County's? MR. NOBLE: I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because this mine operating in Collier County would have to be under the requirements of our noise ordinance. But since part of the operation is in your county, it would be interesting to know what your noise ordinance is in regards to this mine as well, if it were to be approved. So I'll probably try to ask others that today and see if we can get any answers. Also 82, is that a hurricane- evacuation route? MR. NOBLE: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you testified that it's a failed road as it stands today? lu•I I'M 61 Is] :111C wt a CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, I'll probably ask maybe the county attorney -- or I'm sure someone will have an opinion. There is a Florida statute, 163.3180(6), that doesn't allow any additional impacts on hurricane- evacuation routes. I'd like to know how -- and it reminds me of the discussion that Chip had when he was here before telling us we can't really do anything about a blasting ordinance. I mean, I'm not -- I'm not in agreement with him, but if that's correct, if he's correct the state statute is unwavering in regards to what local municipalities can do, well, then I would wonder how that section of Florida Statute on de minimis impacts occur on failed road systems. And so I'll probably seek that answer today from Page 12 of 85 a 16112 A 7 November 17, 2011 somebody, because it's an interesting twist to see how you follow that. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Matt, thank you very much for your time. MR. NOBLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next gentleman I'd like to talk to is the hydrologist from Lee County. Good morning, sir. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name for the record. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Anura Karuna -Muni. Lee County natural resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You might want to -- does he need to spell that, or you got it? THE COURT REPORTER: I have it; thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. When you were here before, you showed a picture of a body of water that looked like rolling hills from maybe Maryland or somewhere like that, but I know it wasn't intended to be from another state, but it brought to mind the need -- the amount of sloping that you've discovered or may have discovered on this particular mine site from -- I think the water flows north to south. What kind of slope did you find on that site? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: According to the applicant's presentation, it goes 6 feet across the mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you believe from the north side of the Lost Grove Mine to the south side there's a 6 -foot drop? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's what the applicant's testimony said is -- the difference, I think they indicated 32 feet, and it drops to 26 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that will be a follow -up question for the applicant then, because that's more of a substantial drop than we normally find and -- from what I'm used to in the state. And it's usually pretty flat around here. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I think it was part of their slide presentation; it says 32 feet on the north side and 26 feet on the south side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And last time you talked a lot about baseline information. Do you have baseline information on this mine? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you reviewed the ERP? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Are you talking about the DEP permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the DEP. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the ERP contain that baseline information? MR. KARUNA -MUNL• I did not see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did not see it, okay. Do you have baseline information on the other mines in Lee County, for example, the Florida mine that is around the well sites that were shown on this map? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That is part of the requirement that -- we request all mine applicants to provide that information before we make a determination of the impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that mine application for the one that's going to potentially be reinstated by the -- your commission, I think it's the Florida Rock. By reinstatement that means the mine probably has already been there for a while. Has much material been excavated from that mine; do you know if they've even started the operation? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Maybe that's something Matt can answer. MR. NOBLE: No. Florida Rock Mine No. 2 is wholly unexcavated at the moment. I mean, it was approved. We had some issues with it. They never obtained some necessary federal permits. They had a period of time it took. I think it was like a decade -- yeah, a decade for them to achieve the federal permits. By that time the county approvals had expired; hence the litigation. But, no, it's wholly unexcavated at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you, sir. Sir, did you do a hydrological analysis on that Florida Rock mine for their reinstatement? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Our staff did it, yeah. Page 13 of 85 1612 wA A17 November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What was the conclusions of that? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason that would be relevant is I'm wondering how that differs from the one that you were discussing with us on the Lost Grove Mine. But if you don't remember the one on Florida Rock, then I don't think we can draw the comparison. Were you at the meeting when Lee County staff met with Collier County staff and met with the applicant? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. That was in October, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At that meeting I was told in testimony last time, or someone I thought stated it, that Lee County was not able to really weigh in on the various factors involving this mine. There wasn't a lot of, I should say, acceptance or denial. They just kind of went and attended the meeting and weren't able to make any commitments. Is that true? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Well, I don't know if that characterization is correct, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you tell me what happened then. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: We met with the applicant, and my characterization of the meeting was parties were not willing to cooperate, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even if they had -- if they had come back with, say, alternatives or compromises on some of the position -- because I know Lee County -- we'll be going through it today. Lee County produced a rather lengthy table of their concerns versus the mine's application, and I want to make sure we discuss those at some point. But if they wanted to discuss some of the compromises that you guys found fault with in their presentation or their application, was Lee County in a position where they could actually come to the table and agree to compromises, or did your staff not have that authority? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: From the hydrological perspective, we sent this letter out November 24, 2009, to Kay, and it lists what we need to have to analyze and review the file. And the applicant's response was -- if I can put this here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Sorry. It's in black and white. We are still on budget cuts. And this was the applicant's response. In the letter dated June 28, 2010, to Collier County Growth Management Division the applicant stated that the applicant does not believe the comments provided by Lee County are required for consideration of this conditional -use application, which means they never responded to our request for information. And without having information, I cannot review, or our staff cannot review the impacts associated with the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One thing with Collier County's process, to get a conditional use this board and the board above us can ask basically any questions they want. And if we want to ask about the -- Lee County's concerns, we certainly will. And before the day's over, we'll have those answers in some form or another, because my intention is to go through every one of those questions and understand how they're responded to. And at the same time, if you guys are still here, we may ask you to join in on some of the discussion. So -- okay. And I think that's the last -- that's the last question I have. Anybody have any questions of the hydrologist? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any cross - examination? Mr. Menzies? MR. MENZIES: Thank you, Mr. Strain. Real brief. Mr. Muni, in your testimony, I understand that you basically had four objections, or thereabouts, to the -- this is from the presentation that you made a couple weeks ago -- that the flattening of the mine lakes would result in a rise in the water table -- water elevation downstream and a drop upstream that might affect the wells over in Wild Cat Farms, that my client had not established the baseline conditions for the water in the area, that my client had not proposed any monitoring to determine adverse effects, and there was no established contingency plan. Would that be a fair summary of your objections to my client's application as you presented two weeks ago? MR. KARUNA -MUNL• That is correct. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Now, before you testified a couple weeks ago, did you review my client's engineer's design plans for this project? Page 14 of 85 1612 A/ 0 November 17, 2011 MR. KARUNA -MUNI: What I have with me is the DEP permit information. As I said, we have a whole list of information we requested, which include -- let me see. On Page 4 of that letter it says, complete water- budget analysis for the Corkscrew Swamp and Imperial River Marsh should be submitted to determine whether the proposed mine has a negative impact on surrounding lands, so that's a major -- MR. MENZIES: Sure. My question is this: As part of the application for the environmental- resource permit, my client's engineers designed the aspects of this mine that you're talking about. Did you review the engineer's designs that were part of that application that was approved by the DEP? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I never received the design. That's what we asked in our application. MR. MENZIES: All right. Would you have access to that? Because it would be a public record, right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: No. The DEP information is not available to us. Only the permit is available to us. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Were you aware of the fact that, for example, with respect to monitoring for baseline conditions, that my client had gathered data for over two years prior to the application? Did you know that? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I didn't know, and it was never shared with Lee County. MR. MENZIES: All right. Did you review the water -table contours as part of the permit for the environmental- resource permit? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: As I said, you know, we do not have that information, and those are the information we requested in our letter of November 24, 2009. MR. MENZIES: All right. Did you know that the water -table elevations had been monitored extensively as part of that process? MR. KARUNA -MUNL• Again, that response is, we do not have that information. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Assuming the DEP had that information and the designs were submitted to the DEP by my client, the DEP made an evaluation and recommended approval of an environmental- resource permit, would you have any reason to disagree with that at all? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Without having to see the information, I cannot agree or disagree. MR. MENZIES: You might have a difference of opinion, but the state DEP has already approved this permit, correct? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: All right. Now, did you read or review the DEP -- the environmental- resource permit before you made the suggestion that there were no proposed monitoring requirements in this application? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: There are monitoring requirements listed in the DEP permit. MR. MENZIES: Right. And those are obligations that my client is required to fulfill, correct? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: Why did you tell this commission that there were no monitoring requirements? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I did not say -- what I said was, there was no baseline- monitoring information available to us to determine whether -- see, without the baseline information, you don't know whether it's good or bad. MR. MENZIES: Right. Mr. Muni, with respect -- I can get the transcript -- you said, "The applicant failed because there were no baseline conditions established." Do you recall that? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: What I said was we have not seen the baseline - monitoring information. MR. MENZIES: Right. And you also -- you also said that my client's application was deficient because there were no contingency plans that were established as part of the process? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I have not seen those. MR. MENZIES: You said there were none. Now you're saying that you don't know because you haven't seen them? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Yeah, because I haven't seen -- you know, I have to say -- yeah, I haven't seen it. MR. MENZIES: Right. And if I showed you the environmental- resource permit which has the monitoring requirements and the contingency plan in it, you wouldn't disagree with what's in this permit, would you? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: And that would be valid and binding on my client, right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. For example, let me tell you. The DEP permit does not say, if there is a spill on the mine and if that translate to wells in the residential wells, what kind of process the applicant go through to rectify those wells' contaminations. Page 15 of 85 x, 7 J 6 2 A4 November 17, 2011 MR. MENZIES: Have you read the water- quality violations provisions of the environmental- resource permit? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Yes, I have. MR. MENZIES: Doesn't it provide for immediate -- measures to be taken immediately by the permittee whenever water - quality levels and the water leaving the project area violate water - quality standards? MR. KARUNA -MUNL• It does, but it doesn't say what are actions need to be taken. It's not specific. MR. MENZIES: Would you care to -- I'll defer to the environmental- resource permit. This specifically is Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, on Pages 23 and 24 of the environmental- resource permit which provides for specific steps within a number of hours of events occurring for remedial action to be taken, provides for other water - quality reports, stormwater- system inspections, pumps, modify the application if necessary within so many days. It's your testimony that's not sufficient? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: For example, let me tell you, if the water level drops on the residential wells, the DEP permit is -- does not talk anything about, okay, what happens if the water level drops. MR. MENZIES: Let me ask you this: Isn't it true that the water flows across my client's property to the southwest basically? The water -- those are the water flows generally? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: No. It flows from northwest to southeast. MR. MENZIES: Correct. And there are no -- and to the southeast are the CREW lands adjacent to my client's property, right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. MR. MENZIES: And aren't you aware of the fact that the DEP environmental- resource permit says and concludes that this mine and removal of the agricultural wells would include the water quality in the CREW land? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: As I explained in my explanation -- in my presentation, the CREW land is going to be benefited, what you are going to do, and that's what the DEP permit identified, but it does not talk about the upstream's impact. MR. MENZIES: Let me ask you this -- MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Let me add one more thing. When you increase the water level on the downstream side, you're going to have impacts on the septic tanks because your water levels are higher than it used to, so people have problems in flushing their septic system. MR. MENZIES: What residences are on the flow by the CREW lands? What septic tanks are on the CREW lands? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Not to the CREW land, but on the south side of the property. MR. MENZIES: Okay. Since you haven't reviewed the engineering data for the contours, the sheet flows, all those kinds of things, you can't sit here today and tell the commission that you know how this mine and its water levels or the lake levels will affect the property owners in Wild Cat Farms, can you? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. Only what I can talk is, conceptually, what happens when this kind of mine is put in place. MR. MENZIES: And, practically speaking, other people have done the analysis that you have not done, right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't disagree. I haven't seen it. MR. MENZIES: Thank you. I don't have anything else, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Follow -up, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm not sure I understand the concern you have with the septic tanks. That would only be if the water level rose on the adjoining sites; is that right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: Yeah, only if the water level rises. And as I said in presentation, I had a slide that shows typically -- you know, again, this is conceptual. Without having specific data, specific numbers, I cannot say how many feet goes up and how many feet goes down. So if you're on the downstream side, the likelihood is your septic system is going to be flooded because you have higher level of water than it used to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Sir, I've got just a follow -up, and it kind of goes in the direction Brad was asking. The control elevation of the mine water, do you have an idea what that is? Page 16 of 85 w 1612 A 7 04 November 17, 2011 MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The control elevation of the water -- the water table in that area, will the control elevation more or less follow the water -table elevation? MR. KARUNA-MUNI: Control elevation is something that's been set by a permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, the reason I'm asking is, if you have a septic tank -- in Collier County septic tanks have a required minimum height above the nearest crown of the road, or they use an NGVD or some other standard to make sure that the height of those drainfields and septics are above any water table so that there's plenty of hydrology to make sure that it percolates right and goes down. MR. KARUNA -MUNL• That is a useful practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any of the septics in this -- in any of the adjoining residential areas have been placed in positions that would be below the water table? MR. KARUNA-MUNI: I do not know. What I said was, if the mine is put in place, the water level on the south side's going to rise than it used to be (sic). So let's say -- for example, let's say you -- the Collier County's -- the crescent is okay (sic). I mean, they approve the septic systems. The water level is -- you know, the highest level you can rise is 22, for the sake of argument. So the residents put the septics and drainfield system -- and that is what they're looking at, 22, okay. Now, you put the mine in, now your elevation is 23 because water level rises from the downstream side. So the septic system is not -- is functioning as it used to be (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if -- the standards you're kind of alluding to, one being a foot higher than the way the septic may have been constructed, do you know if the mine will cause that much of an extreme differential based on the way it's designed and permitted? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: It's -- I cannot tell the specifics, because we not -- we did not receive the information that we need to be reviewing. You know, what I can say is, conceptually, it is going to. That's what we have seen in other mines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: And that's what also has been determined by the DHI model that was included. One of the recommendations in the -- one of the findings in the DHI study was the water level rises on the downstream side of a mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said you've experienced that in other mines. Other mines in Lee County? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which ones? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And one other point. The DEP has a permitting portal that you can go to and pull off just about any project going on as far as how their permitting is, and in the portal, if you click on some of the files, they have every piece of correspondence, all the backup data, all the various levels of applications, the reapplications, the RFIs, everything is there, and it's public record. I -- you know, I mean, I review it periodically for projects coming before this board as well. I didn't know if you were aware of that or not, but you may want to get that -- go to the DEP site and take a look at their permitting portal, because you'll find, county by county, a lot of information there that you probably could have used. Anybody? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just a quick question. Just for clarity, I thought I heard two different things. What is the direction of the waterflow across this property, proposed property? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: It's generally north/south direction, but I would say more towards the northwest to southeast alignment. You know, primarily like north to south, but if you look at it a little bit more close, it's more like northwest to southeast. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Southeast is the CREW lands; is that correct? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Southeast, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There aren't many septic systems in the CREW lands? u I t1 21W.111 191110r.11903 t 1► iL • ...�TiYEM-3 Page 1.7 of 85 k 1612A }_ r, November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, one more, sir. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry. Obviously we start with a base condition with the hydrology. During the mining operation, you're citing that that can change by the activity of the mining, by the opening of lakes and things. Once it's done, does it stay stable at that point? In other words, the mining activity's over, the 30- years -plus, then it stabilizes again; is that right? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: You will see the baseline conditions -- see, as I said in my presentation, the hydrology or the groundwater water levels depends on the topography, the ground elevations. The water level pretty much follows the ground elevations. So you change the ground, you're going to change the water levels. And unless you put that mine back in, you know, you permanently change the hydrology in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm not saying it would ever go back to base, but the point is that the only changes would occur during the activity of the mining. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: During the activity of the mining, there's a transition period where it will change to whatever the changes that's going to occur in the land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you know what the water table is, the general water table in that area where -- the elevation below surface? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: No, I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know what it is in any part of the DR/GR or in adjoining areas, for example? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: The water table varies with the -- during the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. KARUNA -MUNL• Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's take the worst -case scenario. Where do you see the water table in most of the -- say, in the agricultural land that's actively agricultural, which means it isn't bogs, it isn't swamps, it isn't wetlands. In that land you have a dry surface, and somewhere below that dry surface you have water table. MR. KARUNA -MUNI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the range in which you normally would find that water table even, say, during the wet season? MR. KARUNA-MUNI: In Lee County it can be anywhere from a foot above the water -- foot above the ground level to 10 feet below the ground level. It varies a lot. And we have -- we conducted a study some time back. We had a rain gauge, and the rain gauge measures water level every 15 minutes. And then we have had a groundwater well at the very close proximity, and we were measuring also the groundwater levels every 15 minutes. And we had that -- then we look at the two. The rainfall information and the groundwater fluctuation, it pretty much follows the two together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know how far above the water table the requirements are for a septic drainfield to be set? MR. KARUNA -MUNI: I don't recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe someone else in your department or from your county will. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your time. Lady from the environmental department, if you don't mind. MS. SWEIGERT: Good morning. I'm Becky Sweigert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Becky. During your presentation you talked about a reclamation plan for wood storks -- wood stork foraging. Was that in reference to this particular project? MS. SWEIGERT: No, that would be a general slope area to provide undulating pockets for the wood storks to feed in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And has that been enforced in mines in Lee County? Page 18 of 85 • d ,1 s A / 1612 November 17, 2011 MS. SWEIGERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you -- I'm trying to understand what it is. I know what littoral zones are, and I know that when you cut a lake, usually it's 4 -1, and you get to a break point, then you go 2 -1 after that. But how -- what kind of sloping are you looking at, and to what extent are you looking at the sloping? MS. SWEIGERT: The sloping should be a little more gentle, maybe something at an 8 -1 or 10 -1 slope, and it would create pockets where it would actually pool water when the control elevation would drop, and it would have a place that could congregate the fish, and the wood stork could come in and feed there, and it would be, you know, maybe 16 inches deep, you know. And it would be -- it wouldn't just be your gentle slope all around. It would create, you know, pockets for that area. It wouldn't -- and it doesn't have to be around the entire lake edge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How big are these areas? MS. SWEIGERT: Fifty feet wide, some of them, 50 to 100. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By length, how long? MS. SWEIGERT: Again, couple hundred feet maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so you have -- these are -- from your department, when you review a mine in Lee County -- and I -- it's fair to say you require some of these areas to be constructed? MS. SWEIGERT: Yes. It is a requirement of our code now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because in the Jones Mine we had a -- let's say, an alternative to your -- we have a concentration of littoral zone in the Jones Mine of some numbers of acres. So looking at something for this mine, that it functions as it should, may not be a bad idea. I wanted to understand it if it gets that far. Are you familiar with any of the water -table issues that you heard me ask the gentleman from the hydrology about? MS. SWEIGERT: No, that was really more Anura's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you familiar with the DEP portal that has the permitting locations online? MS. SWEIGERT: I am familiar with their website. I use some of their FTP infonmation to download. I do find that not all information is always there, or it's there after the pen-nit's been issued. So I do have trouble getting some of their information during the review process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those permits are usually issued before you issue yours? MS. SWEIGERT: Sometimes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll say, I can tell you, they're there before -- they're issued before we issue ours. MS. SWEIGERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, in essence, then the permits usually are there. I didn't remember checking this one specifically, but I know I've used it many times. That's all the hydrol- -- all I've got since you're not -- Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. Becky, has anyone in Lee County -- I noticed yesterday when I was out there that there are quite a few -- a lot of grazing cattle and stuff. Has anybody done anything as to the effects of the blasting has -- on the animals out in the area? MS. SWEIGERT: We've spent a lot of time trying to research that as well, effects of blasting on just wildlife in general. There's really not a lot of studies, even in the national area looking at the effects of that, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It was a question that I had. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more. Panther. MS. SWEIGERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular mine application has a small area of panther -- of primary in the southeast corner. hi the maps that were supplied to us by the applicant, they had an overlap of panther primary in the area of Lee County where the wells -- where the mines are being considered that have not yet been approved. And in -- particularly, the Old Corkscrew Plantation mine and Troyer Brothers. And I -- you know, they're part of our Planning Commission packet, so it's easy to be seen. What kind of panther mitigation did your department require for those -- for that habitat being in that mine area, or how did you approach those? MS. SWEIGERT: Well, Troyer Brothers is a recommendation of denial, which is going to our board next week. Page 19 of 85 F 161 r A 7 November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's stop there then. Does that recommendation of denial have any recommendations from your department? MS. SWEIGERT: It does not include any additional conditions. It's a recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But when your department reviewed it, did you recommend -- did you support the denial? MS. SWEIGERT: We recommended denial from environmental staff, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the specific purposes for that denial was panther habitat? MS. SWEIGERT: It included general impacts to wildlife and disconnection for wildlife movement between two public lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then what about the next one? MS. SWEIGERT: Old Corkscrew Plantation is still under review. We've only reviewed it, I believe, one time. We've had one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. During that review did you guys find problems with the panther habitat on that one? MS. SWEIGERT: We asked questions about their wildlife impacts, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the kind of process that you normally solve with mitigation, or is it -- you just don't allow development in primary panther habitat? MS. SWEIGERT: We look at the specific issues of the project and the location, you know, I mean -- and ask the questions from there. I mean -- so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Is there any cross -exam? MR. MENZIES: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're saved. MS. SWEIGERT: Thanks. It was my three - minute presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. By the way, if you have anything you wanted to add to your presentation that you were rushed through before, you're more than welcome to do it today, as is the hydrologist, so -- MS. SWEIGERT: No. I believed I covered it, so -- thank you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Okay. Normally we would go from applicant's presentation when we had our staff -- Kay, you already completed your presentation? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lee County's preceded theirs. So we normally go into question and answers from the Planning Commission and staff, but I think at this point if we went into public speakers it would be more valuable to us, and then ask any of our remaining questions after we get done with the public speakers. Does that seem fair? Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not sure the place for this, but I know there was a neighborhood information meeting in Lee County, and we never heard about it. Maybe the Lee County people would talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, were you -- did you attend that meeting? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It is a part -- you have a significant part of it, I think, referenced in your recommendations, or part of it. I thought it said it was from that meeting. MS. DESELEM: We had a neighborhood information in Collier County, and several persons who said they reside in Lee County did attend that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your recommendations, No. 2, it says, as committed to during the Lee County neighborhood information meeting as part of the applicant's PowerPoint presentation, the following are conditions of the proposed mining operation. So that information you didn't get from attending the meeting; you got from the applicant's PowerPoint presentation? MS. DESELEM: That actually came out of a memo from Chip Block, and he represented that that's what had occurred on his letter of, I think, September of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you -- so you understood that these were presented and volunteered by the applicant typical to what applicants would do at NIMs in Collier County? Page 20 of 85 1 1612 A November 17, 2011 MS. DESELEM: According to Chip, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, that information is in the staff report. It's quite a few pages. Did you need more than that, or -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 just wanted to see where it lies. Okay. With that, we will -- now, first of all, we take a break at an hour and a half for the court reporter throughout the day, and then we have a lunch. So we're going to continue till about 10:30, and then we will break for 15 minutes. So between now and then we'll start taking public speakers. We'll first use the public speakers that have been registered, and then we will -- I will ask generally from the public who would like to speak. I ask that you limit your presentation to five minutes. Obviously if that isn't enough, we are pretty lenient with our time, but we ask you not to be redundant and stay focused on the issue at hand. Okay. Ray -- and as the speakers are called, you need to come to either mike and just identify yourself for the record and then start -- make your presentation. MR. BELLOWS: Donald Eslick. MR. ESLICK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Don Eslick. I'm chairman of the Estero Council of Community Leaders, and I have a letter that I'd like to put in the record from one of our members who was here last time, stayed all day and couldn't testify and can't be here today, so I'd just like to, if I could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The young lady right there is our court reporter. She gets all the record. If you want to put it on the overhead for -- while you're reading it. MR. ESLICK: No. I wasn't going to read it. I was just going to put that in the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just leave it with her when you finish speaking. MR. ESLICK: I'm here today representing the Estero community who has been involved in mining issues in South Lee County for the last four or five years. We are downstream. Estero is a community that's grown from about 15,000 in 2000 to about 40,000 today. And we're immediately downstream of all of these different mines, including Lost Grove, you know, toward -- all the water that comes through that area ends up in Estero Bay. And our concern really relates a lot to the impact that mines have on the water and the wetlands in that area. You're obviously getting rid of some wetlands. You're impacting other wetlands in the area. Those wetlands are very, very important in terms of storing water, which helps to recharge the aquifers. It also tends to clean the water as it's going toward the bay. So we're impacted, and it helps from a respect of diminishing the potential impact of flooding. So that's why our community has been involved in this endlessly over the last four or five years. I happen to have been chosen by the Lee County board to serve on the DR/GR Advisory Committee. This goes back to 2007. So we've had an extensive involvement in all of this. That Comprehensive Plan change is very, very important. It was -- the original planning for this area was adopted in'89 and did not distinguish the uses of property throughout this whole 82,000 -acre area, so that residential could be right next to mining and agriculture, et cetera. Those were the three primary uses. Some recreational uses were added after that for golf courses and that type of thing. But the failure of the original zoning prior to this Comp Plan change that we've been going through the last four or five years, to separate the uses was really catastrophic. And then, of course, in recent years there was a federal court case over in the Miami -Dade area where there was a question about whether or not mining could continue in that area because of potential contamination of the water supply. So all of a sudden everybody who owned land over here that had rock under that land wanted to come in for -- to be able to mine that land. So the Comp Plan that we have been working on all these years, based upon an analysis of the demand and supply of rock available to this whole region, of which we've been supplying 80 percent of all the region all the way to Sarasota County, that we could continue to do that for the next 20 or 30 years with the area up there around Alico Road. And that area is serviced by a major roadway that was built in order to handle all this kind of truck traffic and that type of thing. Made a lot of sense. The infrastructure was there; whereas, all of these mine applications -- we have five or six of them, this being one of them. The only one that's not in Lee County -- all of them along Corkscrew Page 21 of 85 { � 1612- November 17, 2011 Road, that road is totally not the same caliber as what you have up there. So you've got insufficient infrastructure in order to operate this kind of industrial use. And you've seen a lot of this information, et cetera. So I'm here basically to speak for the community that's been concerned, been involved in trying to deal with this in a responsible manner, as I think Lee County has done, to be able to designate a mining area that will allow us to continue to be the major supplier of limerock and aggregate for the whole region for the foreseeable future while, at the same time, restoring the flowways that have been so disrupted out there in other uses, primarily mining. But -- and the area that is immediately west of the Lost Grove Mine is to be restored as flowways going down into the Imperial River in Bonita, the Estero River, and the other flowways that come through our community. So I would urge you to deny this application or to urge your board -- recommend to your board that it be denied. And I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple questions. Ray, could you put the map up of Lee County's mines, the yellow -- it had a lot of yellow on it. Where's the Estero basin -- oh, back off of it a bit, if you could, Ray, so we can see where -- where's the Estero area that you're talking about? I'm not familiar with Lee County. MR. ESLICK: If you look at the big yellow parcel there in the bottom, that's the 6L Mines. That's another pending mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ESLICK: And the north end of that, if I read the map correctly, is Corkscrew Road. And it continues straight west, and then it goes a little bit to the southwest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. ESLICK: And so the Estero area is immediately west of that -- of the -- all kind of the southern portion of that map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the mine that's in application today, I believe, drains into the CREW lands. It goes northwest to southeast. So is that really going to have an impact on your Estero basin? MR. ESLICK: I'm not certain. I'm not a hydrologist on that. But CREW itself is a very, very important storage area for the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just trying to understand what you said versus how it fits on this map, so -- MR. ESLICK: Yeah. Again, I'm not a hydrologist, and this one may not have as much of an impact from that perspective as some of the others would. But being immediately adjacent to the area where we're going to try to restore some flowways, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said something else that I want to understand. You said that they're trying to create an area that is going to be able to exclusively provide the soils or the mining excavation for the entire area. MR. ESLICK: Yeah. The -- if you look at the top of the map where you're looking at Florida Rock No. 2, and if you -- if you look at the other areas that are light green on that map up there, the light -green portion are areas that have already been mined that are excavated. There are many of them that are not fully utilized at this point in time, but all of them are included in this mining overlay. Some of them are -- come down toward Corkscrew. The Yunquist mine, for example, is on Alico Road, not far north of Corkscrew. Most of them -- but Alico Road is up there toward the Florida Rock No. 2, okay. And so the -- I wish we had that map here to show you where the future limerock mining overlay is located, but it is up in that western, northern -- northern and western portion of the mining area that you see on that map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you said these mines are going to, you know, serve the area, does that area include Collier County in your mind? MR. ESLICK: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. We have supplied from -- about 4,500 acres has been excavated in Lee County in the last 20 to 30 years, and Lee County -- these mines in this area have provided 80 percent of all of the limerock needs from Sarasota to Collier, all seven counties, including Hendry and Glades County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we follow your philosophy, because Lee County can supply all the material needs, then we shouldn't allow any mines in Collier County? MR. ESLICK: Well, that's entirely up to you. We'd be happy to have you supply more of the rock. But the bottom line is, in addition to this -- there's only four major mining companies in the world, and they own a lot of property and they have -- they planned well in advance. Page 22 of 85 1612N/ mi November 17, 2011 And the Port of Manatee and the Port of Tampa have greatly expanded their capacity to import rock, and that source ought to be able to supply a lot of that at the northern end of the market area where we have been providing it. All I'm saying is this: That in planning for the future growth of the area, Lee County has agreed to be able to continue to provide 80 percent of all the rock needed for these seven counties through 2030 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I didn't want -- MR. ESLICK: -- without having these additional mines down along Corkscrew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't want to interrupt your discussion, but -- MR. ESLICK: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you take that off the -- that's kind of unfair just to have someone in the audience set stuff on the presen- -- MS. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait till each person has their presentation to bring their own materials up. Okay. Does that -- are you -- unless there's any other questions, sir, I think we're done. MR. ESLICK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ESLICK: Appreciate your time. I'll turn this in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, to this young lady right here. MR. ESLICK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Brenda Brooks. MS. BROOKS: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Brenda Brooks. I am the executive director of CREW Land and Water Trust. The mission of the CREW Land and Water Trust since 1989 has been to preserve and to protect the water resources and the natural communities in and around the CREW area, which is Corkscrew Regional eco- system watershed. I'm hoping you all know what that is. This is a 60,000 -acre watershed that spans Lee and Collier Counties. The proposed mine, as you already know, is complete -- is immediately adjacent to CREW; therefore, the CREW Trust does have some concerns. Alico has approached our board, and they have presented to our board several times. They've responded to many of our questions. CREW's public lands has been a valuable investment over the years. Funds to support this project have come from the federal level, the state, the local, as well as other organizations other than the CREW Trust, and certainly individuals. Last year we had over 8,000 people that visited CREW, many of which were students on environmental- education field trips, of which over half of those have come from Collier County. A majority of the human activity, therefore, is going to be during the day, which would be the exact same time that the mining activity is going to occur. That in -- for that reason, we definitely have concerns with noise and traffic. We have been in contact, as I mentioned, with Alico. We hope to continue to work with them regarding our concerns. But I just wanted, on the record, to let you know that the CREW Trust does have concerns. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you talk a little bit about what the percentage of the land where the hiking trails are that are pine flatwoods? MS. BROOKS: Oh, the percentage of that. Well, we look at the overall CREW project of which, again, this -- some of this is going to be adjacent. It's going to be available off of Bonita Beach Road. It's going to be accessible off of Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm talking about the part that's near the mine. MS. BROOKS: I don't have those stats right in front of me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I spent a lot of time hiking those trails. It seems like most of them, or a great part of them, go through the pine flatwoods. Page 23 of 85 A7 1612 November 1.44 7, 2011 MS. BROOKS: Immediately adjacent, you're right, before you get to that 5,000 -acre -- the CREW marsh area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And can you talk about how those are managed with controlled burns. MS. BROOKS: Yes. They've been actively managed this year. Prescribed burns is a very important part of our land- management regime. That is all done by the South Florida Water Management District. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how does that affect the sound, the way that you've maintained the land, the sound conductivity which would be if there were mining operations close by? MS. BROOKS: I don't understand your question. Meaning, when we burn, that vegetation is taken down so quickly, is that what you mean? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. Actually the point I'm trying to make is that when the land was originally purchased from Alico, it was logged and the pine flatwoods were not in a -- the best condition. MS. BROOKS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But since you've been burning it, about every three years -- MS. BROOKS: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- it's more like a park -like atmosphere. MS. BROOKS: It is. Historically, pine flatwoods were burned on a three -to- five -year period. That particular area, because it's adjacent to Corkscrew Road, we've had a hard time burning it just because of smoke management. That's a number -one concern. Those lands have just -- all along Corkscrew have been -- we picked up a different fire regime, so this year we did -- we did some summer burns, and that area's all just been burned. And we would hope to be able to maintain that now on a three -to -five -year cycle. But, yes, as a result we've gone in and -- they've done some roller chopping in that area to try to mimic the natural regime of fire. But it is; it's very much a parklike setting. You know, it's a very far place to go to think that we had over 8,000 people, and they go because it's a quiet place. It's a -- you know, it's those environmentally - sensitive lands that -- those green spaces that we now try to connect with. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. And 1, myself, and my family have gone there many times. Usually we don't sign in. In fact, you even told us. MS. BROOKS: Did I? Yeah, that would be like me. I can see I wasn't effective. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. No, you weren't effective. So I think the estimates of the people is probably more than 8,000. But what happens is now, because it's burned and because there's not a lot of understory, the pines are getting bigger, it's shading it out more. You can really hear things very well. But when you get one or two feet along the trails, all you can hear is the wind in the pine trees. And that's a concern of mine about how the sound is going to be changed and the enjoyment of the natural area will be changed once you have -- if mining is permitted to go in there. I guess that was my comments and questions. MS. BROOKS: And maybe the next time you can fill out a card, my 8,000 figure can go up. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: From now on I'm going to do it. I didn't realize how important it was. MS. BROOKS: I told you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. The way the waterflow is from the northwest to the southeast -- I happened to tour the area yesterday, and I noticed the marshlands, and it all goes towards Lake Trafford. MS. BROOKS: That is not correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That is not correct? MS. BROOKS: There is a portion that -- yes. Keep in mind that CREW -- there's two outlets for CREW, some of which the water will come down in that sheet -flow manner down through Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, out through Imperial River, some Estero -- and out into Estero Bay, and then, yes, there is some of the water as well that goes through Lake Trafford, Camp Keais Strand, and that connects into the western Everglades. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So what I was with yesterday (sic), where the -- and I was up to the marshlands. They said the -- that there is a -- it was a downward slope and that that does go to Lake Trafford. MS. BROOKS: Yes. The majority of that area -- and, again, I'm looking at the CREW project, so a portion Page 24 of 85 161 2ANovember 17, 2011 of that. But, yes, you're right. That area would go down to Lake Trafford and Camp Keais Strand. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because that is -- and I noticed there was a big culvert in the road. There was a very active stream yesterday right across from the Alico -- from the one side of the street to the other, and it was -- it really looked like a very nice creek area, and that ran through private property and then went towards the marsh area, so that's why I was asking you on these questions. Thank you. MS. BROOKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mentioned that you had trouble burning the way that you wanted to burn. What rights do you have actually to burn that in order to preserve the natural pine flatwoods as they historically have been, and what are the restrictions that you have now? MS. BROOKS: The restrictions -- and, again, I'm speaking on behalf of the South Florida Water Management District as a partner with them and as a prescribed burner myself that is often out on that team. We get our department -- our permits from DOF a lot. And there -- when we do a prescribed burn, there are many different aspects to be within that prescription. So in the past it's just been very difficult. Our number -one issue, because we couldn't get the permit, was because of smoke management. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there's nobody that's really living close to where you're going to be burning? MS. BROOKS: No, it's the road. It's the concern of the road. We wouldn't want to have smoke management have to have an issue on the road and to have to close Corkscrew Road. It's not -- the people that live in the area, generally, are very, very well informed of the value of prescribed burns. So it's not a human issue, because the Corkscrew folks have always been very supportive. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that if a mine went in, that that would place further restrictions on your ability to manage the property by controlled burns? MS. BROOKS: I don't think that would have any issue on prescribed burns. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because the road is -- already there is a problem? MS. BROOKS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I've got a couple. Ray, could you put that map up that I supplied, the other one. It has a little clearer location that I want to point out. Yes, sir, thank you. Slide it all the way down so I can see below that green triangle where the mine is. Okay. That shows Corkscrew Road over where the mine's located. In the lower right -hand corner that's the CREW lands, I believe, you're speaking of. MS. BROOKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How far up to the north towards Corkscrew Road do you have facilities within those CREW lands shown on this map? MS. BROOKS: How far north? CREW? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, do you have anything in that area shown on the map, in your portion of the MS. BROOKS: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but where it says Corkscrew Road, go up to around maybe the K to the S -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. BROOKS: -- and that would be the property boundary of the CREW project in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any facilities in that area? MS. BROOKS: That's where we -- right across from the proposed mine is where a majority of people come to our trailheads. We have two trailheads, of which one is directly across from the mine. We have another one we've recently opened two years ago, and that would be farther west on Corkscrew Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you -- I heard you say you're partners with South Florida Water Management District? MS. BROOKS: Well, we are -- we work closely with South Florida Water Management. They are the Page 25 of 85 16 p 7 November 17, 2011 leading agency on the CREW project. But the CREW project is huge. It's been around since 1989, and there's many, many different partners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your partnership with South Florida Water Management District, does that involve them contacting you about permitting applications within the area of CREW or close by or adjacent to CREW? Did they contact you about this mine at the time they were doing the permitting -- MS. BROOKS: No. The CREW Trust has always been very active with our mission to preserve and protect that watershed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you weigh in on the South Florida permit for this mine? MS. BROOKS: No. We had a meeting -- I scheduled a meeting at our office, and we invited the folks from South Florida Water Management District, and they were there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you objecting to their issuance of any of their permit, the ERP permit or anything? MS. BROOKS: At that point we were just asking a lot of questions. We were trying to find out what was going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would assume then you may have found out something. Did you follow up with any objections to this mine -- MS. BROOKS: We are working on that. And I speak on behalf of the -- for my entire CREW board. At this point we are simply stating that we have concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you state that before the ERP was issued? MS. BROOKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they still issued the ERP? MS. BROOKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just curious -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as to your involvement. Because it would seem to me if they're partners with that agency, your emphasis -- MS. BROOKS: Not -- well, I shouldn't say -- we're partners in some respects, not in that -- we do public- education outreach. We did a lot of outreach ourselves, but with that we would not -- we would have had several meetings with them, but we certainly wouldn't tell the South Florida Water Management District to do this or not do that. I mean, we use this outlet to be able to come to Collier County to address those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Had you addressed it at the ERP level, it might have been -- MS. BROOKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of greater assistance than waiting longer, because now when a permit's already issued, it's awful hard to undo something. But maybe in the future you would consider intervening at an earlier time to MS. BROOKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- express your concerns. You might get a better result. Okay. So anybody else? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. I keep coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is one of your concerns about the hydrology of CREW? MS. BROOKS: We have concerns about the hydrology of CREW. We've been told by Alico that our water tables will actually come up. That is something that I would continue to have communication with Alico, but it is a concern of ours as well. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if your water tables will come up, why would you be concerned? MS. BROOKS: Well, I mean, they're saying that. Oftentimes with mining it would be the opposite. Their modeling at this point is showing that our water would increase. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you're not sure if that's true? MS. BROOKS: We need to have -- we need to discuss that more with Alico. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) Page 26 of 85 t sir± «r 04 1612 N ember 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. BROOKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to take a 15- minute break. We'll resume at 10:50. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody would please take their seats, we'd like to resume the meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker, Roger Strelow. MR. STRELOW: My name is Roger Strelow. I teach environmental policy, law, and sustainability at Florida Gulf Coast University. I was formerly an assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appointed by the president to manage the nation's air quality, solid waste, and noise - control programs. I'm a resident of Estero in Lee County and a member of both the Brooks Concerned Citizens and the Estero Council of Community Leaders. In one of my several private- sector positions after government work, I was executive vice president of the environmental - services subsidiary of the global engineering and construction company Bechtel Corporation. There, among other things, we performed environmental services for a number of major mining companies, such as Kennecott and FMC; thus, I am not an anti - mining or anti - industry person, but I have never seen a substantial mining operation squeezed into such a residential, agricultural, and environmentally - sensitive area as Collier County is considering for the Lost Grove Mine. The mines I have seen and worked on have large buffer zones which the mine owners own and control. In the case of Lost Grove, excavation will come within a mere 150 feet of residential structures of which there are a total of more than 450. The routes between the mining -- the transportation routes between the mining operations that I know of and the nearest major highways are usually largely on mine -owned land, not as here, on two -lane roads intended for public use, never designed for heavy industrial use and, in fact, already legally and factually unable to meet traffic demands under established criteria. Now, if Collier County approves these mine operations, these already substandard roads, particularly Corkscrew and State Road 82, would be treated to an additional two large trucks per minute during the 12 hours per day of operations because of the planned 1,400 trips per day in and out of Lost Grove. The noise from blasting, as well as from enormous truck traffic and other machinery, will rudely jar these local residents who live so near. I learned from my time at EPA and in subsequent industry experience that noise is a far greater nuisance and health threat than you might suppose. It is particularly offensive to average citizens living and working in the quiet neighborhoods that they are accustomed to. I and others are here today from Lee County because a large part of the adverse Lost Grove Mine impacts will occur in our county. As you know, your own Growth Management Plan policies very reasonably require you to give great weight to such impacts. As others speaking up for Lee County explain in more detail in their comments, in the rural agricultural district where this mine is proposed to be inserted, very much like the proverbial skunk at a garden party, and activities such as this mine can be approved only as a conditional use, that is if it's compatible to agricultural uses and, quote, would not endanger, damage, or damage (sic) agricultural, environmental, potable water or wildlife resources. I'm quoting here briefly from some of our own codes. In fact, such use must be found to promote, not just protect or not harm, but promote the public health, safety, welfare, order, comfort, convenience, et cetera. That's, again, from one of your own codes. I'll cite that -- it's cited in my written testimony. An applicant such as Alico has the burden of enabling the county to make a credible finding that the proposed conditional use, that is the mine, quote, will not adversely affect the public interest, and that, among other things, specifically, ingress and egress with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, are satisfactorily provided for. The applicant must also demonstrate that the conditional use would not have unacceptable effects on neighboring properties, including noise. Even more simply, your county's Growth Management Plan, in Policy 4, says that new developments shall be Page 27 of 85 1612 t Nov er 17,200 u compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. This simply is not the case. Again, if there were more property here -- and the land, as I've seen with many other mining operations where you had to travel from the mine to and from a major route such as I -75, if -- that were owned or controlled by the mining company, it might be a far different proposition because you wouldn't be squeezing sort of inherently incompatible uses so closely together. As for the road problem, which I think is really one of the core -- very core issues, Policy 5 of your plan says you should not approve any application that would, quote, access a deficient roadway segment or impact an adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating or is projected to operate below adopted level -of- services standards, end quote. Now, that is exactly what -- the forbidden situation that your approval would make much worse than it already is. In other words, these roads have already been found deficient for their current uses, much less with two heavy trucks per minute added to them. At your previous hearing, a representative of Alico testified about some very large amount of improvements to be made in these roads; it was in the tens of millions of dollars. I'm thinking it was like 90 million, but maybe it wasn't quite that high. But it's my understanding that any such expenditures are by no means committed. That may be in a planning document somewhere but -- as with congressional authorizations, which may never materialize into actual appropriations or, if so, possibly at far lower levels. Also, I understand that any such sums, even in planning terms, are not envisioned to be raised and used until at least several decades into the future. Now, this Policy 5 of yours that I quoted doesn't appear to allow for such overburdening of already deficient roads just because decades into the future money may be spent to make the roads adequate. All the factors I've discussed must include consideration of impacts in adjacent jurisdictions, as you obviously have been dealing with here with the Lee County people. That means that Lee County's very substantial stake in this matter and the significant adverse effects it would suffer must be fully taken into account, just as you would expect and receive from Lee County if the shoe were on the other foot. In conclusion, I would simply ask you to consider honestly and carefully whether, if each of you lived in the area in one of those nearly 500 homes, or if you wanted to spend substantial time enjoying the marvelous CREW area, which is an environmental and tourist jewel of this whole region and at least one of you -- several have spoken up to having had such enjoyment -- would you want your elected representatives to approve shoehorning a loud, dirty mining operation into this location? Again, I stress, this not any sentiment against mining in general. But as we do in all kinds of context, we put appropriate things in appropriate places. And as Don Eslick has commented and others, it's not that we're -- you know, that we don't have other lands on which the mining products that are needed can't be and aren't already being produced. There are plenty of undeveloped areas in this region in this state where a mine could operate as it should, as they do in other states in some reasonable isolation from residential, agricultural, and ecologically - special activities. Thank you, and glad to take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be questions. Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In listening to you speak and in looking at the mines in Lee County that are proposed that are right next to this, I'm getting mixed signals here. Lee County said, we have enough to provide everybody, seven - county area, for -- till 2030, and yet you have mines proposed right next to it. I don't know what Lee County's going to do with those. Are you going to be up there speaking against these mines also? MR. STRELOW: Any mines that pose the same kinds of issues of, you know, just being force fit into an incompatible area, I would expect to be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, these other mines right behind it, from the picture right up there, those are huge mines. MR. STRELOW: That's right. Now, they're still in the process, several of them, as I understand it, quite early in the process. Page 28 of 85 it. � � i P•c � r, d J: 1 6 �:.::2 A 7 �1Vovember 17 2011 1 This is the one where the hearing has come up where I and others have formed a pretty common view that it just doesn't make sense in this location. And, by the way, I mean, in my view, this should not be seen, and certainly isn't seen by me, as, you know, a Lee County versus Collier -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is -- MR. STRELOW: -- you know, we've got these mines, let us -- I mean, I would not support that kind of a view at all, and I don't think anybody's suggesting that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that's kind of what's coming out as the way they're saying it. MR. STRELOW: Okay. I'm glad you raised it then, because I know that's not what Don Eslick, for example, meant. He and I work closely together through the Estero Council of Community Leaders. I mean, it happens that there are some mines in operation in an area that was determined generally to be reasonably compatible and not -- not kind of force fitting with, you know, quiet residential areas in the immediate vicinity. That doesn't mean that if any mine in Lee County that's being proposed were to fail the kind of test that -- I'm roughly trying to articulate here, applying Collier County's policies. I was quoting all from Collier County -- I would expect to take the same view of any proposed new mine in Lee County that failed to pass those same very reasonable and appropriate tests, which I think Collier County has on its books. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, you said during your presentation that you're used to larger buffers on mines -- MR. STRELOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from your work experience. What size buffers are you talking about? MR. STRELOW: Well, you know, thinking of mines where the roads that end up at a big highway like 1 -75 are all on property owned by the mine -- even though much of that land where those roads go could not itself be mined, but that's the way a large mining enterprise such as I'm accustomed to working with, you know, often -- when they purchase property, when they see a mine where the ore actually can be economically removed, they will acquire enough land around it so that there's just no issue. All of the traffic until you get to a place like I -75 where even these, you know, two trucks per minute can kind of pretty quickly disappear into the overall traffic, that's what is a more common approach rather than saying, you know, we've got an area where there's some material to be mined, but we're going to have to go through basically residential or small roads to get our product out to a major thoroughfare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But back to my question. You said buffers. MR. STRELOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You used, as example, this one has 150 -foot buffers between it and the residential. I'm not sure that's right based on some of the staff reports. But even if it was, what buffers are you used to between a mine and residential? MR. STRELOW: Well, sometimes miles, oftentimes miles, not just feet. I mean, that's why -- whether it's 100 feet or 500 feet or whatever, that's a whole different proposition from having a -- you know, if you -- imagine if you had a -- you know, a small area in the middle of this room that was the mine, typically they own a lot of land around it that during the time of the mine operation is -- nobody lives on it, and so it does provide a buffer zone. Now, in some cases after a mine is closed, obviously, they may sell off that land, because people then can buy it knowing that there aren't going to be further mining operations there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just seems like Lee County's positioning of their mines are further west than the mine in question. And the further west you go, the more populated you get. MR. STRELOW: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereas, the further east, where the agricultural land is, generally is where we see most mines going in, which is directly in contrast to the way Lee County's presenting their ability to supply fill for the entire area if all their mines are further west than ours, at least the ones that's suggested. MR. STRELOW: Again, I'm not here to justify or support any particular mine in Lee County. And, as I said, personally -- and I'm here not representing any other -- I'm an experienced environmental professional, and I'm really just trying to provide what I think are sound principles for decision making in this area, such as I had to follow when I was in the government. Page 29 of 85 T ... A7 04 November 17, 2011 And, as I said, if any of the Lee County mines that are still pending for proposal were to fail some of the same tests, you know, personally, I would see no reason to take any different position. Now, you also have some mines that are already in existence that are a different sort of issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, part of the understanding I'm trying to come to is, okay, say we take the criteria that this is a bad location for a mine, and the criteria is the various things that people have said, that Lee County said. Then the opposite effect is, where could we put a mine? Your criteria would eliminate all the mines in Lee County. There's no miles of buffers between residentials in any of those mines in the aerial that Lee County provided us. Well, maybe one. Maybe one of the temporary ones, the FEDMEPG, whatever that is. But most of them have the same criteria. They're near to residential. They're going to be feeding onto streets that are not primarily urban streets or streets that have an I -75 access. So I'm trying to figure the alternative, because that's important, too. If we're going to deny anything, we've got to have a basis for it that's got to be unilateral. MR. STRELOW: All right. There's one issue with pending proposals. And I've said several times, I would treat none of those proposals any differently in terms of criteria. They simply haven't come up on my radar screen for -- as immediate attention as this one obviously needs, because you're pretty far along in the process. As for mines that have already been opened and used, you know, one can go back with hindsight and say, gee, if that were up for approval for the first time today, many of us might oppose it. If it's already there, it's a little bit of a different issue. If it's in operation, has been for years, maybe is not too far from being shut down or substantially reduced in operation, that's a different matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was referring to the ones that are pending -- MR. STRELOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- only because I don't know -- MR. STRELOW: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean -- MR. STRELOW: -- as I said, I would apply no different criteria there. I don't, offhand, know exactly the condition of those roads. I'm not sure if they're as narrow as and inadequate under the established criteria as the two roads that we're principally concerned about here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just to follow up, you mentioned the -- where we are in the process here. I believe earlier it was stated that Troyer Brothers is on the BCC agenda for November 21 st, which is -- MR. STRELOW: Yes, it's coming right up. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- just next week. And then following that, Florida Rock is also going to the BCC. Have you not evaluated those? MR. STRELOW: I personally haven't -- I've got a lot of other things on my agenda, but I've been focusing mainly on this and will be turning attention to that very shortly. COMMISSIONER AHERN: It just seemed like those were further along than this one is, and they're addressing the same road. MR. STRELOW: Yeah. I'm -- by the way, I'm fairly new in the area. I've gotten engaged in activities that have come up where people have approached me about, you know, lending some assistance, and this has been the particular one that seemed to be farthest advanced, as I understood it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. STRELOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Hugh Starnes. MR. STARNES: Good morning. I'm Hugh Starnes. I live in Lee County, but I own property immediately adjoining/adjacent on Corkscrew Road to the proposed mine. I have 65 acres with two houses on it. The two houses sit on Corkscrew Road at the corner where Wild Cat Road goes off to the west, and the mine is directly across the Page 30 of 85 x1 s 1612 A � November 17, 2011 street. My property runs down to the south end of Whidden Loop Road. I also lease -- I also own five acres, which has cattle pens on it, at the curve a mile south, and then I lease land and formerly was a half - interest owner in -- that comprises 360 acres now owned by Collier County. It's called the Caracara Preserve; myself, and my other co -owner sold to them. And just, parenthetically I would tell you, I was the one that made the original suggestion that we approach Collier County, because I did not want to have my co -owner have somebody present a proposal for a mine and -- which would have possibly come along. We'd had inquiries before. So I precipitated getting our land sold to the county so it could be preserved. And I strongly oppose the mine here. And I'm wondering, do you have the aerial that gives a wider view that had the little blue squares on it? Because its important to put in context from some of the questions that have come up. That's not the one. It's an aerial -- it's the one Matt had. Do you have that one, Matt? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, while he's bringing it up here. I couldn't figure out where I could place your name, but I remember now; that's the Starnes property that Conservation Collier purchased. MR. STARNES: Well, they used to call it the Starnes property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. So that's yours, that was yours. MR. STARNES: Was mine. I had a half interest, and my father's other partner's children were the other half. I've -- well, my background in the Corkscrew area is, is I first went down there in 1947 with my father in a Model A car, truck, from -- Model A or Model T, I can't -- the one that was like a station wagon. Left at seven o'clock in the morning, went along Corkscrew Road as a grade. Four miles from Corkscrew we got stuck in a wash -out. We walked the four miles. Sam Whidden came back with his flatbed truck, pulled us out, and so it was time to turn around and back to Fort Myers. So the whole trip was trying to get there. My father, before me and myself, have had cattle in the area. My father since the 1930s, and my father first started going down to Corkscrew from Fort Myers -- he was a lawyer in Fort Myers -- in the 1920s. But what I wanted to demonstrate to you is a little larger topographical area here. What I've just pointed to is colloquially known as No. 4 Marsh. Now they're referring to it as Imperial Marsh, but all the old- timers referred to that as No. 4 Marsh. That runs from about a mile south of 82 at the long curve on 82, just north of Bell Road. And it runs down towards Corkscrew Road, and it's a predominant feature. The other place that I've indicated there is No. 4 Pond, which is a huge cypress pond that lies directly west of the mine in the Corkscrew area. To the south of Corkscrew, of course, you're familiar with is the CREW property, the Corkscrew Marsh, and further to the south, Lake Trafford. And that's why we have -- in that whole entire area we have the CREW property which, as Brenda told you, was 60,000 acres. It runs all the way around the marsh here. We have the airport- mitigation park, which is -- any of you familiar with the Corkscrew Store, it's opposite north of the Corkscrew Store, and it's, I think, 9 to 12 square miles. Ironically, when I was a boy, my father leased that land. And so as I grew up, I worked that land taking care of the cattle, doing the fences, and very familiar with that. That's why I know No. 4 Marsh and No. 4 Pond, and I've been all over that area. And so we have the CREW land, we have the multi- section airport- mitigation park, we have Lee County 2020 conservation lands in that area, and then we have the 360 -acre, that I used to own, Caracara Preserve at the east end of Corkscrew Road. So you have this gigantic area that has major hydrological topographical features that have probably a -- wasn't so complex before, but complex drainage and natural features with the wildlife that moves back and forth. And you've seen that the panther tracking shows the panthers come from the marsh up across the Corkscrew area over to the airport- mitigation park and run up towards No. 4 Marsh, which is a very large marsh. And so you have all these publicly acquired, paid money for them, lands that are strewn throughout here, which emphasizes the natural appeal both from water retention, as well as wildlife, and conservation of this land. And with all due respect -- well, let me come back to that point. The -- so with that in mind, Lee County has encountered, since the mining trend has started in applying for these, has started receiving all these mining requests. Since they originally began, they came up with the DR/GR study group, and we've had one member that was on that, and Kevin Hill will also talk to you about that -- that studied overall area to say we've got to make some sense Page 31 of 85 "a 1612 A7 oA November 17, 2011 out of all this mining. And I'm asking, ma'am -- or answering particularly your inquiry, I think. We've got to make some sense out of all of this. We just can't have mines strewn all through this ecologically sensitive important area. So what they came up with was after a great deal of study with a huge number of experts and a number of mining contested permits -- which so far the recent ones have all been turned down that have come before the commission. The proposal is and the policy of the county is that we would only -- they would only allow the mines in the corridor that directly opens into Alico Road which, as Mr. Noble told you, is built to take care of the type of traffic involved, so that's one feature. The other feature is to contain these in an area which minimizes contact with residential areas. Now, when you see these overlays with these big orange areas of proposed mines, those are people who want a mine. I think that it's crystal clear that the tact that Lee County is on is that they're going to be denied, because they've established a policy that they're not going to do that. They're not going to break all these up into separate areas through the sensitive area for mines. So it's going to be far away from this property, and the Alico character in the Alico corridor, and that's clearly the intent through all their deliberations, and the latest hearing examiner agreed with all that and made a recommendation to deny the latest one that applied. So it's far away. And I can tell you as a lifetime resident of Lee County and Southwest Florida, that the areas where those mines are do not have the residential characteristics, and the public land characteristics that we have here, just like this, they're different, they're more isolated. And, in fact, the -- one of the most productive ones you actually go off of Alico and run a mile or two back into the road. And to my knowledge there's virtually no residential developments back there. Then the other mines are along the further extension of Alico as it crosses to hook up with Corkscrew, and there are virtually no residences of significance in that area. Plus, those mines are older mines which, I think, for the most part were started before the latest residents were put in there. Corkscrew, on the other hand, was settled in, I think, 1910, and there have been continuous numerous residences there for the -- for the agricultural -- mainly cattle and some farming -- industry since the beginning of the century. And I've been familiar with the Alico land. I've leased land for cattle grazing for them. And there was never any indication of any rock mine or anything like that. Alico was an agricultural company that had planted pine trees on the CREW area -- cut them all down when they sold it to Southwest Florida Water Management District -- and had the citrus groves. So I'll come back to what, with all due respect, this should be characterized. This is a Lee County refugee for mining purposes seeking asylum in Collier County, because the handwriting on the wall is clear that they have a very small, diminishing chance of doing the type of mining they want in what's left in Lee County for any land that they have. And I would suggest that Alico is not going to do the mining. Cemex or one of these big mining companies is going to contract with them or buy their land or do something. They're the ones that are going to do it. Alico would certainly profit. And, hey, that's fine, if they follow the code. But your code -- and I want to -- I ask you for the right to make a legal argument, since I am a lawyer -- legal argument at the end. And I won't make it now, but I will just say, in my opinion, legally, the issue here tends to get lost through all the details. This is a compatibility issue, and your code says that you must make a finding on specific -- and I don't mean to insult you. I know you know this, but it has to be emphasized -- that you have to make a finding with certain criteria, the most important, I believe for this case, is that it's compatible and complementary to the neighboring properties. And so, I ask you, the name of this body is the Planning Commission. Could anyone ever conceive or is anybody going to show any planning treatise or any body of knowledge that would say it's appropriate planning to put a rock mine next to a nature preserve? And I really -- you struck a cord with me of the whispering or sighing of the pines. And, you know, those of us who have ever been out in the woods and sat down to eat your sardines and crackers for dinner or just sit there on a break and listen to the wind sighing through the trees, that's what the CREW property is all about; 8,000 residents, I believe -- or 8,000 hikers have come through there, participants, through this year, 5,000 of which were students, Page 32 of 85 It 16 i A i i;, �. ovember 17, 2011 almost all from Collier County district schools and FGCU students. That's what that property is there for. And I have a couple of pictures, and then I will try to wind this up quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we're running a little over in time, so I'd appreciate it. Thank you. MR. STARNES: Human interest. And then put this on when I give you the high sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, be careful. We'll see what sign that is. MR. STARNES: That was -- it will be a decent gesture. That's a panther that was taken through one of the motion - activated pictures on the Caracara Preserve, and I just -- it's just interesting to look at that, and that's characteristic of the CREW property also. Would you put the other one on. On my way to the ranch one day, I just stopped by the side of the road. This is a mine at Alico -- on Alico Road. You're sitting there on the trail listening to the sighing of the pines while in the background "Rumble, Rumble," "Beep, beep," and you look up and there's a 140 -foot boom that will greatly out distance any 8 -foot berm and a 40- or 50- foot -high pile of dirt. That's the way these mines are operated. And not to say that theirs will be exactly like that, but those are the normal structures you always see for mining, and they can put a berm up, but you cannot hide the -- those features or the noise. So -- the only other thing I want to add is, is that's as to the CREW property. And so I just want to wind up saying, I have the two houses that I rent out. I am in the Corkscrew area every week taking care of my cows down there, which I have in two different places, and I hike on the CREW property. And those residences there -- this is the other compatibility issue. You cannot enjoy what all of those people built their homes for, and most of those homes were originally built back in the 40s and 50s, so they far preceded this. You cannot take away, you should not take away, and I don't see how you can make a finding that Alico has the right to take away their residential use. That mine is anathema to a rural residential use, and it should not exist. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, sir, you had mentioned during your discussion about a legal brief that you wanted to reserve till the end. MR. STARNES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you still want to do that, I'm assuming? MR. STARNES: I do. I'll be very brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to know how much time you want allocated. I mean, we'll work with you, just -- MR. STARNES: Five minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now, the last speaking on this issue today before we close the public hearing will be the applicant. They get a rebuttal at the end, so you will have to be before that. MR. STARNES: I would like it to be after that, because they're going to present additional testimony, and that's what I feel I have a right to address, because -- that's the other thing I have to say that really concerns me about the process. The -- and that's what I want to address, actually. And so I'll just say, the reason I want to address it, the applicant has not identified or given you the basis to make a specific finding, although you probably can use your own common sense to do it, but they have not identified the issue of compatibility. They have assumed it's incompatible and said, here's some things we will do, but they've not said how it's incompatible, and it's incumbent upon them to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to kind of explain to you the process that we normally go by. We will be asking questions, this panel, of staff and the applicant after you -all are done. Normally we do that before the public is heard. We thought it would be helpful to hear the public's concerns first so in our close -- in our ending questions with the applicant we can get more of the questions that you rise (sic) in our questions to them. Your remarks can be done at the time the applicant is done addressing us in response to our questions. But at the closing of this meeting, they will have a rebut. That rebuttal is not for new infonnation. That's just to discuss the summary of basically what occurred from their perspective today. So that's where I'm getting at. MR. STARNES: Then I stand on what I've just said, because it was represented by them in their opening statement that they might call Mr. Depew as a rebuttal -- I understood them to say -- witness. If they've finished with their evidence, then I stand on what I just said. I might want to make one very, even briefer legal reiteration of that but they have not met their burden of proof to prove compatibility. Page 33 of 85 ' E „A p.l 7 vember 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we will get you in at an appropriate time before this meeting's over. MR. STARNES: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. STARNES: And I appreciate you letting me go a little over. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Joe Staiger. MR. STAIGER: Hello. My name is Joe Staiger. I live at 3225 Whidden Loop Road, Immokalee, right off Whidden Loop Road. And I live probably maybe about 1,500 feet from where the mine would go in, just south. So I think that -- good possibility the wells will be affected. It is a shallow well. Also, I was thinking about something, and it -- and maybe somebody can answer it for me here. I know that the sheet flow flows across the ground and then it goes through the sand, and it basically is purified to -- and reaches the aquifer. When they dig their lakes, they're just gouging the dirt out, and they're exposing that aquifer all the way around. What's to keep pollutants out from reaching the water? And then, even if my well doesn't go dry, what's to keep it from not getting polluted? Is there anybody that can answer that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that discussion came up earlier today, and -- MR. STAIGER: About pollutants? C14AMMAN STRAIN: Yes. It was responded to by the criteria in the back of the Florida Department -- the ERP permit, basically. It has a series of paragraphs that will address that. I even made a note of some of the pages. So that permit may address your issue. I don't know for sure, but that's what one of responses was today. MR. STAIGER: Okay. I'll look into that. Thank you. Right now, as Judge Starnes has said, that Whidden Loop Road -- the settlement has been there a long time, the Corkscrew settlement. Actually, my wife is a direct descendent from the Whidden family. So she's very pleased to -- for us to get that property 15 years ago. And she purchased it from her great aunt, Dolly Whidden. I think that -- the ambience of this area, right now we have deer, we have panther, we have actually a pair of gray foxes that live right around us -- coming through the property quite often. My wife did see a panther come through. I've seen a black bear come several -- several times. Actually, right over Judge Starnes' property I sought to catch a little pig. And -- I wish I was a little more prepared. But I ask that you say no to this mind (sic). I think that -- I know with just -- it's a 35 -year, they estimate the mine will be open. To me, that's like a lifetime. If they -- their blasting is, they say, about 17 feet apart. That will equal to about 106,000 blast charges that will be ignited over that time. If it's 20 feet, we're talking 81 -- 81,000 blast charges that we will have to put up with five days a week. I guess that's all I have. And I hope you say no. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What way did -- what roads did you come to get to this meeting today from your house? MR. STAIGER: I came, well, down Corkscrew Road into Estero. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, yeah. The reason I say that, it was estimated that only about 10 percent of the traffic would go down there that way, but I did a MapQuest, and it was both for coming to this meeting today, and they say go down Corkscrew Road, and also I did another MapQuest to the north to Tampa, and they also said Corkscrew Road, even though 82 would seem like it would be a bigger road to be able to go north. But in my experience, MapQuest kind of gives the logical explanation of what the average person would do. It's only 14.7 miles from Whidden Loop Road to 1 -75. And I think that what he just said now, that -- to get to this meeting, you wouldn't go through Immokalee and go down that way, right? MR. STAIGER: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It would be much longer. MR. STAIGER: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I think most of the trucks, if they're going to access anything by 75, they Page 34 of 85 16 A Zven# 17, 2011 would all go down 846, which is not the -- really the best way to come. I think even if you required them to only have an exit on 82, which I don't think you could do, they would still just make the turn and come down Corkscrew Road because it's, by far, the most convenient way to get to the coast. Thank you. MR. STAIGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Paul. MR. STAIGER: Plus, just to note that their trucks do run 24 hours on that road, dump trucks, so -- actually seven days a week, too, all hours of the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this mine wouldn't operate 24 hours if it were to be approved, but -- so that must be Lee County mines that are allowing that. Certainly couldn't happen in Collier County with this mine. MR. STAIGER: Or Hendry County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Johnson. MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And as you're aware from our letter and my conversations with a number of you, the Conservancy has many serious concerns about the Lost Grove Mine due to potential negative impacts to natural resources, the road network, and rural residential neighborhoods. We believe the mine is incompatible with the surrounding land uses, and it's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. And, therefore, we're asking that you recommend denial of this permit. And we don't take this position lightly. We really looked at this project to see if there was any way that this could be considered consistent, if any conditions could be put on it, and we simply could not find any conditions that would offset or mitigate our concerns. And this really is the sort of assessment that is part of the conditional -use process. Conditional uses are "mays"; they're not "shalls," and the process allows you to determine if a use is appropriate and compatible. If not, can there be conditions attached that would make it compatible? And if not, it's your responsibility to recommend denial of that conditional -use permit. A conditional use can be denied not arbitrarily, but based on competent and substantial evidence. And the litmus test of a conditional use really comes down to compatibility with the neighborhood, with the neighbors to the west in Lee County, and compatibility with the protection of natural resources. As you're aware, the conditional -use process is governed by the LDC, Section 10.08.00(D). I won't go through all of those standards, but just point out consistency with GMP and LDC is one, and then also looking at the impacts from the neighborhood point of view, noise, glare, odor, economic impacts, and then also compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. I'm not going to speak to the impacts to the neighbors. You have a lot of neighbors here that can do that much better than I can. But the bottom line is that having a mine in such close proximity to residential homes is impacting and, as such, the Conservancy believes that the mine is inconsistent with Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element, which requires that new development shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The Conservancy is also concerned about the impacts of the mine on transportation, and particularly how the traffic is going to impact Lee County. Mining is, of course, an extremely intensive and impactful activity. And these impacts go far beyond the actual footprint of the project. Lee County has, as was outlined by staff and other speakers, spent the last four -plus years and well over a million dollars to create a plan for Southeast Lee County, their Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource area, or DR/GR, that addresses the need to balance uses, including mining, rural residential, ag, and conservation. And they did this. They have an adopted plan. It hasn't been implemented, but it focuses mining on Alico Road. And I'll put a map up that just gives an indication of what that looks like. MR. BELLOWS: Want me to zoom in? Page 35 of 85 h A7 November 17, 2011 MS. JOHNSON: Yes, please. And I don't believe this was the final adopted iteration, but I did find this in my files, and I thought that it could be helpful, because you have Corkscrew Road here, you have 82 up here, and you have Alico Road in this area. The light blue are the existing mining operations, and it's very hard to see, but there's crosshatched areas in this area that show where Lee County is directing their future aggregate supply mining area. They want to keep it in this Alico Road area. They also added in this area the Florida Rock No. 2 mine, so that's another addition that they put in. But it really shows that mining is concentrated in the Alico Road area so that the trucks can get onto Alico Road and get out to the interstate or wherever they're going with minimal impacts to conservation lands and the rural residential neighborhoods that are in that area. And as you can see, the DR/GR plan specifically directs mining traffic away from Corkscrew Road and State Road 82. And the fact that an estimated 70 percent of Lost Grove Mine's traffic is going to be directed onto these very roads raises serious concerns that we don't believe have been addressed appropriately by the applicant's traffic- impact study. Lee County's concerns really need to be part of this discussion. In looking briefly at Corkscrew Road, an estimated 10 percent, though it certainly could be much more, of the mine's traffic will use this road going west. And 10 percent may not seem like a lot, but when you break it down, it's an estimated 137 haul trucks per day negotiating two almost 90- degree turns as they enter into Lee County. And I have a picture of one of those turns just for perspective. As you can see, that's a tight turn, not much of a shoulder, and the shoulder is currently crumbling. This is something in the neighborhood of 11 trucks per hour, over 40 trucks per year (sic). If the mine has a 30 -year lifetime, it would be 1.2 million trucks going down this road during the lifetime of the mine. So this is something that I think you really need to look at cumulatively to get an overall perspective of it. And because Lee County is trying to direct mining traffic and haul traffic away from this road, we see this as inconsistent with Objective 6 and Policy 6.2 of our Collier County Transportation Element. Objective 6 states, the county shall coordinate the transportation element with the plans and programs of the state, regional, and other local jurisdictions, and Policy 6.2 states, the transportation element shall consider any and all applicable roadway plans of Naples, Marco Island, et cetera, and Lee County. In addition to directing mining traffic away from Corkscrew Road to protect rural residents, Lee County also intended to protect the endangered Florida panther and other wildlife. There are certainly impacts to the panther on site. And at the last hearing, Chairman Strain, you had asked the question about why on the Lost Grove site there was primary panther habitat but that wasn't designated as an FSA or an HSA. And I believe that is because when the RLSA program was put in place, primary panther habitat had not been established, so I believe that may help to answer that question. But regardless of whether it's considered open FSA, HSA, primary, secondary, panthers use that site, and you've seen the graphic that Lee County put up, and I'll just put it up also. Panthers use the Lost Grove site and the areas adjacent to the Lost Grove site. And there's also tremendous potential impact to the panther from the haul trucks that will be going on Corkscrew Road, another reason why Lee County directed mining traffic away from this road through their DR/GR. Panthers actively use the CREW lands to the south, and they do cross the road, and they regularly cross at certain areas, a couple areas in Lee County that are a little bit off of this map. Approving a mine that we know will be directing 11 additional trucks an hour onto this road, we believe, is inconsistent and certainly poses a direct risk for panther truck collisions. The applicant has stated that the truck traffic will be during daylight hours, but this isn't the case for many times of the year. During the winter, it's dark at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. And I believe that Margaret indicated that they expect trucks to be coming on site earlier than 6 a.m. so that they can queue up and be first in line to get a load of aggregate. They'd be queuing at 5:30 to 5:45 in the morning. So this means that trucks could be on Corkscrew Road as early as 5 a.m. This is dark. Panthers are nocturnal, so we believe that there's certainly an impact there. And dawn is also another time of panther activity. So we're very concerned about having trucks out in the road at dawn and dusk and during those dark hours. This is time of panther movement. And as these impacts would be especially relevant to the endangered panther in Lee County, we believe this Page 36 of 85 1 + � � November 17, 2011 creates an inconsistency with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 6.4.2, which states, Collier County shall continue to coordinate with adjacent counties when reviewing proposed land development projects that would have an impact on ecological communities in one or more of the adjacent counties. Lee County's already stated their concern about this matter, so we don't believe that issue has been resolved as of yet. In looking at State Road 82, this is also a concern, as it's anticipated that 60 percent of the truck traffic or 820 haul trucks per day will be using State Road 82 and entering into Lee County. Someone -- a previous speaker, Roger Strelow, mentioned that he believed that this was inconsistent with Policy 5.1 of the transportation element, and I agree. I'm not going to read that policy, as he has done that. But that policy does say you need to look at the level -of- service standard of roads where you're going to be directing additional traffic. State Road 82 was discussed at the last meeting by both the applicant and Lee County staff. And the applicant stated that improvements to State Road 82 were in the Lee County 2035 long -range transportation plans, financially- feasible plan, which is true, but I also need to point out that the money's not anticipated to be available until between 2026 and 2030. So for a large portion of this mine's lifetime, these improvements would not be made. They would not be funded. Moving from transportation impacts, just want to speak briefly about the impacts to CREW, because this is the largest undisturbed watershed in Southwest Florida. We believe that the noise from the mine, the dust, the lighting, potentially, at night, certainly the truck traffic and road kills, this is going to impact the wildlife that utilize CREW, and it certainly will impact the visitor experience, so we're very, very concerned about that. And, finally, I want to mention the intergovernmental coordination, because as you've seen, our neighbors, Lee County, have serious concerns about this project, and their issues and considerations must be taken into account. We've talked about the Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 2 and Policy 2.2 that direct Collier County to work with Lee County on these issues. We don't believe those issues have been resolved appropriately. So, in conclusion, Collier County has the authority and the responsibility to maintain a high standard for protection of both citizens and critical natural resources through the GMP and the LDC, specifically, through the conditional -use review process. If you believe that the evidence presented today in opposition to the mine is factual and substantial, then the permit should be denied. The Conservancy believes the Lost Grove Mine is inconsistent with numerous GMP and LDC policies, which I have mentioned today and I also mentioned in the letter that I had submitted. I will hand out a copy of those policies for your reference. And I apologize, I had printed this out for your 11/3/11 meeting and didn't want to kill any more trees by reprinting, so this is the same information. And one other thing to conclude. In comparing this to the Jones Mine and some of the conditions that were attached to the Jones Mine, a lot of those conditions dealt with blasting and what the setback should be and turn lanes and things like that. But I think one critical difference between this and the Jones Mine is that the Jones Mine is in the rural fringe mixed -use district. And when we created that district, the county looked at the fact that mining is necessary, and where can it be appropriately located? And it was determined that mining would be located in the receiving lands in the rural -fringe district. The sending lands, it would be prohibited, but it would be allowed in the receiving. The Jones Mine is in the receiving lands. So I think we took a look in the rural fringe at those sorts of compatibility issues, just as Lee County did with the DR/GR. I don't believe that mining as a use was really discussed a whole lot in the RLSA where the Lost Grove Mine is proposed. The RLSA overlay really dealt with, let's transfer redevelopment rights from sensitive wetlands to create new towns. But the whole idea of mining compatibility has to be done on a case -by -case basis. I don't think it's really been truly looked at like the Jones Mine. So I just wanted to bring that up as something that I see as a difference between this and the Jones Mine. So to conclude we ask that you recommend denial of the Lost Grove Mine. We believe it's inconsistent and incompatible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of Nicole anybody? Page 37 of 85 w s x ovember 17, 2011 1612 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got two. Let's start with the most recent one you just mentioned. I know in the rural fringe -- because it was a new setup, a new twist for Collier County land planning, we set up specific areas where mining could go. In the RLSA we did the same thing by limiting it to open space, and the SHAs -- HSAs and all the other SS- -- I mean, the more sensitive areas, the SSAs, FSAs, they were all set aside as predominantly environmentally - concerned areas. So this mine is in an open space in the RLSA, which we specifically said in the RLSA those areas could have mines. Now, I'm not saying this is the right location or bad at this point. I'm just suggesting that I was here and you were here, and I remember you and I both spoke quite at length on the RLSA process. But, you know, we did address it. We said open space, and this is -- in fact, the entire mine on this example is open space in the RLSA. That doesn't even include a piece of that primary that you're concerned about. MS. JOHNSON: Well, it would impact some of the primary, I believe, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not in the RLSA. If you look at the RLSA overlay map -- MS. JOHNSON: Right, the RLSA doesn't address primary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it cuts it out. MS. JOHNSON: Right. It doesn't address primary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because I went and looked at that. MS. JOHNSON: But I think everyone with the RLSA process -- and this mine isn't participating in the RLSA. They're simply saying, we're going to go under the baseline ag standards. And certainly from the Conservancy's perspective, we didn't have a large discussion of mining as an RLSA land use because everyone was so intent on where new towns should be located. So we certainly didn't see that same level of detailed analysis for mining, because a town has impacts within their footprint and without, but mining has many more impacts, in our opinion, outside the footprint. And so we didn't see that level of detailed discussion about mining as part of the RLSA process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Some of the process in the RLSA talked about the impact of mining and other operations and excavations for water management on hydrology. And I remember an attempt at that time was to limit the hydrology in a certain distance from any body of water that was created as a result of the water RLSA overlay. I can't remember what that distance was, but I know we looked at those things. So, I mean, I thought we had discussed it. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just remembering the discussion. But I also wanted to ask you, did you attend the EAC meeting on this -- MS. JOHNSON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- action, okay. Your organization's primarily environmentally concerned. Mostly you focus on environmental concerns; is that fair? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the EAC is a pretty natural body for you to speak at. Why did they come back with an affirmative vote on this? I was surprised to see that if -- being the EAC and with your input if there was environmental issues. Can you shed any light on that? MS. JOHNSON: Well, you know, I'll give my opinion on that. A couple of the comments from the EAC members led me to believe that they felt they had to recommend approval. I remember EAC Member Gina Downs saying, well, you know, our hands are tied, so we have to come up with conditions. So I don't know if they understood that they didn't have to recommend approval. I'm not sure. I really can't speak for their thought process on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: But I will say their recommendation of approval had in place conditions that the applicant isn't doing, so I think that should also be noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to go over those kinds of things today. I just wanted to understand what -- since you were present. And I assumed you attend most those kind of meetings -- MS. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so you probably have a flavor for the -- that board. Page 38 of 85 A 7 -.1 1612 November 17, 2011 MS. JOHNSON: I don't believe that the staff presentation talked about "here's what a conditional use is" and "here are the specific standards for your determination." I don't believe that was part of the staff presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it shouldn't need to be. It's part of our code, so -- but anyway. Okay, thank you, Nicole. Appreciate it. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can take one more public speaker before we break for lunch. So, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Neal Ott. MR. OTT: Good afternoon. I'm sorry, good morning. It's still morning. I live in Corkscrew Settlement, have lived there for the last 12 years, and very glad to have brought my family out there. And we enjoy everything about the tranquility there. Now, to get to the basics of why we're here, the panthers that were -- the last two that were killed out there were in the last five years. It was not in the Eisenhower administration, by the way. And Corkscrew Settlement was there 50 years before Alico ever became a company, and I think that's an important aspect of a residential community being in existence for such a long time. And the environmental issues are sufficient, I think, to deny this permit. All the grove is used as panther habitat both for roaming and feeding. They feed on the wild hog there regularly. And the county staff, in my opinion, has failed the residents in Corkscrew Settlement drastically because not once have we ever been asked anything about this process. And this is not like a subdivision going in next to us. This is a major industrial operation that we're talking about, which is going to affect our lives, my life for the rest of my life. And I think that's a -- something that county has fallen drastically on. They've failed -- failed on that. And we're all taxpayers. I know Alico is taxpayers as well, but they're not residents there where they're getting ready to change this thing drastically. So I object for all my grandchildren and my children and all the students that visit CREW regularly. And what happened at the EAC meeting -- their recommendations I presume you folks have all seen and read, so I'm not going to go into those. But, you know, the one thing that they put in there was a 1,000 -foot buffer, as well as the water management had that in their notes, which that's never been brought up. You know, the hours of operation: 30 minutes after sunrise, 30 minutes before sundown. That's never been mentioned by Alico. The lights from the -- from the mine on Alico, you can see that four miles at night. Four miles you can see those lights. So -- the jake brakes, there's another big issue. Noise from the trucks. This is all in the dark when the panthers are roaming. And the concerns that we have as well for the wells in our area, I think, are very significant. And you know and I know that in all of these operations if there was damage done to our wells, it would take a drastic lawsuit to gain anything for the residents who are directly affected. And once this has been mined, this can never be fixed again. You can't repair what's been damaged. And I wanted to touch base a little bit, because I have some farming history in Florida. The water tables -- and we're talking about a 9 -foot drop from one end of the property to the other. If you dig a trench or put lakes in, the last lake is going to be the same elevation as the first lake because of the way the water moves in this soil. Nine foot is a drastic drop. And so my last thing I wanted to say was the compatibility issue is, in fact, not even a possibility. And the blasting effects, I have personal experience on that. For over 30 years I've had nothing but humming in my ears from combat, and that does not go away, will never go away, and it's all from blasts. So -- absolutely cannot be fixed, and I believe it's the same possibility. This mine cannot be fixed once it's done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. With that, we will break for lunch. We'll come back at one o'clock and resume the meeting where we left off with public speakers. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from lunch. It definitely is interesting the bits of Page 39 of 85 1612 A7 November 17, 2011 information you pick up during lunch. Sometimes it's even embarrassing for some people, so I have to disclose what I picked up. It's Terri's birthday today. Happy birthday, Terri. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's a fresh 23. And we'd sing to you, but our voices are so that it would probably break the microphone and you couldn't record it, so -- but Happy Birthday, and thank you for the brownies that you made us, instead of you making us anything. Okay. With that, we will move back to our public speakers. Ray, you want to call the next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Steve Conti. MR. CONTI: Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? Because I've got a little problem with speaking. My name is Steve Conti. I'm from Lehigh Acres. I am retarded -- I mean retired individual. And I don't really represent any entity at all. I'm here strictly on a personal situation that a couple people have asked me to do. I was in the explosive field for 30 years, worked for a company by the name Austin Powder Company, and I was a field engineer. In other words, I would go out to a blasting project, whether it be a deep mine, whether it be an open -pit mine, whether it be the side of a mountain, whether it be an underground coal mine or whatever, I would go to different places around the country on behalf of the -- of Austin Powder. And if they had a problem, Steve, would you go here, can you go there, and you go there. So I think in that time I got somewhat of a focus on blasting. Although the blasting -- the dynamites and what's used today for blasting agents has changed, has changed considerably, considerably. My biggest concern is that the blasting that's going to be done as it was proposed by Alico is that not only we want to meet the state regulations, which is regulated by the state department of arshal (sic) -- fire marshal's office, but also the homeowners that are there. When I say -- I've probably blasted open pits probably three or four hundred in my career, or maybe more. And one of the things we're always concerned about in blasting is what damage can the blasts do? Fortunately, in the mining situation, there's not going to be any fly rock, we used to call it, because the rock is all going to go out towards the open pit when they remove the dirt and they remove the water. So the fly rock, as we call it, will not be a problem. What may be a problem is the amount of explosives that are used in one shot, and also the type of explosive, and also the density of the rock that's going to be exploded. In other words, in this instance here, it's limerock, which is somewhat the same around the country when it comes to limerock. What -- my concern is this: I would suggest to the panel that we -- when I say "we," meaning you folks -- you get something from the mining company to show a few things. Number one, the maximum amount of explosives that are going to be used in one blast. And they're all timed. This has been going on for years, a certain amount of milliseconds between -- let's say this is the cliff we want to take or this is where we're going to start, and this is the front of it. There may be holes here, here, here, here, here, here, and then the same amount of rows back, back, back, back, back. And that's usually determined by the owners of the company that want this particular thing done and their past experience in it. My question right now is, oh, we're going to comply with the state as far as the fire marshal is concerned, but then again, how big of a blast are we going to have? In other words, each hole may take, in today's market, a two- and -a- half -inch bag of material now. Years ago it used to be dynamite or it used to be gelatin, ant (sic) bowl and so forth. Now we have liquid type of explosives. Now, how much of this are going to go in each hole? And that's going to have a timing element. And the initial blast, I can only assume from what they're going to do, is they're going to take the first two or three holes and they will be on a timing element that makes this come out. Then the holes will come around like that, and they'll all blast out until the last of the explosive charges would be right here, and then you have what they call a face. That's what it's called when you're looking at a quarry; that's the face. Now, it depends upon how much explosives are in each hole and how many holes are geared together to be detonated. We had a man from -- from Georgia Tech explain somewhat the milliseconds involved, but what I would suggest is for you folks, before the -- whatever, is to get some sort of report what's the maximum amount you're going to do so they cannot exceed that. Also, the velocity. They should know the velocity of the explosive that can be done, not aboveground, but Page 40 of 85 1612 A7 November 17, 2011 what it does underground, because -- and that depends upon the density of the rock and the type of explosives that it does. Because an explosive puts a shock wave in a 360 - degree circle. Excuse my throat. I've got a little bit of a problem there. And the shock wave goes out. When it hits the end here where there's nothing, the shock wave dies, but it may continue in the 360 degrees for quite a while. And I think this is what's got to be looked at for the people who live right over there and the people who may build in the future there. And we can say, yeah, okay, you're going to comply with the fire marshal's office, but let us know, because not only the shock wave of the initial timing, but you may have three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. I've done as many as 15 different timings on the same blast. So we should see the maximum amount and make sure they adhere to that, because that amount will -- there needs to be an interpretation of the shock wave, the density of the rock, to see if there's going to be any movement at all of that building, not necessarily aboveground, but below ground. Will it shake any? Will it do this? Will it do that? And believe me, shock waves are brutal, I can tell you. And I don't know what else to tell you except that we need to know something, not that we'll comply. How much explosive are you going to going to do at one time? What's the velocity of it? How is -- this shock wave that might be 23,000 feet per minute or whatever, how far is that going to go with a concrete slab like they do here, which is -- I think it's 4 inches nonnally in this area. So that's all I'm going to suggest is, I'm not for the mine, I'm not against the mine. I just want to see the people protected that are on that side of the berm. And I can say this in reference to what Roger said earlier about the distance between the mine and the homes. A hundred and fifty feet was the distance to the berm. But good Lord Almighty, I have never, never, never blasted a mine anywhere, anywhere, anywhere that there was less than probably a couple of thousand feet. Never did. It's just not feasible because of all the things that were brought out today for many, many reasons. So I would suggest that all to make sure it is worthy of the people that live there not suddenly to be shocked in their chair. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We have a lot more to go on the blasting, so we appreciate your comments. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. Sir? Sir? MR. CONTI: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The gentleman's got a -- I don't know if Brad's a gentleman. We'll just call -- Commissioner Schiffer's got a question. MR. CONTI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Close to that. MR. CONTI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. Anyway -- MR. CONTI: I have to put my glasses on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I told you that long hair will get you in trouble. MR. CONTI: You're right, it would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could get past this. The question I had, though, is, do you think if we started blasting rather softly, you know, if there is such a thing, closer to the homes and then that way the lake would always be between the blasting and the homes; is that a smart progression? MR. CONTI: Well, when they start -- when they start an intent to make a face so they can dig with the dragline into it, yes, they can. They cannot take this whole thing -- basically, it's not -- they want it also crushed up so that when they take -- they pick it up, they put it in a truck, take it to the crusher, there's not big slabs of it. You want it as small as possible. That's why I say, have them give you a definition how this is going to be done and show it to you. But you're right, you could have only three holes blasted. Then you've got a little hole there. You want more because that helps to break the rock more. And the more explosive you have in there, the better the shock wave is, the Page 41 of 85 1612p7 , November 17, 2011 more it will break the stone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CONTI: And that's no matter whether it's granite, whether it's limestone, whether it's shale rock or whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. Before we call the next speaker, I was told at lunchtime by Ray that there are people here who have time deadlines that they may have to leave earlier than this meeting will end today. So if there are people who want to speak that have to leave early, I'd like to get to you first so you have an opportunity to talk today. Has anybody in the audience got a time restraint? Ma'am -- so why don't we take you next, if you don't mind. And that will go for anybody following her. If you have to leave earlier, we'll be more than -- we'll put you up front, and then everybody still will be heard today, though. MS. KURGIS: I have not been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't talk from there, but come on up here, we'll swear you in. Everything you say has got to be on the microphone so this very young lady who's birthday is tomorrow, by the way, can take your words. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. KURGIS: I'm Sharon Kurgis, and I'm a Collier County resident as well as owning a farm up in the area of the project. In fact, Alico and I share a border. I'm your -- north of that orange grove, I'm your north neighbor, okay. What I'm here to talk to you about today is a little bit different. I know that you've heard from a lot of people that are experts, and they're coming to you and they're talking about the environmental issues, the roads, the rock crushing, et cetera. And I think I want to talk to you a little bit about something that I'd like you to keep -- tuck in the back of your minds. What we're looking at in this type of a meeting is the people from what I call Main Street and the people from Wall Street. The people from Main Street, as you've been hearing, are basically your locals. They are your taxpayers. They've lived here. They have given up time out of their pockets away from their jobs two, three, four days maybe to come to these meetings. And that's time off work; it's commuting. They have some real concerns. They are the people that live here. They are the people that you are representing, and you are one of those people too, in a sense. You're not only a resident, but you're also on the planning board and work for the county. The other side of the coin is that we have the people from Wall Street. And, yes, it is a publicly- traded company. Trades on the exchange. It's about a $21 stock today. I looked it up earlier. And when I -- I looked at what a publicly- traded company really does. Their goal is to maximize shareholder return. Let's take a look at every single way we can maximize shareholder return. What can we get for our shareholders today? We hear this now on the news all the time. So what I look at in the history of Alico obviously is -- was originally sort of that good -ole -boy kind of corporation. They don't have a lot of shareholders. They have a very few number of shareholders, but they're very tightly controlled. And most of the shareholders do not even live in our county or near our county, okay. So what I found in going through their K 1 -- or l OK report -- hold on here. I've got a lot of this flipped over. Give me a moment -- is that first of all, I think, if I put this together, the history of this company is obviously a land company maximizing return from the land, okay, mitigation, orange grove, maybe U.S. Sugar as a customer. And as time goes on, we all know what has happened to the companies that are currently now working with the land. And in looking at their last annual filing -- let me find my notes in here. In the good years, obviously they were getting land mitigation, citrus income, sugar income. They probably had some pretty good years up to August 2006. Now, keep in mind that the markets did turn, banks have turned around, financing has turned around; 2007, 11 percent. Right in here, Alico Inc., annual return, minus 11 percent; 2008, minus 13 percent; 2009, minus 30 percent; in 2010, September, minus 20 percent. Okay. Then you kind of look at the operating revenues, which is really sort of your cash coming in. In the Page 42 of 85 Al 1612 November 17 2011 meantime, I pull up, on this company, how can we really maximize shareholder return? Well, they have, I think, about a $26 million tax dispute with the IRS, and one of the reasons for that, as a publicly- traded corporation, you're sitting down every day saying, how can we make more money? We have shareholders to satisfy. We don't have locals to satisfy. We don't have to satisfy the panthers. We don't have to satisfy -- we have shareholders to satisfy. So they have done different land deals, including using an offshore agriculture -type insurance business. Yeah, move things offshore. It avoids a lot of tax implications. You know what, I can't do that. The people that have given up their days out here, they do not have the same, you know, expertise loopholes, any other thing they can do to deceive to get a better return. And so they're still disputing this because -- and this goes back 2005, '6. And one of the most recent articles I pulled up is that, you know, the IRS is basically demanding this tax payment as well as penalties. And they keep, you know, going back and forth. But it's basically over, if you think about it, whether that's the right thing or the wrong thing. It's just that's the nature of the company that we are dealing with today. One of the things I did pull up in the report, which is my final thing to say -- a couple of more points. They're just really short. One, for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2010, the -- Alico's largest customer which accounted for 23 percent of their operating revenue, which is the U.S. Sugar Corporation, Alico, you know, has -- is basically that particular -- as you've been following in the newspapers is U.S. Sugar is basically a company that is not going to be able to give them that same revenue, so now we're going to see another revenue loss possibly on the Alico side. Another thing that I have pulled up is that at the time they've taken out their loans, like a lot of people have taken out loans, revenue is higher, asset values were higher, and they have a loan that basically says, the agreement provided that Alico must maintain a current ratio of not less than 2 to 1, a debt ratio of not greater than 60 percent, minimum tangible net worth of 80 million, and the debt - service coverage ratio not less than 1.15 to 1, or a breach of the debt - service coverage will not be considered in the event of a default. You go through these things -- and it goes on in the next couple years. I can obviously give this to you. But they have put into their own -- their own particular report, they have made a statement that says that if this IRS particular penalty that they are trying to fight right now does not work out in their benefit, it will have a substantial impact on the company, and I have it, and I can certainly turn it in for you, and it's in their own handwriting in their own annual report. I look at Alico, yes, a publicly- traded corporation, but my advice to a county looking at them putting in this -- obviously for their benefit, which is seriously needed at this time because there aren't any more rabbits you can pull sometimes out of the hat to snake as much money as opening a mining operation, okay, especially when you're servicing debt, okay, and you've lost U.S. Sugar possibly as a major customer, and your best reporting income's probably coming out of your orange groves, which was your traditional business, and, obviously, my best recommendation is that I would deny this for all the reasons that are really the true reasons. But I think you really need to open your eyes as why we're all here today and to really look at the people from Main Street and say, you know, these people are coming out here out of their own free will and good to say, it isn't environmentally right. I'm saying they're coming out with every single thing they could probably bring because this is what, as a corporation, we see happening probably every day. But I have all of it in this report, and I will put it together and give it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. KURGIS: Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just a comment. This is a zoning board -- MS. KURGIS: I understand that you're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so our decision must be relevant to zoning matters. I understand your purpose for wanting to describe to us other circumstances, but we will have to make our decision based purely on our Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. MS. KURGIS: I think that's wonderful, and I'm glad that you know how loyal the Main Street people are here and the people that live here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. KURGIS: Thank you. Page 43 of 85 1 , 161 (A7 4 November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? Oh, does anybody else, before the next speaker, need -- have a time constraint for today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just move forward with those registered. And then after those registered speakers speak, I'll ask for any general audience that wants to talk. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. And I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments and participate in this hearing. Our -- we have been working with the applicant for a good while. We have been looking at some of the technical issues and asking questions about this for some time, and our position right now is that due to the proposed mine's proximity to Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and the adjacency to the CREW Marsh, the Corkscrew Marsh, Audubon is concerned with the possibility of negative impacts to wetlands and wood -stork foraging habitat. And this is why we have opposed all mines on Corkscrew Road that have been proposed or applied for in Lee County or Collier County. All of them have been in Lee County, obviously, except for this one. Our specific concerns are questions about possible problems with the hydrologic modeling and assumptions that were used. We're especially looking at evapotranspiration and what numbers were used in the modeling assumptions. Resolution of these questions is still being pursued with the applicant and with some other hydrology experts that we have been working with. The applicant and their consultants have been very helpful in trying to answer our questions. So that dialogue, we hope, will continue. However, I have a recommendation and an observation at this point about this issue. We need a wider examination of mines in a technical forum rather than a permitting forum. And the issue is that for decades there has been this question of whether a mine or the lake that results from a mine is a benefit or an impact to the surrounding wetlands and water resources. And this is a question that has been asked in the lake -belt region over on the east coast. It's a question that's being asked in the Everglades agricultural area, and it's a question that we have in Southwest Florida on all these kinds of mining operations. We're not getting enough good, objective science to answer these questions. And so my suggestion is that we collectively, as a community, need to convene a forum, an objective forum, to assemble that science and look at these questions in real good depth outside of a permitting discussion, because here the stakes are high and there's a lot of tension. So a suggestion. Finally, I want to clarify a point that is really important, and it's a policy issue having to do with the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay. Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida are fully supportive of the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay policies, including -- including the consideration and allowance for all the appropriate land uses in the open designated areas, such as the conditional uses like earth mining or a stewardship receiving area; an SRA would be something like Ave Maria or a town. We don't believe that questioning this particular use, this particular Lost Grove Mine application at this site, signals any fault in the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay. Those policies also envisioned site - specific reviews for any particular location. So this is in keeping with those policies. The open area and mining is a conditional use. So I think it's fair to ask these questions, and so we do. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. During the RLSA hearing, I remember you were present and you were very vocal about distance of excavations from wetlands for hydrology purposes. I believe I remember the distance you were requesting, and I know we debated it at those meetings. Do you remember that distance? MR. CORNELL: There have been a lot of discussions about setback distances from wetlands for -- if you're going to be digging canals or lakes -- stormwater lakes or even a mine. And at the time, going back to the late'90s Page 44 of 85 161 2A7 November 17, 2011 and early 2000s, we were looking at the Center for Wetlands at the University of Florida data, and they had a number of different setback numbers -- this was Mark Brown's information and studies -- I want to say 300 feet, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was much more than that, and that's why I'm trying to understand if you changed your position. MR. CORNELL: And I may be confusing this with some setbacks from rookeries, because that was another issue associated with wetlands that we want to protect. So that's a good question, and I can't answer it specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's in the record. It's just a matter of finding it, so -- MR. CORNELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm curious, because I know that you made a very strong argument then, and I believe some members of this panel who were there at the time supported your position, and I think I did, and I think we tried to get the RLSA to have language that met the criteria you were trying to espouse because it seemed to be accurate. But I don't know what that -- I can't remember the exact. I thought it was greater than 300 feet, though. MR. CORNELL: I don't remember a specific setback distance. I do know that if you look at the data on impacts to wetlands in a distance from a canal, for instance, you can go as far as two miles from that canal and still measure groundwater reduction, so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't suggesting two miles at the -- MR. CORNELL: No. And the other thing to say is that all these things are site specific. That was down in the south Golden Gate Estates, and those canals were 6 feet deep, you know. This is a little different landscape, and it's a different issue. There are questions about the shell beds buried in the overburden that could be extra transmissive, and you could induce flow considerably far off site, because the linear shell bed could go a fair distance away from where you're digging a hole and dewatering, and you could lower the water in a wetland unwittingly and unintentionally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you came up here, you started your discussion with -- that you have concerns, and you represent Audubon, right? MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? MR. CORNELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And throughout your dissertation I didn't hear a position. Are you for or against this mine? MR. CORNELL: We are trying to answer questions. If we have to make a recommendation now, we have to oppose it on the -- to be prudent. And recognizing that there are also planning considerations, we've invested a tremendous amount of our own staff time and energy and money in both the Rural Land Stewardship Area and the Lee County DR/GR policies. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago we testified and brought expert witnesses to the Cemex DOAH hearing in Lee County defending those policies to keep rock mines off of Corkscrew Road. We think those are prudent policies for all kinds of reasons, for planning reasons in terms of the community, and also for, in this case, where we saw the great potential for hydrologic impacts on all those other mines on Corkscrew Road. This mine may be different recognizing that the orange grove irrigation is an impact today, and the cessation of that irrigation could be a benefit, and that's the modeling that they're putting forward. We're asking questions about whether they have fully considered evapotranspiration figures that need to be incorporated in that, because when you dig a lake in South Florida, you've got a lot of ET. So that's why we raised that question. If we have to make a recommendation, which I guess here we are in a permitting forum, we'd have to say we're opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the rubber's meeting the road here, so, yeah. It's today or the BCC, and our recommendation goes to the BCC. So whatever comments there are, we'd like to know where you stand, and thank you for your input. Appreciate it. MR. CORNELL: I do think it's important to remember that these questions about hydrologic impacts are not answered fully, and I think that it -- we all owe it to -- we need rock, obviously, as a community, so we need to answer these questions very specifically and try to get at the nut of the science of this question. So I'm not satisfied with where we are right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there's going to be a lot more questions before the day's over and before the next day's over, so we'll try to get to the bottom of some more. Page 45 of 85 4� Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Sure. 1612 Al November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The wood storks, you were concerned about them, but obviously they're not using the land now. So wouldn't -- what's your concern now? And then in 50 years if we build this thing properly with good littoral zones could it be an asset for the wood stork? MR. CORNELL: That's the question to ask, and the answer could be yes. We're concerned that the answer is no. And the answer has to do with whether you're going to be lowering water levels in adjacent wetlands in this area. And the foraging areas for wood storks are particularly vulnerable because they're relatively shallow. So a small fluctuation has a big impact. You know, if your wetland is only 6 inches deep and you drop it 7 inches, there's no wetland left. There's no foraging. So the answer to your question is a little swishy, but we're concerned that it may be an impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But doesn't the groundwater throughout the year change, you know, certainly more than 6 inches and stuff? MR. CORNELL: It does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So doesn't nature adjust constantly to changes in groundwater? MR. CORNELL: It does, but timing is everything. So if your groundwater levels and the wetlands aren't at the right levels at the beginning of the nesting season for wood storks -- mind you the largest nesting rookery for wood storks is at Corkscrew Swamp, very close to this. If you don't have the right levels at the right time of year, which would be November, December -- that would be right now -- then it's too late for the storks to get enough food to feed and bring off fledglings in the nesting season. If you wait till after -- if the wetlands are too deep, they don't dry -- dry down till after January, you have a precipitous drop in productivity in nesting. So the timing is everything. Yeah, you can have water all year- round, but if it's not the right depth at the right time of year, November, December, then we're in big trouble. And four out of the last five seasons there's been no nesting at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary; that's because we have an incredible derth of short, shallow, seasonal wetlands in Southwest Florida. I mean, it's logical. Those are the ones that are easiest to fill; they've been converted to agricultural or urban uses. That's the landscape we're dealing with. So any one that's left is really important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The recommendations from the Lee County environmentalist, do you agree with those to create nesting or feeding areas for the wood stork? MR. CORNELL: Absolutely, that would be -- and I believe that is part of the reclamation plan to make the littoral zones have foraging habitat. So, yes, that's an important component of a condition for such a use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, is your organization -- don't they own that or have some control over it? Isn't it Audubon Sanctuary? MR. CORNELL: Yes. Oh, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How far is this mine from the boundaries of the sanctuary; do you know? MR. CORNELL: I don't know. It's not far; couple of miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you here speaking on behalf of Ed Carlson and the people that work at the Sanctuary? MR. CORNELL: Yes. behalf? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they've weighed into this with your comments? MR. CORNELL: Yes. What? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have weighed into this by the fact that you're here today speaking on their Page 46 of 85 161z A 7 1.1 November 17, 2011 MR. CORNELL: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CORNELL: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Tony Holman. MR. HOLMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Tony Holman, and I live in Wild Cat Farms. And just to keep it short, I am opposed to this mine because I do not want a mine in my backyard. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long have you lived there for, sir? MR. HOLMAN: Eight years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight years, thank you. MR. HOLMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Edd Weiner. MR. WEINER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Edd Weiner, and I'm the COE of the Lehigh Acres Economic Development Board, I'm the president of the planning panel, and I'm the president of the Community Council in Lehigh Acres. I guess an initial question I would have is how many on the panel are familiar with Lehigh Acres, where it is, who it is, what it is, and what it does. And I'll make it a rhetorical question, and I'll just tell you it's a real small community in Lee County. It's 96 square miles with 90,000 people in it. It's bigger than the City of Orlando, bigger than the City of Tampa, and bigger than the City of Miami. We are an unplatted unincor- -- sorry. We are a pre - platted, unincorporated area of Lee County. We have 130,000 lots in Lehigh Acres; about 80,000 are occupied. We have 23,000 septic tanks. We have 21,000 wells. We are served by State Road 82, by Daniels Parkway, and Gunnery Road, by Palm Beach Boulevard, and to some extent by Colonial Boulevard, which feeds into Lee Boulevard. Now, if you're not familiar with Lee County -- I mean with Lehigh Acres -- that is totally meaningless to you. Let me just tell you that the mine that comes up Monday morning in front of our county commission, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners, the Troyer mine, has been recommended for denial by our hearing examiner and is being forwarded to the County Commission with that recommendation. And one of the reasons that it's been denied or is being denied is because out of Troyer mine, which only has one exit out onto State Road 82, they project some 1,400 trucks per day to enter State Road 82. Now, I don't know how to describe that number in any other way than putting a two -lane road which was never designed for trucks, which is a failing road right now, into operation with 1,400 either 6 -, 8 -, or 18 -wheel trucks on a road that was just resurfaced by the State of Florida for most of its portion. The State of Florida was kind enough to give us a shoulder. I think it's, in most places, 30 inches wide, in some places 36 inches wide. And after that shoulder, the grassed area on either side of the shoulder falls off radically into drainage swales. I'm not sure where any of these trucks are going to pull over for service or for -- repair a flat tire or for engine repair or whatever, and still have traffic moving. The gentleman from David Plummer -- and I'll probably screw up his name -- Ron Tacone (sic) -- made mention of the fact that State Road 82 has probably in the vicinity of $92 million worth of improvements coming to it. One of the largest improvements right now goes from Interstate 75 to Lee Boulevard. And if you again, are not familiar with Lehigh Acres, it is absolutely nowhere near the Troyer mine and absolutely nowhere near the Lost Grove Mine. It is a road that has just been built or being completed to help Lehigh Acres residents leave Lehigh Acres and go work someplace else, because we don't have a lot of commercial property. He made mention of Daniels Parkway and he made mention of Colonial Boulevard as also being improved, and those also are for our pleasure of leaving Lehigh Acres to go work someplace else and spend our money someplace else. The money that is going to be spent from Lee Boulevard west -- I'm sorry -- east to State Road 29 by the Page 47 of 85 Y � 161 2 November 17, 2011 State of Florida in the millions of dollars is on the Lee County MPOs design list. It has never been -- it has never been funded. It has never been funded by the State of Florida. The best numbers that I can come up with are 2035. And looking at this commission, there's probably only two of you that are going to be herein 2035. Sol don't know what -- why are the two ladies looking around? I don't know. I don't understand how our benefit or a benefit to State Road 82 from this mine is going to be extended to us both in Collier County and in Lee County, by the four - laning and possibly six - laning of State Road 82 in 2035. Many hundreds of thousands of years ago I was an elected official on the East Coast, and 1 didn't do real well because I deal in common sense. As you well know, government and common sense don't go well together. Government says, if it's in the book, you can do it. Government says, if it's not in the book you can't do it. Government says, if it's in the book and we left something out, you have to figure out a way to do it. I have read a number of the suggestions for conditional approval. I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to understand some of these things. The applicant says he's going to start mining operation from six in the morning to six at night. Again, the gentleman from David Plummer said that the peak hour is ten in the morning. I want to know what -- the trucks that arrive at 5:30 in the morning and start loading their loads, I want to know what's going to happen to those trucks between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock in the morning. Are they just staying inside the mine? And then everybody's going to leave at 10 o'clock in the morning and impact State Road 82 all at the same time? It strikes me as -- that some of the things that we're addressing are things that are issues that staff, possibly on both sides, have taken on as a challenge to prove one is right and one is wrong. I'm not sure I understand the entire concept of -- and it's, I guess, on the proponent's side, of having the trucks -- 60 percent of their trucks travel west on State Road 82. I'm not sure where they're going. If they're going to Interstate 75 to do their traveling north on the interstate, why aren't they going to Corkscrew Road going out to 75 which is probably five miles away or seven miles away? Well, the answer probably is, because if you travel Corkscrew Road at the wrong time of day, you're going to get yourself killed, and if you have two trucks passing each other at the wrong time of day you're going to get yourself killed. So I guess the answer to the question is that they've got to come out on State Road 82 and travel west on State Road 82 through our brand -new 82 interchange into Interstate 75. The logic of some of these statements that have been made all through this are just a little troubling to me. And, again, I'm trying to deal in common sense rather than -- you know, I couldn't tell you a wood stork from a panther, so I'm not that kind of an expert. Here's another problem that I've had with the blasting component. Everybody is -- sorry. Their expert talked about a survey being done prior to blasting and a survey being done after blasting. Now, you're taking a picture of the outside of the house before, and you're taking a picture of the outside of the house after. Now, during blasting your china's going to fall off the table or your curio cabinet and fall on the floor. They're going to call the insurance company to come into your house to take a look at the china that's laying on the floor. Now, does the insurance company say, you know, your little three- year -old grandson reached up and pulled that china down, or the little puppy dog jumped up and down? I mean, how long is the argument going to go on about what happens inside your house rather than outside your house? I think outside your house is almost a pretty well- settled argument. I'm concerned about the -- the ramifications of what goes on inside your house. Blasting is an extremely touchy -- bad choice of word. It's an extremely delicate thing to operate. You heard Mr. Conti say that everything travels in layers and travels in 360 degrees. We have, on the north side of State Road 82, our residential area, which is still undeveloped, thankfully, that is going to be adjacent to this mine. The ramifications in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, whenever this area gets developed and they're still blasting, are substantial, and they're substantial for Lehigh Acres. I would appreciate, Commissioners and Mr. Chair, if you would forward this to the County Commission with a negative recommendation, and if I can answer any of your questions, I'd be delighted to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? I have one. You said in the beginning you represent various groups in the Lehigh Acres area? MR. WEINER: Yes, sir. Page 48 of 85 161 2 November 17, 2011 State of Florida in the millions of dollars is on the Lee County MPOs design list. It has never been -- it has never been funded. It has never been funded by the State of Florida. The best numbers that I can come up with are 2035. And looking at this commission, there's probably only two of you that are going to be herein 2035. Sol don't know what -- why are the two ladies looking around? I don't know. I don't understand how our benefit or a benefit to State Road 82 from this mine is going to be extended to us both in Collier County and in Lee County, by the four - laning and possibly six - laning of State Road 82 in 2035. Many hundreds of thousands of years ago I was an elected official on the East Coast, and 1 didn't do real well because I deal in common sense. As you well know, government and common sense don't go well together. Government says, if it's in the book, you can do it. Government says, if it's not in the book you can't do it. Government says, if it's in the book and we left something out, you have to figure out a way to do it. I have read a number of the suggestions for conditional approval. I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to understand some of these things. The applicant says he's going to start mining operation from six in the morning to six at night. Again, the gentleman from David Plummer said that the peak hour is ten in the morning. I want to know what -- the trucks that arrive at 5:30 in the morning and start loading their loads, I want to know what's going to happen to those trucks between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock in the morning. Are they just staying inside the mine? And then everybody's going to leave at 10 o'clock in the morning and impact State Road 82 all at the same time? It strikes me as -- that some of the things that we're addressing are things that are issues that staff, possibly on both sides, have taken on as a challenge to prove one is right and one is wrong. I'm not sure I understand the entire concept of -- and it's, I guess, on the proponent's side, of having the trucks -- 60 percent of their trucks travel west on State Road 82. I'm not sure where they're going. If they're going to Interstate 75 to do their traveling north on the interstate, why aren't they going to Corkscrew Road going out to 75 which is probably five miles away or seven miles away? Well, the answer probably is, because if you travel Corkscrew Road at the wrong time of day, you're going to get yourself killed, and if you have two trucks passing each other at the wrong time of day you're going to get yourself killed. So I guess the answer to the question is that they've got to come out on State Road 82 and travel west on State Road 82 through our brand -new 82 interchange into Interstate 75. The logic of some of these statements that have been made all through this are just a little troubling to me. And, again, I'm trying to deal in common sense rather than -- you know, I couldn't tell you a wood stork from a panther, so I'm not that kind of an expert. Here's another problem that I've had with the blasting component. Everybody is -- sorry. Their expert talked about a survey being done prior to blasting and a survey being done after blasting. Now, you're taking a picture of the outside of the house before, and you're taking a picture of the outside of the house after. Now, during blasting your china's going to fall off the table or your curio cabinet and fall on the floor. They're going to call the insurance company to come into your house to take a look at the china that's laying on the floor. Now, does the insurance company say, you know, your little three- year -old grandson reached up and pulled that china down, or the little puppy dog jumped up and down? I mean, how long is the argument going to go on about what happens inside your house rather than outside your house? I think outside your house is almost a pretty well- settled argument. I'm concerned about the -- the ramifications of what goes on inside your house. Blasting is an extremely touchy -- bad choice of word. It's an extremely delicate thing to operate. You heard Mr. Conti say that everything travels in layers and travels in 360 degrees. We have, on the north side of State Road 82, our residential area, which is still undeveloped, thankfully, that is going to be adjacent to this mine. The ramifications in 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, whenever this area gets developed and they're still blasting, are substantial, and they're substantial for Lehigh Acres. I would appreciate, Commissioners and Mr. Chair, if you would forward this to the County Commission with a negative recommendation, and if I can answer any of your questions, I'd be delighted to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? I have one. You said in the beginning you represent various groups in the Lehigh Acres area? MR. WEINER: Yes, sir. Page 48 of 85 16 V. A 7 November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your position here today was a position that was voted upon by those groups in a meeting more or less or -- MR. WEINER: By the Community Council, by the planning panel, and by the Economic Development Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they've all taken official positions on this? MR. WEINER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Patty Whitehead. MS. WHITEHEAD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Patty Whitehead. I live in Estero. I'm also a member of the Sierra Club - Caloosa Group in Estero, and I also should say that my family has been in the development and construction industry for a number of years; decades, actually. I was reviewing the testimony of the applicant from November 3rd and really taking the time to go over a lot of these facts that they're offering. You realize how -- you know, how the testimony's riddled with so many oversimplifications and, you know, dare I use this term "half truths," quite honestly. One of them being the slide that I'm presenting right now. You know, in their testimony they state that the confining layer varies in depth and it also varies in thickness. Obviously, that's not what is depicted here. This is, I guess, in an ideal world how you would have conditions, subsurface conditions when you are mining. Their testimony states that depth of confining layer is 45 to 145 feet below land surface. Confining unit is 40 feet to 75 feet in thickness. My question is, you know, there's all sorts of issues surrounding mine subsidence and water - quality impurity that aren't addressed by this applicant. Where are their expert witnesses? You know, there are issues in the state right now going on, and I know this as a contractor in the State of Florida because I do -- I do inspections. And one of the issues is sink -hole inspections. There has been a dramatic rise in sink holes throughout the state. This is a fact. Florida Senate issued a white paper on this. We're talking about exponential increases, and a geologist who is -- and I didn't bring his name with me, but I can certainly present -- put all this into evidence if you wish to accept it. In fact, you know, I hope there's an opportunity to present this further, in further detail, not to take up the time here at the podium. But a geologist who was recognized within the state, I believe he was hired by the state, said, these sink -hole occurrences are directly tied to the increase in development and construction throughout the state. I mean, we're drawing down the aquifer. That's what we're doing. We're sitting on a bed of carse. It's Swiss cheese, and we're collapsing it. That's one issue. The other issue is we have, you know, water - quality issues. We have to maintain a drinking source for the people that live here. That should be primary before adding more people to the area and more development. I mean, you know, I think it was Edmund Wilson -- he's an esteemed scientist. I think he had something to do with discovering DNA strand -- said that, you know, growth for growth itself is only what cancer does, not what municipalities do. But that's what I'm seeing going on here. I've been here since 2002, and it's just absurd, honestly. I mean, you know, you issue permits. You just open the floodgates for permits. And what do you do? You just -- you bring down all kinds of opportunists in this area. There is no growth control. It is completely out of control. The issue here with water quality is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure you use the mike, miss, so they -- they've got to get everything you say recorded, so -- MS. WHITEHEAD: I'm sorry. Sure, yes. The issue here with water quality is -- is that, you know --just look at this right here. You see this? This is the lake that they intend on creating. Okay. What is this here? This is sandstone. Our water is filtered through that sandstone to get to this aquifer. Page 49 of 85 f .� 161 A � r l 6 November 17, 2011 You eliminate this entire layer, you're contaminating this aquifer. That's valid. That's science. I mean, I'm not a scientist, but that's common sense. That's obvious. There are just so many unanswered issues here. This is -- the risks of you -- the county allowing this mine are huge. Now, I know you've debated with Lee County, but -- I understand the principle of the DR/GR. The principle of the DR/GR is to confine these mines to one area and say, you know, it's a necessary evil. We know it's a necessary evil. As I said, my family's in construction, the development business. We don't stay up at night worrying about the commodity price of sand or crushed stone or whatever, you know. I think we're all astute enough in this world, and none of us are so naive to think that commodity pricing anymore is driven by supply and demand. It's not. You know, there's -- please, I beg you, give careful consideration to what they plan on doing here. The ramifications are huge. And the environmental impacts and the impacts to the rural life in that area of Corkscrew Road, your county and Lee County, will be irreversible if you allow this to go through. It's a -- I really don't understand how this is allowed through a conditional use. A conditional use would seem to imply something that's temporary and that can be easily remediated. This is neither temporary -- because under current economic conditions, this mine could go on forever. You know, it's not like they're going to yank the stone -- the rock out and then close up shop and leave, and everything will be wonderful. That's not what's going to happen. Those are -- basically, that's the crux of my comments. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. You said you were a licensed contractor. What are you licensed in? MS. WHITEHEAD: I have a certified building contractor's license. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a -- certified building, so -- okay. Okay. That's all I -- anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MS. WHITEHEAD: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Jane McNew. MS. McNEW- MORAN: Good afternoon. My name is now Jane McNew -Moran as of this weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, congratulations. MS. McNEW- MORAN: Thank you. I come, having arrived in Florida in October of 2004. I never dreamed that my life would take this path, coming to meeting after meeting, whether it's in Lee and now Collier, but at the outset, because of I am here from Lee, I think we're joined at the hip. Rock does not know our borders and does not respect that. And we have a common environment, a precious heritage that's had a lot of insult. And to use a phrase that's sensitive, there is a tipping point, and I think we're all aware of it. And I only ask that in this regard that we find our common ground and work together in a collegial way, and I'm sure that that can happen. So I'd like to go on by saying that I am a retired nurse with a master's degree in epidemiology, and my focus was cancer in occupational medicine before I retired. I also have had, perhaps, a unique view of this problem that we have with mines, because I was born in Carthage, Missouri, 17 miles from Joplin, a mining town. When I was born, the mines had just finished up, and it was lead and zinc mining and -- on a limestone base, in a limestone base. And I grew up seeing chat piles, because the chat was the rock that they crushed, and they didn't care about it in those days. But we had pits, not lakes, everywhere, and we had -- it was a moonscape. It was a moonscape all around Joplin. And, interestingly, the people that made all the money from the mines moved over to my town where I was born. So we had the grand Victorian houses and lots of money. It was sad to see the agricultural land destroyed as it was. It was a moonscape, and it remained a moonscape for almost a hundred years. My next experience with that county was, perhaps, when I was working with the National Institutes of Health, and one of my colleagues, Dr. Joseph Fraumeni, had published his first collection of data on cancer rates by population in each county of the country. And in Jasper County, the lung- cancer rates were in the highest percentile, very high, which brings me to one of my principal concerns, which I hope you will consider, because you must consider for the next hundred years because that's just the way things will probably be. Page 50 of 85 16 12 A 7 ' November 17, 2011 What would be in the groundwater as a result of mining? You will have different explosives there. One of the gentlemen today mentioned that there's now -- I think Mr. Conti mentioned that there's liquid blasting materials, but there was dynamite, prills, nitro, all the usual stuff when I was a kid. And the limestone is labyrinthine, and the flow under the ground peres a long way going horizontally. And you leave all that blasting material in the water supply, and it will be there for heaven only knows how long. We have lots of multiple exposures. Our environment and our genes are the two principal sources of whether or not we will be well or ill, and it will be predictable in the future as our physicians learn more about our environment. So we have to take that leap of faith that we do the best for our children and our children's children. And then it comes to the next issue. Do we need the rock now? Do we have a way of organizing the use of our rock based against lots of the explosive growth and then where we are now with almost no growth? But the other issue associated with use of rock and having an available supply is that it's my understanding that the Port of Tampa has quadrupled its size, that they will be bringing in rock from out of the country. One place that's been said is the Yucatan Peninsula. So I leave you with all these thoughts to think about. My principal concern living in Lee County is that 80 percent of our water comes from the area in front of Lost Grove and in front of the Troyer and in front of so many other mines out there, because Lake O's sheet waterflow is in the southwesterly direction. And here comes the Lost Grove being higher up, closer to Lake O, and its impact, its spread will conceivably be larger, and we will share in polluted, damaged, contaminated water. Well, then, okay, so fine, there's more water. Just dig deeper. Well, do you -all hear the cash register ringing? I do. That means reverse osmosis, much more expensive water. So we have to think about these things and be conservative and careful in our actions. There will come a time when science can only go so far. Then you have to take the position of making a decision, which is essentially not having all the facts. You have to decide for our fate. And there are many more things I would like to discuss, but I think that I will close in saying that I do support everything the Estero Council of Community Leaders, of which I am a member, support, the Sierra Club, and I've been a member of the Caloosa Group, and all of the nature conservity (sic), all of their positions, I support those and I, please, hope and pray that you will reject this mine application. I also want to add one further thing. I put on a program in Collier County to discuss Lost Grove many months ago. I went around and talked to people living on the perimeters of Lost Grove Mine. You have one side, the northern side, which is pretty much silent. And I'm glad to see people here from Lehigh Acres. But I knocked on so many doors that day. Some were even in Hendry County. And I was stunned -- because I'm not that familiar with Florida yet -- and they all know about mining. I said, well, you're hearing blasting? How? Because I didn't know. And they said, oh, we hear blasting all the time, and we just hate it. And these people -- maybe their English is not so good, but they're hard workers, they own the land, they're trying to make their way in this world, and they are very disturbed by noise. And I went north and west and was then in Collier County, and in Lee County. And Lehigh Acres, there's very dense community up there. It's new. They're struggling. There are many foreclosures. There are many squatters. There are many residents there that are hanging on by their fingernails, and they hear the blasting all the time. And you get a unanimous knee-jerk reflex, oh, my God, not another mine. Not so close to us. So please consider those people who don't know how to come to testify in their own behalf. And I thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. McNEW- MORAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: John Ban. MR. BAN: Ray, could you put up a couple of pictures for us? Thank you for letting me come and speak in front of this commission today. I live on 3350 Whidden Loop Road. I guess you would consider it ground zero for blasting. Water. What is going to happen to my water? There's a lot of things that I'd like to say, but they were so eloquently (sic) testimony today. I just would like to add some personal things that happen tome on a daily basis. This morning I heard the first trucks run at four o'clock in the morning down Corkscrew Road. As far as the blasting goes, this is a project that's going to go on for years and years and years, so that this is Page 51 of 85 1612 A 7 -: November 17, 2011 the daily blasting or whatever -- the amount of blasting, I have no idea. I have no idea what the damage is going to be to my property. I know that the home I live in is an older home, and I know there's going to be damage to my septic. I'd like to read something that was given to me by staff in regards to my water well, and this is from the hydrologist for the Lost Grove Mine. And it goes like this: Mr. Ban's property is on a downgrading side of the mining lakes. So water levels in this well should not be negatively impact (sic), okay? If anything, he might expect a slight raise (sic) in water levels. And if his well is, in fact, a shallow well, essentially no impact if he taps the deeper sandstone aquifer, excuse me. So what that's telling me is, yes, I can have water if my well dries up, but at whose expense? At mine. You know, I -- there are so many questions that I have and so many more to be answered, and this is just one example of an early denial of responsibility if something does happen to my well. The -- as far as the water levels right now, I think they should be looked at to find -- and establish the current levels and then further down the road, if there is an impact, what is the impact, but we have nothing to start with here. I know it's going to cost me financially. I know that if there's damage to my home -- the gentleman talked about plants, glass jars falling off walls and whatnot. I know also that that's not covered by my insurance. There's no insurance for blasting. If any damage is done to my home, I can't make a claim. I have to go after the applicant. I'm not prepared financially to put these -- put my family in a hole by having to worry about putting in a well, septic, repairing my house on a constant basis, or chase Alico around the country to try to get some mitigation. It's going to probably be cheaper for me just to go ahead and bite the bullet and pull out my wallet. With that, I'd like to just say thank you for your time. And oh, by the way, historically Corkscrew Settlement is about a hundred years old this year, and today I was given some great information that we are now in the Guide of Historic Sites of Collier County, the brochure that's passed out to visitors, and we hope to keep the ambience of the property the way it is. As you can see there, it's a beautiful spot. My grandkids love it, and we want to give it to them someday. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question. You read a statement in the beginning. MR. BAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who -- where'd you get that statement from? MR. BAN: This is from a conversation that I had with Chris D'Arco, and he contacted the applicant. I expressed my concerns about my water well, and this was the answer he got from the applicant to Chris, and then Chris forwarded it on to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did Chris say who he spoke to at the applicant; do you know? MR. BAN: Yes, he did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me that? MR. BAN: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell who it was? MR. BAN: Who -- in the applicant? The hydrologist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the applicant's hydrologist? MR. BAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. BAN: Schlumberger, whatever, Water Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BAN: So this is in their words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney had a question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I wanted to see the second picture. MR. BAN: Oh, sorry, sorry. Well, as you can see, this is not a good picture. That's quite a lake, and I -- you know, and I'm only a thousand feet from Corkscrew Road. I was probably -- I was actually one of the first people notified about the mine. And that's just a scary thought of what's going to happen to the wildlife habitat, and I haven't even touched that. But it's a great place. Just, please, try to keep it that way. Thank you. Page 52 of 85 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 1 b 2 A �Ovember 17, 2011 Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Kevin Hill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do we need those pictures for the record? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, I'll take them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Hill, go ahead. MR. HELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, my name is Kevin Hill. I'm representing Corkscrew Road Rural Community, also a member of the Estero Council of Community Leaders. I was an invited member of the Lee County DR/GR Advisory Committee. Also gave an invited talk to the State of Florida DOT strategic aggregate's task force to provide viewpoints on mining as they relate to community planning. I'm also a resident. I live on Corkscrew Road in Lee County probably about three miles or so from this proposal. And so I have some background and experience with nearby mining. And I would like to share those with you. I also wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I heard about what's going on in Lee County with related -- with regard to mining and as it related to the DR/GR Comp Plan amendment that's currently just gone on -- undergone a challenge, and we're awaiting word on that. That was a grassroots effort from the very beginning and included all stakeholders that had, you know, a stake in the decisions on how the DR/GR would be planned out as it relates to the various land uses. You know, we had residents, rural residents, we had coastal urban residents, we had conservation group, and we had miners, and we had large landowners who were not yet miners but had an interest in being one. And that committee worked very closely together with the -- with the consultant that was tasked with putting together a comprehensive planning approach in the DR/GR for all these uses; conservation, mining, agriculture, and rural residential and coming up with, you know, a way that minimized the adverse impacts, minimized the conflicts, gave some certainty in the future for all those stakeholders, and we came up with a good plan. That was the basic premise. And the premise was in regards to mining, and it wasn't strictly about mining, but that was a key component in what was driving this -- was that it's an impactful use and had already been concentrated in Lee County with Harper Brothers mine, Florida Rock mine, No. 1, and others in the -- or the Yunquist Brothers mine, RMC, those were all concentrated in an area along Alico Road, and those impacts were already manifested. They're done. The water that used to flow from up towards Lehigh, up around the No. 4 Marsh would come -- would come down every summer and across Alico Road before it was paved, before there was a lot of mining out there. It would -- it would flow over the top of Alico Road every summer. It didn't matter if it was a dry summer or a wet summer, it always flowed across that road. And Alico -- or Lehigh Acres was already in place, 82 was already in place. They farmed, and the only thing that changed from those early years back in the'70s was that mining went in. Where that water used to flow across Cork- -- or Alico Road was called Stewart Strand, and that was surface flow. It was sheet flow. And it was deep every year. We'd stop and play in it when we were kids. They had whole crossings to get, you know, vehicles farther down the road. There isn't -- that water doesn't flow anymore. It doesn't -- it just doesn't -- there -- after we had all that rain a couple weeks ago, I went and looked, and there's no water going under there at all. The biggest change in that area has been mining. And so those -- that wetland -- that Steward Strand is forever compromised. You'll never put water back in that flowway. It's impossible to do. If you look at any rock pit, you won't see a rock pit that overflows like a natural lake does. There's no way of putting enough water in there to make it overflow. It just doesn't happen. And so that's -- you know, that was the premise behind the DR/GR Comp Plan was that this was impactful not only from a compatibility standpoint but also from an environmental standpoint, water standpoint. And so the idea for Lee County was to restrict, geographically, this use to an area that we know is proven in rock. We know the reserves are there. We know we've got permitted reserves to last at least until 2030 to satisfy 80 percent of the demand for a seven - county region, and restricting those and relax the restrictions there, relaxing the requirements that they've got to do for monitoring and so forth, because the damage is already done. You can't fix it, Page 53 of 85 �s CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 1 b 2 A �Ovember 17, 2011 Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Kevin Hill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, do we need those pictures for the record? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, I'll take them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Hill, go ahead. MR. HELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow commissioners, my name is Kevin Hill. I'm representing Corkscrew Road Rural Community, also a member of the Estero Council of Community Leaders. I was an invited member of the Lee County DR/GR Advisory Committee. Also gave an invited talk to the State of Florida DOT strategic aggregate's task force to provide viewpoints on mining as they relate to community planning. I'm also a resident. I live on Corkscrew Road in Lee County probably about three miles or so from this proposal. And so I have some background and experience with nearby mining. And I would like to share those with you. I also wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I heard about what's going on in Lee County with related -- with regard to mining and as it related to the DR/GR Comp Plan amendment that's currently just gone on -- undergone a challenge, and we're awaiting word on that. That was a grassroots effort from the very beginning and included all stakeholders that had, you know, a stake in the decisions on how the DR/GR would be planned out as it relates to the various land uses. You know, we had residents, rural residents, we had coastal urban residents, we had conservation group, and we had miners, and we had large landowners who were not yet miners but had an interest in being one. And that committee worked very closely together with the -- with the consultant that was tasked with putting together a comprehensive planning approach in the DR/GR for all these uses; conservation, mining, agriculture, and rural residential and coming up with, you know, a way that minimized the adverse impacts, minimized the conflicts, gave some certainty in the future for all those stakeholders, and we came up with a good plan. That was the basic premise. And the premise was in regards to mining, and it wasn't strictly about mining, but that was a key component in what was driving this -- was that it's an impactful use and had already been concentrated in Lee County with Harper Brothers mine, Florida Rock mine, No. 1, and others in the -- or the Yunquist Brothers mine, RMC, those were all concentrated in an area along Alico Road, and those impacts were already manifested. They're done. The water that used to flow from up towards Lehigh, up around the No. 4 Marsh would come -- would come down every summer and across Alico Road before it was paved, before there was a lot of mining out there. It would -- it would flow over the top of Alico Road every summer. It didn't matter if it was a dry summer or a wet summer, it always flowed across that road. And Alico -- or Lehigh Acres was already in place, 82 was already in place. They farmed, and the only thing that changed from those early years back in the'70s was that mining went in. Where that water used to flow across Cork- -- or Alico Road was called Stewart Strand, and that was surface flow. It was sheet flow. And it was deep every year. We'd stop and play in it when we were kids. They had whole crossings to get, you know, vehicles farther down the road. There isn't -- that water doesn't flow anymore. It doesn't -- it just doesn't -- there -- after we had all that rain a couple weeks ago, I went and looked, and there's no water going under there at all. The biggest change in that area has been mining. And so those -- that wetland -- that Steward Strand is forever compromised. You'll never put water back in that flowway. It's impossible to do. If you look at any rock pit, you won't see a rock pit that overflows like a natural lake does. There's no way of putting enough water in there to make it overflow. It just doesn't happen. And so that's -- you know, that was the premise behind the DR/GR Comp Plan was that this was impactful not only from a compatibility standpoint but also from an environmental standpoint, water standpoint. And so the idea for Lee County was to restrict, geographically, this use to an area that we know is proven in rock. We know the reserves are there. We know we've got permitted reserves to last at least until 2030 to satisfy 80 percent of the demand for a seven - county region, and restricting those and relax the restrictions there, relaxing the requirements that they've got to do for monitoring and so forth, because the damage is already done. You can't fix it, Page 53 of 85 } 161 ZA7 ember 17, 2011 you can't undo it. But it makes much more sense to do than to scatter these uses all over the county. And so, you know, that's the basis for this balanced and reasonable thoughtful approach that all the stakeholders had a hand in. And what we're seeing here now is that we've got a large landowner who actually owns land with reserves still left in Lee County, but they're hopping across county lines to get a new permit and to escape that thoughtful planning that went in place in Lee County. We haven't had an approval for a mine on Collier -- on Corkscrew Road since 2001, and we don't intend to have one whether it's in Collier or -- Lee or Collier. So that's the premise. Compatibility issues, I think, is what you need to consider in coming up with a recommendation to deny. A miner will tell you that that's not a compatible use with residential whether it's rural or urban. I live within a mile from what used to be the Westwind mine. It's been closed down for about a year and a half because of economic conditions, as you know. But that was a rock mine that's within a mile from my house. I heard it every day. I was impacted every day. My house has got cracks in it. They didn't have a program, unfortunately, where they had a pre- assessment and a post- assessment, but I never went to anybody because I can't prove that that's what did it but it wasn't there before the mine and it was after, and it was a 20- year -old house when they started mining. So I'm pretty sure that that's, you know, how it happened. But I've got cracks all the way around my foundation on a CBS block house. But that operation had operating conditions. There just wasn't a whole lot of enforcement of those conditions, you know, and it wasn't incumbent on the residents to be the policeman. So, you know, they had operating -hour conditions that they chose to ignore. They had -- they had setbacks that they ignored, and it was just the cost of doing business. They got fines, and they continued to operate. So you can understand why people aren't really necessarily going to put stock in what conditions that you might apply to this particular use because our -- you know, our experience has been that those haven't done us a lot of good. The conditions that Collier County imposed on the Jones Mine really haven't been tested yet. I mean, you might go to talk to some residents out there and say, you know, we applied some conditions to the Jones Mine and, you know, do you feel like your -- that the county protected you in that case? Well, I don't know when Jones Mine was approved or when they went into operation. If it was after 2007, then they haven't really experienced what that mine could mean to them from an impact standpoint. They haven't seen -- you know, all these traffic studies that you see that, you know, 10 percent's going to go to this way and 40 percent's going to go this way and all -- and we're going to serve the south -- or we're going to serve the northern market area and so forth, that doesn't -- it doesn't amount to anything. What matters is if they've got a job -- if they've got a -- you know, a buyer, wherever that buyer happens to be, they're going to get them as much rock as they can possibly supply in any given day. It's not averaged out over 35 years. It's the capacity of that mine to fill dump trucks and get them to the location they're going. And if it's south on -- you know, if it's south in Lee County, 100 percent of that truck traffic's going to go down Corkscrew Road, and they're going to be, you know, one behind another as fast as they can move them out that day. If they get a DOT contract for a major road and they need road base rock to -- you know, to build a new road, DOT's going to want that material at night. They don't want to have that on urban segments in the daytime. They're going to want that at night. So they're going to come back to you for an exception to the condition for operating hours so that they can satisfy DOT's requirements for delivering that material at night, and that's going to impact the residents. So I want to sum up and just quote a portion that I think that is -- a portion of Collier County code that I think is important in this case. And my position is that you can't adequately condition this proposal that would not adversely affect the public interest. And given that, I think that that's all you really need to recommend to the board a recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) Page 54 of 85 16 1 2A7 vember 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. HELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Pam Brown. MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Pam Brown. I live in Immokalee, Florida. My family is one of the pioneer families of Immokalee before Immokalee was Immokalee. My great grandfather had the first trading post out at Big Cypress Reservation, and the road he used was the Corkscrew bed road to travel to Fort Myers to trade. I am here to oppose the mine today. What I've been hearing is compatibility, conservation, care of nature and people. And what I'm hearing from everybody here, of all the people that have spoke, this is not compatible. The roads are not built to take the transportation -- the trucks that are going to be there. We have a casino in Immokalee. We have schoolkids that go on the roads every day in buses. People go backwards and forth to work. And I'm objecting to the mine completely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker, Peggy Apgar Schmidt. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Is this -- can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Okay. Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Peggy Apgar Schmidt. I lived on Corkscrew Road. My husband bought the property initially near -- across the street from Kevin, who just spoke to you, in 1982, and I joined him there in 1986. We left the property in 2005. We sold it, and we sold it mainly due to the fact that I was terrified of living there any longer with the trucks from the mining. So what I want to present to you today is what it's like from a personal point of view from -- I was a landowner then on Corkscrew Road across from the Westwind Mine, what that was actually like. You've heard research; you've heard people make projections; you've heard people talk about environmental. I want to talk to you today about reality, what actually happened. I also was in Lee County on the DR/GR Advisory Committee when we met about formulating the plan for the DR/GR. I want you, too, to keep in mind while I'm talking about the words Kevin used when he referred to the lands in the DR/GR which this committee recommended, and Lee County is accepting that we keep mining in that corridor, that part of Lee County, because the impacts are already there. That land is forever compromised. And as you make your decision, remember that whatever your decision is, if you decide in favor, you run the risk of forever compromising these lands. You don't put dirt back. So this is one person's experience. Let me see. How do I do slide show on this? I'll just take you through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Push the down arrow. There you go. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: I'll just take you through. This is-- see if I can tell you where I-- my home was. This is the Westwind mine, and it's how it currently looks today. I pulled these off. Originally, the Westwind mine mined this area, then they moved to this area, and they marched across this way, and then they came down and did the front. The pictures I'm showing you today are from 2003, so they were working around in here, blasting and digging around in this area at that point in time. The house that I lived in was right here. You can see there's a wetland. See the brown area there? We lived next to a fantastic, beautiful wetland. And then this is pine here. There was a little bit of a wetland here. But all of this was pine area that had some inundation of water maybe one, two, occasionally three months of the year. But after the mining you'll see the pictures of what happened. Also -- let's see. Oh, my house to the road is another piece of data that you'll want to have. That was 832 feet. My house to the blast site was over a mile, 5,628 feet. I wanted to just talk first about trucking. I was driving down Corkscrew Road. There were trucks behind me. I have hundreds of trucking pictures. I'm only going to bore you with a couple of them today. But I was driving down Corkscrew Road. I was being tailgated by three or four trucks, and -- as I always did, because it's so terrifying to have that many tons of rock on your back bumper -- that I pulled off on the side of the road. I always carried my camera Page 55 of 85 16 %7 �A� November 17, 2011 with me at that point in time. I clicked and caught the picture of this one car, this one last truck going by me. But all of these guys were right on my bumper. This is sitting in my car at my driveway looking at the entrance to the Westwind mine. And I want you to look at the spacing between the trucks going in and coming out. I believe when I took this picture there were maybe a thousand trucks a day. I would sit at the end of my driveway 10, 15, 20, 25 minutes some days before I would pull out. I want to tell you just a little bit about me. And I've traveled all over the world. I've hiked, climbed Kilimanjaro, I've hiked in Nepal. My husband and I took an overland trip all through Africa. We've been -- we used to talk about traveling between bombs. We've been in some scary places. I have driven all over the world. I'm one of the few women who had a driver's license in Saudi Arabia, actually, and drove. Talk about terrifying driving. But this, I was more terrified here to pull out onto that road with that spacing of trucks than I have ever been at any point in my entire life. I want you just to imagine that you're taking a child to the doctor or, as I had to do last week, take my father to the hospital. What would you do? Would you pull out in front of one of those trucks? Those are the choices, the reality choices that all of those numbers that people fly by you, this is what it really means is being terrified to drive. Also in 2003 there were a number of blasts there at the Corkscrew mine. This is -- we were refurbishing our house. And the reason I know that these cracks in the floor were attributable to the blast -- I'm going to show you several pictures of the cracks. Let's see. That's a little shiny. There, that one you can see these cracks here. They all point directly toward the mine, by the way. And the reason I know is because we were refurbishing at that point in time, and the vacuum cleaner that we were pulling around was one of those garage vacs with the black wheels. Well, the black wheels make spots on white tile. So if any of you have ever gotten down on your hands and knees and cleaned those black spots off of tile, that's what I was doing. And I did it one day, and there they were, back again. At that point I hadn't figured out what they were from. But the second day I did it, cleaning those black spots, that's when I noticed the tile. And the only thing that had happened between the day before and that day was the blasting at the mine. Okay. Let me just skip down here. This is the drinking water from my well after the blasting. Would you drink that? In 19891 took these pictures out of my dining -room window, this picture. This is, if you'll look at the trees, the exact same spot in 2003 after the 2001 permit to begin to dig. There are changes to the hydroperiod. There are changes to the invasive species. I'll go down to the next one. This is an overlay of the picture I took in '89 and the picture I took of the exact same area in 2003. It was filled with Brazilian pepper with all sort of invasive species. Okay. This is the front of my property, what was then my property, or almost to the front, next to Corkscrew Road. It's the pine forest that's there. Normally what happened, in all the years that we drove by this part of our property, that it would be -- have water, maybe some standing water one month, two months, at the most three months. Six, seven months of standing water. So much that the pine trees could no longer stand it, and they just began to die. Let's see. More invasive species. Here's the subsidence that happens. I think the easiest way, after I talked to -- we hired groundwater modelers, we hired all sorts of people to try and protect our property then, to try and figure out what was going on and why it was going on. As a matter of fact, we subsequently sold the property because we spent so much money on experts trying to help us understand and figure out some way to deal with this. This is subsidence on the property. And the easiest way to understand the subsidence, how I now understand it is, if you go to the beach and you dig a hole in the sand, then that hole in the sand fills with water. But if you look -- go do this. If you look at the sand around the hole, the water comes out of there and goes into the hole, so the water drops. So when the water drops, the land subsides and it compacts, and then you have standing water where you didn't have standing water before. Let's see. This is the result. Too much water. Pine trees have tap roots; most of you probably know that. And so they just begin to die. So the land that we loved was changing before our eyes, all the way back to our house, Page 56 of 85 1612. A 7 of ' • November 17, 2011 from the front of the road, all the way back to the house. And I'm a mile away, right, from the blasting and stuff that's going on. This, the same kind of thing happened, the hydroperiod changed. If you look at Lee County's records, this is not a mine. This is where a wellfield was. And they overdrew the wellfield for a short period of time. They corrected their mistake, but once you do it, it changes the hydroperiod, and all of that -- these are all the pine trees. They're all dying. This is all in Lee County records. I wanted to also talk about the light pollution. One of the most wonderful things to do on a rural piece of property is to see the stars. I mean, the animals are wonderful, the birds are wonderful, but to look out at night and see the stars -- do you see the stars? How often? Where do you have to go to see the stars? It's just absolutely wonderful. But if you have light pollution, you will no longer see those stars. I drove around -- this is 2003, again, and this is the Rinker mine, which was then active. And that's a mile away. This is half a mile away right here. And I wanted to show you the distance. I drove right in here, and this is a picture today, so the structures are no longer there. And then this is right here, a half a mile in where they had the structures with all the lights that you just saw. So -- let me see. What I'm saying to you, too, is that you can't -- I don't know how it's possible to -- to condition a mine not to have the impacts that I experienced on that property. If you have 1,400 trucks, if you have 1,000 trucks, people are -- it's going to be very difficult for people to maintain their daily kind of life, for people to get to school, to get to work, to get to the hospital, to get to a doctor. And also truckers, as you know, are paid by the load. They're not paid by a salary so that they can get there whenever they want to get there. So the residents are trying to get to work or wherever it is they're trying to go, and the truckers are trying to go as fast as they possibly can. They're competing goals. Any of you who have ever run a business, you know that once you have competing goals, that you have chaos. You can't have two separate goals that collide, and that's what you have in the road situation. So you have the goals of the residents and the goals of the truckers. Air quality, one of those I should have pointed out there, you could see the stuff coming out the top of the truck, so air quality is always a question, the change in hydroperiod, the subsidence, the water quality in itself, the damage to the residences, the invasive species, the light pollution. All of this cannot be conditioned. How can you stop the mine from doing any of that? Just by its very nature, as a heavy industrial use, those are the things that the mine has to do in order to produce its product. It is incompatible with the quiet, peaceful enjoyment of one's own property. And remember, there are too many unanswered questions, and you can't put the soil back. So I ask you please to consider the reality of the situation, and at this time do not approve this permit or recommend its approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission? I have a couple. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to clear up one of your statements. In the beginning you said that we recommended the DR/GR. We are not Lee County. We are Collier County. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: No, not "we," meaning DR -- the advisory committee, the DR/GR Advisory Committee. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Thank you for clarifying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not familiar with the DR/GR that well, so -- we had nothing to do with it. It's a separate county. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said that the wellfield was overdrawn, one of the pictures. I'm assuming the hydrologist from Lee County, if he's still here, I want to ask him how that happened, but he's not. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: Yeah, and he may not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we'll find out from someone. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: It's historical, and he'd have to dig through the records. But I can look them up and mail them to you, if you want me to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just like to know how things like that happen. I was just curious, because Page 57 of 85 .4 A7 .: 161 November 17, 2011 if it happens because of water removal and a mine is connected with any kind of water removal, I want to see if there's any correlation there. MS. APGAR SCHMIDT: And I think there is, which is why I showed you the slide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. Okay. We're about to take a break, but I want to ask before we leave on break, is -- anybody in the public who has not spoken want to speak when we get back? It doesn't matter if you're registered or not; you can still speaker. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then when we get back, we'll go back into discussions with the applicant and county staff with our list of things that we haven't probably asked yet, or at least my list. We'll take a break until 2:45. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, if you'll please take your seats, we're going to resume the meeting. I'd like to go over some procedural issues for this afternoon. I don't see us finishing with this today, so we'll end up having to continue again. We have to -- we try to be out of here by five minutes to five. That's for some electronic need that is with all the TVs and cameras and stuff, so we try to leave a little early so they can clean up their electronics afterwards. So with that in mind, what I've decided to do is we're going to go into the questions and answers from the various applicant, their experts, county staff, or anybody else that this board may have questions of. My intention is to walk through many sheets of considerations that were provided through our package by the planning -- by the county staff. Some of those include the position summary by Lee County and others include things like the Jones Mine issues. When that gets done, I'm going to afford the opportunity to the applicant to do a rebuttal. The rebuttal that the applicant wants to do may include some new experts in that rebuttal process. Because of that -- and remember I told Mr. Starnes he could present his legal paper prior to rebuttal, but with the new -- with the idea of putting in new testimony, I'm going to defer to after rebuttal, Mr. Starnes can go forward, and then the applicant will be afforded closing comments. So that will be the scenario at work for the rest of this particular hearing, although, to be honest with you, I doubt if we'll get all that there today. So that -- and in that case, at around 4:30 or so we'll decide logistically how we're going to move forward and take it from there. Now, with that, I'd first like to ask Mr. Anderson or the applicant's team if they have anything they want to start out with, any new information or any experts they want to put on at this time that we didn't finish with, or we'll just start randomly asking our questions and walking through our points. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. You know, it's kind of narrowing down to some different issues. Do you think we could maybe just go issue by issue, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to --yeah. I've got-- let's see. There's 8 pages here, there's 10 pages here, there's 2 pages, and I've got a whole book of another 6 pages. So there's 20 or 30 pages of issue by issue. Yeah, we're going to go through them all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can they be grouped, you know. For example, traffic is an issue, sound is an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm hoping that answering one may answer it for some of the others, but I didn't spend the time of retyping all those 30 pages. I just kind of collected them and said, okay, every one of these issues needs to be addressed, we need to understand where the applicant's position is on it, then we need to decide by the end if those positions are compatible in our words or our understanding of the -- our codes and laws. So does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, it's kind of the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have a priority you'd like to start with, Brad, go right ahead, because once -- you know me, once I get into things, I've got a lot here, so you guys should all go first. Page 58 of 85 16 �,2 A? November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I think, you know, it did break down to some things -- and, again, somebody mentioned, how would you put conditions on this mine? I mean, for example, sound to me is going to be one. Does -- the applicant can describe what kind of expectations -- you can't hear, Kay -- what kind of expectations, what kind of sound, what kind of decibel rating's going to be over the property line on this? So I don't recall any really acoustical information other than the fact that they have to meet the sound ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if any member of the applicant's team is knowledgeable in acoustics or sound, noise from a mine. If you are, you might want to address that question. At the same time, if you are familiar with the noise ordinance in Collier County and the one in Lee County, we sure would like to know how they come into play in regards to this, not that Lee County's noise ordinance is ours to enforce, but on the Lee County side of the line, for those residences over there, I'd like to know how their ordinance stands against ours so they know what they're up against. Okay, sir. Want to identify yourself for the record. MR. STRAW: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Jeffrey Straw. I'm vice president and area manager for Geosonics. We are vibration and acoustic consultants. I am a seismologist. I've got 33 years worth of blasting vibration measurement, evaluation on structures. We also have noise measurements, evaluations. And I also hold a current State of Florida user -of- explosives license. As noise was the first question, I'm sure there's a whole series that I'll end up answering, you know, later this afternoon. But the items that we can at least address that I have on noise at the moment are, first of all, the standards. Collier County has a measurement at the property line of the receiving land use. So this would be anything that is generated within the mine would have to meet a specific code at the adjacent land use. And you have residential, commercial; I think you do have industrial. I focus primarily on residential. And you have two time periods. You have what is considered daytime, from 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. You have an allowable level of 60 decibels measured in the A- weighted category. And at night, what is considered nighttime would be 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and that level drops to 55. Now, the noise - producing things that are addressed under that ordinance would be any of the on -site activities, the main processing plant towards the center of the operation. I know that it was addressed at the last meeting. There was discussion of the dragline excavates materials, it piles it up, and there was talk of an on -site smaller crusher to reduce the size of that before it was taken to the plant. Now, I do have some measurements. We've made measurements of those types of machines. I have one at 879 feet. We have 53 and a half decibels, was one. Now, that's unshielded in the open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put the site plan of the mine of the mine on the overhead while he's speaking so we can get an idea of the area that he's -- you could even actually point it out to us. You're talking about the operation that's going to go in the center of the mine; is that correct? MR. STRAW: No, there's two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. STRAW: There were two things that we talked about. Yeah, that will work. There are two items that were addressed in the applicant's original procedure. In this mine operation center, there would be crushing, you know, equipment here. There would be either conveyer belt or vehicles that may bring material here depending on where the initial mining starts. As Dennis Rosa explained, it's drilled, it's blasted, it's excavated with a dragline, and material is stacked in what we call a wind row. The material is just piled on top of each other. It allows the water that's in the material to drain back immediately into the mine lake. And typically at the end of that wind row, if you're digging -- and I'm just going to pick this line right through here. If you're digging from east to west, you're stacking up material. On the other side of that there's a -- typically a front -end loader. That loader puts it into what's considered a portable crusher. That reduces the size of that material, and then that's taken to the processing site for further crushing and grading. So that's a noise source for one operation. That's the one we have the noise at 800 feet from it in the open is about 53- and -a -half decibels. I don't have anything currently on our previous measurements of operations for here, but we'll certainly dig into our records of what we have from other operations so that we know what those levels are. But your code would require that whatever the adjacent receiving land use -- and since, you know, we're Page 59 of 85 16 A7 November 17, 2011 typically talking about residents, you'd be measuring that noise at the -- at their property line. That's what the code calls for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So from what you just said, though, we could have a problem on the western property line -- that's a 300 -foot buffer -- if you're 800 feet away and you're barely making it into the decibel rating. MR. STRAW: Well, if you're 800 feet -- if you're 800 feet away, what I'm also saying is that it's an open area. It would be like having the crusher right here in the middle of this with no buffer around it. What you have on the other end of that is that there is that pile. So if you're stacking up this wind row of material from the dragline that's digging and moving towards the west, the loader and the crusher are on the east end of that with that pile of material in front of it, so it would be reflecting that noise back to the east. So those levels to the west on the residents' side are much less. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. STRAW: Now, I don't -- we just take it as an activity that's in the open. With the county code as it is, it doesn't make any difference where it is. It's a performance ordinance. So if they are in excess, and -- there is -- and I don't have the whole ordinance in front of me. There is a procedure for someone to call, you know, and register a complaint about that -- then that noise level has to stop. They either -- and typically that's a crusher. They're not going to run at night. They're going to run from 7 a.m., 8 a.m. for that through whatever the operation hours are. I think we've said five or six o'clock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, it's -- the whole plant shuts down at six. Nothing -- MR. STRAW: And that's my -- that's part of my point, but the smaller crusher does too, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. STRAW: -- you're then dealing, instead of 53 and a half, your limit is 60. So you have a significant -- you know, decibels are logarithmic, so there's quite a bit of room there in terms of noise. But even if it would get to the point where there's a concern, the county has the ability to look at that noise. If they're close, then the mining operation, even during daytime hours -- if they approach the 60, they'd have to back off and move that further away or shield it in some manner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the dragline, what kind of noise is that going to make? MR. STRAW: Dragline's electric, so -- there's no diesel -- there's no diesel- engine noise for the larger dragline. The only thing you hear is it dump material on the pile. Even for the initial part of the operation, if it's a diesel dragline, there are mufflers and shields that are used on those, so the -- and the noise ordinance then does apply. Those are much quieter, even -- I mean, we've done noise measurements for a lot of the mines out here over the years, and as I recall, even when we were doing stuff at the Harbor' Brothers mine back when it was Harbor Brothers mine, those were in the low -- low 40s to mid 40 decibel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the conveyer systems? MR. STRAW: If there's a conveyer system, again, it's relatively low -level noise. You still have to meet the guidelines of that. It all -- it does depend on proximity. I don't have all of the data on conveyers off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And how about the backup beepers; is there a required decibel rating for those? MR. STRAW: No. Those are mandated by MSHA, and so those are an issue that a mining operator or -- we can't do anything about those, unfortunately. And the only option there is is that after what would be considered dark, MSHA will allow a strobe to be used and most of them that -- are installed. So if it would start earlier in the morning, whatever the startup hours are and it's considered dark, they can use a strobe as opposed to a backup alarm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have any data as to how far away -- I mean, is there a required decibel rating at the truck or something that you could say what's a good distance where that drops out of becoming an annoying sound? MR. STRAW: Not that I'm aware of, because it's -- you know, the standard is the test. I have not done backup alarms, because they're something we can't control. OSHA -- OSHA for construction projects and things like that, Occupational Safety Health Administration, MSHA, Mine Safety Health Administration, they control those, how they're manufactured. There are specifics for those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they -- we can't control the noise, but we could control where it's Page 60 of 85 R 40Aer 17, 2011 located. MR. STRAW: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So could we get some data as to where those trucks could have to stay clear of? MR. STRAW: I can see what we have in our files or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. STRAW: -- you know, ask our clients. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. This may be more to county staff, but it's relating to noise. Is the applicant allowed to do anything as long as it's under 60 decibels during the day at the edge of the property line? As long as they don't violate the noise ordinance -- my point is, any loud noise next to a nature preserve, it doesn't have to be 60 decibels before it would make -- to me, it's incompatible. But the guidelines that we're going under, do we have to say, as long as they're under 60 decibels, it doesn't matter that they're next to a nature preserve, it's okay, it's permissible? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. The noise ordinance doesn't have any specific provisions about impacting a preserve area or wildlife, so there's -- as long as it's -- code enforcement or somebody's called in to monitor the sound, as long as it doesn't exceed those noise levels -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I know it's not illegal, but in terms of, like, the job of this commission, which is to decide compatibility or incompatibility, do we have to say, well, it's only 59 decibels, therefore, it's compatible, or can we say, based upon the prior use neighboring, we decide that even if it's less than the noise ordinance, we don't think it's compatible. Do we have that ability? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, you have that ability. It's a -- compatibility is somewhat subjective to a certain extent, but truly there are code requirements and you should be making your decisions based on code requirements, but there are those subjective criteria that you can apply, and the Planning Commission has typically applied in the past, when it comes to compatibility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because, frankly, I don't think that they're going to be breaking the noise ordinance, but yet I still have serious doubts as to whether they'll be compatible with the neighbors and with the nature preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has -- the decibel levels that you were talking about, were you considering those at the commercial level or the residential level? MR. STRAW: Those are all residential -- the limits that I addressed, the 60 and 55 -- and I think, Commissioner, you had asked about Lee County's. Lee County's are 66 and 55 in their current ordinance, and those are measured for residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from this gentleman? I have a question of the County Attorney's Office. If a Lee County resident -- and I guess it's called Wild Cat Farms or whatever -- had a complaint about noise and they called it in, would they call it into their Code Enforcement Board or our Code Enforcement Board? And if they called into ours, would ours just tell them, you're a Lee County resident; call your Code Enforcement Board? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It should be the county's Code Enforcement Board that would be looking into whether or not the noise violation occurs. Now, whether or not they call Lee and Lee calls Collier or how that gets to Collier County -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just would want to make sure that if something were to occur out there and the residents call to file a complaint, they just didn't get told, well, you're in Lee County; don't call us, call yours. And I hate to see that go round and round in circles and nobody able to get anywhere. So you're saying that our Code Enforcement Board would have jurisdiction to enforce code complaints in Lee County from this mine? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It would probably require coordination from both, because I think the county would look at the noise that's on the county line, I would think. If you have anything to add, Ray, I don't know. But they'd probably be looking at it at the county line. I'm not really sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we have another issue then, because say someone who has a -- say the Page 61 of 85 A 7 16 IN4ber 17 2011 1;, Ji seismographs are put on someone's property, as they may be, that's outside our county. If one isn't put there or isn't monitored correctly, who do they complain to? Say it's not noise, say it's another issue but it's still emanating from this mine's operation, how are the complaints handled? Do we have any idea? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I can't tell you how it's currently handled. I can tell you the way it should be handled, which is the county would go out and look at the -- to determine if there's a violation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless of jurisdiction? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'll let Steve Williams address that. MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams, assistant Collier County attorney and also the attorney for the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. Again, the property is in Collier County. The enforcement thereof would have to take place in Collier County. Now, whether some readings or other things would have to be done outside of Lee County, such as whether it's with the noise meter, seismograph or other place, it wouldn't matter where they would have to be done. But the enforcement would be here, and the enforcement would be with the Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any violations that -- if this were to be approved under various stipulations, any violations of those stipulations that occur in the Lee County side of the property line and called in by Lee County residents would be responded to by our Code Enforcement Board for actions of this mine? MR. WILLIAMS: The violation for it to occur in Lee County would have to have property located in Lee County, and this is all located in Collier County. Now, they may hear the noise in Lee County, but the violation occurred in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: We would keep it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the complaint would be from Lee County. We would respond to a Lee County complaint on a violation from a CU in Collier County? MR. WILLIAMS: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right? MR. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't get me. I just want to make sure you're telling us you're -- okay. MR. WILLIAMS: No. It would -- this mine and all code enforcement actions stemming therefrom would be in Collier County. That's as clear as I can attempt to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. You said something about the wind row being on the west side, therefore, it would provide a buffer to the portable crusher. So you're saying that all the wind rows will always be constructed on the west side? MR. STRAW: No, I just used -- I've used that as an example. The issue is in dealing with mining operations. And the initial -- I think the initial presentation was that work would start in the northern end and progress from the east towards the west. As that occurs, the dragline is always in front putting that material back, because you're working from this direction towards this direction. And so there is -- there is a pile of material established, and from the other side of that is where the load -out is completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you --the way you just articulated that, you're pointing to the dragline starting in the east and moving to the west and it putting its material behind it. Well, that's where -- the area they just dug. MR. STRAW: It's putting it on the shore immediately adjacent so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be to the south of the dig? MR. STRAW: It digs from the front, yes. In that example, they would dig, hoist, swing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the south. MR. STRAW: -- to the east, pile it on the south side of the area that they've just -- they're excavating, and then on the far end of that is typically where material is taken and moved back towards the central processing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the idea of a wind row buffering any noise from a portable crusher, under that scenario, doesn't really work from the west side. MR. STRAW: It works for people to the west because that wind row -- the end of the wind row on the east is where that portable crusher is, so that anyone to the west has that big buffer and that big reflective surface which will then reflect noise back to the east. If that wind row is turned or that mining operation turns a different direction, then Page 62 of 85 1612 A 7 November 17, 2011 noise is something that, you know, we will have to address and have to pay attention to and, certainly, one, it goes back to the code, but looking at a lot of the things that this board has talked about and that the applicant's talked about in best - management practices, we certainly don't want, you know, the neighbors to have to deal with noise the entire time. We're going to certainly buffer that as best possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your determination or your statements of best possible are one thing, but you're not the guy that's going to be on that mine operating it, and in all likelihood it may be someone else who actually leases the ability to dig that mine. And so the language has to be placed, if it were to go, in such a manner that all that stuff s covered. MR. STRAW: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the end I'm going to need language to cover the proximity where that crusher would go -- MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and how the wind rows would -- well, I guess it isn't a matter of the wind rows. It's how close to the property line will the crusher get -- MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and what kind of buffers are going to be relied upon around that crusher at all times, whether they be portable or whether they be wind rows. And that brings me into another immediate question. Do you have any idea how close that crusher will have to get to the property line? MR. STRAW: That one I can't tell you. That one I don't know at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any idea the farthest it could stay away and still be functional? MR. STRAW: Well, 879 feet, from the measurement that I've got here, we're well within compliance with the Collier County code. I mean, as using that as a baseline, at least 800 foot. It may be able to come closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question, yeah. The way you're describing -- you know, I have this illusion, and the guy who thought I was a woman agreed with me. So that might not be a positive. MR. STRAW: I won't make that mistake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that might not be powerful evidence. Wouldn't it be better to start, like, on the north/south on the Lee County line? Because here's -- the illusion I have is that if we can break the ground away from the people, the concept of vibration getting to them would become lesser and lesser and lesser every day. MR. STRAW: That takes us into the question and the issue of blasting. And the -- there's a couple of aspects there, and I know one question was asked last week. The first is that by starting blasting in the eastern end of that initial cut, as I've kind of indicated over the past couple of times, you have the ability to blast while you're farther away. Also, in the key cut you don't have material that is broken, so the first few blasts that are done at that site typically have higher vibration levels. We want to do those further away. The spacing is closer together to allow the dragline to dig. Once that dragline gets to depth in that area, whatever that is -- and that's the more shallow section of the lake area. As that gets done, then you have open space for the blast itself. As those individual rows break the rock, they relieve and direct energy back -- you know, into the lake that's excavated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. STRAW: The problem with starting on the west side is you're doing all that testing, all of that initial key cut at the closest point to the adjacent neighbors, which would not be my recommendation. It may be at some point that there is opportunity to do that, but the initial key cut would be done further to maintain one lower level initially. Now, that brings up the question is -- does the lake create a buffer? It does create a buffer once it started to be opened up. In other words, if you get a two or three hundred foot wide excavation through there, yes, that does create a buffer. It will reduce ground vibration. But having a -- having an initial excavation that's 60, 70, 80 feet wide is not going to be sufficient as a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you start like you want and then head to the western part of the Page 63 of 85 A 7 161 2 17, 2011 property line, like you originally are, and then from there turn south and -- because I know what you're saying. You've really got to be kind of nasty to get it going, and you -- to get the depth you want. But once you get that depth, can you turn the lake south and create that buffer then? MR. STRAW: I'd have to throw that one to Mr. Rosa, because Mr. Rosa is the one that has laid out the mining plan. I don't know -- I don't necessarily have an issue with it, but that's a question better asked of Dennis. MR. ROSA: The answer's yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could do that? MR. ROSA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the intent -- here's the other thing, I think, that works for that is, I think the lake will become a great buffer for ground vibration, and then also you'll be working away from the people. It's not like you start off in a distance and are marching towards them. It's -- you're going to actually be marching away from them. MR. ROSA: I agree with that. I think we have to start like Jeff has just told you, though, to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then turn. MR. ROSA: And then make a turn, and then we have to reorient the crusher, to answer the chairman's question, which is we would have to then back it in behind that pile and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. ROSA: Instead of being on the end of the pile, we'd be on the face of the pile. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could also be on the other side of the pile, couldn't you? I mean, essentially -- MR. ROSA: That's what I mean. We'd be on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that would even be better yet. MR. ROSA: We'd be on the east side of the pile, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which is -- the pile is actually buffering the crusher from the neighbors a little bit. MR. ROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is even better. Good. MR. ROSA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm -- I think I'm done. If we do put in the littoral zones, you've heard some concerns about coming about 50 feet with a slight slope on some of these edges. The western edge would probably be residential property lots in the way future, so that littoral zone would be best on that edge. Wouldn't that also help diminish the activity along the neighbors there? I mean, that would be an additional distance back from the heavy depth and everything, the heavy blasting? MR. ROSA: Yeah. I would envision the littoral shelves being back in that 300 -foot buffer, from the edge of the lake back to the west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I guess we'll negotiate that, but -- MR. ROSA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROSA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question on the crusher, the portable crusher. I'm assuming they're thought to be diesel? MR. ROSA: Yes, they will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they make them electric? MR. ROSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since your dragline is electric, what would be the downside of using an electric crusher? MR. ROSA: Just another cord. Yeah, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's another cord or a fuel truck, one or the other. MR. ROSA: Yeah, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wanted to understand that. Thank you. Anybody else have any? Page 64 of 85 x r�z s 161.2 Ai November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, don't bring a generator out there. I mean, another cord, you know -- MR. ROSA: That would be the wrong thing, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, as long as we have the general in charge of blasting up there, I have a few. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUG1AM: No, no. Mr. Rosa, you're mining operations, I think, right? You're the man I want -- MR. ROSA: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- because you answered the questions the last time. I think you told me that -- or told us that on average you would be blasting twice a week, on average? MR. ROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is there any way to tell us about what the peak would be? Would it be one a day, perhaps, or do you see going to that extent? MR. ROSA: No. I think we would do it twice a week. We'd pick two days and try to stick with those two days as much as we could so it was predictable to the residents. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So that's a little bit different than an average. I mean, that's a frequency. MR. ROSA: Yeah. The only thing we don't know is that -- we can't blast in bad weather. I mean, if there's a lightning storm, you don't want to be fooling around with explosives, so you may have to delay that to another day. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But if I understand you correctly, you're saying your intent would be to blast no more than twice a week. MR. ROSA: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. Do you contemplate, or is it standard practice, to provide any kind of notice to property owners as to when you're going to blast? MR. ROSA: There is -- several of the mines do that. They have a website. And I think one of the mines even snakes telephone calls to the -- to a designated person and notifies them. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If this mine were approved, would that be your practice, one or the other or both? MR. ROSA: We can make it that practice, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know you could. Would you? MR. ROSA: We'll make it a condition. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. We discussed briefly the last time as far as damage reporting. MR. ROSA: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And you would put out a preblast -- you would do a preblast survey -- MR. ROSA: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and a post -blast survey, and if there were damage that was noticed by a property owner after you gave preblast -- or did your preblast survey and there was damage and an owner determined it was caused by a blast, there's a process that would be defined in which they could report it to you? MR. ROSA: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I'm going back to the question earlier that Mr. Strain asked in another context, but most likely the property owner that could have damage from a blast would be in Lee County. MR. ROSA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In all probability? MR. ROSA: More than likely, yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So then going to your question, Mark, it also enters into my mind, how -- how do both counties coordinate with this mine operator as far as what the process is, who has jurisdiction, who comes to inspect. MR. ROSA: First of all, the state fire marshal has jurisdiction, so it's not a county function, so we would -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. ROSA: We'd report the damage to the state fire marshal, and he would come back and investigate it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So a homeowner -- Page 65 of 85 161► November 17, 2011 MR. ROSA: Excuse me. And we would have our blasting fellow here, Jeff, come down and do a post -blast survey. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So a property owner would -- the process would be to contact the state fire marshal? MR. ROSA: He would contact us, and we would contact the state fire marshal and provide him with a copy of our notice to the state fire marshal. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So the counties are really out of it then. There's no jurisdictional MR. ROSA: Well, if it's -- a Collier County rule may be that we have to notify Collier County also, and Jeff would probably know better than me. But I think the county has to be notified also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Condition to a conditional use, we can stipulate about anything we deem necessary. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That the county would have to be involved in that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then that becomes part of the process that the applicant either agrees to or doesn't, and if -- depending on their outcome of that response, that's how we decide what we want to do, so -- MR. ROSA: I think Collier County almost has to have notification so that you can see that we're complying with the conditions of the permit. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just a follow -up on your statement of blasting twice a week. On whatever days those happen to be, is that blasting pretty much all day as much as you can get in in that day, or does it vary? MR. ROSA: No. It would be a specific area that would be blasted depending on the production level and the sales volume of the mine. So if we had to blast an acre, let's say, we would try to divide it up where it was all -- it all happened on two days, probably. And what we're trying to do is get a volume of material that parallels the amount of material being sold, and so it would depend on the total amount that needed to be blasted to keep up with production. If we were low on sales volume, the number would be low. We wouldn't be blasting as much, but it would be no more than two times a week. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So even if sales volume increased drastically, it's still twice a week? MR. ROSA: Still twice a week. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on. Let me -- MR. ROSA: Was that your question, how much will we blast in a given day? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. MR. ROSA: Oh, okay. Again, that's -- it goes back to volume again, but it could be two or three times. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Oh, yeah, I understood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a curious question. How fast is a rock -- once you pull it out of the ground, how quick would it be on a truck? It has to dry, it has to crush. MR. ROSA: It has to dry out before you can even crush it, so it's probably going to be there 30 days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, did you have something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, in the blasting, you said two days a week. But it's not just two times a week, just two separate blasts. It's several in the two days? MR. ROSA: It could be. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It could be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It makes a difference. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else of these two gentlemen? They're going to be bouncing up here, I think, a bit off and on, because we're going to have random questions. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You might stand in front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may ask you to come back up, so -- MR. ROSA: Stand out in front here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 66 of 85 161 2 ovem7ber 17, 2011 I have -- do you have any other questions you want to get into, Brad? I mean, I've got a lot of questions, but I don't know what your priorities are, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think, you know -- I mean, that definitely covers, you know, the sound travel and maybe even the progression of mining. The other question I really have is the traffic, is the ability to bring trucks out on the highways. I'm sure that's something you would get to, but is -- can we discuss it now, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. John, can you come up then. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Before you get into yours, I do have two or three others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. We're going to keep going until we -- mine are more of point -by -point issues that I want to get answers to so that we can make a decision based on factual summary answers basically, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. John -- and it's going to have to go to both roads, but I can easily see on 82 on the south side how you can build a decel lane and how you could build an accel lane -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- accelerate later. How do you do it on the westbound lane on 82? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: On the -- I'm sorry. The westbound lane on 82. You're asking how we would construct a turn lane? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. What would the design of lanes be such that trucks can get out of there and get up to speed before they get into 82 traffic? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: You're asking about an acceleration lane or a deceleration lane? One to speed up or one to slow down? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think the decel, we all know, you just build a lane or move the other lane out and you let people get in it. The accel lane, I mean, what would be the best example of that, something like Veterans Park has or -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Honestly, I don't really have a good answer for that one. Index 304 from FDOT gives us definitions for turn-lane deceleration lane lengths. It doesn't really give us much for acceleration lanes. That's going to -- going to sort of be based on the individual engineering reports. We're going to take a look at the operational characteristics of how many -- you know, how many vehicles are using the driveway before we approve that on an SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, it's essentially going to be coming from a dead stop out onto 82, this big elephant -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with tons of weight on it. How can we get that up to a proper speed before it merges with the traffic on 82? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Typically we're going to size those relatively consistently with the deceleration lanes. It's the same thing when you're coming from a certain speed, 45 miles an hour, we'll call it, down to zero, and from zero up to 45. It's going to be relatively the same length, maybe a little bit longer for the acceleration lane. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But for a left -hand turn? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For a left -hand turn, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So basically we're going to add a double lane in that area, move the 82 traffic to the northern side of the road, and then use the two additional lanes to slow the trucks down and speed them up? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Two lanes for a deceleration, is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm just trying to picture the design of what would be a safe way to have these trucks enter these roads. Obviously, it would be the opposite on Corkscrew. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm turning -- and with reference to the applicant's traffic engineer, have you -- has there been any design work done for acceleration lanes? MR. TALONE: Ron Talone with David Plummer & Associates. I'm not a design engineer, I want to make that clear. But we're talking about a total of three lanes in that you'd have a left -turn decel lane going westbound. Page 67 of 85 1614 A/ ovember 17, 2011 That turns into the site. And you'd continue that lane for some distance quantified in design based on proper engineering practice that would be the accel lane for trucks that make a left out onto 82, and it gives them an appropriate distance to get up to speed and, meanwhile, the traffic that wants to go past the left - turning vehicle, or the vehicle that just turned left onto 82, they will have a passing lane on the north side of the road to clear both of those movements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- but we'll really have four lanes because you'll be doing decel and accel. MR. TALONE: Well, you'd have an eastbound right -turn lane, correct. But in terms of -- but there's not going to be two separate lanes to handle the left -in and left -out. It will end up being -- you'll start off with the lane that's used for the left turns, and they go in, and then the left turns out will -- that lane would continue, and they'd go on that and use that as the accel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the only frightening thing would be the truck crossing that eastbound lane to get into the accel lane because that's -- if there's a lot of traffic on that road, that will be a dangerous thing. Because they're not moving fast, are they? I mean, what are they, zero to 60 in about a week and a half or -- MR. TALONE: I don't have the specific information at hand, but I can assure you it would be properly designed and reviewed, and it wouldn't be approved by the county or the state until it meets proper specifications. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't go away. If you believe it can be properly designed and built and we could better understand it, can you bring a sketch of one to the next meeting? MR. TALONE: Yes, we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And maybe have John take a look at it or his department before -- mostly Pm concerned about the length of the accel lane on the left -out because anybody driving 82 going west, if they have to come up behind one of those big trucks going too slow and they don't catch it in time, they're going to run right up the back of that truck, and that is not a condition we want to encourage. So I think that would be good to see. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I have a question about Corkscrew Road, I guess, mainly for John. I know Corkscrew Road is not failing, it's not that heavily traveled, and so adding these trucks onto Corkscrew Road wouldn't make the road fail from a volume standpoint. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But what concerns me is the kind of vehicle that it is, that the road is not made for it. The decision of this board, can we only take into account the volume and whether the road is failing, or can we also take into consideration that this volume of this particular type of truck is not really suited for this quality of road that doesn't have the shoulders and so forth? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The answer that I can give you is that staff is limited to the review that we are tasked with through the Growth Management Plan, which would be for capacity. If it comes down to a question of compatibility of traffic between the trucks and the existing vehicles that are on the road, perhaps based on roadway width, the existing roadway width, that's really going to be a decision that this -- that lies with this board and with the Board of County Commissioners based on your recommendation. It's not one of our Growth Management Plan initiatives to review for that, unfortunately. And it's -- you know, from a staff level, we're here to give you the technical review of do we have capacity for these vehicles. The answer to that, yes, we do have capacity for them in the concurrency, consistency view of the world. When it comes to whether or not it's realistic to expect those vehicles to fit on the roadway with the current conditions that are out there, if the roadway has been designed and constructed to the current design standards that FDOT has out there, yes. This is older road, though. We -- as it was pointed out earlier, we are lacking shoulders on this road, and that is a concern, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I think maybe that might be a topic for maybe a future LDC to look at that, not only look at the volume but the quality of the vehicle and, you know, the quality of the road, but we can take that into account -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- even though it's not concurrency. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. Page 68 of 85 t ; 16 2 F A 7 ...� November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, you said FDOT just now in regards to the construction of that road. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a state road, I mean Corkscrew? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Corkscrew is not a state road, but we would follow state recommendations on the design standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said it was an old road. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were the design standards done by the FDOT at the time that road was built consistent with the ability for that road to manage the trucks that are being proposed? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner Strain, you have a very good question and, unfortunately, that was before my time here, and I'm not well - informed enough to give you a good answer on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you be by next meeting? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have another question for next meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: John, I happened to be out there yesterday, and I happened to be standing at the end of Collier County on Corkscrew Road and the beginning of Lee County. Collier County has gone out, put a lot of nice arrows out there. It looked great. I see where people have gone through already going eastbound. But it's supposed to be a 10- mile -an -hour curve. I happened to be there around four o'clock. There were trucks and cars. If they were doing 25, 30 miles an hour, they had slowed down, they figure. No one is -- and it was just -- the road is so narrow. I think that -- I had concerns with that because you could see where they've added a little blacktop where the shoulders and -- and there is nothing on the sides. I think the width of the road and, you're right, probably the depth of the road of, you know, the underlying crushed rock and everything -- it brought home some interesting feelings out there when you're standing there watching these trucks and everything trying to go around this 10- mile -an -hour curve at 30. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can certainly understand. Response -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I have one for the applicant, whoever can talk to transportation or traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And I'm going to have more of you, John, before -- when we get done with Phil's questions, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So I'll ask the question, and the right expert can come up. We've heard a lot of, I won't call them complaints, but a lot of testimony from a lot of different people over the -- these two meetings concerning the condition of Corkscrew Road, the design of Corkscrew Road, the existing traffic on Corkscrew -- that's hard to say -- Road. And in looking at your -- the plan that I have in front of me here, you show potential entrances both to Corkscrew and State Road 82, potential. MR. TALONE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I think I've read it correctly that you projected 70 percent of the output of the mine would be directed to Lee County and that 60 percent of that would be traveling over State Road 82. I think I've got those correct. MR. TALONS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So if I look at all of those statements and measured them up against the complaints and the observations about Corkscrew, why would you use Corkscrew at all? MR. TALONE: Well, the site plan was -- I can't speak to exactly why the site plan was developed as it was. But we provided access to be able to use both roads. But we -- as I testified previously during my presentation, we had estimated that our markets will be primarily to the north and northwest utilizing State Road 82, and that's why we show the higher volume on that road. Page 69 of 85 161 Zvember 17A1 , 2011 There may be some small percentage that would utilize Corkscrew Road, and we felt that there should be access provided for that so that those trucks wouldn't have to come out on 82 and circle back through the intersection of 82 and Corkscrew. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If most your -- and I heard someone state that this morning, I don't remember who. There's a high probability a lot of this rock is going to be trying to access I -75 either north or south. Nobody can predict exactly where the customers are going to be. And I also heard this morning that Corkscrew Road is probably -- if you're going to go -- want to get to I -75 quickly, Corkscrew's going to cut off some miles, particularly if you're going southbound. It just seems to me that there's a lot of issues associated with utilization of Corkscrew Road one way or the other that could possibly be avoided here. MR. TALONE: Well, as far as the fact that we did show a fairly small percent on Corkscrew, as we -- as I mentioned in my original testimony, we looked primarily at the markets. And as has been testified on numerous occasions by many of the presenters over the past two days of hearing, Lee County's concentrated their mines off of Alico Road just north of Corkscrew. So we figure those are our competitors. They would dominate the markets in that area, and that's why we felt our markets would be more to the north and northwest, and that's why we felt there'd be a limited amount of traffic on Corkscrew. And as it is, though, we are proposing to have access to both Corkscrew and State Road 82. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, and then Paul. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have approval for these modifications to State Road 82 from FDOT? MR. TALONS: No. We would have to get the appropriate connection pen-nits with the Florida DOT. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just questioning whether a difference of 10 miles between the Alico mines and this mine would make that much of a difference. If somebody wanted rock, would they get it all from the Alico mines, or would some of it come from here? So that's why I'm questioning whether all the stuff to the south would not be done by this mine. MR. TALONE: No. I wouldn't put it in an absolute term that all of it would. We just came to the conclusion that given the locations of our competitors, which are primarily south of us in Collier County and southwest of us in Lee County, that there would be a tendency for those mines to dominate those markets. And so we felt our markets would be primarily to the north and northwest. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I still think, though, that the proximity of -- to I -75, being much closer through Corkscrew Road, would be something that drivers would probably take into account, and also the fact that it would probably be a lot easier to make a turn onto Corkscrew Road than it would be to make a turn, especially a left turn, onto State Route 82 because it's such a busy road, such a death trap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. John? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some issues I found in the county records involving additional comments that you provided during the review. I'd like to know how they were resolved. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7/29/10 review comments. Project impacts are anticipated to create a deficiency in SR82. County staff recommends inclusion of a commitment to provide proportional -share payment for the following improvements: SR82 widening identified in the ongoing PD &E study by FDOT, including contribution of right -of -way frontage. How has that been resolved? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's been resolved by the applicant agreeing to provide, instead of additional right -of -way for State Road 82, additional water management in the amount of .67 acre feet within their development. It doesn't mean .67 acres. It is -- I'm sorry -- was it .67 or -- I can't recall the exact number -- 67? Okay. Thank you, guys. But what that's meant to do is to accommodate FDOT's widening within their existing right -of -way without having to -- you know, to purchase additional right -of -way to handle their water- management concerns. This Page 70 of 85 M14 1612 A7 r-1d November 17, 2011 development will be handling some of their water management along that frontage on FDOT's behalf. They'll be able to handle that by way of easement within their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- which means they're basically going to let the runoff run into one of the lakes they're digging? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. I'm sure -- and I would have to -- I can't say for sure that's correct, but I'm sure it would have to have some form of treatment before it runs into their water- management system, the same water standards -- water - quality standards that they would be required to meet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you felt that that provision was an adequate offset to a proportionate share for SR82 widening? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. That was a recommendation from FDOT after discussions with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do evalu- -- did someone do an evaluation of that value of that drainage area that they were providing versus the value of the right -of -way that would be needed or the widening? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's a question I would rather defer to FDOT's design people. I don't think we would have that -- I could get that information for you by the next meeting, but that was based on their recommendation. As I said, that this is now land that they do not have to purchase to accommodate their right -of -way, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how do --just so I understand it, the land to the north is theirs -- they've got land all along 82 that's not part of the mine. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But all that land along 82 they've already indicated they may come in and be looking for a mine permit sometime in the future. So, theoretically, they've got a lot of water available to take our water. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: If that's true, it's, unfortunately, something I couldn't review as part of this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can't take that into account what they -- what the applicant could do in the future with those lands fronting State Road 82. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The evaluation of that would be important compared to the evaluation of what you originally asked for. The second question was, provide -- or statement was, provided water management along SR82 for use by FDOT SR82 widening project. Now, you listed three things. You listed contribute to the widening, then provide water management, which is what they did to contribute to the widening, and then contribution of proportional share -- proportionate -share payment towards the SR29 and SR82 intersection. So there were three things they were asked to do, but the first two both have seem to have gone away for just the revision of the water management; is that true? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you ask for two things and settle for one? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Basically a point of negotiation, sir, that we were working through negotiations. Those were what we were directed to put on the table to discuss with the applicant. Upon -- after discussions with our division administrator, the ultimate answer was the mitigation requirements that we have on the conditions today. That was what the final agreement was that resulted in a -- I'll say a fairly balanced equation for us, based on FDOT's recommendation back to us, again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there was no proportionate -share payment towards the SR29 and SR82 intersection? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all this went away with that water - management land that was really just a second stipulation to begin with? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The following item was not appropriately addressed in the response. This is from you. Provide a survey of road and right -of -way conditions for a radius of 2 miles at each project access. Include at least one cross - section of both SR82 and Corkscrew Road within the study area, demonstrating the thickness of the paving and base for each road. This lends to the question we asked earlier about the ability of Corkscrew Road to Page 71 of 85 ¢T 161 L November 17, 2011 handle trucks. Did you not get that information? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can't recall from that review if I received that information or not. In any case, the one - dollar - per -truck contribution that we've discussed, the quote- unquote, "buck -a -truck contribution" that the developer would be making to us will handle both capacity and maintenance issues. That's what that's designed for. And it was -- when we came to the agreement on the buck -a -truck finality, what we found was that there's no further need for us to assess what's out there at the moment, that they'll be paying into that maintenance for us to work on that road in the future anyway. So we found it was not worth trying to pick out which pothole existed today and which will exist tomorrow, because tomorrow it will need to be fixed anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you know that the buck -a -truck procedure will provide you with ample repair needs when you didn't know -- don't know the thickness of the base for each of the roads? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand your question, sir. Simply a recommendation that I'm following from my management. This is what we've put into practice in the past, and it's what we've found accommodates our maintenance requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I understand the history of that, John. In fact, I've actually pulled up records from the county Board of County Commissioners' meetings that talked about it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand how it covers everything, especially when you ask a question like this, which means you don't know what's out there. And you've already said you don't know what's in Corkscrew when you responded to, I think, Mr. Midney's question. And I really am puzzled as to how we know that the funds that are predicted to come in at a buck -a -truck are enough or ample to cover that in lieu of a proportionate share which was originally asked for. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Our alternative at this point is to request -- I mean, we've discussed the mining impact fee, which became effective after this site came in for this application -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's debatable, too. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It's not -- it can't be retroactively applied to them. And that mining impact fee would, in essence, not go to cover any of the maintenance on this. It would only cover additional capacity on this roadway. So the buck -a -truck at least gives us some way to address the maintenance concerns that will be ongoing for the life of this mine, and it's tied to the traffic that the mine creates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about the cross - section of SR82? Since the buck -a -truck only applies to Corkscrew Road, then how do you cover the maintenance needs of an SR82 then? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. State Road 82, the county is funded from the state for maintenance concerns on State Road 82. Our funding comes directly from them. To require funding additionally from this developer for that would essentially be double- dipping. We couldn't require that the developer pay us for money that we're already receiving from the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also had provided them with the following: A choice of either contribution of $1 per loaded truck trips on all driveways or, B, maintenance or roadways within a two -mile radius of the project driveways. So two miles from these project driveways, both of them, to have to maintain those, you were better off collecting a buck -a -truck just for Corkscrew Road? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah. When given the choice, sir, between two options, the buck -a -truck we found to be a more definable option. Again, it relates back to the question of the damage caused by this mine. Let's say, for example, we chose the second option with the, you know, maintenance within two miles of this site driveway. It becomes difficult to know or to assign responsibility for any individual piece of damage to the road, say, a new pothole or a new bump in the road or a degrading shoulder. How do you assign that specifically to the developer and then require proportionate -share payment towards that one single item? We find that it's just much more definable to use a broadbrush and use the buck -a -truck response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And only reason I brought it up is you asked for it originally, so that kind of Page 72 of 85 reasoning should have -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. 1 1 A7 6 (.November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, in your mind, I would -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And that was one of the reasons we were okay with letting go of that stipulation, that optional stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had another stipulation. Any requirement for provision of mitigation to or on behalf of Lee County will require concurrence from Collier County prior to the implementation of any requirements. Did that ever transpire? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, we're not collecting anything on behalf of Lee County, and the reason that that stipulation was in there was that if there was to be a third -party agreement between Lee County and the developer for any contributions, if it was to be somehow accommodated in our conditions of our conditional use, Collier County needed to know about those so we could determine their enforceability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did Lee County attempt to put any requests for mitigation into the CU process? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: In early revisions, yes, sir, as I recall, they did, and one of the examples that sticks out in my mind was a requirement or a request, I should say, for proportionate share at Corkscrew Road and I believe it was either Alico intersection or the Ben Hill Griffin intersection, because they have some improvements ongoing at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was our response to that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Our response was that I can't show that we're significant on the first link within Collier County, that the developer's actions are significant impacts on the first link in Collier County, that being part of our concurrency review, our consistency review with the Growth Management Plan. I couldn't show that they were over 2 percent, thereby not crossing to the second link, the second concurrency segment, which would have been in Lee County. So I found it very difficult to endorse, from the Collier County standpoint, Lee County's request to seek proportionate -share mitigation from the applicant on a roadway that they did not show a significant impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, proportionate share I don't believe is something you can just make up. Do you know why Lee County would have suggested that was reasonable for them to even ask for it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I think because there's not a lot of dropoff for truck trips in between the project driveway on Corkscrew and the two roadways that we discussed, you know, anything on Corkscrew. I think they envisioned a lot of the traffic going straight from the project driveway to that intersection with very little dropoff of that, and I think they were just doing it simply as 100 - percent impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if there was no significant dropoff, then these still don't meet the significance threshold that you are concerned about. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are -- that's so far. Thank you, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I should probably know this, but who counts the trucks? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It will actually be the developer that will keep a count of that at their scale house, I believe it is. Is it operationally at the scale house? Do you guys do that? And it's one dollar per loaded truck, okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a staff package in front of us that came, and I was going to start working through that before we got into specifics on any other issues. Does anybody have anything else they'd like to move into before we get into the package? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, I guess some of these are going to be yours, if you don't mind. Okay. Kay, they provided a site plan. It's the one showing the lakes. Not this one, but the one with the black -and -white detail on it. They made some notes on that site plan that are a little hard to read, but I was going to read them to you. And it shows along 82, per LDC, no landscaping buffer required, and it shows a BB layout. Are you in agreement with that? Page 73 of 85 6IzA1 November 17, 2011 MS. DESELEM: I'm trying to -- I'm sorry. Where at on the site plan again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go to the -- State Road 82, and go up where it says AMHO, and there's -- MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a little notation there with a triangle, which means it was changed, and they're showing a cut, BB, but they're saying there's no landscape buffer required. Is that -- are you in agreement with that? MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back and look at the standards, but I believe it's ag to ag, so -- and they own the land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't 82, I'm sorry. I mean, it's their ag land. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. There's a note over on the left side, it's Note 3. It says mine boundaries, in parenthesis and associated land use area values, end parenthesis, do not accurately reflect future lake boundaries, as an additional area may be added to accommodate lake contour shaping littoral shelf planting areas. So the map we see here or the map we see there, and the map in which I think staff asked for a 300 -foot setback from the property line, was it your understanding that that 300 -foot setback would be violated by the issues that I just read to you? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry. I'm trying to find the note that you just read from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go to the left -hand side of the map of the site plan. MS. DESELEM: Okay, I've got it north, pointed north, right? So on what side? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South. MS. DESELEM: South. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, women usually don't understand those directions. They like left and right. At least that's my experience with my wife. So I'm just giving left and right. I mean, if I tell her to go south, she'd kill me. MS. DESELEM: I always thought that was attorneys that didn't understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, on the south side, you see those notes, one, two, three -- Note 3 is what I'm asking about. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way that reads, it seems like the mine line is not fixed and they're going to accommodate into that line for contour shaping and littoral shelves plantings areas. Is that the way you understood the 300 -foot application to be that you asked for in your staff report? MS. DESELEM: My understanding is that they cannot put the lake within any setback. I mean, they might have to meander it in a different fashion from what exactly is shown, because it is conceptual, but they can't put lakes in the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Note No. 3 can't really apply in violation of the minimum setback requirement; is that right? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm moving through all the paperwork, so I'm not sure if the next one's yours or somebody else's. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What is the proposed setback? I mean, I've watched the moving numbers here from 50 to 150 to 300 to 1,000 to -- where are we currently? MS. DESELEM: I think at this point staff and the applicant at least have agreed 300 feet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Three hundred? MS. DESELEM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And further -- looking at these sections, it shows they're measuring it where the water line hits the ground. What we're saying is that if we do put a littoral zone in there, it will be in that setback area that they can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's saying no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She's saying no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's -- Page 74 of 85 "4 1612 A 7 November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The applicant told me -- when I was talking to the mining guy, he said he -- and the littoral zone we're talking about with the enviromnentalist from Lee County is a really slight slope. I think that the only danger -- because it doesn't affect the mining operation; it really affects, you know, the post- mining operation, or how they could sell these lots is to make sure that these are buildable lots for residents when we're done. But -- so, Kay, you say that if we put a 50 -foot -- and what did she say, it was like a one to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the distance that the -- well, 8 -to -1 or a 10 -to -1 slope, 50 foot wide by 200 feet long. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So those would be cut into this or not? MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English for the applicant. Just a little clarity on this issue. Litoral shelf, that's a term that can mean more than just one thing. The code will require and the DEP permit requires that we create littoral shelves. That means a planted edge, typically maybe some amount above the edge of water, which is that water line you mentioned earlier, and some portion of it below that, and you choose the appropriate plantings. The -- when Lee County staff was talking about creating a place for wading birds, for instance, a shallow area, that's usually not necessarily the same as a typical lake -bank littoral shelf that we're putting on on a typical development lake. That's an area that's crafted as a flat or shallow pool. And so in regards to the 300 feet -- a 300 -foot setback, what we would anticipate -- and the littoral shelves, obviously, haven't all been designed as of yet specifically where they would go. The -- we would -- we'd probably have that 4 -to -1 shelf along the 300 -foot setback, along that edge of water, and that if we were to create any shallow pools for wading birds, that would probably be more in the vicinity of the WR -- existing WRAs, which is a more appropriate location for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what was your intention by the note on your site plan? I think that's what brought the question up. MR. ENGLISH: Okay. Which note was that? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me try the left side. MS. DESELEM: Left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: South side of the plan. There's No. 1, 2, and 3. It's the third note. MR. ENGLISH: Third note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it might say --I was just -- it's really hard to read, but I was just told it might say No. 2, so you've got two 2s. Yes, you've got two 2s. Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: All right. So you're referring to the second No. 2? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Oh, on the south side of the map that we -- that's on the left side if you look at it that way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With a magnifying glass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's hard to read. MR. ENGLISH: Are you questioning why there's a triangle up there with a No. 3 and relating it to that note? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm trying to understand what you meant by the note. Basically you're going to say you're going to violate the setback by the note. What are you going to violate it with? Mine boundaries and associated land -use values do not accurately reflect future lake boundaries, as additional area may be added to accommodate lake -- it's hard to read -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Lake contour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- lake contour shaping and littoral shelf planting areas. What is it you're intending to do with that -- MR. ENGLISH: That note was specifically just to state that we drew very straight lines for these lake edges of water and that, in reality, they may undulate or take a slightly different shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they going to undulate into the setback or outside the setback? MR. ENGLISH: No, outside. We would not violate the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we need to change the language in that, because that kind of language would certainly reflect your ability to move it either way you wanted to, and I don't think -- whatever the setback ends up being, if we end up with one, then I think you need to -- you need to make sure it's inside the setback that you're talking about -- I mean outside the setback, not inside it. Page 75 of 85 161 ember 17, 2011 MR. ENGLISH: That's fine. We can alter the note. I would take a setback as to mean that we could not violate the setback -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. ENGLISH: -- but we can alter that note to make it clearer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I think you shouldn't -- it should be to that 1 -to -4 slope, because I think if we do make larger required shallow littoral zones, I think that would be certainly allowed within the setback. That would be in --because it has nothing to do with the mining. It's just purely setting the land up for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- so then you want the note to leave as it is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would want that -- where the 1 -to -4 slope part -- because obviously you're showing the groundwater hitting the land and going one in four. If we do, as suggested by Lee County, some lesser- sloped areas, they can be, I think, within the setback. I don't know. We're trying to figure out how to word that. We could work on it, but -- MR. ENGLISH: If you want to make that allowable, that's fine, as long as we don't have to commit that that's where we're exactly putting them, because we haven't figured that out yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it will be a point of discussion before this is all over with, so -- we'll get to it. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. John -- or not John, I'm sorry. The traffic engineer, Mr. Talone, I think it is -- or who's their traffic -- who's your traffic engineer? Yes, sir. I'm just going to hit the questions I have in your package as they're presented, so we'll just have to go from there. MR. TALONE: Ron Talone with David Plummer & Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4 of your TIS, you talk about the intersections of SR82 and 29, and 29's at an F. And John had -- and there's a footnote that I cannot read because the page I have is all blurred out. Do you know what that referenced footnote is? MR. TALONE: The footnote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next to the F you have a subscript or a superscript. MR. TALONE: Footnote 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is that -- I can't read Footnote 1 on my copy. I don't know if the rest of you have a clearer copy, but I sure don't. MR. TALONE: All that's doing is explaining the derivation of the level of service was based on an analysis as an unsignalized intersection, and we reported, the first letter represents the major street left -turn level of service, and the second letter represents the minor street level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TALONE: So that would mean a left turn from eastbound to northbound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're not having a significant impact on that or any -- MR. TALONE: Our traffic analysis showed that we had -- did not have a significant impact on either State Road 82 or Corkscrew Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You talk about 700 trips or 683 truckloads of material per day. Now, that's an average, I believe, right? MR. TALONS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think in the reports that we've seen they're going to be -- we're talking about the mine is limited to an average of 700 trucks per day. What is the maximum amount of trucks per day that you expect out of that road, or have you looked at it that way? MR. TALONE: Yes, we did look at it. I don't know if I have the graph up with me, but it varies from somewhere around 650 to 750 based on our estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't think as a maximum you'll ever get above 750? MR. TALONE: Approximately, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the trip counts have any impact -- are they impacted by the hours of the mine? MR. TALONE: I would think to a minor extent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if a mine operates 24 hours and you spread the trucks over 24 hours, it's a minor Page 76 of 85 _ 161-2_A November 17, 2011 change to go to 12 hours? MR. TALONE: It would depend on the volume being extracted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you're 750 maximum, how many trucks were over the 24 -hour period? MR. TALONE: I'm not sure I understand. The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a limited mine. You're not supposed to work during the night. But if you go to the fourth -- fifth paragraph down, it says, on -site mine employees are anticipated to work in three 8 -hour shifts covering the 24 hours a day. And I'm just wondering why you would approach it that way if they're not going to be operating 24 hours a day. MR. TALONE: Well, we wanted to account for the fact that there may be some security personnel or change of shifts for the on -site employees. That in no way implies that truck operations or mine operations would be over the 24 -hour period, but it anticipates there would be a staff at the mine 24 hours a day if, for nothing else, security and that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think if you calculate it out, 750 trips a day squeezed into 12 hours it would be about 60 trips an hour, right, or 30 trips an hour? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something like -- I didn't calculate it out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: A trip every minute or every two minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, if he's going 24 hours but he didn't calculate the mine operations, then it's just one employee. So you calculated your TIS on having one employee there at nighttime? MR. TALONS: I don't remember the specifics, but it was a small number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Terri, I know I've missed the time. I usually give you a break at four, so we're going to take a short break of ten minutes right now, or nine minutes, come back at 4:15, and then we'll finish up by quarter to five, five minutes to five. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody would please take their seats. I guess now's a good time to understand how we're going to finish up today. Ray, I know we moved the Mobility Master Plan to the 1 st of December. I would expect that that meeting -- we could finish this up in the morning, and whenever we finish we could go into the Master Mobility Plan, so we still keep that on schedule. But I could expect that at quarter to five or so we'll probably have to motion to continue until that time. And I did talk to Mr. Starnes earlier. He has no problem with providing his brief, as we previously discussed after rebuttal, because rebuttal won't be today, and so he'll be back at that time. And, Bruce Anderson, are you here? There you are, quietly standing along the side. Bruce, you had talked to me at one of the breaks about a possibility of a site coordination. Did you still want to bring that up? Because if you did, if you did, we've got to do it before the day's over. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. We'd like to invite the Planning Commission to continue and come out for a site visit -- it will be a dually advertised noticed meeting continued from this one -- and come out and walk on Alico's property and inspect exactly where the mine would go, see it in relationship to the surrounding area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern expressed to you was the logistics of doing it still under the Sunshine. I don't want us to trip up any Sunshine Laws, especially in a due - process issue. So from the county attorney's perspective, do you -- what do you think about that proposal and how -- do you know any way it could be accomplished? Because I couldn't figure it out unless you had -- well, you'd have to be transported separately or someone would have to -- I mean, it would be a lot of ifs. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we could all go on a bus and have a media chaperone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A media chaperone? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think if it's a meeting of the Planning Commission, residents may have the right to attend, too -- MR. ANDERSON: Oh, sure. Page 77 of 85 161 A/ November 17, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we have to make that opportunity available to Lee County and everybody else. MR. ANDERSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, got any comments, concerns, issues? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, we've done it, and we've advertised site visits as a meeting, but we've also done it as a site visit, advertised it as a meeting but yet didn't have the members talk amongst themselves, because the issue is going to be making sure we've got the appropriate minutes and make sure the public is afforded the opportunity to hear the discussion. So if you do a site visit -- my recommendation would be you can all go out there. The recommendation would be not to discuss it amongst yourselves. Let them do a presentation, and I guess if we have questions, then we'll just have somebody there to take minutes of the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be cleaner -- and I know it would take more time on your part, but if you send out an email invitation to individuals on the Planning Commission -- because if you ask us to contact you, that might not be so forth- -- so responsive. If you just sent an email out inviting us on a one -to -one to arrange to meet you on the site, just like the neighbors have arranged -- have asked me to meet them on the sites, and I haven't been able to yet. But maybe that would be a better way to approach it and avoid all the problems with the Sunshine Law, because I certainly don't want to see this process mucked up with any kind of concern over that. So would that work for you? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a cleaner way to do it, Bruce, and then if there's some way to accommodate those that want to go out and take a look at it, then that might be the way to go. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think that would work, and then, of course, that would have to be part of your disclosures, you know, at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would work a lot cleaner. But, thank you. I appreciate the offer, too, Bruce. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had some questions of Mr. Straw to finish up before we got into the other stuff. During the Jones Mine process -- MR. STRAW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you said the following: Currently because of the eight times per month to blast, they are required to shoot much bigger shots, some of them are 200 holes, some of them are smaller. We're trying to get to a point where we can cut down the number of larger shots and actually reduce the offsite effects for the number of blast holes, as well as changing some of the pounds per delay that's used in these shots to actually have a little less offsite annoyance. So you're working on two things there, reducing a number of the blasts per hole and changing some of the pounds per delay. Then you go on, so the proposal's been to shoot no more than 110 holes per blast. That comes to about, with the 18 or so that we're looking at we're looking at about 1,680 hole blasts per month, which I know you guys are in agreement on the quality. That would be four times a week and no more than 18 per month. That would reduce overall, in our opinion, the velocity levels. Now, how does that -- those comments you made at that mine reflect the ability of this mine? MR. STRAW: Well, the -- they're two completely and entirely different operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. STRAW: And to start -- and it's not the number of -- you said something, and I thought I mis -- maybe I misheard; it was backwards. It's number of holes per blast, I think, is what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said, so the proposal has been to shoot no more than 110 holes per blast. MR. STRAW: Okay. And that -- something like that I believe will work for this operation. The difference, however, is the other constraints that are part of the Jones Mining conditions. This operation will start effectively very similar to Jones with the shallow depth at the north end above the -- to remain above the confining layer consistent and similar to what Jones is drilling and blasting, area 45 feet is what I recall. As this mine progresses through its excavation to the south, the depth will change. You have one pass, if you will, at blasting. In other words, we can't come through and blast 35 feet, come back and drill the same thing and drill Page 78 of 85 .4 1612 A7 November 17, 2011 it to 75 feet, and then come back to whatever the ultimate end depth is in doing that. You have one opportunity to do this, and I guess to explain blasting just to take a step backwards for those members of the commission that aren't as familiar with it, the rock hardness is what determines whether we need to blast or not. Due to the depth, they're going to use dragline -type equipment. Dragline does not have mechanical force. As Dennis described, it hoists the bucket out, the bucket pulls back, lifts up and hoists. It's not like a backhoe where you have a mechanical force pressing down on the rock and digging back up. At depth that bucket is left out, it's pulled back by a series of cables, and picked back up. So it's basically like pulling a -- if you will, a plastic cup through the sand or through some material to you, and then it's picked up, turned and stacked wherever it's -- is a part of the mining plan. To break up that rock, first you have to drill and blast it. So there is a special drill that -- it comes into the site. There is a licensed explosives contractor that's retained. They have state licenses, ATF, a series of other licenses that they are mandated to have. They come in, they will lay out a pattern consisting of a number of holes. We've talked about a spacing of 17 by 17. That may expand, that may contract depending upon things like borehole diameter, the depth, the type of explosives that are going to be used. When that is determined, then that pattern is surveyed and laid out. The drill will come in and drill the holes. It has an ability to have kind of an outer steel and inner steel. The inner steel pulls up. They put in a waxed cardboard tube. That cardboard tube has -- comes in sections. Those are put together to the length of the -- to the depth of the blast hole. Then that drill stops, leaves cardboard tube in the ground, moves to the next hole. Once they drill that pattern -- and it's a series of holes. I mean, it could be 20, 30, up to the -- I think 110 was the number you just mentioned. Whatever that number is determined to be, then on the day of the blast --and we've talked about -- you know, Dennis thought two days per week or two times per week would be what is necessary. Then that explosives contractor will come in, load those holes, detonate and -- you know, detonate the shot, and it's over within two to three seconds, is the typical length of time. Then that's done until they come back to do it again. I know there's been questions about, gee, do you start at eight o'clock and finish at five o'clock? They'll typically shoot once per day. The only change we would ever foresee is if -- as they get closer. It's not necessarily the pounds in the overall shot; it's the pound per hole or pounds per delay that we use to control vibration. Because of the depth, there'll be -- there's a difference in explosives weight. So I think that's the big difference between the Jones Mine and this. But the number of holes will vary depending upon proximity and the off - property vibration measurements. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: The expert that spoke in the initiation when Lee County started out, he talked about a weight of 176 pounds per delay at 1,500 feet minimum distance and the nearest off -site structure. Now, what's your thoughts on that? MR. STRAW: Well, I've looked at Dr. Rix's data, and if you remember -- and maybe this will -- if I can find the -- if I can find his graph. This is Dr. Rix's graph. And, Commissioner, it's the one that had the hieroglyphics on it, and somehow the printed copy worked. The data points represent what he used for projections. They came from two operations, the Yunquist mine in Lee County, which doesn't use -- doesn't have the same type of explosives, the same amounts of explosives, and it also came from a land development and utility project that we worked on in 2000. So the data that represents that graph that he made his projections from doesn't relate to mining operations. I don't think it's extremely accurate or, in my opinion, it's not well done. As far as the distance, we use -- we don't use a distance. What the state has is a performance ordinance. It's similar to what we talked about with the noise. And the performance ordinance provides the state criteria, and I'll -- for the lack of having -- for the lack of having a better graph, the State of Florida has a vibration limit that's based upon ground vibration, and we measure what we call velocity. It's how fast a particle of ground or structure or whatever we're measuring, how fast it shakes, and across the bottom we measure the vibration frequency. Particle velocity, I've said, is the speed of oscillation. The United States Bureau of Mines back in the early 1960s said that's the best way to address damage potential. Frequency is how the ground wave cycles. You think of it as a bass drum versus a violin playing a very high Page 79 of 85 vember 17 2011 161 note. They're opposite ends of the scale. The bass drum is a very low frequency noise. Violin, a higher -end noise. For us in this industry, the lower frequency causes response of a structure. And Dr. Rix was correct, and he was just regurgitating information from the United States Bureau of Mines reports. And what they studied was effects on structures. So what we use is that criteria for the state that's on the graph. And what it says is that when you're at very low frequencies, i.e., really 1 up to about 15 hertz, you use .5 for plaster on lath protection of structures, .7 for drywall. And then as the vibration frequency gets out of what we call the natural response of individual structures, the frequency can be -- gets higher; so does the corresponding limit, all the way up to 2 inches per second. So what happens in this -- we use this performance criteria. And it doesn't make any difference where they blast; they have to meet that criteria. Now, the state -- and I know there was some discussion about the seismographs, where seismographs are located. Those are mandated, again, by state law. They -- one -- a minimum of one has to be at the closest structure. It's not owned by the mining company or the blasting contractor or something like that. So wherever they start blasting, whether it's us that monitors or a firm like us that monitors, they have to determine what is the closest structure and put a seismograph at that location. Additional seismographs depend on where the blast is, where the other homes are in the area, but the state requires that every blast is monitored. Those records have to be available and provided, you know, for the state upon any inspection, which they do, and evaluation. So those performance standards are what we use in the industry, rather than any kind of setback. You know, setbacks, based on ground vibration, are extremely subjective. And the tolerance here is not no vibration; it is what the state has determined those levels are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in this case the maximum vibration that could be sustained by structures in the area would probably be the .50 because they're stucco and plaster? MR. STRAW: No. Stucco and plaster actually is higher. What we talk about is plaster on lath is what you see in the old farmhouses. Interior kinds of material where you had the -- it's like a wood strip lath, and then they would do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. STRAW: Commissioner, you're shaking your head. It's where, you know, there's a heavy thick coat of plaster and a second coat. We don't have a lot of those here in Florida, but we, as the course of business, typically, when we deal with very low frequencies, we use the .5 as a safeguard. Now, I know Dr. Rix talked about no damage and all this other stuff, and it's a little running discussion that he and I have had in some of these meetings where he says there's never a no- damage threshold. And I didn't know whether I was going to present today or not, but there is part of the Bureau of Mines that says below .5 there's not an occurrence of damage. And Dave Siskin, who wrote these reports, has had -- when he was still head of the research division for the Bureau of Mines, had come to a number of these and said, we don't see anything below .5. That's why I use it as a non - damage threshold, not the .75. But those are still designed to protect interior cosmetic defects from occurring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, again, this is kind of parallel to the questions I've been asking about noise and the roadway. But I know that there's a state fire marshal standard as to how much blasting -- blast intensity that can be done. Does this board -- when we're considering this in terms of whether this is compatible with the neighborhood, are we limited to the state fire marshal's standards, or can we say that specific to that rural area site we can choose a standard that's lower than the amount of blasting that the state fire marshal has said is illegal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding, because this is a conditional use, we can recommend stipulations. And I don't believe we're limited in what stipulations we can recommend, unless Heidi has a different thought on it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: As to which stipulation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul's question was that the state fire marshal has certain standards that he has to issue permits with. He wanted to know if we could recommend standards that are different than the state fire marshal's as a condition of the conditional use. I think that's what he was trying to say. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Your review is related to the compatibility issues related to the land -use portion. So to the extent that there are issues -- and it may not be specifically the blasting. It may be other types of things that Page 80 of 85 1612p7 .*A November 17, 2011 occur. Those stipulations are appropriate. If you're trying to place specific limitations on the blasting, then I think that if the owner voluntarily is willing to agree to those kind of stipulations like they've done in the Jones Mine's case, then that's something you can proceed with. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. I wouldn't be thinking of telling them how much you can blast. But my point is, they may not be blasting loud enough to be breaking the law but yet it may be loud or annoying enough to be not compatible with the neighborhood. And do we have the -- do we have the ability to set standards that are lower than the state fire marshal standards? In terms of compatibility, not in terms of how much they can blast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we set a vibration standard that is lower than the state fire marshal's because we believe that's the only way this mine can be compatible or more compatible with the neighborhood, and the applicant either decides to agree or disagree and we base our vote on that, is that -- is that a direction we could go? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I believe if they agree to it then you're not going to have an issue. If they don't agree to it, then we might have to see what other compatibility issues might exist with, like, the appurtenances and other equipment that they have that will also be making loud noises, other than the explosives. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it's kind of a multi - faceted thing. MS. ASHTON: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's noise, it's glare, it's vibration. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Paul, were you asking this because the settlement area is a hundred years old and they're -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think that they do -- you know, the fact that this is a very old community and that we should be respectful of the people who have been here all these years. But I guess, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. Oh, go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question from you. You keep referring to Jones Mine. And I had asked the county to bring pictures of the mine, and I can't find Jones Mine anywhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's there. It's the 846 Earth Mining, I believe it's called. The Jones Mine was the common name we used as it went through the process. But the landowner official name, I believe, is the one just north of Orangetree that's labeled -- I think it's 846 Earth Mining, Inc., or something like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. It's 846 Land -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: He calls it one thing, and the map is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those of us that were on the Planning Commission at the time, that's how we remembered it by, I would think. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad was next, then you, Phil. Is that okay? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I have a question for Jeff before I ask that. Instead of using the phrase "lower than the fire marshal," I would say "more restrictive than the fire marshal," just to make it clear, because you can't make anything less restrictive. Jeff, the buildings around this thing, they don't look like they're built on mounds and stuff like that. Do you agree, or -- are the structures that exist in this area pretty much foundations and all on grade? MR. STRAW: To the best of my knowledge -- I mean, I haven't looked at all of them. I mean, I have driven around the site, and what I can see without going in through private driveways and private roads, I mean, they look like -- I mean, with the exception of the community to the south -- appear to be standard Florida construction, concrete block, stucco on grade and, you know, concrete block walls, et cetera. So, yes, as far as that goes, that's my opinion of what they would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think when you get up into Lehigh, their building is up a little Page 81 of 85 1,, 1612 A/ November 17, 2011 higher on mounds and stuff, but -- MR. STRAW: And, certainly, you know, one of the other -- one of the other items that we have talked about is the preconstruction inspection or the preblast inspection, and so that you folks understand typically what that is, is it's a notification to the property owner of their ability to have one of these. It's an explanation. We go through and typically look at walls, ceilings, floors, closets, everything under the sun, and document interior, exterior, existing cracks, peeling paint, water damage, anything that we see. And it doesn't make any difference what the structure is. I mean, mobile home, house, whatever. If they've got a barn or something like that, we're looking at all of that. Photographs are included, and photographs of the outside of the house and documentation of what is there. It is a baseline threshold. You folks have them as part of your code for land development, and this is, you know, an extension of that. It provides an opportunity for everybody to have a baseline of what's in the house. It also allows us to see in detail what the construction of those homes are so that if we see something that is different or a different structure or something we have a concern about, then we can make sure that that is available for our evaluation. This is not just going out, drilling a bunch of holes, throwing a bunch of explosives down it and shooting it. I mean, those days are gone. Those were -- some of the days when I got here in 1980 in early Florida, there was some of that stuff being done. That doesn't happen anymore. The state fire marshal's on top of it and everybody else is on top of it for that, you know. And then if there is a complaint -- and I know there were questions about that. And, you know, Dennis addressed part of it. But if the mining operator receives a complaint or the homeowner wishes to, they call the state fire marshal. There is an 800 number for that. They have a publication that talks about it, and the mining operator, as part of their permit that they have to get from the state marshal, is mandated by law to forward any complaint, claim, anything to the state fire marshal's office for evaluation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. Just going back to Mr. Midney's question earlier when Mr. Chip, last name, Block, Beck -- MR. STRAW: Block. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Block -- talked to us at the last meeting, I think some of his last words were, Florida Statute 5.52 says, sole and exclusive authority to regulate directly or indirectly mining operations rest there Florida Statute -- with the state, with that Florida Statute, and also I think he mentioned that he would suggest our county attorney needs to research. And I'm trying to understand Paul's question in the context of the state having the sole and exclusive authority to regulate mining regulation directly or indirectly. And I would like some more clarity on it. Not necessarily today, Heidi, but next meeting. Because we're talking about potentially -- potentially adding conditions or stipulations that the applicant may or may not agree with, and I want to be sure that we're not stepping into the state pie (sic) here. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, that section, as well as the section before it -- I think it's 552.25 -- it does provide some limitations on the county's ability to regulate blasting. But you're here to do a review of the mining conditional use and to do a compatibility analysis. So -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That may be the distinction. Maybe I wrote this note incorrectly, but I believe he said mining operations, and I'm interpreting mining operations extends a lot further than blasting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think the limitation deals with the blasting and the use of explosives that are supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not necessarily asking you to bottom line that today, unless that is the bottom line. MS. ASHTON: I think there are some -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's a little confusing to me as to blasting and operations. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think it is confusing, but I think that there's some limitations you can place and some that you can't. And so when we proceed forward and there's some things you'd like to limit, we'll have to discuss that particular stip at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I saw you rush up here. Did you have something to contribute? MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams, assistant County Attorney's Office. No, I helped Heidi look at this, and I Page 82 of 85 N g 6 �' � � I November 17, 2011 agree with what Heidi said. It's -- Chip had mentioned something, but it was restrictive to that statute, and it was not quite perhaps as broad as was indicated. So we'll look at it as it comes through. As Heidi said, if there's particular conditions placed on it, we'll look to see if they violate the statute. If not, we've got room to place our own conditions in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would imagine it would be tough for our county staff to measure the intensity of blasting in a complaint because it would have to be after the fact. How would you go in and decide that they had broken the blasting ordinance or the intensity that we had -- if we were to place a level, how would county staff enforce that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe the seismographs would tell us that. MR. STRAW: That's correct. You do have a seismograph that -- again, the seismograph is there for every blast that's detonated, and whether it's operated by somebody like that or whether we have remote instrumentation or however that is set up, at that closest house is what they gauge compliance to the law with. And the indirect -- you know, direct/indirect that the state fire marshal passed -- not being an attorney -- but the -- it relates to what they call construction materials mining activity, which is commercial mining operations, that -- and it is restricted to the use of explosives. It's not the rest of the mining operation. This is for the use of explosives. So it doesn't relate to noise, it doesn't relate to, you know, setbacks, things like that. It is strictly related to the use of explosives in the State of Florida for commercial mining operations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not being in that field, I would feel very uncomfortable suggesting the level. I'm totally ignorant on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've done it before, so -- I don't think we were the last time either. In fact, I've got a whole pile of quotations from you that we questioned you back and forth, and I'm still going to do the same thing again today. One of the things you limited yourself to, there would be no more than 24 seconds of what we call blast initiation that would occur during the month. Is that an issue with this mine? MR. STRAW: The concern that I have about initiation and looking at that, the concern about that is that with this mining operation we have the ability to do more advanced timing of the individual blast holes. We are doing some work over on the East Coast where we have the blasts that last much -- the initiation lasts longer, but it allows us to shift the vibration frequency out of the response where we have it with a house, so that three - second issue concerns me there. We're, again, back to the performance ordinance of coming up with whatever that level is, maintaining that level. How we can get there is what we need to -- is what the operational end needs to be. If they need to reduce the explosives in the hole, if they need to what we call deck the hole, which is separate explosives in a column, they need to have that flexibility. They may shoot less holes in a month. You know, as Dennis talked about, a lot of this -- and all of this is market driven. So even though, you know, we've talked about the 110, you know, two times a week, I mean, that may not be something that they need to do. It may also be that as we get closer to the west end in one of those lakes or what we would call that excavation, that cut, it would be impossible for them to do that because of the ground- vibration standards. So what you use is that performance ordinance and let a blasting contractor have the flexibility to do what they need. The difference in Jones Mine is that Jones had three or four different areas, if you'll remember, in that plan. They had four or -- three or four different areas that they were going to be blasting simultaneously. So they could shoot a series of blasts close, then go to the other end of the property and shoot six one -hole blasts and constitute the monthly average. This operation is quite different with that in that there is going to be a cut and successive cuts and whether they run east to west and then go north to south. It's a different mining operation and a different layout than Jones. So that's why I focus back to the vibration standards, whatever they are, and whatever your attorney tells you, whether it's the state criteria or whether, you know, there's some other criteria that you can use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. STRAW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting close to the time to finish up for today. I believe that based on what Page 83 of 85 1612 AC November 17, 2011 we've accomplished today, the testimony we've heard, the public input that we've gotten, that we can get through the rest of this in the morning portion of the December 1 st meeting. So we would consider continuing it to that. I do want to comment to the residents and the people from the public who spoke. You are one of the most focused and, I guess, direct group of people that have spoke to this commission, so we appreciate that. You stayed to the facts, and that's -- that was helpful. We have -- a lot of times testimony is pretty scattered, but you guys are well organized, and we appreciate the factual information you provided. So with that, Bruce, do you have any -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We would like to have the opportunity to get someone to advise us, and you as well, on noise compatibility and visual compatibility. And for those purposes, we're asking to have a continuance until your January 5th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I mean, if we're going to get better information, that's not anything we normally object to. What's this board -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody seems to -- I think that's fine. Plus, to be honest with you, I would like to take all the notes -- not the notes I have, but more or less the pages from the staff report that talk about specifications or stipulations and consolidate them into one concise paper so we can move the final meeting to closure. But I think that's fine. Ray, what is the meeting in January that we would be looking at? Would it be the first meeting in January, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's January 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I don't see a problem with that. Is there a motion to continue -- well, I think that wraps up the business for today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make a motion to continue it to January I st by Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Brad Schiffer. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: January 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 5th, I'm sorry. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. We will continue on -- with this one on January 5th. Now we need to adjourn this meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a motion we adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 84 of 85 16�Zgi November 17, 2011 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This meeting's adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK TRAIN, CHA AN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented V- or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 85 of 85 t 161 2A7 4 .. December 1, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE +fig COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida o December 1, 2011 JAN? 7 [ u > z" BY....................... 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: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert (Absent) Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Fiala Hiller Henning ----_. Coyle Coletta Page 1 of 65 Misc. Corres: item t t Copies to: „ ARm 1642 A'7December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Sorry about being one minute late. It's not the way we usually do things around here. Nick's always late, but this board isn't. Everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As I normally start out, welcome to the December 1 st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. ** *With that, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert is absent today. Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. ** *Addenda to the agenda. We just have one item on the agenda today, and it's the review of the master mobility plan. I think it's Phase II or whatever. Yeah, Phase II report. Ray, is there anything else changing on the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: I have no other changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Our next meeting is December 15th. There's two issues on that agenda. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on December 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum. ** *Approval of minutes. We received them all electronically, the minutes for November 3rd, 2011. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEV- Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 2 of 65 161 2A7 December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. ** *BCC report and recaps, Ray? I don't think there was a meeting last time, was there? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct, no meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Chairman's report, dispense with that. ***Consent agenda items, there are none. ** *Advertised public hearings, there are none. ** *We'll go straight into old business. First item up. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a rare occasion you attend our meetings, but that's okay. First item up is a recommendation to accept the Master Mobility Plan Phase II Report and provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. We all received two or three weeks ago a rather thick binder of information, a good portion of which was an appendix for support, beginning of which was the summary and then various sections to back it up. Nick, I don't know how you want to walk through this document, but I'll let you start out with your presentation and maybe you can guide us through it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division. Tomorrow is my birthday, so I'm going to ask that you guys be kind to me today so I can wake up tomorrow and not have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I wish we knew that in advance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know you do. Get out of the way in case somebody said anything. I think, you know, before we get started, we're really fortunate that this plan kind of shaped up the way it did, because we really worked well with the community and the stakeholders. They've spent a lot of time with it. And I think the fact that there's not a lot of people here to object to the plan says a lot. I don't think there's anything in this plan in the recommendations going forward that we're not going to have to do a lot more work to vet and bring to fruition if the Board -- this Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners feels it's important. So I'll take you through the plan and a couple slides here, and then we'll get your comments and see where you'd like to go. The project team members, I've introduced them several times. Obviously in bold, the general public and the stakeholder agencies. Again, I'll reiterate, they've been phenomenal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the Planning Commission members, you have a little -- if your screen's not showing it, push the bottom button on that flashing thing on the right. That should bring the screen up that has the Power Point on it. Sorry, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem. So as I was saying, the general public and the stakeholders in bold on the slide says a lot. I think they've really participated and done quite a bit to put a good flavor on this plan. The other folks, Collier County staff as well, Tindale- Oliver, Wilson- Miller /Stantec, Mulhere and Associates, AIM Engineering, White and Smith and Dr. Robert Cervero. There's some controversy about the team in the past, but I've got to tell you, the folks that are on this team know Collier County. They know it well. They've worked on a lot of the plans that have been done in Collier County. They've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. And I think that they really put their best foot forward in developing this plan with county staff and the public. The purpose of this is to review the draft report that we've sent to you, as well, I think Debbie has given you an addendum or a little sidebar of comments we've received and changes we've already made ahead of this. But that aside, I think we'll go through the report. We have 21 policy recommendations and some examples of how they might apply. And I think that's really the bulk of what this report is going to discuss. I think obviously we want to go through the content with you to make sure that you don't have any issues in the first four chapters. But those 21 policy recommendations where we start to move forward with things that may affect people in Collier County, and I think in a positive way, hopefully. Page 3 of 65 y 1612 q 7 -4 December 1, 2011 We'll answer questions in the report and discuss those recommendations with you. So I think we just go through the first four sections. I don't know if you want to go page -by -page or just, you know, Chainnan, you do a good job of taking us through usually, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought, Nick, what we'd probably do is take -- because it's a long report, take about five pages at a time. And a lot of it's redundant. Once you get past the summary pages, everything else is a backup of that, so maybe that will help expedite the process. So with that, if that's okay with the other board members, the first page is really the -- it's titled, it's a colorful page, Master Mobility Plan Draft Report Executive Summary. And if we can get to that. It's in the early first part of the book, past the index. If you guys have questions on the first part, holler, but I think most of the stuff starts with that. By the way, for those of you, this is the first part here. That's the first section. So if you -- okay, do you want to work any changes to the discussion first, Nick, so we don't bring up issues that are already being -- I notice we got an 18 -page memorandum about other things that have been raised. So how that fits into this, I think you guys need to kind of walk us through as we go forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on the first five pages, do you have any changes that your team wants to make -- or points? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do you have a copy of -- we weren't tabbed out by pages. Deb, on the changes we've done, I don't have it by page so -- MS. ARMSTRONG: No, it's not by pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what's easiest for you to tell us the changes that you're trying to implement so we can find them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Well, do you want to do the track changes in the Word doe? MS. ARMSTRONG: These three. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, let's do that. Give us a second and we'll show you what we've done. It's in strike - through/underlined, right? There were no changes in the executive summary, I'm being told. The bulk of the report, the changes were following after that. So maybe if you guys have comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just walk through the executive summary then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Pages 1 through 5 of the executive summary, does anybody on the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on Page 4, under Conceptual Land Use Plan, the third line from the bottom -- or fourth line, it says, to help measure the influence of area -wide land use strategies on VMT and VHT, conceptual land use scenarios were developed based largely on input received from the public. Now, how does -- what does that mean? Because it -- so a conceptual land use scenario by a citizen who does no land planning, may be anything from an accountant to a mathematician to a bricklayer, stands up and relays his concept of lands use scenarios that he believes for Collier County and that's how you react? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think we've taken a lot of comments from them, and obviously the professional staff that's worked on this has qualified and quantified their comments to make sure that they make sense. But where you talk about -- you know, even the folks that participated, I think we've done a good job of educating them. You know, the comments about putting land uses together, that concept was pretty well identified. And they had a lot of comments about making sure some of these towns and developments that had a mix of uses. So I think that's what we're referencing, is that they supported those and made a lot of comments about complete developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any samples of those? Did they turn anything in, or is it just verbal? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a lot of those were verbal discussions. I think they used a lot of the diagrams that we presented to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further down the page it says: A conceptual wildlife crossings and habitat preservation plan. Page 4 of 65 i 16 Al Af December 1, 2011 I understand that wildlife crossings are part of the road system. I don't understand how a habitat preservation plan evolves out of a mobility plan. Can you explain that to me? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can. The challenge that we've had with the agencies, especially Fish and Wildlife, DEP, even the District and the Basin have all talked about a unified concept going forward. If you're going to talk about mobility planning till build out, they've said, how do you incorporate that type of planning with the concepts of preservation? If you do it in a vacuum, we're not going to support that. Matter of fact, if you do it and include it we're going to support your plan a lot more, because you're taking those things into consideration. So I think that was the intent of making this a good portion of the project, was to take those comments into play that we have to look at this in a big picture with habitat conservation and preservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have an advertisement that you use to advertise the public meetings for this master mobility plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have them in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if it said in it that you're going to use it to establish conservation areas and habitat preservation plans? So that the stakeholders and the public who are reading it, especially those areas in Golden Gate Estates that are being affected by these plans, those residents knew that a mobility plan means a habitat preservation plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I don't think it's to establish a habitat or conservation area over those properties, it's just to look at those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says it's a conceptual habitat preservation plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to be used for planning purposes only. It's not to set them up, it's to say look, these are sensitive areas, both either as watersheds or habitat areas. I mean, with your watershed management plan, and I know, Mr. Chairman, you were not here for that, and I know you provided a lot of feedback on that, but there was a large section of Golden Gate Estates where there was a watershed area that functioned both for habitat and watershed resources, and I think the residents of the Estates in some of the civic meetings we've had have been very open to that, they recognize that. Obviously taking into account there are existing land uses, there are landowners there, we have to work around that. But we didn't want to be naive to that I think in preparation of this plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did the watershed management plan, because I can't remember finding it in here, how did it address the VMT and VHT? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It didn't. Then that's because it isn't a mobility plan, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What, the watershed plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, it's not a mobility plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mobility plan is not an environmental plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, but again, I want to reiterate, I know there's an overlap here, and I think there's been a lot of influence from the environmental side on the plan, because they did participate quite a bit. But it's hard to envision Collier County at build -out in a road network without taking that into consideration. Some of the biggest objections from the NGOs and the official agencies have been, please tell us what you intend to do in the big picture in the long run. And as much as I'd like to say I could be a soothsayer and project out, you know, 20, 30 years, we did the best we could and incorporated those concepts in there, you know, provide them a certain level of comfort that we weren't being naive to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, I have no problem including, and in fact I have strongly emphasized that the environment needs to be addressed, but there are plans that address that. We have a COME, we have elements of our Growth Management Plan, we have the Watershed Management Plan, we have a series of -- I mean, you could go through all kinds of studies in Collier County and find that there are plenty of environmental plans. To take the mobility plan, advertise it as a mobility plan and then produce through that plan environmental plans I think is wrong and misleading to the public. I'm not saying those other plans aren't needed. But from my perspective in reading this, that is absolutely the wrong forum in which to have done that. It's a very misleading Page 5 of 65 16J 2A 7 December 1, 2011 forum. For example, if my house had been included in one of the habitat preservation plan outlines that you have in this plan or the potential ROMA area, personally, I probably would have liked that, but I know that it would change the value of my home and the land that that home sits on. But I wouldn't have known that I would have had to attend all these master mobility plan meetings to discuss an environmental issue that's affecting my home. I would never have seen that or foreseen that happening. And I'm just trying to be very honest with the public that what you advertise is truth in advertising, what you're advertising is what you're doing. I'm very concerned that the evolution of these other plans out of a mobility plan that started out not even noting such things is not being truthful with the public. So I'm going to have that theme throughout it. And a lot of my tabs are concerning that item. And I'll try to minimize my time on each one, but I want to make it clear from the beginning, since it came up in the beginning, that I didn't see this plan as what it's now evolved to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, sir, in fairness, and not to disagree, when we first put this scope together and we applied for the grant, that was one of the bullet points. So from day one we have outlined that we would consider environmental aspects and that we would have an environmental habitat and crossings preservation master plan. What's evolved is actually downgraded a little bit. I think when this project started out it was our goal to have a network of roads. And working with the stakeholders we tamed it down and we used the word conceptual plans. So we wanted -- when we first started this project, we wanted to have a master plan that included one of the sub - plans, which was a habitat and wildlife preservation plan. And we downgraded to a conceptual plan for planning purposes, but it was in from day one. So I -- just for the record, I want to make sure we're clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the manner in which it was expressed in to the public, that's where my concern is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last page is Page 5. I have a question between Objective 10 and Objective 17. How do those two work together? Because in Objective 10 it's looking at an evaluation of an impact fee for a mobility fee. But in Objective 17 it seems like it's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- looking at mitigation. Huh? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to clean up the objectives when we get there. But I can elaborate a little bit. One is a mobility fee. Typically, and we'll get into it much more detail as we get into that section, in your urban area we're talking about a mobility fee. The mobility fee allows you more flexibility of use. It's still a capacity replacement fee, but it looks at transit and bike ped. kind of movements as well. In Objective 17 it's to say whether you're using an urban mobility fee that can still pay for roads outside of that area or the rural area or east of the urban area transportation impact fee. It's starting to target mitigation up front. Because a component of our impact fee is mitigation. So if we had set aside that money -- now, right now when I collect impact fees, I put it in a different impact fee, district funds, and we use them for road project. If that portion of the impact fee that's calculated for mitigation was set aside, in other words, I could have a sub - account, then we could specifically use that money to pre- mitigate for projects in the future. And I think that was a comment I think we received from some of the environmental groups. And we thought that's not a bad idea. Because then you are taking that fee that you're collecting, segregating it based on the sub - component and then being able to spend it later specifically for that sub - component. So that's why we talked about that a little bit there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Objective 3, incentivize neighborhoods serving retail and services uses in Golden Gate Estates. I don't suppose you'd consider adding some language that says so long as they're not inconsistent with our Growth Management Plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. Because they have to be. Page 6 of 65 h. x- 1612 A7 + December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but that could be -- you know, I mean, I can see someone, some land use attorney standing up and saying even Objective 3 says we should do this, but forgetting that it's to be consistent with the GMP. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our staff is taking that note down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 21, develop a process to formally update the MMP every five years. We have the EAR every -- well, it was seven years, now it looks like we're doing another one in 2014, so I think it's closer than that. We have the AUIR. We have all other kinds of plans. Why do we need to add another plan to a staff burden for every five years? Why don't we just look at this through the EAR process as it occurs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you'll find that we've taken that -- that's some of the comments we received and we agree with you. I think with the watershed management plans that you've heard, with the mobility plan and the fact that we do an EAR, all of these plan recommendations eventually transfer under the land development part of the Growth Management Plan, so it would be not inconsistent to say they will be evaluated as part of the EAR process every five to seven years as sub - elements that are incorporated by these plans. So you're right, they shouldn't be done separately. But I think, you know, anybody that manages projects, if you don't measure it, you don't know how successful you are. So maybe evaluate it as part of the EAR, but measure periodically to see how we're doing, give ourselves a report card, are we being successful? And I think that's not unreasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says develop a process to formally update. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, far as you determining if you're successful or not, that's not -- I'm more concerned about if we have to go through and check all the language on this plan separately in addition to all the other plans that we currently do. You guys spend a lot of your time just rechecking everything that we previously did. I'd rather see staff time be working more towards responding to the public than rewriting things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we've already -- that's one of the changes in the change sheets. That's why we're getting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't gone through those change sheets because I was hoping we'd do it today as we got through, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, we will. But it is, we've discussed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these are some of the issues that I think we've talked a little bit about too, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next grouping is this -- the end of the summary is only as I'm --just wrap it up with Page 6 then would be the last piece of the summary page before we get into Section 1, which is project introduction and history. Does anybody have any questions on Page 6? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I didn't get a Page 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't get a Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, there isn't one. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You're cheating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get a Page 6? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had a question on Page 6. Here, this is Page 6, it's right here. It says Executive Summary. I'll be darned. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yours is different than ours. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We snuck an extra one in just to see if you were paying attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well I was, because I have a series of questions from it that I'm not going to ask. If you took it out I don't need to ask the questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was on Page 6, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a -- actually, it told about the various stakeholders in participatory teams that Page 7 of 65 f Q 6 , • ' 7,=rno1, 2011 2 -- involved in this. There was 25 of them total. Thirteen of them were related to development, growth, business interests. Seven of them were some kind of agency, whether it was state, federal or local. Four of them were environmental and two were civic. So -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's in the front section, on 1 -8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got it on Page 6, so sorry. So we're using different documents. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we're not using -- table of contents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine says Page 6. What page number does yours say? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Make sure I do not acknowledge the printer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One - eight. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One - eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One - eight, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One dash eight? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got an ES -6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have 1 -8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to speak, you're going to have to use the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: She said it was in the standalone executive summary. So you're looking at a standalone copy. But list of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You gave it to me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's our bad. But in the printed version it's in a different spot. It's in the table of contents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, mine's in print, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, so it's in 1 -8 in your table of contents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next section is six pages. It goes from Section 1 to Section 2. So does anybody have any questions -- first of all, do you have any clarifications or needed corrections in Section 1, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. I'm on Page 1 -1. I have nothing. So I'm going to scroll down on this. And I know it will be hard for you to see but at least I can track it and walk you through it. At the bottom left of Page 1 -2 we added -- I'll read it out into the record, I guess, if my eyes don't fail me. The public involvement process brought forth several comments regarding how sea level rise would be addressed in the MMP. While sea level rise is a concern to all Florida coastal counties, it should be the subject of a separate detailed study. In response to comments received, the MMP now clearly indicates that no density increase is recommended for the coastal high hazard area identified in the future land use map, the FLUM. That was a change we had based on comments in response to sea level rise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a question on that change? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Was there a density increase contemplated before this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not in the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sothis is just reemphasizing what we already --is already in our Growth Management Plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. And I think that just some of the public were concerned that we were trying to encourage that. So we wanted to make sure we were clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a suggested change to this paragraph. Leave the paragraph as it is where it is, scroll back down, but when you -- it needs to be moved to somewhere else when I tell you what it should say. The public involvement process brought forth several comments regarding the environment that should be addressed in the -- that would be addressed in the MMP, while the environment and habitat conservation plans are a concern to all Florida communities. All I'm suggesting is this is exactly an example of why I don't see this plan as being the catchall for all other plans. You even say it in here that it's better opportunities in a different plan to address sea level rise. Well, that's likewise what my argument was with the habitat conservation plan and the other environmental plans that were trying Page 8 of 65 16 I 7 December 1, 2011 to be dovetailed into this one. So that just becomes a point I wanted to make. And whether you use that somewhere else, because throughout today I'm going to keep pointing out areas where the environmental issues should not have been brought in to the strength they're in this plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think that the road -- the MMP could have referred to the fact that there are environmental plans that they are called a habitat conservation plan, called whatever you want, ROMA, called whatever, and those have to be taken into consideration when we actually apply the rules and objectives. But this is a good example as to why another plan is more suitable for some specific criteria, this very paragraph you're trying to add, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on that section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I have one on Page 1 -4. And it's the fourth bullet, same theme. Opportunities to further protect. I think that is the wrong language. I think consider environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife in mobility planning is a better way to approach that last bullet. Oh, you did it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We made that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. You need to tell us the changes that you've made ahead of time so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I'll go through and I'll note them and then maybe we can come back and I'll just scroll down. They're in strike - through/underlined. So I'm through Page 1 -5 with no more changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next section is Section 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question, Mark, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, back at 1 -3 where you kind of give the history of planning development? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How come the concept of activity centers is totally missing from this report, kind of? I mean, this would be a good place to discuss it. But I'm sure back in -- when the activity centers in the Eighties was first presented, I mean, it was a major component, still is, of the Growth Management Plan. How come it's not really -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can certainly mention that. I think Jeff was interested in and brought up some plans that showed Golden Gate Estates subdivided down to the quarter acre lot with activity centers and commercial centers even back before that. So I think it's a good point. I think we can note that, you know, on prior plans that that was an important aspect of the Growth Management Plan. I don't think that's an issue. It's good history. I think we're taking that comment down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even when we get into recommendations and stuff, it's kind of missing from this report, or I missed it from the report. I mean, I wouldn't mind discussing -- and I guess when we get into the areas that you define, the coastal area, we could discuss it, because that's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, we touched on the activity centers. We don't really call them I guess activity centers, more destination centers. We mentioned in the Estates, as the Chairman brought up, having some areas consistent with the Growth Management Plan that you could have more commercial and industrial land uses with residential, kind of like activity centers. I think the nomenclature might be a little different, but we do reference that that land use component of residential towards destination employment is extremely important towards mobility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Yeah. Especially for transit and stuff. I mean, the intent was back in the Eighties that we would really put the density in these areas and that way people could live in one, work in another. And it's kind of happening but, I mean, it's -- Page 9 of 65 December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's the guts of that. I'll tell you what, I think Steve Tindale said to us when we first started this project, if you do not make your number one focus land use, you're going to do yourself a disservice. Because it's not about -- it's that land use component and the way they interact with each other that's the most critical component to planning and that mobility, the VHT, VMT reduction. So I couldn't agree with you more, and it's definitely a key component of this plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying that when you use the word density centers or something, it's what we should interpret the old activity center? I don't think it's a good idea coming up with a new word if we have in our Growth Management Plan these centers of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think an activity center, we can certainly look at the way we've documented the report. But when we talk about in Golden Gate Estates or in the future towns having the right mix of land use, we don't really call it an activity center, we just say it's important to have that industrial destination commercial retail within a close proximity to residential, so they can interact. Because I think in a rural town, you know, in the RLSA they don't call them activity centers but balanced land use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In the new stuff I don't mind you calling it that. I mean, just, you know, point out as we go through this where you've shown how the current activity centers, how that concept is enhanced. I mean, the paragraph you added, not adding density in the coastal area, kind of is against the concept of the activity centers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I can't by the Comp. Plan add density to the coastal area. And I wouldn't want to, I think, based on everything we know about coastal high hazard and the fact that you increase density too much along the coast we have obviously transportation issues. Once we get out of that coastal high hazard area we certainly want to make sure that the appropriate density and land use mix goes on. But we talk a lot about infill in the coastal urban area. Because we're getting to the point I think there's not a lot left. So we want to definitely plan the what's left, but redevelopment more importantly. But once you cross that urban boundary, that's where two- thirds of our population is going to be at some point in time, roughly. We need to make sure that that focus on land use is appropriately set. But to your comment, we're going to add the note about the activity centers. I think, you know, Jeff had done that research, and we'll make sure that we're not changing the nomenclature if there is any conflicts there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it would also give the impression we were thinking about it a decade earlier than this shows. And then when we get into those, the different, you know, growth areas that you establish, let's talk about it again, okay? You can show me in there how we're redeveloping this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, as we go through and point out certain things, how is it that you're going to relay our comments and concerns on to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we agree with them, and so far it's been a very good relationship and discussion with all the stakeholders, we make the changes. If we disagree or it's just more of a comment, we're going to annotate the plan and actually just show to the side, comment by Planning Commission, staff agreed, made change or disagreed and here's why, so the Board knows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will we know ahead of time which items you're going to disagree with, so that if we want to challenge your disagreement, we could possibly do so? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will make it a point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one -sided if it isn't that way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Anything -- how about this in fairness: If there's anything we disagree on, I'll make sure we notify you ahead of time before we go to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 2 is larger, so let's just go through five pages at a time. So we go through Page 10 of 65 1612 December 1, 2011 2 -1 through 2 -5. At least that's the numbers my version shows. Nick, do you have any -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll hit you first every time. Do you have any changes for those? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to try and get to a -- there we go, there's a size I can read. Under Table 2 -1, we have a margin of error of about 10 percent, so that we talk about build -out. A lot was talked about in terms of build -out population. And we tried to make it clearly expressed throughout the whole plan development and discussion with the public that the 2080 number you see in Table 2 -1, we're going to be wrong. We're going to be wrong by, you know, plus or minus 10 percent. It could be more. You know, we're making certain assumptions. And the only reason we're making these assumptions is to test some of the hypotheses that we brought forward. So I don't want to say it's irrelevant, because that's a really strong word. But I want to say that it doesn't matter as much to the concepts and the recommendations that you're going to get in the back of this report. It's very important that, you know, when you put together a table -- I think some of the corrections we made as staff was we had to the hundredth, to the single integer a population projection at one point in time. And we said, we should almost round this to the thousand. I even see now 420 in 2000, and then 2035, 518,100. 1 almost want to say about 936,000 in 2080. Because a lot of discussion came out about that. And then as you see on your viewer, it says the build -out data set, and I'm below that table, is based largely upon the work previously done by Tampa Bay Engineering as part of the Collier County Horizon Study Phase 11 in 2006, which was based on the county's Growth Management Department's urban build -out analysis. So we've kind of cleared that up a little bit. But I really want to call your attention to Table 2 -1 and just say please understand, we're going to be wrong. This is a planning tool and that's all it is. So don't stick to that number and say it's it. On the next page, at the top left, we added as part of the MMP, the 2080 build -out dwelling unit and population estimates were allocated spatially, geographically in the RLSA, using the RLSA five -year review committee report. Potential locations for future towns and villages. The dwelling unit and population estimates for the area used in the report came from the Collier County Interactive Growth Model, not from the RLSA five -year review committee report. So clarification in that sense, because you had to make some assumptions to assess certain things. I'll go through like the five pages and then we'll come back and get your comments. Through 2 -3, there's a page on 2 -4 and another map there. So I'll stop there and see if you have any questions there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back to the first five pages from the Planning Commission. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on Page 2 -1, under existing and projected build -out population, the third line down says: As such, population and employment forecasts are critical. That's going to set the basis for my trying to understand why you used some of the things you used that are the sources that are listed under the paragraph below Table 1. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't we just use BEBR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, BEBR sets your growth rate and your existing population, but they don't go out to 2080. You don't have a BEBR -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- the language you added for the RLSA, what did the VanBuskirk people use for the population in the RLSA that you apparently counted on based on the last sentence here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Jeff, you want to elaborate on that? Jeff was our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember. MR. PERRY: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Perry with Stantec. The computer -- county's interactive growth model is based on a series of algorithms and formulas that look at existing land use concentrations that come from the Future Land Use Plan. So the Future Land Use plan dictates certain densities, certain capacities in certain areas, and his model is Page 11 of 65 I A7 ti ��j jx December 1, 2011 then loaded with those in the traffic analysis zones. It then produces population, employment, school children and the like. That's the information that was given to us to incorporate into the travel demand model that we wanted to use for testing purposes. During the last review of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, there were some build -out forecasts or build -out scenarios developed largely by the landowners where they were able to tell us a little bit better where they thought they would keep their agricultural perpetually, where perhaps some areas were that were more likely to be developed as future towns and villages, and there was a series of maps developed that showed some of those scenarios. One, you may recall, there was one -- the infamous centroid map that actually showed town dots that were construed as future towns. Those were actually the centers of the traffic analysis zones. We used that map to spatially allocate the data that came from the interactive growth model. The interactive growth model we found sort of used -- it didn't have a whole lot of logic as to which TA-Zs he was putting land uses in in some areas, it just wasn't possible to put them in. It was in areas that he at the time was not aware that there were stewardship preservation areas or flow ways or things like that in zones that would not accommodate development. So a lot of that development was just spatially moved around to where it fit more in context with the work that had come out of the rural lands effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I -- that was a nice expression of your thinking on it, but I still didn't get my answer. What was the population basis that you guys relied on based on the paragraph that was added? It says as part of the MMP in 2080 build -out, dwelling unit and population estimates were allocated. What did -- in the RLSA, using the RLSA five -year committee report. Okay. So what did CIGM use as the total population in that report? That was my only question. MR. PERRY: Okay. Let's see if I can put my finger on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess whoever put the population. The coastal area is your little sub, you know, area, planning area is really huge. So, I mean, don't you think it would have been a good idea to break up the southern part of it, you know, the Marco Island area and all that, which has kind of a different kind of population, a different work force? Because when you, you know, give data as to the increase in employment -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, we didn't -- we didn't want to really break out the cities in that sense. I think we call them part of the coastal urban area. Because when we met with the MPO we talked about incorporating some of this information and then maybe joint planning with the cities with that respect in terms of what they could do. So we kind of lumped them in with the coastal urban area. Now, there has been a discussion of -- and this is feedback from the community, nothing in Collier County is the same in terms of the population. Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates, urban area, they wanted separate districts. And we thought that, you know, that's a great idea. Because if we try and make this a blanket plan -- now, could we subdivide it even more because each part of the coastal urban area has its own identity as well, too? I'm sure we could. I don't know if we start breaking it down into a sub -level like City of Naples, City of Marco, North Naples, that it wouldn't have caused more controversy than just calling it the coastal urban area. So I think that's why we stopped at that level and didn't drill down even more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, I mean, when the population -- it's just difficult when you give a number in such a broad area to figure out is it the whole area that's changing uniformly or certain areas of it. But that's what you did, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to come back with that number later and we can -- MR. PERRY: I just wanted to verify --the CIGM population was 210,632 for the rural lands. The data set that we ended up with was about 221,000. And that was based on differentials between traffic zones that were split between the Immokalee urban area and the rural lands. Some -- unfortunately traffic zones don't pay too much attention to urban boundaries and things like that, so there were some traffic analysis zones where there was some population and development that were actually partially in the Immokalee urban area and partially in the rural area. So the difference that we have is as a result of that. We added up certain traffic zones where the CIGM added Page 12 of 65 r 161 A 7 December 1, 2011 up a different set of values. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by utilizing the 2080 build -out, you're saying that the density needed for the RLSA is only 221,000. Now, if you divide that by 2.39 persons per household, you come out with a density on a number of houses per acre, far, far less than what the current RLSA five -year program is asking for. In fact, it's even less than what the current program is asking for without any changes made to it. Because currently the number of credits that you can create out there based on the 16,800 acres you originally said you needed as a maximum for the RLSA will give you a population of greater than 400,000. So even at that population, you're still far off on this. So now why do we have an RLSA program going through requesting a threefold increase in the density out there when you can't use it based on the very master mobility plan you just finished with? MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, I can't answer the question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're part of all those, Jeff. MR. PERRY: What we used was the official data provided to the team as part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your official data just punched a hole in your RLSA request. So I just want you to know that, because this doesn't match up to that at all. I don't see how you're getting there. Which also lends to the credibility of this plan. I mean, that's not the population that was projected for out there, it's much lower than the real population. It's much lower than what you all claim you need by the very -- by the mere fact you're asking for so many more acreage credits out there. So I don't understand how we're getting to 221,000. It's far below what that area is going to take care of. And if this plan's real, why aren't we looking at real numbers? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're saying -- so I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman, you're saying with the proposed RLSA changes this would go higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you're saying here this is incorporating the five -year review. Then I'm asking you, if it is then why would you -- then why do you even need it? Why do you need the five -year review's increase? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only for the -- only for the location map that was proposed. But we didn't incorporate the changes that the RLSA review was requesting or talking about, because it wasn't approved. So some of those changes that you talked about with the density bonuses that would be in the RLSA review were not added in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you used the build -out map showing 20 -- I think it's 23 new towns -- okay, we'll call them centroids as they -- what originally was towns. But you didn't put any population in those towns because they don't exist because the new map wasn't adopted because we're still going by the old plan. MR. PERRY: No, the traffic analysis zone system that came out of the computer -- the county's interactive growth model spatially allocated all of the development, the 107,000 dwelling units and 220,000 population, spatially allocated them throughout the rural lands area into the individual TAZs. When we compared that with the work that had come out of the rural lands five -year review where more effort had been put into -- subsequent effort had been put into where that development might take place, we reallocated the CIGM data into those areas that were more concentrated based on the rural lands review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that means that -- MR. PERRY: We didn't change any of the numbers specifically other than just spatially reallocating them into different traffic zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled would seem to rely on a concentration of density and people. MR. PERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By taking a more spread -out map for the RLSA that the five -year committee reviewed in that new towns or centroid map as you call it, and spreading the limited, sparser population of the original RLSA over that map, you've done just the opposite. You've created sparser population centers throughout there by using the right data from the one and the wrong data from another. I don't understand why you did that. I'm not -- maybe I'm not following this plan, but it seems to me if you use the lower population and more points, you got just the reverse effect than what you're looking for. Page 13 of 65 .4 7 December 1, 2011 MR. PERRY: When Dr. VanBuskirk went through and developed the CIGM, he did the best job with understanding with the size of the traffic zones where development might take place, and based on the population growth and the algorithms in his particular model. He was not considering many of the, I'll call them restrictions in the rural lands where development would not likely take place. Areas like the habitat areas and the flow ways and areas -- in the Big Cypress, for instance, there were developments shown in areas and larger amounts of areas in the area of critical state concern, which we believe just would not be occurring. And the landowners in the five -year review gave us a hint as to where they thought the best places would be for preserving agricultural and where the likely places of future towns would be. Now, all that was discussed during the rural lands five -year review. We felt that that spatial distribution of that same amount of development was better than what was coming out of the computer interactive growth model. The fact that we changed anything, as Nick alluded to, is really irrelevant. Because what we were doing in the model was simply testing things that would give us a relative change if we started with 200,000 people spatially allocated or we started with 400,000 people spatially allocated. It didn't make any difference when we started adding bridges in Golden Gate Estates or moving things from point A to point B, because we were looking for the difference that the model produced between the one run and the second run. So the actual allocation, the total amount of allocation out there is really irrelevant to the testing that we were doing. We weren't trying to build a highway network for 200,000 people or 400,000 people or 600,000 people. What we were trying to do is test what would happen if you move something from point A to point B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you have something you need to ask? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I was wanting to ask, could it be that the discrepancy between this projection and the higher numbers that Mark is talking about could be that you can allow a certain number of residences in a certain amount of population, but that doesn't mean that it's going to actually get built. Usually a lot less gets built than what is zoned for. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm glad you made that point. One of the things we talked about was to be a little conservative with this. If we're going to error on a side, it's not to go higher. Because I think people take a lot of stock in these numbers. And you're right, you start putting a higher number out there. So while in -- with discussion with the Chairman, he made a point, he thinks that through the RLSA program there is bonuses that you can receive that haven't been clearly elaborated. I think we talked about that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thinks? I know there is. You know there is too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, we talked about that. But putting that in the RLSA review when it does happen to clarify that is not the job of the MMP. So we didn't want to get into that debate in the MMP is how much can be in your RLSA. We took a, what I call a I wouldn't say conservative, but lower end of that thought process. Because once you put a high number -- and you're right, you can, I think every developer entitles more than he can build. There's not been one development in Collier County that's built out to the max that they've been entitled to. So to Jeffs point, I'll reiterate it again, whether we show 900,000 or 1,200,000, we're testing off that number. I don't want to debate that number. The Chairman's point is valid, I think that that's a discussion for the RLSA, because it will have to get cleaned up when the RLSA comes forward. But if you make it part of this, I think we're in a quagmire in terms of the population number. sidebar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I could use that as an example of something else, but then we'll get into another Did you have anything else you wanted to add, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I disagree with your position, but that's not unusual, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not his birthday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll move on for the sake of trying to get through this today. We're on the first five pages of this second section. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you have some graphics here that are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, on the Page 2 -4. Page 14 of 65 16 42 Q 9 December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, let me get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The source on the bottom, the little footnote. Bottom. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to go to the left. Right there -- no, next one down. That's 2 -3. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least 2 -3 in my book. I don't know what it is in yours. Two twenty -- go back over, there it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That 2 -5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's 2 -4 in mine. We're going to have fun today. The language I want to talk about is on your Page 2 -5, my Page 2 -4. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Source, 2080 build -out employment figure based on previous planning efforts and refined as part of the MMP. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What previous planning efforts, and how did you refine them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly what we just talked about, the CIGM, the build -out study that we've done. And how we refined them was exactly what Jeff said, we looked at some areas that were done by previous studies that said these don't make any sense. Now, in some of the allocations, I'll go to the map and kind of show you, when we brought up these traffic analysis zones, Jeff, Tindale- Oliver, they've all walked up and said, God, we're showing some population over here -- I'm putting the curler here, I'm just using an arbitrary location --or some population over here. So somewhere in one of the previous studies they didn't clean these TAZs. It wasn't a lot, it could have been a traffic analysis zone in Picayune Strand State Forest that showed a population of 300 or 500, and we said that doesn't make any sense. So I think to Jeffs credit, we kind of put a hold on everything and we said, Jeff, go through all these TAZs, and if there's anything that's in the middle of a swamp, if it's in the middle of a lake, because the TAZ wasn't cleaned up, and it wasn't a lot, please clarify that and clean it up. And he did. So that refinement is going through those TAZs and saying whatever previous planning effort was done, even though we're not trying to get down to the micro level of population, we didn't want to, in our data analysis someone says, hey, we'd like to pull up your TAZ map, call out TAZ -200 is in the middle of Big Cypress State Forest and you're showing 400 people there. So that was the refinement that we're talking about in this as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, how do you come up with the numbers for employment? What kind of process do you go through to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: In traffic modeling, when you get to -- in retail centers, when you get to industrial parks or things like that, they convert them to square footage to employment, how many people will actually work there. They call it employment matching as well there. So that's where they get that from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 2 -5 in mine where it says 2007 population per available acre, I'm looking at Immokalee and I'm seeing areas that are orange that are totally uninhabited, they're just orange groves and tomato fields. I don't know -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are you in Map 2 -2? This is Map 2 -2, but the bottom -- I think the Chairman has an unabridged -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Map 2 -3 is what I'm looking at. That one. Up in the upper right -hand corner, the Immokalee area. There's a lot of orange areas that are totally uninhabited. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In where, sir? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the Immokalee urban area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have my cursor. Is it on the western side or -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For example, north of New Market Road there's a big sort of rhomboid -- right there. Page 15 of 65 �� Ta AV iA 6 1 2 December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's an orange grove, nobody lives there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that goes all the way up to the county line and outside. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think the color calls it -- my eyes are going to fail me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Two to five per acre. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two to five people per acre in that area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that's just an example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But there is some -- and because the traffic analysis zone is so big, there is population on the north side of New Market, correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So that's -- even though -- that's the problem. This population right here, sir, that as I call it New Market, it gets blended into this zone as a total. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's why it shows up that way. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, on the curve below Immokalee. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: There's nobody that lives down there. Keep going down. Past the Immokalee urban boundary. South. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, on 846 South. Just past the urban boundary. South. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Over here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tell my cursor to go to the east or -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go to the left. Left, left. Down. Down. The curve of 846 there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. What Jeff is telling me is that this inset probably needs to be corrected to match this. Because I think what you did, you used -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, yeah, that's right, they're different. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yep. So I think we'll -- good catch. We're going to check that inset compared to I think when we printed it. And I'm going to look down to the 2080 and see if that -- yes. Here's what happened, sir. This inset in the next page is this, and it was duplicated here. So we need to take this inset and blow it up to here. But that's -- good catch. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 2 -6 through 2 -10. Nick, your changes first. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to go through it, sir. These are the tables. I see no other changes. And I'm at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just through 2 -10 for now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm through 2 -10 and there are no other changes for us. So if you want to provide any comments, we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? 2007. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2 -9, Table 3,2-3. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I already talked to you about the RLSA numbers. The total persons per household, MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you saying that what David Weeks uses as 2.39 has dropped to 2.71? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean increased? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In persons per household total. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Persons per dwelling unit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Per dwelling unit. Same. Okay, I'm assuming a dwelling unit is a household? Page 16 of 65 161 2 A7 Deckber 1, 2011 MR. PERRY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then maybe you can explain the difference then. MR. PERRY: A household is an occupied dwelling unit. So that your persons per household is basically persons per family, according to the census bureau. It does not take into consideration any vacant dwellings or anything like that. So a persons per dwelling unit rate would be a much lower rate, because it does take into consideration all dwelling units including those that have no people living in them. So you always end up with a persons per household rate that may be 2.25 or 2.7, something like that within -- or sometimes three in Golden Gate Estates or Immokalee even higher. But persons per dwelling unit, when you start averaging in all of the vacant units, goes down to 1.8 or 1.6 or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else through 2 -10? Yes, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be clear, on this next series of maps, the employees, that's where they will live per available acre; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say next series of maps, the ones we've just looked at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the 2.2 -8. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're in the next section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, 2 -7 too. It just says employees per available acre. That means that's where they will reside; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Not reside, that's where the employment centers are, not residential. That's where the trip match happens in those TAZs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The prior one, you use the tenn employer. Hold on a second. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would that be relevant, employer here? MR. PERRY: The number of employees. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's typically -- the nomenclature is employees, but it's not that they reside in that, that's their destination TAZ. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prior to that you used population and employment. But -- okay. So these are employ -- maybe employment might be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: The nomenclature for transportation model is employees. That's the way they use it for transportation -- I mean, I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 2 -11 through 2 -15. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right, let me see if I have any changes in those, based on our comments. And then we'll come back and go through yours. I'm at 2 -13 at the bottom right. And I'll read the last sentence, or the sentence above it. We corrected to say -- second sentence bottom right -hand corner says areas with lower median ages also experienced higher student generation rates, as there are areas with a greater proportion of school age children and families. Then we added a sentence at the bottom that says: The ratio of school age residents per housing unit in Figure 2 -3 is a reflection of the number of students generated per dwelling unit on an average by census block group. It does not reflect the overall student population within a particular area but rather the ratio of students to total housing units. And that was based on comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before you leave that, though, it's saying the student projections in Table 2 -3? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two - three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on 2 -3 now and I'm trying to see where it talks about students. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are we referencing the wrong table, folks? It should be figure maybe? Yeah, I think we have figure and table wrong. I'm sorry, I said Table, it's Figure 2 -3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Debbie. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nick, can you scroll back up? My page numbers aren't matching. Page 17 of 65 r z 1612A7 December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, his are going to be off, because he's added text. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. It's 2 -12 in our book. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's Figure 2 -2 is on 2 -12. On my 2 -12. That's what happens when you make corrections ahead of time. So that takes me through the first five pages I believe, sir. No other changes at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, let's start on Page 2 -12. Table 2 -7. The fine printing underneath, it talks about how the census was based upon. It says in the fifth line down, 2006 data are based on the 2000 student generation rate brought current to 2006 using building permit and 2006 student enrollment data developed for the 2006 Collier County school impact fee update. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I want to make sure I'm looking at -- which table now? C14AMMAN STRAIN: Right there, that table, the fine print halfway through down the bottom. It seems to me they're doing the opposite of what we just talked about. When I questioned the persons per household rate on the population and Jeff was saying that the vacant housing, when it's included, the persons per dwelling unit applies, and it's 1.7 1, that's a far different multiplier than 2.39. But it looks like they're calculating students on building permits? Building permits are vacant houses in a lot of cases, especially now. So how is that accurate for determining student generation rate, which then determines schools and where vehicle roads would go and how people will travel? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let them answer. But I think the problem with going with students was the challenge of we didn't have anything to back check it with at this period other than to bring it current with building permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't the school board -- I mean, the last time I had seen some statistics from them, they had pretty good demographics on students and where their bodies are. Tom, you guys keep track of where your students are coming from and things like that? MR. EASTMAN: For the current student population, we know exactly where each student is located, each address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then could you -- do you do that -- I mean, you have it in some kind of format so if someone wanted to see it they could see it? Did you guys bother to use it for your analysis of the master mobility plan? MR. TINDALE: Sure we did. The big key with the impact fees is that you have houses being permitted that are vacant, and they still pay impact fees. You can't charge an impact fee for the students per occupied household and then have people pull permits and 20 percent of the homes are vacant and charge impact fees and not reduce the number of students per home, because you'll generate too much revenue. So we have to, from an impact fee purposes, use persons per total homes, not students per occupied household. And there's no conflict with what we're seeing here in terms of the impact fee data and the impact fee data knew the number of students per occupied home. And the impact fee data knew from the analysis where in the school board the students per total homes. So this is just a reference being sure that everybody understands that we have to be sure we monitor students per occupied home and students for all homes. If not, we're going to have people pulling a lot of permits without students and we're going to generate way too much money because we don't have the students in homes that pull permits to pay impact fees. So this is just a clarification of what we've got, how we used it and where the data came from. it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, does this data to generate students match up to the way the school system uses MR. EASTMAN: I believe the student generation rates are what we've agreed upon in our interlocal for concurrency, so it would match up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'd know. Thank you. On Page 2 -13, part of that snap, especially the part that I believe is showing east of Orange Tree, south of Immokalee Road and all the way out to 29, student age, residents per housing units, greater than .75. That's your highest statistical area for students? Page 18 of 65 1612 j47 ecember 1 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Per housing unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the most sparsely populated part of the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Per housing unit. That's the key. That housing unit is higher -- lower, I'm sorry. Lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so school age residents per housing unit, when it says greater than .75, explain to me for the dark brown what that means. I'll just reverse the question, since I don't want to assume I know what it means. Because you guys seem to have a different way of explaining it, why don't you explain it first. MR. PERRY: It means that there's an average of three - quarters of a student in every housing unit in that particular area. Greater than three - quarters. So it could be two, one, one and a half, two, three, four children, school age children per housing unit within those dark brown areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the dark brown areas that are in the agricultural area predominantly, which happen to be part of the areas that overlap into the City of Immokalee where the density is even higher, they don't have a different perception for this plan, but any houses in those areas are just going to have the most students. MR. TINDALE: We've done this with the parks master plan, we've done this with the school master plan and there's a message that comes out in Collier County. The older community is along the water, there are fewer students and it's an older community in terms of the age and higher income. As you move out, the age drops and the persons per household goes up, which is dominated by students. So this is very consistent with the parks master plan, the school analysis, and you can't plan for the same age group moving out into this area with the same students as you have along the waterfront. And this just documents that as you grow, not the rate of growth or the number that are there, the number of students per household is going to be greater per unit in these areas than the historical areas where we have the higher income and the lower age. And this is just a graphic showing that fact, and it's being used for all the different elements in terms of planning and understanding that as you move out to the east you're going to have a younger group of people moving into the county and you're going to have more students per household. Not the number of households, but the makeup of the households. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. TINDALE: My name is Steve Tindale, with Tindale- Oliver and Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, what you just said absolutely contradicts the statement I had asked for the same response for in 2004 and 2005 in the approval of Ave Maria. In that project they used a persons per household that was far less than the coastal area, because they argued just the opposite of what you just said. But now what you just said and what this map reflects is they were wrong in that calculation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're right. What we found is Ave Maria has a lot more children per household. I, you know, raised as a good Catholic, I guess -- that community is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said and I was told no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You were right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand. This plan is bringing in a lot of differentials that seem to contrast with things historically we have followed. And I'm trying to understand how you got there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I remember your comments back then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I do too. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You said, don't you think if it's a Catholic university town we expect the population to be higher? And I think the testimony back then was, no, it probably will not be. And in fact we found out it is higher. They do have more students per household in the Town of Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good infonnation for use in the future. Thank you. Anybody on Pages -- we'll go 2 -16 to 2 -20. (No response.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have no pages going through 2 -20 and 2.21 in my book. So I'll take comments from the Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 2 -17. There it is, 2 -18 on your pages. See that big dark square right in the Page 19 of 65 k t 16 December 1, 2011 middle of the rural area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's Orange Tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed to know. On Page 2 -20,1 think my question may have been answered, so just give me -- okay, yeah, my question's answered on that one, so -- okay, go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On 2 -19, you may not know the answer to this, but I noticed that the CAT trips have been going down and the passenger trips per capita have also been going down since 2007. Do you know why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't. But I can tell you that they're starting to tick back up. Their data goes to 2009. Stops there. We're back up to -- if this chart was to continue up, now that we've got 2010 and 2011 data, I think that's the recession that we just went through. We did see a drop. But we are now backup to those 2006 -7 levels that are starting to increase as well too. So it's definitely the recession hit the CAT system a little bit. You can tell not that much. But it's now trending back up again, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two - twenty to 2 -15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have any? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll go through that sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2 -21 to 2 -25? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. I'm on R -224, and the title at the top says Section 2.2, Land Use and Development Patterns. Under the current land use, second paragraph, we put -- and I'm kind of highlighting my cursor here. It says -- it says the existing and approved land use map shows the majority of existing development is located within the CUA coastal urban area. And then on the right -hand side, we talked about environmentally sensitive areas. On the first bullet point we say protected and environmentally sensitive lands include the nearly 825,000 acres of federal and state parks, preserves, and refuges, along with the NRPA sending lands and the rural fringe mixed use district and -- and then we go on to finish the sentence. So that was a correction. I think we received that from the environmental groups. We get into Map 2 -7, no changes. Two - eight, we talked about the -- it shows the activity centers. And map 2 -9. And I have no changes through 2 -28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not even that far yet, we're only going up to 2 -25 right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I think I jumped ahead on the graphics, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're just anxious. Anybody from the Planning Commission through 2 -25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on Page 2 -23, which is probably your 2 -24. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. One of the maps? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not a map. It starts out Section 2.2.2, the one you made some changes on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one, the first change you made, the existing and approved. But it also, it says that the majority of existing development is located in CUA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Coastal urban area, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: GG is the Estates. I understand Immokalee. Everglades City? How do you get the majority of existing development in Everglades City? It's like a hundred and, what, a couple hundred, few hundred people down there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we talk about existing development, those are the development centers. And I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says the majority of existing development. Do you think Everglades City represents a majority of the existing development? And likewise with Ave Maria? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Page 20 of 65 ,F § 161 2A7 December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you have them in here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Ave Maria would be one. When you talk about development, they've developed a university. Probably as of note with the residents. But I understand your comment about Everglades City. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Man, Everglades City is a great place, but it's just not where you'd picture the majority of development to be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let the Mayor know you wanted this taken out, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. No problem with that at all. Let's go on, 2 -26 through 2 -30. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm through 2 -30, sir, and I have no changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 2 -26, which is your 2 -27. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This one of the maps, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. Right there, 2 -9. Go all the way to the bottom and let's go back and look at your fun footnotes again. Right there. The green represents protected and environmentally sensitive lands. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My -- I have -- my copy is different, so I'm not even going to get into it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that was one of the -- maybe the map changes. MR. PERRY: That's to be consistent with the text. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. It works better this way, so -- Page 2 -31 through 2 -35? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have any? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm scrolling through, sir, and I don't see any changes yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, we have a note here, and I want to make sure I didn't get ahead too far. Maybe I did. It's our 2 -35, above figure 2 -20. We put a note. The RLSA build -out population estimate from Collier County interactive growth model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 2 -35 through 2 -40. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: No changes from us, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you back up to that Map 2 -10, which was the road network. Go back down now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I love the hard copy I have. I had a lot more questions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it was a correction you pointed out, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on 2 -40, is that it, through 2 -45? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 2 -45 to 2 -50. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then 2 -50 to the balance of this section. Does anybody have any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have any other corrections? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Page 21 of 65 1612 December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Map 2 -18, you're coming to it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about the map titled Solid Waste. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think there was one comment about an existing site. And I think this is it. It's park sites. It's 2 -17. Let me get to that map, sir. Two - eighteen. I think we made that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see it. Okay, that gets us through Section 2. Does anybody have any questions further on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have, really I think Section 3 -- yeah, because the Appendix, I don't see us going through that. And the grant page, page at a time. So let's take a break and we'll come back after break and see where we go. So we'll take a break till 10:30, okay? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, take your seats. We'll try to move forward. But before we do, I forgot in Sections 1 and 2 to express afterwards that when we finish with each section, I'll turn to the public. If they want to comment on that section at the end of our discussion of that section, they'd be more than welcome to. You don't need to register, I'll just ask by people to come up. But also at the very end when we talk about the last section today, I'll ask for any general comments from the public as well. So we'll make sure we have as much input as those here may want to provide. And Chuck, you're the one person standing still right now. MR. MOHLKE: Chuck Mohlke, a Naples resident. If it please this honorable Commission, I'd just like to make two observations about the general areas covered in Section 2. One is I have a lasting fear /concern that as we develop these very badly needed planning instruments, that it's often the case that they show over time historically different outcomes, particularly as they're related to populations. Methods are employed that although conceptually similar are very often in their execution very different indeed. And it concerns one when you go to listen to conversations among members of, for example, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' advisory committees and they're talking about methodologies that are being employed that address the issue of plans for non - motorized transit in Collier County and in Lee County, that they have quarrels over validation of methodologies, concerns expressed about the integrity of this data over time. The way in which some of the studies are funded often comes in conflict with a desirable public purpose in having the best available population information estimates and projections as possible. And I will seize on one point discussed earlier to give an example of my concern. The traffic analysis zones that are fundamental to the development of population information and have been used extensively in the material that you have before you in the master mobility plan are undergoing change over time. They are almost uniformly smaller, more compact, are, to use the language of redistricting, more contiguous than they often have been in the past. Very admirable objective. But my concern is that as plans are developed and if they're robust plans that change over time, what guarantee do we have that these new configurations of the basic unit of population projection, the traffic analysis zone, are changed uniformly in all of these plans? That at some point in time periodically they're validated, periodically they are adjusted to reflect the recent findings of the 2010 census. And you have a statement from but one person, me, that this activity is not going on presently, that there is not a coordinated attempt to look systematically at each one of these efforts to estimate and project populations over time that indicates that there's a good line of communications between the various agencies, all of whom use these to make what eventually ends up by becoming the real concern here, and that's rival claims on resources. I think we ought to have this much money based upon the population estimates developed X number of years ago but which we have used for our planning purposes saying we need these resources in order to serve the public well. And then have others with limited resources being available making alternate claims that say well, my numbers are better than your numbers because they're more robust, they've been more recently validated, they don't rely on 2007 information, as this study does. Page 22 of 65 ti A d 16[.2 A7 December 1, 2011 And I just ask the question for general purposes: At what point in time will what I hope will be a very robust system here be adjusted to have population reflect accurately the findings of the 2010 census? Will then routinely, over the time between today and the time that you next look at a master mobility plan update, either an interim update or the basic update when this plan basically is reviewed at the same level you're reviewing it now. I'm very hopeful that this can take place. I'll conclude my remarks this way. Mr. Chairman: You had asked earlier, why not use BEBR, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research population estimates. And there are often very good reasons for not doing that. But we do have after all through the county's Comprehensive Planning Department efforts to on a yearly basis make population estimates and projections. These will often end up mid - decade being very different than the projections that are relied on for planning purposes by the master mobility study, the transit study and a wide variety of other things that have to do with transportation related issues, pathways, greenways and sidewalk planning, for example. And at some point in time other independent agencies, the district school board, the fire districts, a wide variety of other independent concerns that are not covered by the Comprehensive Plan of Collier County will have similar estimates of what their needs are based on population projections that they have developed. At some point in time somebody is going to have to say how do we coordinate these efforts, how do we use that basic unit, the traffic analysis zone that has been updated and adjusted geographically to reflect current growth trends, are these reflected in the planning documents of other agencies? Presently, I hope I'm wrong about this. I don't think that discussion is taking place. And perhaps one way to give it some specific reference, we are working with planning community districts in Collier County that were designed 30 years ago, and they have not been adjusted since that time. A combination of annexations, the creation of the New City of Marco Island and a number of other things have created what is left over, what survives, perhaps, from those old planning community districts, particularly in the urban area, that simply don't make any sense anymore. But we still use them. And the grounds are simple, that we in order to look carefully at trends over time, we have to keep uniformity in the system. Well, it's desirable, but there's a way to make those adjustments and then use simultaneously both systems for a period of what, 36 to 48 months and then gradually move into the new system, knowing full well that it has been accommodated to reflect trends overtime. I'm just hopeful that that will happen. And that's the conclusion of my remarks, and I thank you for the opportunity to make them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck. Appreciate it. Does anybody else want to speak from the public at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have more opportunity as we go through each section and at the end as well. So with that, let's move to Section 3. It's a short section, so let's just take it all at once. Nick, do you have any changes in Section 3? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, Commissioner, I'm going to go through real quick, just take a quick look. But while I'm doing that, I think the most important thing is to say that I think we raised the bar. There are a couple of comments here that were modified. And I'm on 3 -6. Under the public stakeholder meeting, number four, was held on November 21st, 2011, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the South Regional Library and was attended by 20 participants. I think we put some details in here. Public stakeholder meeting number five was held on November 9th, 2011 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. The exhibit hall was attended by seven participants. The purpose of these two meetings was to answer questions on the draft public report and gather feedback on the recommendations and questions and comments. So I think we're just making a note that we didn't have this information at the time of the report, and we put that in there now. So those are the changes we have there. And then said under this bullet point, Golden Gate Estates, Orange Tree. For instance, options that maximize the capacity should be emphasized in the area. Transfer of development rights should be used to reduce densities in targeted areas. And that was part of that public involvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Section 3? (No response.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me go through the rest to make sure there's nothing else. One more comment. I know maybe I'm -- I want to stress this enough. But I've got to tell you, if this is the way we do business, it's Page 23 of 65 16 12 7 04 s =. December 1, 2011 phenomenal in the sense you're getting public feedback. It's really, really good. The downside is it takes a lot more time to get things done. And I don't think that's a bad tradeoff. But we have definitely set the bar in public involvement with. this project. So I want to make sure you're aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 4 is a little bit longer, so let's take it about 10 pages at a time, if that's okay with you guys. It's more of a conceptual discussion. So on the first 10 pages, which is Pages 4 -1 through 4 -10, Nick, do you have any changes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to scroll through real quick, sir. I'm on our Page 4 -7. It's -- I'm on the right -hand side. And I think we put the word -- I'm going to try and find the beginning of the sentence here -- using 19 -- 190,000 square feet of potential neighborhood commercial at Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard as a proxy, parentheses, 150,000 square feet recently approved plus the potential increase to additional 40,000 square feet. An additional 200,000 square feet of retail development was assumed for each neighborhood center. We put the word each in front of that so that we could talk about that. Again, to Commissioner Schiffer's comments about neighborhood center, activity center. So that change was made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that change, I'm trying to understand what you're saying there. You use the -- using 190,000 square feet potential for the neighborhood center at Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards as a proxy, what do you mean by as a proxy? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Assuming that that location worked and what was approved by the community, looking at this map --and this is not the activity center map, but TDR map. Let me just see if I have an activity center map. We said at the other locations where, say, Golden Gate and Everglades, right now you can't be that size, we used that as a proxy to kind of look at those areas, if they were treated the same way. If the community liked that one and that one worked, those other activity centers or neighborhood centers were brought up to that level. Or assumed. So we just said if that is a proxy, if that worked and that's what the community wanted, let's assume those at those other locations as well too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, because when I read this the first time, my impression was that an additional 200,000 square feet of retail development was assumed for neighborhood centers located at the remaining three intersections. So if you allow five acres in each corner, the square footage, I didn't do the calculation or go back to the GMP to do it at the time, but my assumption was then that those three came up to about 200,000. But what you're now saying is on each one you have predicted 200,000, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we didn't predict them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You proxied it, whatever you -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does that influence your mapping, your VHT and your VMT, if you are using the 200,000 as a basis for any calculation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're reducing? You mean increasing it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're reducing them, but you're reducing them based on that being done, right, as a proxy, more or less? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that this doesn't suggest that you're -- someone could use this as a basis to change the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by saying according to this plan it was needed this way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was tested this way. So it wasn't -- not to say it needed. That's a whole different discussion. You had said earlier, to make any of those changes you would need a Growth Management Plan. And we're going to put that in there. But we tested it to see what would happen if we did that, if that first intersection was approved by the community and that worked really well, and if we tested the other areas, what would happen. Obviously you're going to get a VMT reduction, because you're going to have those centers there. Not to suggest that, again, throughout this discussion we say that those changes have to be vetted by what the community wanted. We just show that those kind of changes benefit the VMT and VHT. You still have to take into the socioeconomic consideration with those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you use any other non -GMP approved proxies in your analysis, or was it just that Golden Gate again got the benefit of being singled out for such treatment? Page 24 of 65 F" C 1612A7Deciter 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we looked at what the densities in the rural village is and what the density transfers would do, and those aren't approved right now. But we tested those as well too. So yeah, we have looked at other areas as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before this is -- before this goes to the Board, are we going to get a redline draft back? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think -- I would suggest we do. But I don't care if it's a colored version of all the flash, but a redline version of the text is all I would like to see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, if we make changes, and based on the changes we have here, would it be okay if we submitted it to the Planning Commission electronically so that you could review the redline easy or -- yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I'm real slow today, but you're going the opposite direction. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's a problem. If it's okay with the Planning Commission, we'd be happy to send you an electronic copy. It's very easy to review that way. But if you want a hard copy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Electronic's fine with me. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other changes you have in Section 3? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or whatever section. Four. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm through 4 -11, sir, and I have no other changes. CHARMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions in Section 4 through Page 10? I'm sorry, we have to go every 10 pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, on the first page, these are the overview of conceptual plans. The -- I kind of thought the mobility plan was going to, you know, hopefully change some of the rules, but the first one you're saying is that, you know, to identify strategies that respond to the county's development plan. I mean, shouldn't this be influencing the development plan or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I suppose you could use the word influence, or that guide the county development and economic goals. That's a good comment. I think we could look at that, that guide or influence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think the purpose of this is to use these concepts to, you know, reduce the vehicle miles, the vehicle hours, not just calculate what they will be if we develop -- as we're developing. Shouldn't we be changing that course if it makes sense with mobility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, comment behind me was both. But I agree. To, you know, to respond to an inference or guide the county's development and economic goals. I think that's a good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then another question is on Page 4 -3, vertical mixed use. What did you mean by vertical mixed use? Retail on the ground floor, office in the mid - section, residential on top? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Vertical mixed use? Show me where, sir. I just want to make sure -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah, it'd be on the lower right -hand side on 4 -3. That may not be your number, I guess. See the last paragraph: along with the benefits. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, under reduce the VMT. Mixed use developments also have many economic and environmental developments, especially with concern to vertical mixed use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what you mean by that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I may have a couple. I'm trying to see if they're already answered. Page 25 of 65 "s December 1, 2011 That one has been. On Page 4 -7, well, actually, it's Table 4 -1, so I don't know what page that is on your -- there it is. I just want you to know I strongly object to that table being included as part of this study. I don't believe that the areas that are being singled out in Golden Gate Estates for the TDR's or wildlife habitat corridors are appropriately annotated -- should be in this plan. I'm not saying they're the wrong thing to do, I'm just saying it's the wrong plan to do it and notification to the public was far inadequate in comparison to the application that's being applied here. Did you individually notify all those residents being affected like we did during the Golden Gate master plan study when things like this are happening in the neighborhoods? I know you didn't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. And I think we're very aware of that. And what we're recommending is -- and when we get to the recommendations, we'll talk about that. But I think what we're suggesting is those are areas that we have vetted with the civic association, that has been talked about through the watershed plans. Not the green at the bottom. But what we're recommending is that a committee made up of the residents of the Estates as well as some of the urban fringe and coastal area looks at that. So we fully expect this to be a very detailed analysis, not by just county staff but by the residents that are there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Nick, the residents or whoever thinks this is needed needs to go to the Board and request a study be done specifically earmarked for this kind of activity. You don't throw it into this plan and have it put on a map on this plan, because it's almost a done deal. If you're doing a due diligence on a piece of property that you're buying in that green or that orange area and you see this plan, I'd automatically be concerned about the piece of property I was buying and what it meant. And the fact that it was even bureaucratically in the process is scary. That's just not fair to the property owners out there. Give it to them right. Do it through stakeholders meetings like you have everything else, and then that's the way to go. Or through the reappointment of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee and let it come up through that process. But not as a -- thrown in as the highjacking of this process. I don't believe it's correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you're talking about a Catch 22. This is a way to introduce it. And if we introduce it and we say -- and we can say to the Board, if you say don't do it, comment received, we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I'm one person that's saying don't do it. Comment received. There it is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So sir, you would not want us to vet this with the community? Because we've got some positive feedback -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not through this plan. If the community -- or the environmental community want this, they need to approach the Board like every time you need a new plan, not by in trying to put it on the map in this plan. Everything that goes on this plan someone is going to use for a wrong purpose in the future. Seems to happen with every single plan we do. We don't know what they're going to use it for, we don't know what kind of defense they're going to make out of it, but they'll throw it up in the future saying see, it's on the plan, it was in the public, everybody knows this. And that's not the purpose of this mobility plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for you and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what I want to say is that it's important that we note what we're asking for in the recommendation is we're asking to get with the community to look at this. Because through the watershed plans and then that green area to the south of the mobility plan, we've said this is something we should look at. And all we're saying in this planning document is go out to the community and do exactly what you're saying. So I'm in a Catch 22. If I don't bring it up and say to the Board, tell us to go talk to the community, that's why I'm saying, I feel like I'm in a Catch 22 when you make that comment. Really, our intent is to meet with the civic association, meet with the residents and say, look, here's an opportunity, you want the Estates to be a certain way, there's a dual benefit both from the watershed plan and the mobility plan. A committee should be put forward from the people that are there, whether it's a Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy, but take the time to look at it. Because we have received a lot of positive comments about this, and it's strictly voluntary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think like the paragraph you added that I pointed out earlier, you put it in a separate executive summary to the Board and say it's time this happened. This came about as our review from the public input on the master mobility plan. Page 26 of 65 1612 A7 December 1, 2011 But again, I think it's wrong to stick it in this plan, even as a visual reference, because someone is going to lock it in and get hurt by it, unintendedly. And I'm not saying I'm against either one of those. In fact, probably good ideas, but it's not the ideas that belong in this plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood and noted, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Isn't the -- this taking wildlife and the environment and sensitive lands, isn't that part of the requirement for the grant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Isn't it required in the grant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was applied for in the grant, and that was one of the grant stipulations that we would -- we looking -- we have to comply with the grant. And that was one of the bullet points. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it wasn't advertised as a conservation plan or a transfer of development rights plan, was it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people do you think actually read that grant document? How many people actually know how to find it on the internet? How many people in those orange areas or those green areas have pulled that document down from the internet and found it? I doubt if any of them have. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the civic association representation has. I know they could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I don't -- they're wrong then too. I don't think you can ignore people's individual property rights by drawing up plans, overlays on their properties without them being notified about it. I think it's just wrong, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I don't want to make it a circular discussion. I want to note your objection and definitely take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 10 through 20? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 4 -11, in there you're giving some techniques used to improve -- that's exactly right, to improve a product level of connectivity. What does the first one do? When you say reduce intersect spacing, what do you mean by that -- intersection? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me read it in context, and that way I think it will help the audience and myself get up to speed. Let me see if there's a sentence that starts from the beginning. Connectivity starts at the project level, where a mix of land uses should be able to interconnect with roads, transit and non - motorized options. When residents who want to shop at a neighborhood commercial center must get in their cars and travel outside the development on the arterial network, it wastes fuel, increases emissions and inconveniences the resident and the motoring public on the arterial. Instead, having an intersection to the neighboring development, efforts to direct access to car or better yet by non- motorized travel, this reduces congestion, emissions, improving system operation, providing additional opportunities for exercise. Some of the techniques to use to improve project level connectivity are reducing intersection spacing, public safety, pedestrian and bicycle connections. In an urban area, sometimes reducing that spacing helps out for that connectivity, because what you're saying is -- Radio Road, a couple of roads, if you can't cross that intersection, can't cross the road because spacing is a mile apart, then you've got to get in your car. But where you reduce it and you provide crosswalks and safe crossings, as long as it doesn't hamper that mobility for the vehicles and are timed properly, you allow that ability to cross that road without going a mile down, making a U -turn with a vehicle, or a half mile down to cross at a crosswalk, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I get it on the big scale, but somehow I pictured a smaller scale you're reducing. But, like for example, you have a distance between intersections like, you know, especially traffic lights. You're not thinking of reducing that, you're thinking of -- in other words, in a large development, don't have long Page 27 of 65 161 A7 *ecember 1, 2011 spaced crossovers on main streets. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think -- Mr. Tindale said inside the neighborhoods but also in your urban area, on your non - collectors and arterials, making sure you have crosswalks and safe intersections as well. But exactly his point, inside the neighborhoods as well, too, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And essentially at a pedestrian scale place these elements. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Development scale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 -12. Right there. The second -- wait a minute. We're not on the same, but go down one page if you could, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The graphic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, mine starts connectivity test number two. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one, I'm sorry. Number one, the next one up. Keep going. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there it is. Okay, so where it's the second paragraph where it says following. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Following a run of the travel demand model, the results of the test network were compared with the baseline 2035 needs plan. Now, when you did a run of the travel demand model, what does that mean? What did you use for the statistics that went into that run? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we used the 2035 needs network as your tool to measure with by. That never changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the statistics used to determine the Table 5 results, which is your vehicle miles traveled, and I'm considering again -- I'm back to population. What population basis did you use for that travel demand model? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The one we outlined in the first chapter, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one with the lower, more conservative populations? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't say lower. I think it's lower -- to the point we could justify -- again, I've said it several times, you're in a Catch 22. If I start putting in too much population, I mean, I'm criticized for doing that as well, too. Almost I'm forcing the plan to show more results than I have. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at Table four -- look at your Table 4 -2, Figure 4 -2, next one. That's really the Ave Maria area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That is Immokalee and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee is kind of north of that. Looks like you cut off on the south side of Immokalee. And you have Farm Workers Village, maybe, but the bulk of that is the Ave Maria area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is this Ave Maria down here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's to the left. See the big -- right there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's it. Yes, that's the road, uh -uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's probably where a good part of the development would be that's in that area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you look at that development for your travel demand? Did you look at it as what they built there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We looked at what's there. And we said if you connect -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff is shaking his head no. MR. PERRY: The forecast model that was used, as Nick indicated, is the 2035 roadway network. We applied the 2080 traffic analysis zone data that we talked about earlier. So that assumes a full build -out, whatever was in the county's records, the full build -out of the entire county was included in that forecast. So the rural lands, the discussion we had earlier about having taken the interactive growth model projections Page 28 of 65 r� 16 V2 A-W December 1, 2011 for build -out within each traffic zone, modifying those based on our understanding that came out of the rural lands review, that particular area plus every other change that was made in the land use forecast. But it was a 2080 land use forecast applied using the 2035 roadway model. We did not have a 2080 roadway model -- roadway network to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then what you did is you calculated somehow how the vehicle miles and the vehicle hours would be traveled, assuming by individuals within those vehicles. MR. PERRY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you get the body count for individuals or the quantity count for the vehicles? MR. PERRY: That's a statistic that comes out of the model. For instance, when you run the model, whether -- regardless of where the data sets come from, whether it's 2080 or 2035, 2007, which is the validation year, the model keeps track of every car and every person within the car and how much travel they make during the course of a day. So that is a VMT statistic. How long it took them to make those trips is a VHT statistic that comes out of the model. And what we did was we ran the model to come up with a baseline condition as a starting point, tweaked the little roadway network within this particular map area to add some interconnecting collector roads that would connect some of these zones together that were not in the original model. We ran the model and looked at the difference. That's why I said earlier, it makes no -- the issue of what's in the model to begin with is really irrelevant, because what we're looking at is the change between one run and the next run. They both have exactly the same land use forecast to them in this particular example, the same land use forecast. All we did was added a few interconnecting roadways between some of the traffic zones and then reran the model and looked at the VMT and VHT to see if there was any change in the statistics that would say, okay, people were able to travel from one zone -- easier from one zone to the next zone, neighbor next door, and therefore there was less VMT, less travel. And it may have taken them longer or may have taken them shorter. Those are the statistics that actually come out of the model based on the two runs, and that's the comparison that's made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only factor you're relying on is the consistency or the progress of the -- I guess the population or the number of vehicles that you predicted between one run and the other. Meaning if you have one run based on X and a second one based on X plus one, you're showing something because something's got to occur. MR. PERRY: Right. In this example where we did not change any of the land use consent, in other words, there was no change made in the number of dwelling units, population, employment or anything like that, all we did was change the roadway network upon which the people travel. So the same 107,000 dwelling units in the rural lands boundary line plus the X number in Immokalee and every place else, those people changed their travel patterns, some of them did, changed their travel patterns because of a few little roadway interconnects that were made. People in zone one were able to go next door to zone two a lot faster and easier. And those statistics of how much they travel actually comes out at the end of the day in the model. So we can actually easily compare by area or by countywide what the travel demand characteristics were. That's the purpose of the test, to test one condition versus another condition. The fact that we started with 200,000 people or 500,000 people or a million people doesn't make any difference, because the same numbers are used in both examples. All we're doing is looking at the travel demand of that same number of people and employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know exactly where this is going to fit in, but right now in Immokalee a lot of the people that I know commute to the coastal area to do work in lawns, to work in hotels, to work in other blue kinds of blue collar jobs, industrial areas. And when I first started on this board there was a big push to get affordable housing spread more evenly through the county instead of having Immokalee be the low housing capital of the county. I'm looking through here. Is there anything about spreading low income housing -- or I guess affordable housing is the preferred term now -- more evenly through the county so people don't have to commute so far in order to get to work? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Having available housing is important. And one issue with this plan, and I've Page 29 of 65 ;w N. A 7 iU 161 2 December 1, 2011 discussed it with several of the Board of County Commissioners, was we did a study last year that showed there was an abundance of housing available throughout the county. We did not bring it into this plan because it was controversial in the sense that -- well, because -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree, it is controversial -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is controversial. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- and seen that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the data that goes with that to say that, okay, we all know that if you don't have the proper blend of obviously employment and reasonable affordable housing, your plan's not going to work. You're going to have your lower income folks living far away, because that's where it's cheap, and they're going to have to commute a lot more. So intuitively we know that. But we did not put this in this plan because it was one of those issues that we said was not outlined in the grant, unlike the conservation issue. It was brought up and discussed but we said now we're getting into a whole nother issue, so it's not included in here specifically as a component of it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just as an example, my son's been out of work like for a year and a half, and he just now, like a couple of months ago, found a job, but it's way over in the industrial part of Naples, so he drives like almost 100 miles a day, you know, just to go back and forth to work. And he drives in this old truck. He uses a lot of gas. And, you know, if the housing and the employment opportunities could be better distributed, you know, we'd really go a lot towards implementing the intent of this plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would bet we reference it in here, but if we do not, we definitely need to put in that comment. Because that's an excellent point. Because today, Commissioners, a lot of talk about affordable housing not being needed, you know, get rid of the affordable housing committee, we can put it away right now, I'm not that young or that old, but I can tell you it's cyclical. I guarantee you we're going to be here 10 years from now, and if this thing kicks up again, we will have that same discussion about affordable housing in the urban area as we did five years ago. So I think if it's not noted clearly I think he raises a good point. We need to note that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think what we have now, it's true, right now there is housing and it's not that expensive. Of course a lot of people don't have money to purchase it. But we're in kind of an anomaly. This housing recession is not going to -- we certainly hope it's not going to continue for another 10 or 20 years, and probably it won't. So if we do good planning now, we may be able to avoid future problems. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. And noted, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- I think we're on Page 20 through was it -- we left off on 20? Well, let's say 20 through 30. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Nick, Page 4 -21, which I'm not sure what number it is on yours. But let's try to find it. It's the one that's protected natural areas. Okay, go above that, the page just prior to that. On this page it starts out on mine with a split section, which yours doesn't have. Let me match up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four -four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your -- yeah, 4.4, starts talking in that one about halfway down -- no, it doesn't. It looks like -- go down further. Okay, hold it right there if you could. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, right where your cursor just was. Right there. See where it says today many people enjoy living in Golden Gate Estates? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the times the roads were built, however, there was a negative impact, and it starts going on about how the roadways in Golden Gate Estates, the historic sloughs and overland sheetwater flows of water have been interrupted? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Over- drainage of wetlands has occurred, and the displacement of past wildlife corridors is evident. Page 30 of 65 ,r` < 1612 December 1, 2011 A 7 I don't disagree with that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But read the -- go down further, see where it says wild (sic) visitors and sportsmen were discovering coastal Collier County. It talks about -- huh? THE COURT REPORTER: Wild visitors? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, while visitors. Cherie's through all this. While, W- H- I -L -E. While visitors and sportsmen. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Cherie' had it right. We need to fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were discovering coastal Collier County, settlers and residents were developing a growing expanse of productive agricultural lands. And it goes on to say what a great place it is for agricultural, and I think that's fine, too. But agricultural does the same thing to flow ways and all the rest of the elements and drainage that you're claiming Golden Gate does, but in Golden Gate you point it out as a negative, and you don't bother doing the same thing in reference to the agricultural. I think it's an unfair characterization of Golden Gate Estates. And I would rather this not portray Golden Gate Estates in a negative when it's doing no different than the agricultural is doing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, it's funny you say that, because our surface water team that's putting together a business plan noted the same thing, one of the big issues is agriculture. So I think to be fair we note that -- we combine that comment and note that agricultural impacts it as well, too, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just state the concerns you have about what Golden Gate's created but not come to the conclusions that you have without adding the same conclusions to agriculture. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agree. I'm agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going through Page 30, and let's go to the end. Anybody have any further questions on Section 4? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have a change here, sir. I think it might come from some of the environmental groups. I'm in -- the two bullet points says primary zone and secondary zone, 4 -25 in my book. And it's just under the map here, under Map 4 -1 on the next page. Under the primary zone we write: Those lands compromising (sic) primarily of non -urban and natural habitats, and we cross out sufficient size and then continuous /connected patterns that can fully support panther utilization for life cycle needs including breeding, resting, denning, stalking, crossed out "and feeding ", and then add, and may act as landscape connections to buffers to adjacent land uses. And then in the secondary zone we corrected or added those lands adjacent or contiguous with primary zone that are lower quality habitat and do not currently. That was added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go off those two bullets, can we question those now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your primary zone. So in order to be a primary zone, because this is important, this came out in the RLSA study which is coming back to haunt us here soon, so we might as well understand what a primary zone is, those lands comprised primarily of non -urban and natural habitats that can fully support panther utilization for life cycle needs, including breeding, resting, denning, stalking, feeding. And then instead of the word or, you use the word and, and may act as landscape connectors to buffers or adjacent land uses. So if you have a landscape connector or buffer to adjacent land uses but it can't support life cycle needs, including, nesting, denning or stalking or feeding, then it doesn't apply. It has to have both by the word and; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, according to the way it's written, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that has a bearing on how we've looked at those connection points. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we've got one now with Lost Grove Mine. There's a piece to the north of Corkscrew Road that is considered to be primary. But under this definition I'm not sure it may be. Ms., if you're going to be speaking you need to come up and use the mic., and you're more than welcome to. You know that, Nancy. MS. PAYTON: Well, I was trying to tell them -- Page 31 of 65 1 2 Alcembe4r,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But she's trying to write everything down you're saying, and you're distant, so-- MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. Why can't we just use the definition from the Fish and Wildlife Service, rather than reinventing our own definition of primary and secondary? Because it references Fish and Wildlife Service has designated these two zones, why don't we just use their wording as to how they describe them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter to me. But somebody went to a point to put it in here separately, so I was trying to resolve it. MS. PAYTON: That may be. I think that was a suggestion of The Conservancy. And Nicole is shaking her head, Nicole Johnson from The Conservancy, that they suggest the definition from Fish and Wildlife Service, the official definition. She's shaking her head yes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. We'll note that that's the official definition. MS. PAYTON: So that is the official definition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is the official definition. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we'll note it -- MS. PAYTON: The amended. What's amended. In the two colors. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Tim? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see if we can get to the bottom line here. MR. DURHAM: Tim Durham with Stantec. The original language that was in there was meant to be a little bit more for laymen, a little less technical. The Conservancy corrected it to match the definition that Fish and Wildlife has. The problem you're noting, Mr. Strain, is exactly what I've had a long time. The definition and what's mapped doesn't always match. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm -- MR. DURHAM: It's a common problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of why I wanted to bring it up, because we have it currently with one application that is coming back to us and we have it coming up in other studies that are going to come before us. So whatever definition we use, if everybody's in agreement with it, we certainly ought to know what it means. And if that is the definition that the agency uses, is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I'm going to do, sir, is footnote that, and I will put a note that says as defined by the agencies. That way it's clear to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure it's consistent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you could -- anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, move forward with the rest of your points. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Couple other changes here to note. In the next paragraph, development activity, roadway widening and new road construction which is proposed within either of the primary or secondary zones or that may have an effect on panthers or panther habitat. That was added. And then top paragraph here, habitat compensation must be provided for the direct impacts of the roadway footprint and associated water quality treatment areas, and minimization measures may be required regarding the indirect impacts for projects such as increased traffic and disturbance. Therefore, expenses of such compensation and minimization were added. Lower, next paragraph, we added: And other federal and state listed species, so that we didn't leave that out. Those are the only changes there, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going all the way to the end of this section, so if you have any other -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm scrolling through now. It appears I have none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on the rest of the section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there anybody in the public that would like to discuss Section 3 or 4 at this Page 32 of 65 1612A7 December 1, 2011 time? Nicole? MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy. And I do want to acknowledge and thank staff for incorporating many of the changes that we requested in Section 4. 1 think it's important to note that along with the definition from the Service about primary and secondary habitat there's also a map that specifically maps out where those zones are located, and that's part of Map 4 -2, and I believe 4 -1 also, perhaps. One additional request that we had made was a, what we considered a correction to Map 4 -2 in talking about wildlife linkages. If you look on the map just north of I -75 in the north Belle Meade area, there are a couple areas sectioned out as potential wildlife underpasses, but there are no roads there, and there are no roads planned to be there. And if all this mapping is based on the 2035 needs plan and there are no roads there, then it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that there would be a wildlife underpass needed in those areas. So we had requested that those be removed. If in the future roads are planned there, then it would be appropriate to take a look at underpasses. But we saw that as premature to assume underpasses there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have any -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to have Tim talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you pinpoint us? I've just finally found the page and the maps, since mine isn't consistent with everybody else's. MR. DURHAM: (Indicates). We're looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. DURHAM: If I may, I'll address that. Tim Durham with Stantec. Mrs. Johnson and I exchanged voice mail messages and missed each other. I've been in the swamp buggy the last two days. We have no problem with removing those. Those were originally on there kind of to inform people that if a road was to come through there it has major obstacles. The plan has evolved since then and they can be taken off. I don't believe we have any trouble doing that. MS. JOHNSON: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, a completely different subject. Just to point out, this map stops the primary panther habitat south of Corkscrew Road. MS. JOHNSON: It actually, if you look on the insert, the primary does have a little bump north of Corkscrew Road, and that is the extent of the primary habitat. The remainder of the area north of Corkscrew Road is secondary habitat. It's occupied, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just crosshatching, not the green and the crosshatching. Okay. Thank you. Good. You know, that was from our last conversation, or last meeting. So -- okay, anybody else want to speak on these two? Nancy, come on up. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. An additional thought on the primary and secondary, maybe it could be footnoted. I notice there are footnotes for other references to studies and important information. Just footprint the appropriate document for primary and secondary. And I see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he was going to do that. I think he kind of said it, but -- MS. PAYTON: I thought it was just a reference to this, but we're asking for something a little more specific. And I just briefly want to comment about my experiences participating in the master mobility plan process. And it was a very open process and very free for people to attend team meetings, which the public has not had that opportunity in the past. It's a very good website. It's a simple website. And you don't have to search for that Department of Energy grant, it's right on the MMP website, right at the top of one of the pages. So there is a lot of information there. It's very easy to find. We like what they did with the environment and wildlife, and that was one of the missions of the grant and the funding of the grant. And I think it's very important when you're dealing with the built infrastructure, you have to also take consideration of the green infrastructure. And that's a portion of this plan. Page 33 of 65 161 2 De7 cember 1, 2011 And trying to meld together -- mesh together the various plans that have been done in this county so they support and balance one another, rather than having these, this is a plan, this is a plan and this is a plan and they're not integrated at all. And I commend staff for trying to do their best to integrate the various plans so it truly is a comprehensive plan to give direction. And I know there was some objections to including about northern Golden Gate Estates flow ways and habitat linkages. I think it's very important to have those in there for policy discussions, because they are issues for a variety of reasons, for flow ways, not only for flood control and water quality and related issues, but also fire protection. And one of the major impediments to producing new roads in this county is habitat mobility and impacts to wildlife. So when you talk about a mobility, an increasing mobility, the environment is a very important factor in determining how you do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, that's Section 4. We'll go on to five? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Nick, I didn't see the -- and I have seen the grant application, I didn't see it in this packet. So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll get you a copy. Sir, it's on the website. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it. I just wanted -- what's in this packet that staff produced is not the grant application, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, sir. I'll take you back to the slide show, I think, because we've changed some of the objectives and recommendations to be a little more illustrative. Unless you wanted to go by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we were going to Section 5, master mobility plan recommendations. Is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can do that, sir, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, if you've got other ways to -- I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just trying to understand. You want to do five through -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, why don't we take comments and then maybe do the -- through the Power Point some of the recommendations and discuss them. So let me get it to page view. Okay, and I'm in the first beginning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any -- well, let's see, these recommendations are only 10 -- let's do first five pages. Anybody -- do you have any changes on the first five pages? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Minor. Under Objective 1 we use use impact/mobility fee incentives here. We added that. And then here we crossed out documented in Section 6, just to be clear. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have a lot of changes. We could go through these things, but we can take comments as you go forward. Added mobility to the impact/mobility, so it would be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul may have had a question about your first objective. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think my point about the affordable housing, maybe it could be somehow injected into the idea about mixed use districts. Just sort of expand the definition to include a mix of housing types. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good point, a balanced blend of housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I think that would -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good point -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's vague, it's not going to stir up any hornet's nests or anything, but, you know, at least -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Midney, I really appreciate you saying that because -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: At least, you know, it gets the idea out there. If you can somehow put it in in that area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you're happy with the words a balanced blend of housing to meet mobility and Page 34 of 65 16 A 7 December 1, 2011 housing needs, I think we can get something like that done. I agree, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I think that's too vague. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Too vague, okay. I'm open to suggestions then. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It should have something in there about -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Full mixture of housing types and affordability? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. A little bird just whispered that over my shoulder. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: A little wasp in there probably wouldn't hurt. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I'm okay with that. We added another example. I'm going to probably zoom in a little bit just to make it a little clearer. There we go. Another example would be retrofitting an existing project to interconnect to nearby nonresidential uses. An example, employment, shopping, recreation, education, thereby providing access for residences to these uses and reducing trips on the county's arterial network. This reduction in VMT can be calculated and a reduction in impact mobility fee can be granted based on these calculated reduced impacts. A detailed analysis and public vetting of the potential incentives and related reductions in impact and mobility fees will occur as part of Phase 3. Then Objective 2, we've made some other changes. Yeah, Debbie pointed out in the Power Point we kind of walk you through the changes. But I think it's -- let's go through that and then we can do the Power Point. Objective 2, I think we need to spend a little more time on this. Recommend that the BCC appoint advisory board or task force to consider viable tools and programs to reduce density in sparsely developed portions of northern Golden Gate Estates eastern in order to reduce VMT. Objective 2, geographic allocation. Potential areas of applicability include portions of Golden Gate Estates, Orange Tree and the rural fringe mixed use district receiving areas. There are a number of tools or programs which may be utilized to preserve land in eastern portions of Golden Gate Estates in order to reduce VMT. An additional benefit besides a reduction of VMT could be the potential preservation of ecologically sensitive lands and habitat. It is recommended that the BCC appoint an advisory board, and this is what we had talked about earlier, or task force consisting of property owners from affected areas and other stakeholders. Consider any of the following tools or programs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you want to read all that. Cherie's going to have sore fingers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I think a lot of this is reformatting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly think it would be beneficial for this board to have had the potential of reading those before we vote on them today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, the Power Point would -- if we vote off the Power Point and discuss off the Power Point, it might be, because I think the recommendations basically tell us do the next step. And as long as you agree that that's what it is, give you an opportunity to read this. And we can come back. When is the next Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 15th. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Come back almost on a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we come back on consent, acknowledge the language meets what the intent of the Power Point was, I think that would work. I mean, I'd rather not -- you expect us to digest this writing here today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we go through the Power Point I think it will clean it up a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to finish our questions from that section before the Power Point or after the Power Point? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I think we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any specifics in that -- I'm losing my voice. Good for everybody. MR. CASALANGUIDA: God forbid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 5, does anybody have any questions in Section 5 before the Power Point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Page 35 of 65 16 1 2A 7 ?` December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I have your Objective 1. It's using impact fees or a mobility fee based on reductions generated by optimal employment to population ratios. Wouldn't that mean that an area that doesn't have the optimal ratio would then theoretically pay more impact fees than mobility fees? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you're setting a baseline, and you're saying if you do better than the baseline you could get a reduction. And what we talked about is doing it on the commercial end of it, not the residential end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say that in here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. And that's in part of the Power Point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll go on to my next question, which is on Page 5 -3. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Objective 3. Again, I'm more concerned on Objective 3 with what your intention is. Incentivize neighborhood - serving retail. Are you saying you want to add more commercial density to Golden Gate Estates that's not allowed by the current Golden Gate master plan or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. What we're saying is, is what's there now could be incentivized to go in early, or you could look at that as part of that and see if that warrants a Golden Gate Area Master Plan change. But not to do it without it. Your note earlier saying that it requires a master plan change is well noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Description/examples of potential strategies that could be used. You reference mixed use development. You're talking about Golden Gate Estates? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you know, you're also talking about the rural fringe mixed use district, so I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- doesn't say it's not Golden Gate Estates. So my assumption would be you're trying to do that in Golden Gate Estates? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maybe in our examples we can be more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so, because I think that's not what I've heard anybody out there express was ever needed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And I think the question you brought up, and several of the other stakeholders had said, are you suggesting that we rezone the Estates to include multi - family mixed use? And that was never our intent. So I think we need to be clear on that. I think the team's nodding their head that we'll do that as part of coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under A on the next page -- well, no, under A, my A, review minimumhnaximum development requirements. Oh, boy, that's B under mine. So the one above -- oh, you already crossed it all out, so I'll wait till I get the revised language. On Page 5 -4, which is -- you've already changed some of that. B, right there, the first B. That one is incentivize the incorporation of transit infrastructure to support regional transit service, and TOD, which is transit oriented development, located at commercial nodes in Golden Gate Estates. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Existing commercial nodes, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Existing or approved in the future. Our goal is to say that right now you have a transit that travels through there. You've got to find a way to incorporate that infrastructure. And we do have bus stops. But as we talked about several times, they're inadequate, especially when you talk about -- so our concept is how do you make it so the bus can actually pull through a development? Have a connection into whatever that development is. Make it a good park- and -ride location. How do you make that all fit? Because it does lend to more of the use of that system, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's the last one I have. Let's see your -- anybody else have any questions before the Power Point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's see your Power Point, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. Okay, Objective 1, policy recommendation one: Use impact mobility fee incentives based on calculated reductions generated by optimal employment to population ratios and reduce commuter related trips both within specific mixed use developments and within larger sub - areas. Fee discounts based on calculated VMT reduction for mix of uses, optimizing those ratios. Fee discounts -- Page 36 of 65 A 7 A 161 2December 1, 2011 and this is important -- on non - residential uses to ensure the construction of those VMT- reducing uses. So if you've got a development, and Steve Tindale can do one, we can do one with staff, you can do a calculation of, say, if you put a right mix in, you already have that internal capture that happens, we can calculate that. So if someone says above the average, you're increasing that ratio, that's a policy decision as where that level is. But if you do better and you can show the way it's designed and connected optimizes that community, why not give you the impact fee incentive. But not in the residential. We'll do it when you put on the employment base side of it when you actually put that trip match in there and it's up and running and in place. So that's that mobility fee or impact fee mobility incentive talking about. Are there any questions on that, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not from me. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think as a policy recommendation, do you think that's something we should carry forward? And then we'll obviously bring it back to you. But do you think it's a good idea? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want us to vote on these policies one -by -one? I thought we were going to do it -- how do you see it happening? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think one -by -one. I think if there's one you want to take out as a board or leave in as a board -- and what we're saying is take this forward to the analysis, not implement it. There's no implementation in any of this what you're seeing today. Take it to the next step, do the analysis, bring it back and see if it makes sense. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: With the addition of the housing element that I had mentioned? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you reference generated by optimal employment to population ratios. But yet when I questioned you on the employment statistics earlier you said that they were conservative. So which is it you're using here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry. MR. TINDALE: Steve Tindale. You're one of the few counties where we've got a major reduction of impact fees for people who qualify for affordable housing currently. It would be reinforced into that and mixed in with it, maybe enhanced a little bit more. But you're one of the I think very rare counties that we actually say that if you come in with the guidelines of affordable housing and income we have a reduced fee currently. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh -huh. So that should be mentioned, I think. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can include it. Mr. Chairman, you had a question or comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, earlier you had -- we talked about population, and you told me that you wanted to be conservative and use a conservative population statistic, and you did. What did you use here? Because here it's saying optimal employment to population ratios. You're not going to get optimal employment using conservative population. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. It's -- yeah, the birds are chiming in from the back. Specific to that development is what we're saying. So when you come in with an application for a reduced fee, we're saying is when you test that development to that optimal ratio between employment and population, not a population number, but the development comes in like the Vineyards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's the population that would be generated by the density that they're proposing to put in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. So if the Vineyards said I want to do 4,000 single family homes but I only want to do 10,000 square feet of commercial, that ratio doesn't work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand. Anybody want to -- what's the board feel about this recommendation? Is there a recommendation to -- is there a recommendation for -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I recommend to recommend. Page 37 of 65 V: 161 A7 December 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend, okay. Mr. Midney, Ms. Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7 -1. Thank you, Nick. 7 -0, I'm sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we'll add that comment about housing. Very good. Okay. Originally number two merged into an Objection 5 recommendation. Original number two, incentivize infill and redevelopment of coastal urban area to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and services. This is where we get into the discussion about the TDR program and the Golden Gate Estates. So this is the one we're probably going to spend a little time talking about. So our revised recommendation number two will read as this: Recommend that the BCC appoint an advisory board or task force to consider all viable tools and programs to reduce density in sparsely developed portions of northern Golden Gate Estates eastern in order to reduce VMT's. TDR program, targeted mitigation areas, voluntary seller acquisition programs, density relocation or lot combination tools are some of the things we talked about. So I'll spend a minute on each one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the only slide you have on this recommendation? So we see it all right here on one slide? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, there's a picture and it talks about where. That's the one you didn't like, so I'm not going to show it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wanted to understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So with the TDR program, exactly what it says, a transfer of development rights. If you said you're going to buy a vacant lot in the Estates and move that unit to a rural fringe area or another portion of the Estates, with targeted mitigation areas if we said look, in this area the value to purchase mitigation is higher, we'd say go buy these properties in these locations. Voluntary seller acquisition programs, providing incentives for voluntary sellers to come in -- I'm sorry, incentives for the seller to sell to a mitigation bank, either through a tax credit or some other tool. And density relocation or lot combination tools. We talked about combining the small lots in the Estates, the one and a quarter, providing incentives to do that so that maybe you reduce the density as well. So again, the key point of this is probably to say look, this is going to be a hot topic. Folks in the urban area have said it's hot because their concern is you're going to build another high -rise along the coast with density from the Estates? No, that's not our intent. Where does that line stop? The urban Estates. So our recommendation is to really take this to an advisory board or committee, let them vet it out with the watershed management plans, and what we're talking about here I think it's a good way to have a joint discussion about the merits of both. And I know your feelings, Mr. Chairman, so I'll open it up to questions or comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're advising -- the recommendation would be for an advisory board or task force? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the time you put that together, you could easily be in a position to reappointment a new Golden Gate master plan study committee and do it all under that committee and kill two birds with one stone. So why would we want to separate it out when it's really a holistic approach to Golden Gate Estates, not just Page 38 of 65 161,2A7 December 1, 2011 piecemeal? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- and that was my answer anyway, but again -- no, it's okay. There's been a lot of comments about the coastal folks participating in this, because they want to know where that density ends up. Not, say, coastal, the urban area, the one mile east of 951. Folks next to rural fringe mixed use district want to participate. They've all asked and said look, this transfer of development rights could be going to different areas, we want to participate as well too. So that maybe in conflict with just a specific Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the entire county would be part of this and it wouldn't be as an advisory board or task force, they would have public meetings. But would they be required to vet their outcomes through the various levels of boards to get to the BCC? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And I think your comment about the entire county, I think you've got to weight the committee to say, you know, I'm giving you an example, five members of the Estates, two members of the coastal urban area, one member here, and well represented but mostly represented by the folks that are directly impacted by this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just concerned, Nick. I mean, this is about Golden Gate Estates. But yes, I understand, because the TDR program is involved, it could affect others. But I could care less what the coastal community thinks about Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate Estates is a standalone community and we need to understand what we need to protect our own property rights. I think we all try to protect everybody's. But I don't want them telling me how I should run my life in Golden Gate Estates. I don't live like a coastal community does. It doesn't make any sense. So why would they want to get involved in Golden Gate Estates? I don't understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because, sir, in my opinion, and I think I represent a lot of people when I say this, we're all communities combined and we all have a desire to make things work. And the way we interact between Golden Gate Estates, which provides the bedroom community to a lot of the employment centers to the east and the taxpayers to the west, how they fund improvements. So I think we're interrelated. And I think appointing a committee that in my opinion should be predominantly weighted by the folks that are predominantly impacted but has representation from other areas is important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if we do impact other areas it is important, but to tell -- but our area needs to be decided upon by us. I mean, I don't see -- I don't go into gated communities and tell them how to run their gated communities, and I don't think anybody should tell the residents in another community how to run their community. I think the communities need to run -- you move into a community because you like what you move into, and that should be the dominating factor in how this is handled. And I'm concerned this is going to lead to something that takes control away from the residents of the very community that it's intended to serve. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we need to note your concern and we need to put in some safeguards that don't allow that. But remember, this isn't about taking away community control. In comments we've received, there might be some good things that come out of this for the Estates, people that own property in there, opportunities to keep that rural character. Because what we've -- some of the comments we've received is if we can lower the density in Golden Gate Estates, it will stay what we want it to be. You may not have that demand for the services that you're saying be an alternative. So we've gotten some good feedback on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I like the ROMA and I like the preservation, and I like the idea of putting the Estates more sparsely populated. I like the idea of reducing, I think that's all good stuff. I'm just one, others may not, obviously, disagree. But I think that's a decision that mainly lies with the people who own those properties. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm open to suggestions from this Commission on how to do that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Question or comment. What was your thinking, Nick, to merge Objective 2 into Objective 5? Objective 2 originally focused on the coastal urban area, and I don't see that referenced in the revision at all. I mean, I'm just trying to understand. And considering Mark's comments, it seems like coastal urban area, the way it was in the original objective, I mean, you Page 39 of 65 A 7 14 1-6-1'2 December 1, 2011 had something to say about it. You had an objective for the coastal urban area, and it's lost its identity here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the original two is in five coming up. This is a new two. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A new two? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Because we took the original two and it goes -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was very similar -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question then about the revision, or a comment. Recommend that the BCC appoint an advisory board or task force to consider all viable tools. To me that says nothing. It doesn't speak to the -- what this task force or advisory board would do. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To evaluate -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I mean, what's their purpose, to consider? I mean, they could consider for four years and you never see a work product. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's one of the reasons I'm glad you're on this commission, because you look at -- as we've worked through the floodplain committee you asked a lot of those same questions. I think we need to say to evaluate -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You need to state some specific outcomes within a specific time frame; otherwise you've got another task force that sits and meets once every six months. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And I think we need to clean that up when we come back to say evaluate, you know, the comments below and come back within a defined time period with recommendation to the BCC, how they could be implemented. If it's the commission's will that this policy go forward, we need to make that clear, we'll call it a smart objective, so that it defines what you said. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd be happier with more exacting wording. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. We got that? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, the only issue on here that affects outside the Estates is basically the TDR program. But wouldn't -- just like the Golden Gate master plan and the Immokalee master plan, if recommendations are made within those master plans that affect other parts of the county, such as the coastal area or anywhere else, as those plans have, people from other parts of the county don't sit on those community plans. I don't know, Immokalee was all Immokalee residents, I think. And I know the Golden Gate area was all Golden Gate area residents. I'm still concerned that the committee could be highjacked for purposes not protective of the property owners who live within the area that it was designed to protect. So that's where my overall position's going to be on it, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not that fearful, based on what you said, if this board or this commission felt it should be made up of Golden Gate residents, and I'll tell you why. Because what we've learned through this master mobility plan in -- today in 2011, if you want to participate, you're going to get your voice in there. So I'm okay either way. Because I think if you limit it to Golden Gate Estates residents, the folks that are interested, that have been talking to us from outside of Golden Gate are going to participate and provide comment. If you include them, I think either way you're going to get in front of the Board of County Commissioners or this agency and you're going to get feedback. So I think the policy has merit. If you want to define who should be on there, I don't have an objection, because you will get public feedback either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from this board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to clarify. Objective 2 is going to show up down the road? You said Objective 2 -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is someplace else, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, merged with five. Page 40 of 65 ..Y k 16I Z A7 December 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'll make a recommendation that we do urge recommendation of two with the input from this board that the parts that relate to Golden Gate Estates, the advisory board, be made up only of Golden Gate Estates people. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And also, would you include my recommendation that they tighten up the language on the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- purpose and objectives of the task force or advisory board? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Brougham, made by Commissioner Midney. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's only including Golden Gate people. I mean, this plan is for the whole county and you're going to separate some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this objective is not for the whole county, it's for -- this one says north Golden Gate Estates, eastern, in order to reduce VMTs. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Incentivize infill and redevelopment of coastal urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do you have -- that's the one that's being taken out. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's taken out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So it's only -- take the words original number two and replace them where the word revised is and drop that first sentence, and that's what you end up with. Nancy, did you have a comment? MS. PAYTON: Could you phrase again, Golden Gate -- is it a resident, is it a property owner, is it a visitor? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It could be either, either resident or property owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like it was for the master plan, I would assume. MS. PAYTON: And just wanted to make the comment, when the RLSA was -- five -year review committee, it was the entire county. There was a representative from northern Golden Gate Estates, although he left very early. And I think it's wrong to only have Golden Gate Estates residents or property owners, because Golden Gate Estates sits in the middle of the county, it interacts with the rural fringe area, it interacts with the RLSA area, it interacts with the urban area. We support Golden Gate Estates in some cases with our taxes, and therefore I think it's appropriate that there be representation from the entire county and all interests. Because Golden Gate Estates is not an isolated community, it interacts with the rest of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You just made my case as to why it shouldn't be the way you say it should be. So thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason that I made that motion was that I agree with Mr. Casalanguida that even though the committee might contain only residents and property owners, there will be input from the county as a whole. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Then why not break the whole county up into different sections and have their -- each one of them have their own advisory board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have that already. And that's why you had the Immokalee Master Plan, the Golden Gate Master Plan, that's why you have the RLSA. That's been done all over the county. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Where's the urban area advisory board? Where's the South Naples? Where's COMMISSIONER SCHWFER: That's kind of why you have us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got your Estates Civic Association. You're trying to put a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's an advisory board appointed by the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they have a -- much of an ear as anybody else in what happens in your area. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This isn't the idea here. This is supposed to be all coordinated through the whole county and you're starting to separate it out now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comment? Page 41 of 65 A 7 '• r r'� r .r December 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question for Nick. Nick, is sparsely developed portions, is that definable? I mean, is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll make that as Mr. Brougham pointed out, that we'll need to define this a little bit better so when it comes back it's got time frames, it's a smart recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been -- any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -1. Okay, what's your next one, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Policy 3, recommendation. Incentivize neighborhood - serving retail and service uses in Golden Gate Estates. And this is where you brought up earlier, let's be clear, rural fringe mixed use district receiving areas and Orange Tree to reduce trip links for neighborhood - serving uses. A discount on non - residential components of mixed use development. Promote compact mixed use villages in the receiving areas using impact/mobility fee incentives upon analysis demonstrating the reduction in VMT. Incentivize incorporation of trends in infrastructure, e.g., park- and -ride lots, transfer stations, et cetera, transportation- oriented development, and TOD. TDR example moved to objective /recommendation 2, so that -- okay, that's four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll move that we recommend approval of this. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded, Commissioner Ahern was the second, Commissioner Midney the first. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Policy recommendation four. Original language, incentivize development of self - sustaining towns and villages within the RLSA to provide for internal capture and use of alternative modes. Received some comments and what we have here is review and revisit requirements that already exist for Page 42 of 65 1612 December 1, 2011 self - sustaining towns and villages within the RLSA to provide for internal capture and use of alternative modes. A couple of examples: Maximize allowable gross densities and reduce development footprint. Optimize mixtures of uses within towns and villages by establishing and incentivizing jobs -to- housing ratios. Locate town centers in proximity to arterial network. Enhance connectivity through a local collector grid network. Enhance building form/code requirements to encourage walking/biking within public spaces. For the mixed use portion of that or the transit oriented development located near major transit facilities and within activity centers, impact fee incentives for development that provides transit facilities. Reduce parking requirements through shared parking arrangements and multi -model parking credits. And I think we stopped there. To wrap it up, I think we said we already know we have rules for the RLSA and the RMUD. But I think we need to tighten up what we have there and maybe provide some incentives to look at the design. I think we've learned from projects like Ave Maria. I think when they moved their town center around, and we know that they lacked that transit connection, as much as we'd like, we need to put some language in these areas that encourage that more and incentivize that more, because we can do better. And I think that's the policy recommendation you have in front of you here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A, Nick, maximize allowable gross densities and reduce development footprint. The gross densities for the RLSA are already set by the number of credits it takes to produce whatever you could produce on each acre. I think it's eight per acre and they're trying to go to 10. And reduce development footprint, I believe they're trying to increase the town sizes and development footprints in the proposed revision. So how does this comport with what's being -- going to come forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll ask for corrections, but I think we're trying to take -- not increase the net but increase the density per acre within that same net. So if you had 100 acres that could allow a density of 10,000 units and you said, well, you can put it out to the 100 acres, maximize it down to a smaller footprint, the more town center town core, more dense per unit within that town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how does that -- how does that fit with the new RLSA recommendations coming forward? It doesn't seem to. Because you've got an increase in standard stewardship credits, but you're also increasing substantially the number of acres you're going to be impacting. So you're not really concentrating densities, you're going to be reducing -- you're spreading them out more. I'm trying to understand how it all fits together. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not -- as part of the RLSA -- and the birds are welcome to chime in now -- but what I'm suggesting is if you've got a town with a net density, can you maximize that gross density, reduce the footprint? What can we do to incentivize and work with it to make it smaller in that net density? You know, that's one of the good things of Ave Maria is that their town core with all those block housing, been there a couple times to look at the good and the bad. That's one of the good. What can we do to incentivize more of that type of community type maximum density around that town so that the footprint isn't spread out? Now, when you start to get farther out in Ave Maria, you can see it goes back to that typical development footprint that you have in the urban area. So can we incentivize or maximize that to a smaller footprint? I think that's what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that it sort of is implied, the housing element that's in Objective 1, I don't know if we need to mention it again. It's probably implied. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't talk from the audience. Nicole, did you have something you wanted to say? MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson with The Conservancy. And it was The Conservancy that initially had concern about the original language because the RLSA right now you're required to have sustainable towns. And so we were concerned that we didn't want policies that were going to add additional incentives for something that you're already required to do through the GMP. And we felt pretty comfortable with the revised language, but I still hear incentivize to make these Page 43 of 65 j 1612 December 1, 2011 self - sustaining towns and villages within the RLSA to provide for internal capture and use of alternative modes. A couple of examples: Maximize allowable gross densities and reduce development footprint. Optimize mixtures of uses within towns and villages by establishing and incentivizing jobs -to- housing ratios. Locate town centers in proximity to arterial network. Enhance connectivity through a local collector grid network. Enhance building form/code requirements to encourage walking/biking within public spaces. For the mixed use portion of that or the transit oriented development located near major transit facilities and within activity centers, impact fee incentives for development that provides transit facilities. Reduce parking requirements through shared parking arrangements and multi -model parking credits. And I think we stopped there. To wrap it up, I think we said we already know we have rules for the RLSA and the RMUD. But I think we need to tighten up what we have there and maybe provide some incentives to look at the design. I think we've learned from projects like Ave Maria. I think when they moved their town center around, and we know that they lacked that transit connection, as much as we'd like, we need to put some language in these areas that encourage that more and incentivize that more, because we can do better. And I think that's the policy recommendation you have in front of you here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A, Nick, maximize allowable gross densities and reduce development footprint. The gross densities for the RLSA are already set by the number of credits it takes to produce whatever you could produce on each acre. I think it's eight per acre and they're trying to go to 10. And reduce development footprint, I believe they're trying to increase the town sizes and development footprints in the proposed revision. So how does this comport with what's being -- going to come forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll ask for corrections, but I think we're trying to take -- not increase the net but increase the density per acre within that same net. So if you had 100 acres that could allow a density of 10,000 units and you said, well, you can put it out to the 100 acres, maximize it down to a smaller footprint, the more town center town core, more dense per unit within that town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But how does that -- how does that fit with the new RLSA recommendations coming forward? It doesn't seem to. Because you've got an increase in standard stewardship credits, but you're also increasing substantially the number of acres you're going to be impacting. So you're not really concentrating densities, you're going to be reducing -- you're spreading them out more. I'm trying to understand how it all fits together. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not -- as part of the RLSA -- and the birds are welcome to chime in now -- but what I'm suggesting is if you've got a town with a net density, can you maximize that gross density, reduce the footprint? What can we do to incentivize and work with it to make it smaller in that net density? You know, that's one of the good things of Ave Maria is that their town core with all those block housing, been there a couple times to look at the good and the bad. That's one of the good. What can we do to incentivize more of that type of community type maximum density around that town so that the footprint isn't spread out? Now, when you start to get farther out in Ave Maria, you can see it goes back to that typical development footprint that you have in the urban area. So can we incentivize or maximize that to a smaller footprint? I think that's what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that it sort of is implied, the housing element that's in Objective 1, I don't know if we need to mention it again. It's probably implied. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't talk from the audience. Nicole, did you have something you wanted to say? MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson with The Conservancy. And it was The Conservancy that initially had concern about the original language because the RLSA right now you're required to have sustainable towns. And so we were concerned that we didn't want policies that were going to add additional incentives for something that you're already required to do through the GMP. And we felt pretty comfortable with the revised language, but I still hear incentivize to make these Page 43 of 65 .mss...._._ 1612 7j December 1, 2011 sustainable, incentivize to make these work. I think we need to say if there are problems in the make -up of the towns in the RLSA, it should be fixed. But I don't think we have to give them more to do that. If the towns are not sustainable when an SRA comes forward, then they should be denied, period. So I think we have to be careful that we're not lumping more incentives onto this program that is very, very heavily incentivized already. So I guess that will be an outstanding concern as we move forward with additional policy language on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Could you go to the next slide so we could take a look at it a little bit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comment, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll move that we recommend approval of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm trying to think what the germs of the discussion are that we are modifying this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're modifying it, I think it's going forward like it is but we're going to be watchful of it to make sure it doesn't trip up anything that's already a given. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, but then that's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been seconded by Brad? Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Nick, how many more slides do you have? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're on five and I think we're up to 21, 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're probably going to break for lunch then, because we won't get 21 slides done by lunchtime and we're probably going to be here a lot more than maybe one hour. So, rather than -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I apologize in advance. At 1:001 have a conference call that will probably last about 20 minutes and I'll have one of these folks take over until I get back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, that works. We can walk through it. Is that okay with everybody? Okay, let's break for lunch. We'll come back at 1:00, finish up. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the lunch break. Just prior to lunch, Nick said he couldn't be here, he's going to be late. So I saw Joe Schmitt in the building, and so Joe is going to continue with the master plan -- master mobility plan presentation today. But Joe, it's really good seeing you again. We sure miss you around here. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's like I hadn't -- I just left, because this is the same -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry, sir, you're going to have to come to the podium. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to see you, Joe. Okay, we left off on, well, Recommendation 5. Yeah, okay. Want to continue then, Jeff, from there? MR. PERRY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record Jeff Perry from Stantec. Page 44 of 65 1612 A 7 December 1, 2011 Recommendation number five and the original recommendation number two both dealt with essentially the same concepts. So we've combined them together and are treating them as a new number five. These are the policy language statements that appeared in the document that you received. This is the revised policy language. It's a little bit more specific, but it deals with urban areas in general, such as Immokalee and Collier coastal urban area. Sets out three different standards, if you will, or initiatives. A, to encourage and further incentivize infill and redevelopment, B, to provide for internal capture, and C, to use alternative modes within localized mixed use developments. I'll go through a few of the examples. Impact fee discounts for VMT reducing design such as mixed use or transit oriented design. We've touched on this a little bit earlier, some of the other. This would be impact fee /and/or mobility fees. Transportation concurrency management areas. We have existing TCMAs, and as I'll show you on the next slide, something called TCEAs, both of them dealing with concurrency. They deal with sort of exceptions or exemptions from the existing concurrency standards. They're important because there are -- in certain instances there are areas where congestion ultimately will occur over time, there will be -- and there's no opportunity to expand roads any further. Much of our grid system within the urban areas is built out or will be built out, and there will be congestion occurring at certain times of day on some of those facilities. The TCMAs use an averaging system, and the TCEAs are actually an exception for level of service specific standards. So it may be an opportunity or a need to use the TCMA or TCEAs and have those expanded as time goes. We're talking about obviously a number of years into the future. Transitioning from road impact fees to mobility fees to allow flexibility in the use of those fees that are collected. Again, fees collected in some instances where there are really no roads to be built, and there are opportunities to use those for other capital infrastructure related to the transportation system. Specific criteria for limited density bonus program. Reduced parking/landscaping requirements to enhance interconnectivity for adjacent uses. Consider designating additional areas targeted for future mixed -use and infill/redevelopment. Reviewing minimum and maximum development requirements. Again, getting back to the balance of employment and population ratios within mixed use developments, making sure that we're providing those opportunities. A lot of this is about removing barricades or removing things that might be in our code today that sort of preclude good planning efforts from moving forward. So those are the kinds of things we want to be able to do by revisiting some of those policies that are in place, enhancing them, adding new policy language or perhaps making specific exemptions across the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission on new Objective 5? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to make a recommendation that we approve these recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. We'll have some discussion, because I have questions on some of them first. But first, does any of you all have any questions before -- okay. Can you go back to the very first page of this thing? Okay. Could you take where on the third line it says within the urban areas, two, and then you have a semi colon. Could you move the A past the word and, drop the word and, and say to encourage, then A, period, further incentive. Because you want to encourage those three things. Because the way this reads you only want to encourage one, it looks like shall on the rest. And I think you really want to create incentives to encourage them, isn't that the purpose? MR. PERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That I think would help clarify that objective. Then if you move down to the next slide, impact fee discounts. Here you're asking for impact fee discounts but on the next slide -- oh, no, I'm sorry, the one there. I just saw it. Transition from road impact fees to mobility fees. So you keep referring to impact fee discounts for VMT reducing design, but if you go from an impact fee to a Page 45 of 65 n Y .S: I� 2 7 December 1, 2011 mobility fee, you really want to be careful, because you'd only have discounts for impact fees if they no longer exist, it doesn't apply. MR. PERRY: Right. The term impact fee in item A really should be impact fee /mobility fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going, yeah. MR. PERRY: If we move to a mobility fee in one or more of the urban areas or countywide or however the mobility fee, if it actually comes into practice, the idea is that there -- the same discount kind of characteristics are there. The mobility fee is based largely on the same kind of things that go into the impact fee calculation. And if there is a reduction in VMT that a mix of uses, a particular project is actually reducing traffic impacts because of their mix of use or something like that, whether there's paying a mobility fee or an impact fee, there should be a discount applied to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the same kind of impact fee /mobility fee applies as an example on the next page too. Yeah, down on the bottom, impact fee incentive. So if you go through the objective, and probably the other ones where you start talking about impact fees /mobility fees, wherever one would apply as a substitute for the other, I think you better put the slashes in there otherwise it may get real hard to go back and -- I'm just experiencing something through the GMP now where the language is so strict it didn't have variables in it. You might make sure they're all in there, so -- now, with that said, does that -- anybody else -- Paul, do you accept that as a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Okay, on to number six. MR. PERRY: Number size, I believe there are no changes from the version that is in your packet. It deals specifically with doing a better job of coordinating some of the planning efforts that are ongoing by different agencies and different groups. The metropolitan planning organization does transit planning and long -range highway planning. There is frequently a disconnect between some of the things that comprehensive planning, zoning, long -range planning staff at the county are doing and what the MPO is then given to sort of use as their information going forward. And we need to just make sure that we've got good solid connections between these different planning efforts that are ongoing so that if there's a nexus between them that they're both understanding what the implications are, changing land use, how it affects the existing transportation plan, how it might affect ongoing efforts to increase transit ridership, for instance, those kinds of things that should be just doing a better job of our planning practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the only slide with this recommendation? MR. PERRY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on objective recommendation six? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Midney, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. Page 46 of 65 A 16 L ;2 A 7 1 jL ,G. December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. PERRY: On number seven, likewise there is -- the actual language is the same as in your agenda package. There are no changes being proposed at this moment. It's dealing with enhancing the multi -model infrastructure, developing standards that can be applied so that more specifically we're designing facilities for all modes. We have a tendency to think of highways as only being used by automobiles and trucks, when in fact they're frequently used by transit vehicles and cyclists and pedestrians that have to cross them or walk alongside of them. So we need to do a better job of finding ways to incorporate good design standards in many of our practices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One question, Jeff. The -- when you talk about designing roadway corridors with adequate cross sections for multi -model facilities. It's easy to draw the diagram on a CAD file or something, but the problem comes in when you spread it out, takes up a lot more land. At what level and what stage of implementation of these kinds of policies do we get into the feasibility of them financially? I mean, I'd hate to see us accept an objective but then find out we're locked into a financial impact that is ridiculous. So is that something that can change at a further stage down the road? I mean, I know this is conceptual language. MR. PERRY: Right. In many cases we're dealing with yet to be designed and built facilities. Oftentimes we're talking about here large scale planned developments where we have a lot of flexibility to implement good design standards for facilities. But on public facilities where you're going to be sharing roads, arterials and major collectors where you need to plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, oftentimes we're faced with constraints, physical constraints, economic constraints, buildings, right -of -way limitations, things like that. So we have to be able to have exceptions, if you will, to the criteria. But when you're planning for new corridors, and we hope that in the future there may be opportunities to plan for new corridors or designs of new corridors, can we take into consideration all modes, the need for all modes. Quite frankly, 50, 60 years from now we may be traveling quite differently than we are today. So the thought is we need to just sort of give some thought and understanding to all of the different modes being incorporated in the types of corridors that we're planning for. And I think once you get to the point of designing regulations, things that might go in the Land Development Code in this case, as opposed to maybe a Growth Management Plan policy or statement, we're dealing perhaps with Land Development Code, we have cross section standards in there. And occasionally they have to be -- exemptions have to be made to those. But it's really more of a -- an understanding that transit vehicles have a right to the roadway and there may be certain design characteristics that need to be developed and implemented for transit vehicles that we don't have today. Certainly bicycle and pedestrian facilities need to be accommodated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand all that. I just was curious about at what stage we address the cost of the additional right -of -way that would have to be created. MR. PERRY: I think when you get to the point of designing or laying out the standards that would be developed by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would not obligate us to plan every future road with these things if it was Page 47 of 65 yy A :47 4 161$2 *December 1, 2011 feasibly unimpossible? MR. PERRY: No, you'd have to -- a long range planning typically doesn't include a lot of very specific standards. What we're talking about here is having design standards incorporated into the process so that there is an optimum, if you will, desirable cross - section of roadways that are intended to accommodate all roads. And not all roads will be specifically designed to accommodate every single type of mode that there would be. But we do need to understand that there are multi -modes that have to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other question? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's certainly easier to do it up front than try to retrofit it after it's already done, put in a sidewalk or -- it's more expensive. So you're talking about saving money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I just want to -- I want to make sure that if we came back in and say we wanted to do an expansion on 951, let's say Green and Golden Gate Boulevard, that we wouldn't be obligated then to make that piece consistent with all the intentions of this objective if this objective was accepted and adopted. MR. PERRY: No, no. This objective is sort of a going forward kind of strategy. This would then follow, we would be looking at specific design standards, looking at the design standards that are currently incorporated into the county's manuals, the procedures that they use. You may have heard the term context sensitive design. There are ways of designing facilities that accommodate different modes that don't necessarily always fit in the standard green book for FDOT projects or county projects. It's important to be able to have that kind of flexibility and to be able to put something, to adopt something, to adopt standards and guidelines that would take these things into consideration. This in and of itself, this objective doesn't do any of that, it simply says we need to look at those kinds of things, and if they're appropriate, adopt them into our codes and use them. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Is there any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, recommendation? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven -zero. Next one? MR. PERRY: This one deals with implementing enhanced bicycle safety pedestrian improvements. There was one change in Item C. We added the term bicycle boulevards. It was at -- the suggestion was made at one of our public involvement meetings that certain -- dealing with cut - throughs and ways of allowing for direct passage of cyclists and pedestrians, there's -- the example was actually in Immokalee where there were streets that were largely pedestrian oriented, a lot of people walking on these streets, and that a bicycle boulevard would actually be an impedance that was put in in some way, bollards, if you will, or some sort of barricade mid -block that would prohibit vehicles from running the entire length of the roadway. They would have access to only half the street on either side of the barricade. Pedestrians and cyclists could traverse the entire length of the roadway, so that it was constrained to Page 48 of 65 161zA DeAmber 1, 2011 vehicular traffic and more optimized for pedestrians and cyclists, eliminated cut - through traffic and those kinds of things. We want to make sure when we do these kinds of things that we're not creating opportunities or creating increases in vehicle miles of travel. We're trying to reduce vehicle miles of travel. And as long as these roadways have access to arterial and collector roadways, there are certain instances where this might be appropriate. Other instances it might not be as appropriate and would be looked on as a case by case basis. So that was one example listed specifically in item number C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I didn't look at you for a question, you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, yes, I would like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on a fly with motions this morning, might as well keep going. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I was thinking, oh, this is only going to take an hour, why should I come today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry about that. It's probably my fault. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm glad I did come. Yes, I move for approval. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded -- let's give Barry one. Okay, seconded by Barry. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 7 -0 -- oh, all opposed? Nobody. Okay. Jeff, we're on to nine then. MR. PERRY: The number nine deals with interconnectivity and localized connectivity in ways that increased mobility by providing options for travel, don't necessarily require people to always go in the same direction, that they have more options than they did before. We did some testing on bridge connections in Golden Gate Estates that had come out of a previous study with our model and it showed that there was in fact a benefit to doing that, to providing that increased level of interconnection. This is also a topic that was discussed not too long ago in the EAR amendment hearing. You may recall dealing with interconnecting communities together. And what we're suggesting is that there is a value in reducing travel demand when there is greater connectivity between land uses, between communities, between neighborhoods. Even within the same neighborhoods or the same developments we've seen instances where residential development could not access the neighboring commercial development without getting out onto the highway to get down to it, even though it was part of the same planned development. Those are the kind of things that we need to do a better job of trying to make sure that we do everything we can to optimize the interconnection between developments. This is primarily going to be dealing with future developments, although there are some retrofit opportunities the county may want to explore as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment or a caution going back to the ERA (sic) based amendment meeting. And a note of caution is that we do not go forward with any requirements for adjacent communities, if you will, to interconnect. If there is an existing community, and I think Mark, you used the example Page 49 of 65 1612A7 ecember 1, 2011 perhaps of a gated community, that -- and a new one's going to be built adjacent to that, that it's a requirement that they interconnect. Because I think that's, in my opinion, stepping over the bound here. MR. PERRY: It wasn't my intent to get into it in this particular venue, but we've gone back and we've looked, and there are certain -- there are a -- I think there's probably at least six or eight instances in the Land Development Code today that reference the requirements or incentives or -- requirements basically to interconnect developments. And that's something we'll be bringing back to the Planning Commission in detail to go through, dealing with that policy that's in the Growth Management Plan, showing you where those sections of the code are, and we'll deal with our recommendations at that point in time. This doesn't -- obviously doesn't add anything today in terms of what, you know, what the current code is or what the current Growth Management Plan says. What we're suggesting here is that it is good planning for future towns and villages to provide for interconnection. The first one deals with future towns and villages, grid systems, networks and so forth. The bridges in Golden Gate. But also to provide opportunities for interconnecting, and encouraging in fact interconnection between developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can really summarize it much shorter than what you're answering. Just take the word provide and put encourage. And that covers it. Whatever you develop -- whatever comes out of the review of the -- because that's basically what you're saying the LDC already says. Why don't we just say encourage. Because provides like shall, it's strong. And encourage means that at the time a development comes in, if they want to provide, be given incentives to encourage that, then so be it. But it's not as mandatory. And I think that's the concern we've had before. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would resolve it. Anybody else have any -- I have one more, B. You use examples of potential strategies. That's very definitive. Construct previously identified bridge connections in Golden Gate Estates. And I think that's too definitive. I would rather you not again use Golden Gate Estates as your model for things that are always wrong and how to make them always right. Because that may not be wrong in the eyes of the people that live there. And that may not be necessary for the taxpayers of Collier County to carry a burden of, what is there, 23 bridges at five million dollars plus a bridge. I don't know why the county would even want to jump into that. So we ought to soften B up a little bit so that it's not so definitive, or remove it as one of your examples. You guys keep focusing on Golden Gate Estates. I understand why you do, it's a big subdivision. But in not all cases I think your focus is warranted as an example, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And however you change it, could you take a look at being more definitive in previously identified. I think I know what you mean, previously identified in master mobility plan, but you don't say that. MR. PERRY: The bridge study -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm worried about, Phil, is it's ambiguous. It's not a good example is what I'm trying to say. Do you need three examples? Maybe you could just leave two. I just hate to see people coming in hanging their hats on this as more of an issue, when you can take it out and just not make an issue of it and let the objectives stand and be reacted to when you implement it. That would be simpler. And Nick, I know you're anxiously waiting to get to the mic. again. But Joe actually summed the whole thing up for us and basically said that, you know, it's ridiculous, we don't need it, and go with the GMP, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Joe fell in the elevator shaft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That timing was good, you've got to admit. So now, what do you guys think the best way to react to B is? Are you going to -- is it needed? It's an example. So it doesn't mean it's locked in. But -- MR. PERRY: It's an example. It's a very specific -- as you said, it's a very specific example or strategy -- example, strategy. Example is probably not a good word, because at this point it's not an example, it's a specific strategy that we're recommending the county needs to pursue, because there is a value in implementing that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you use consider constructing previously identified bridge connections in Golden Gate Estates? Page 50 of 65 i 1612 A 7 December 1, 2011 MR. PERRY: Yeah. They understand that. It's the bridge study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what it is. But could you say consider constructing? Because consider means it's open to a whole available bunch of alternatives that could be considered before it's implemented. And that's the only -- I want to make sure the door's always there to be opened, not shut. Does that work? MR. PERRY: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on this one? If not, if there -- MR. PERRY: I changed the word -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Move to approve. MR. PERRY: -- provide in number C to encourage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PERRY: That was the other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney recommended approval, subject to the conditions we just talked about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7 -0. Objective 10. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Evaluate the transition from a roads -based impact fee to a mobility fee to provide capital funding for multi -model infrastructure. In A, transition from a road impact fee to a mobility fee provides flexibility to spend on capital for other modes. The impact to the impact fee is potentially one to three percent increase. It's typical but, you know, it could be less. Explore establishing criteria to manage the modal distribution of fee revenues to emphasize different modes by geographic area, non -road modes in the coastal urban area. And that's 10 as it sits. We discussed the mobility impact fee -- or the mobility fee in the urban area. And I think there were questions last time. I know Steve is a professional at this and has set this up. And my understanding of the mobility fee is that right now where we sat we primarily focused on roads. That's all it is, is a capacity lane replacement fee that you charge for new development. What we're saying is in the urban area we have two transportation concurrency management areas. What we're saying, we're encouraging other forms of transportation: Bike, ped., but transit as well, too. So if you charge a mobility fee, it includes the impact fee but it gives you the flexibility to say as part of my impact fee I can now buy -- build a bus transfer station, I can build a multi -modal pathway between developments with that same dollar that before used to be -- had to be based on or expended on roads. So that's what we're talking about for a mobility fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So why would it go up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because you're taking into your cost -- the cost of the buses and the pathways as well too as a different component. Now, it's only a minor percentage. Steve also pointed out that you can limit the expenditure of that impact fee up to a percentage point when you adopt it to be used for other purposes. So you could say, you know, for instance a typical single - family home right Page 51 of 65 December 1, 2011 now is about $6,000. So, you know, a 10 percent jump would be $600, a one percent jump, $60. That additional dollars could be used to bring out pathway or that transit stop in the urban area. So it's not a lot more money, but it gives you a lot more flexibility. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So is the thought to go to mobility fee also the fact that if you incentivize by reducing the fee then you're not really losing anything? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could consider that. I think that's a good point. You're obviously -- anytime you're going to send it to reduce your fee you're going to get an opportunity to do that. But I think the biggest thing is that the urban area develops -- once we're done with the six -by -six grid, and we're getting close, we're left with I would say three or four overpasses, Immokalee, Collier, 951, 41, what do you start to do next? With the mobility fee you can really do different things for transit and bike ped., as well as mobility. But it would be for the urban area. You're still looking at an impact fee east of 951. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Maybe you could reduce the impact fee. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could reduce the impact fee. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I know it's a concept. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we've done a lot of that. And I think other communities have done that. We're not new. We're not the first one going out there. It's been done through the State of Florida. Steve, you want to take a minute and touch on it? How many have we done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's responding to Nick, not to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I asked the question. About seven communities in Florida have done a mobility fee. So I think it's something we want to look at. And I think it needs to come back to the Board and does it make sense for urban Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nick, just for clarity, a second bullet, I was thinking decrease there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it would be -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm being facetious. You might want to consider minimal increase versus minimal impact, if in fact you're talking increase. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, yes. Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Wordsmithing, but that's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- got a couple. Do you have any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it's a good point. I think it does put value on these other things, which helps developers maybe start building them themselves and back that value off. I think it's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the minimal impact overall fee amount -- right now we reduced our fees. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that done through a supplement to the impact fee study, or did they just arbitrarily say let's reduce our fees? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Your road impact fees have always either been done through indexing or studies. We've never arbitrarily reduced them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the new index fee reduced the impact fees not because the Board wanted them reduced but because the index fees required them to be reduced; is that true? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Because that's a different political position. It wasn't done as a means to help business, it was done because it's required to do it because of the new indexing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not necessarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to understand. Because it factors into how your Page 52 of 65 1612 A � i w December 1, 2011 increase is looked at. Because if it's an increase based on a supplemental impact fee study and that one to three percent is reflective of that, that's different than an arbitrary up or down based on Board decisions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. It's based on the study. But our recent reductions -- I'll give you last year, we were in index years last year. And staff looked at it and said wow, we know our costs are down more. The Board could have held the line and said, you know, it's indexing, you're going to catch the ride on the way down, you're going to catch the ride on the way up. But after talking to staff we said our costs have come down considerably, let's do a mini cost and credit update last year. We looked at a 32 percent reduction and 10 percent more going to utilities. The indexing would have took us down about 16 percent. So the Board was aggressive and said do the cost and credit. In a year they could have indexed and said, you know, that's the way it goes, it's going down slow, it's going to go up slow, and we do indexing in middle years. This year we're doing indexing, it's going to go down about seven percent for roads, and my costs are going up a little bit. So interestingly enough, you know, the Board's still going to probably adopt the indexing and cut the fees another six to seven percent, and next year we'll do a full study and they'll probably go up a little bit again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Board didn't reduce the impact fees by double what this year's would be, what would have next year's indexing have been? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the indexing would have been almost -- this year's would have been almost the same. Because it's based on a year -by -year analysis. So you've got an extra decrease by going at an aggressive cost and credit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are mobility fees restricted to future expenditures like impact fees are? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they can be wider in a way that you expend them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as far as uses. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do mobility fees still provide for the ability to do proportional sharing mitigation on projects of sizes that dictate it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it wouldn't change that. Although House Bill 702, if I'm saying that right, we're having -- we're going to have some challenges. The proportionate share of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Florida statutes at least used to say that their impact fees aren't the only cost to a contribution to the road network. They're costs going forward but maybe not costs going backwards. MR. CASALANGUIDA: With your Question 21 in the DRI you're supposed to be cost neutral, so you do proportionate share analysis where your impact fees are creditable. But if you owe more because you've done an analysis that says look, your impact fees in this specific area don't cover your needs, you pay more, but you get the credit for the impact fee. What the new legislation says is it's a pay and go type environment. The debate now is what is that proportionate share and how is it calculated and where does it go? That's going to be our challenge as a community how to figure that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the mobility fee though won't impact the ability to proportionate share? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's all the questions I have. Does anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, I would like to move for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barry wants this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Paul, seconded by Barry. All those in favor, signify by saying say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 53 of 65 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? 1612 A7D *- ecember 1, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. We're on Number 11. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Continue to improve traffic operations by maintaining appropriate signal timing plans, including pedestrian movements, and through the use of ITMS, Intelligent Transportation Management System, ITMS -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation on this one from anybody on the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Midney, seconded by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Nick, some of these are too obvious to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- beat up. So unless somebody has a question, we can move through them with that premise in mind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. Policy Objective recommendation 12. Coordinate with FDOT and Collier County regarding commuter -based services and/or infrastructure to reduce delay for vehicles carrying multiple persons during peak travel demand and emergency vehicles. A: Coordinate regarding feasibility and benefit of implementing a carpool/high occupancy vehicle lanes in targeted areas along 1 -75 during peak travel demand. And this is probably the more important one: Coordinate interchange activity centers with park- and -ride or transfer facilities to provide access points for commuter transit services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion by anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation by Mr. Midney, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 54 of 65 ` 161 L•` 7 December 1, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. We're on to 13. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Plan for the incorporation of alternative modes or connection to nearby multi -modal infrastructure or facilities, trails, park- and -ride during the design of new and expanded roadways /corridors. Plan to identify new or expanded multi -modal corridors, plan for connection of multi -modal corridors to nearby infrastructure to create a network, coordinate multi -modal corridor designs with environmental preservation objectives -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, on some of these, unless we have questions, we probably don't have to all read them, because for the record they're on the screen. So I'm sure we can survive with that. Does that work? Okay, are there any questions on number 13? Is there -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney recommended approval. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Brougham. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. One thing I wanted to mention, Nick, on some of these objectives, and especially the examples, the A's, B's and C's, a lot of that stuff seems intuitively obvious. And it was stuff I thought you guys were doing all along. But now you're just kind of codifying it. So I don't -- it's hard to object to it because who can object to making transportation better in some of these ways that don't impinge on property rights or people's right to travel, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just a little surprised that some of these seem awfully expected, compared to having to put them now in writing. But -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Citizen input as well drove some of these. They wanted to make sure that they were defined and not just arbitrarily looked over and said yeah, you're doing it already, reinforce it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe the funders of the grant want to see it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, there you go. I forgot about that. Okay, 14. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, right now we have transportation demand strategies as part of your Page 55 of 65 �R A 7 16 I , December 1, 2011 transportation concurrent management areas. Just a quick thing is how do you get employers to start doing alternatives? I'll give you examples. Martin Marietta used to, instead of rebuilding some of the roads used to say, well, we're going to start our workforce at 6:00 and let them out at 3:00, you know, we're going to let our employees work home one day a week. And as the technology increases, what if an employer said I can shut down on Fridays. I cannot be open, I don't work four 10's, can I get a break on my impact fee if I'm closed for a day and I can prove that? Those are all possibilities that we can look at for employer -based incentives to eliminate some of those trips. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. Now, discussion. Nick, as of the part of this process, if you were going to give someone or institute an incentive so someone can have a credit against impact fees or whatever, how do you monitor whether or not -- sure, they put language in there that says we're going to let our employees work from home. Okay, you qualify for incentives. How do you know that actually happened? How do you audit this to make sure you're getting the bang for the buck that you gave them an incentive for? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to do some random audits. And right now with technology in California -- I know California is one of those -- it's a different country sometimes, but the technology is built into the computers that actually tells if a person's working from home. There's an audit that goes back and says all the data entry and back and forth happened on a certain day. So they're proving to the communities that they're doing that. So you'd have to find out the ways. And also, if you did an audit and you didn't do it, you pay the impact fee, you just lost that benefit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that as we implement language for these, that would be an important consideration as to how it's going to be monitored, because there's a lot of things that people say they're going to do they never get watched so they never end up doing them, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, one of the key ones was the employer who says I will run my business from 6:00 to 3:00 and I can afford to do that. And if it means a little bit of a break, if you're ever open past 3:00 or you're not open at 6:00, you lost that benefit. Because they're in light industrial manufacturing and they say, that works for us. COMMISSIONER AHERN: How do you incentivize existing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the same way. I think if they can prove they can transfer to something like that, the impact fee runs with the land, you might be able to give them a credit on their property. That might be harder than -- in existing but, you know, sure, opportunities to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion, it's been seconded. We had discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. We're on to 15. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let's see. Original 15, I think this is a discussion about working with the regulatory agencies, and a comment came back that we should already be doing it. A lot of this came from the regulatory agencies. They don't think that we're doing it enough, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it's kind of like the comment I just made about those other items being -- Page 56 of 65 ,g I I \ 161 2 DAcember 1, 2011 we thought you were doing them already, this is just another feel good one, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, one part is can we get the agencies to provide incentives if we do the right thing. And that's what the new 16 kind of -- 15 and 16 talks about together. And I think we've combined it. What if we talked to the agencies and said we're doing the right thing, can you give us some incentives on your end, fast - track, you know, reviews, you know, quicker reviews, things like that that we could do with that. So we're going to work on that. Because I think the agencies want it, the community wants it, and we are doing part of it already. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, seconded by Melissa. Made by Mr. Midney, motion to approve. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, 17. I think we talked about this earlier in plan review. Use the mitigation cost component of the county's current roadway impact fee to fund specific mitigation strategies. I think you're going to have a speaker on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that take away from? Where are you currently using those monies at random? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're not. You're still mitigating for your road projects at the time you do the project. But for instance, sometimes I don't get to a project till the fifth year and I've been collecting the fees all along. But in the first year I get five percent of the project or 20 percent of the project over five years. I could start buying that mitigation early with that component of the fee. And when I get to the fifth year I'll always (sic) have that mitigation already in place. Benefit would be is you're already buying the properties and protecting it early. You've built up that credit with the agencies. I think that is okay. But I think The Conservancy and other folks are concerned about the HCP. I'll let them speak for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But when you said -- when you're talking about creating an HCP, or when you talk about what we already have in conservation lands that are -- could be considered qualified mitigation, such as Starnes and Caracara I think it's called now, and I think Pepper Ranch had a portion of it. Are we still proceeding with getting the mitigation locked in for those so we -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've still got to pay for it though. We get discounts but we have to pay for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because it's inter - department? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. It's Conservation Collier funds and we have to reimburse them for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nicole, did you have something you want to throw in? Add? MS. JOHNSON: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy. The Conservancy is very concerned in general about a county -wide multi- species HCP. It isn't the concept of an HCP that's necessarily bad or good, but each individual HCP can be either very beneficial to species or not work quite so well. So we're concerned about the county pursuing an HCP. But in the context of the master mobility plan, we just don't see a nexus for an HCP as being part of it. I Page 57 of 65 A 1612,---A7 December 1, 2011 mean, an HCP really is the result of obtaining coverage under the Endangered Species Act for harm to listed species. And how that translates to the goal of reducing VMT's, I just don't see it. There is an Eastern Collier County HCP that's being pursued privately by the landowners. That's going forward. So I think we're dealing with these mitigation efforts in other avenues, and The Conservancy just doesn't believe that it's necessary and really fits in with the master mobility plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I didn't think you'd agree with me on that, but that's great. Nick, that's a good point, why do you need A and B? Why don't you just leave the objective as a sentence? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think other stakeholders who aren't here right now wanted to see an HCP. And I think the agencies have told us, get your act together and come up with a big picture conservation management plan. So we're getting that. But you know, my comment would be if you're going to say they shouldn't be in here, then the rest of the environmental section shouldn't be in here, because this is definitely a component of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't I already say that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's my opinion, at least. I know the Board will weigh in on it in the end. But if you -- we don't even know if the HCP is the right mechanism for Collier County's environmentally -- in lands. The suggestion that you did by adding the paragraph, I would repeatedly use as an example, is that this needs to be relegated to another study altogether, not demanded in this one. Because you don't know it's the right -- I don't think we know it's the right thing to demand. There may be other strategies that work better for Collier County than HCP's or different ones for different species. I'm not -- so I would certainly agree with Nicole. I don't myself think you need to put examples in this recommendation. It stands on its own. Let it develop as it would. And as the recommendation goes forward and we acknowledge that we need to have mitigation strategies, let those come out of the implementation language so we have more time to think about it and hear the pros and cons of HCP's. But right now I don't see that as a needed recommendation mobility plan. At least that's my opinion. So I'll -- depending on the motion, that's how I'm going to weigh in on it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I motion that we reject this -- we accept the objective but reject the description A and B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll second the motion. So the motion's been made to use the introductory sentence to the objective and leave A and B out of it. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Are if we're on 19? MR. CASALANGUIDA: 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 18, I'm sorry. Page 58 of 65 161 a� *ecember 1, 2011 Well, this is a pretty no- brainer. Nicole, you object to this one? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Let's go to 20 -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 19. God, you're always --I'm looking at this one to predict the next one. You're always changing on me, so -- Now, this is different than the A, B and C and D you have in our booklet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we've -- based on comments we've refined it a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to walk through them just to make sure we understand them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think it's more geared towards county services and infrastructure collocating certain things, along with development. You know, you see some of the developments right now; the mixed use centers will include a satellite office for the clerk for things like that. How can we include things like that. Locations to provide those things. So collocating key public services in strategic places I think makes a lot of sense so that people don't have to drive as far. That's one of the key things. Make sure there's no more of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one or two comments. Okay, Nick, when you say identify and plan for long -range needs of key public uses, to what extent is that limited? Is it any public uses? And by specific examples there is the known need for a future site for a landfill. We know the landfills take 10, 15 years to permit. We know we have a certain life expectancy of our current landfill. So something needs to be looked ahead. Is this saying that's the kind of thing we need to be looking at? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a little broader than that. I mean, yes. And the answer is we're looking at maybe transfer stations if the landfill is not there. It's any service that the government provides to you for public services, but it's geared towards a lot of things. Can we strategically locate a voting center, a license renewal center, a transfer station or we talked about the landfill right now just got re- permitted for a much longer life span. But what if there was a location in Eastern Collier where garbage was collected, sorted and then redelivered to the landfill and re -- like these recycling centers. Locating those key locations where it makes strategic sense reduces that trip length. So that's what we're looking at here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I agree with it, I just want to make sure I understood the magnitude of it. Because that could come into play in new land planning coming forward in the county in all aspects. If we have a regional need of something in an area that's coming in for some changes, maybe they need to consider putting a landfill location on it and things like that. Okay, anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. Page 59 of 65 .. 161 2A 7 December 1, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa beat Paul to this. Motion to approve. Second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing this already. I think it's come up in a lot of public comments about e- government. We're switching a lot to electronic permitting. So I think anything else that we can push government to do electronically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a great idea. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- it's -- you know, that's trips that don't have to come to our building. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Brad again. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then what we talked about, instead of five years, review the outcomes and measure every five years and as necessary update the LDC's or other regulatory instruments. So get away from that mandatory five year review and do it as part of the EAR. But measure how we've done every five years to see if we're heading in the right direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What encompasses your -- on how to measure? I mean, so how much staff time, people? Is it a separate process? Because if you're going to do it at the EAR, you'd have to measuring your objectives to see if you've met them at that time. So if you do it every five years, you're going to do it every seven years in the EAR. So do you really need to do it five and then two more later? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think you could save that as part of the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think that just saves staff time. Go ahead, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But most of the transportation plans are updated basically every five years. Page 60 of 65 i 16J 2A7 December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your long -range transportation plan is every five years through the MPO process, that's right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All right. And this is mentioned throughout here, the LRTP and the TAZ's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- which are going to change too. They're going to be looked at again shortly. So even within this time that you're making policy, they're going to be different. But you're not going to use the modeling. The modeling's going to be the 2035 LRTP -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- numbers, right? Even though the policies -- so the policies will be written with that information and those numbers right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think our goal is -- you know, I think what we envision is every five years we do a staff report and say how many communities have we interconnected, have we brought e- government services up. It's almost to measure and say these are the 20 recommendations that we've brought forward. What have we accomplished in five years? Have we turned on e- government? Yes. That's a good measure. We've now -- we've reduced permitting by 50 percent. How many collocations have we done? We've done 10. We've collocated government 10 times. So we can -- based on the recommendation you see, we can kind of do a report card, review the outcomes. Have we done a good job? Have things been better after five years? I think that was the goal. And then if they're not, when we do the EAR -based amendments we can look to tweak the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But along with Karen's line of thinking, if you're going to use this as a tool to understand what changes you may need in your performance, or your objectives, maybe instead of tying it to every five years you tie it to every -- two years prior to every EAR, you could do it. That way you could use the statistics you developed from that review to correct any deficiencies in the EAR. With that -- or do you feel -- because if the five year cycle gets off cycle from the EAR, you'd be producing results after you've done the EAR and you may not benefit from it then. Is that another way to look at it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Homiak was talking about modeling the 2035 LRTP, the TAZ's and the vehicle miles traveled. It's almost impossible to determine from the modeling what came out of this. You know, you could still say you've done certain things, but I wouldn't know how to quantify it in the model necessarily. Like, you know, e- permitting, how would I measure that drop? That would be hard to do. I think what the Chairman is saying is go into that EAR -based review. I'm okay with that, that makes sense. I still want to come back with a report card. I think that's our goal. And maybe if we did it two years before the EAR and then use that to drive some of the EAR recommendations, that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Something's still bothering me here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Listening to the last five minutes of comments, do you view the master mobility plan as a one -time effort? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I think -- well, yes and no. Yes, once the plan's adopted it's done. I don't think we're going to redo a mobility plan, it's done. The renewal and review of these outcomes after technology changes or things change, I think you have to look at all the time. But I think you've done, and the mobility plan has shown, that you can get reductions by doing the right things. I think you have to test those repeatedly, but I don't think you have to redo the whole plan all over again. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I certainly endorse measuring your progress towards the plan. But what's bothering me conceptually is to do a plan of any sort and then not replan based upon results -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- if I'm communicating my point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you are. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, because some of the premises and assumptions, et cetera, that you put into any plan are for certain going to change, which can drive you in to different recommendations, et cetera, Page 61 of 65 1612 December 1, 2011 et cetera, et cetera. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And would everything necessarily surface in the EAR amendments? If you know what I'm saying. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. And your great point is your analogy is your Growth Management Plan. It's a plan for the county. But you don't redo it. Once you've done it now you tweak it as you go. So I think that's the point you're all trying to make. I think I'm hearing it in different pieces. So your master mobility plan is a subset of your Growth Management Plan. All of these recommendations are going to fall into that, or the LDC. And yes, you need to revisit them just like you do your GMP. But every five years or seven years we don't rewrite our GMP, we just say how have we done. You know, so I think it just becomes you've done it evaluate and you write. We expected to go 10 degrees northeast -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It didn't turn out that way so we're going to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. But not redo the whole plan again. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. What I was uncomfortable is thinking that well, we did it and we're never going to measure progress, we're never going to make a change in our assumptions, so forth, so I think I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there any -- I'm concerned that if this is as it's written, you'd have to do it every five years, but that may not coincide with the EAR when you would benefit most from being able to make the changes that you'd learn from your review. Is there a better way to word that if that's the better way to go? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we'll reword it to tie it with the EAR. I that's the appropriate way of -- talking to Mike -- I don't know if he's still here. He left -- we did discuss this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we killed two birds with one review. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We killed two birds with one review. We just -- we'll just make that a specific subset of the EAR is look at mobility more and more. And we do, we have a transportation element, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think with that caveat, that would clean that up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to approve with that caveat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, motion to approve as recommended. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was supposed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the last one. Page 62 of 65 } 161,2 A -47 ' December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- to be a slide recommending a raise, but that didn't get up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Debbie? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, for Debbie. I really want to thank -- if the public's watching and we don't have them in the room, but the people that participated, it's an amazing effort that you've done and I think it shows that there's not a lot of controversy. And the hard work is truly in the next phase. And for the Planning Commission taking their time. We'll be back in two weeks to make sure we've captured your thoughts and come back with it on a consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've not quite wrapped up yet, though, so I want to make sure: Anybody from the public wish to speak, come on up and speak now. MS. JOHNSON: I promise, it's the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MS. JOHNSON: Nicole Johnson from The Conservancy. And I have been jumping up when I had questions and comments, so I wasn't able to make my general comment, which I think is very important, to thank staff and the consultants, the team, for really addressing all of the stakeholders' concerns, certainly The Conservancy's concerns. I think we were one of the most vocal in the beginning with concerns about the scope and the outcomes and the process of the master mobility plan. And staff and the rest of the team has been very good about answering our questions, incorporating many, many of our comments. So I know that I jumped up today where we did still have some questions and issues, and I wanted the team to know we very much appreciate their efforts. The hard work is going to be in the next phase of really nailing down the details and the policy, but we're pleased with the product as of today and we appreciate everyone's efforts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on section six, the last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to get to those too. So that's fine, let's just move on to those next then. I hadn't -- that's what I said to Nick, we're not quite done yet, but I'll make sure any questions we have the appendix or six are answered. Go ahead, Brad. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Wishful thinking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, the grant, does it fund anything past Phase 11? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a little bit of Phase III, which is the policy language. And I'm going to be honest with you, I think we're optimistic with six months. I think we're already a month and a half behind to get to the Board in January. Elections are in August. So 1 think we'll trod along in Phase 111. And realistically, it's probably going to take us another -- I would say the end of calendar year'l2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Phase III will be the language to change the GMP to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or LDC. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think like the one that requires a committee, that may be like a 12 to 18 -month project. It will take longer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think one thing I'd like to ask from the Planning Commission, if individually we have any points that we want to make to Nick -- and I'm doing that more of a self - serving objective of mine. I do. And so I don't want to deprive you any of that as well. I normally wouldn't step out of turn on that stuff. So -- and it's not something to vote on, but I want to get on record a couple of objections I have overall so they're not misconstrued. But I don't know if the -- and I'm going to offer that opportunity to any of you first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have three things that concern me. Page 63 of 65 • ` ' e A 7 c 16I December 1, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your use of the population statistics. The fact that they are not synchronized with the same statistics we use for capital improvements in the AUIR is concerning. Because that's a document that dictates for years in advance, like the solid waste, for example, how we expend money. Using a more conservative approach on some of the population statistics, especially in the RLSA, which I think is going to far outweigh the urban area in population in years to come, but that doesn't show it in this plan. But I think that conservative approach hurts the reliability of this master mobility plan. The second thing is the environmental aspects of it. I don't disagree with the environmental needs. I disagree that this plan is implementing those or trying to utilize those as a program. Because I don't believe it's been advertised that way. I do know that based on testimony today, the stakeholders who are -- and the property owners who are most effected were not notified. Now, in Golden Gate Estates when we did the master plan, when we effected a neighborhood like that, there were mailers sent out to every neighborhood about changes. That didn't happen here. So those stakeholders didn't know to come out and fill groom like they did when we had the master plan going on. People out there are involved. And I think they had to right to know that before the plan even introduced a new program. Then my last one is that figure 4.1 showing the location of the potential ROMA and the preservation. And anything that goes forward I personally would strongly object to that plan being used. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those are my three standing objections. What you do with them is up to you, but I'm just letting you know, and for the record, I don't agree with those points. However that comes out and tumbles out in final language of which I may or may not be a part, I don't know, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could just respond to a couple of them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- for the record as well. On population, Mr. Mohlke spent a little time talking about the dysfunction between population totals and when they're used to drive monetary decisions on funding and who gets what, when they used to drive needs. I think we did a real good job in this plan, when you're talking to The Conservancy, the stakeholders. None of the population -- if you looked at the recommendations, they were not driven by population at all. So that was important. When we got to the recommendation section, if we had said in this area because of population X, Y, Z we need to do this, I want to reiterate again on the record, throw 300,000 people more in this plan and the recommendations wouldn't have changed. Take 300,000 people out and the recommendations wouldn't have changed. So we didn't make it a metric in the sense -- we just used it as a test base. And I think, so people know, I think we were damned either way, if we go in high or low. We chose to go low because I think sometimes people hold the higher number to be more dangerous than the lower number. As far as notification in the Estates, I think I've talked to a lot of the folks that live out there, and I think they were more comfortable when they heard the committee recommendations. They said okay, we will get a chance to participate at that level, and we will make those decisions then. So I think they're not here today because they realize there's no language in there that says do it. It says look at I. But I do recognize your concerns, because if your property was on there you may get a little flag that goes up. Thank you, I really appreciate the comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that wraps up our meeting today. And I thank you all. Your group did a great job. I mean, I think we're here to chew it up. And between what you did, it was no -- that's not saying you didn't do a good job, I think you did a nice job, a great job in putting in well documentation. And Debbie, I don't know why you didn't want to stand up here and argue these points today, but you could have done a great job at that. He's got the gift of gab, doesn't he? Okay, with that, is there a -- I think that wraps up any public comment. I think we've already asked that. Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. Page 64 of 65 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Melissa. Seconded by Barry. We are adjourned. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** A 7 1612 December 1, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:03 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK RAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board o as presented V or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 65 of 65 i t 161'2 AZember 15, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE O M a N N W COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida JAN 2 7 2L'12 December 15, 2011 RRqq LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission,' an"d-o -r-° it e couniy 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: ALSO PRESENT: Fiala tf Hiller _ Henning ::V-_ — Coyle Coletta Mark Strain, Chairman Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney Brad Schiffer Bill Vonair Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning &Regulation Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 59 Misc. Cones: Date: Item #: c Lem 2 R1 Copies to: 1612 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, December 15th 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. Vonair? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? 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: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with the roll call, we heard a new name. Bill Vonair, welcome to the Planning Commission. I look forward to working with you. We should have an exciting time. We generally have long meetings and a lot of detail. I know that is part of your past, so I think you'll find it very interesting. ** *With that, addenda to the agenda. Does anybody have any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one difference in today's agenda. The consent item that normally is first was moved to be last today. It's an internal consent item, and there are some time pressures and time constraints on one of the public meetings, so we moved those forward. ** *Planning Commission absences. The next meeting is January 5th, and right now, Ray, we have Lost Grove Mine. And anything else on that agenda; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we know we have one, and that particular one will probably be lengthy because it will be hopefully a wrap -up of that particular hearing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, this may be an outdated sheet, but I show Vanderbilt Partners II, LTD as an item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the boat docks at The Dunes? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, with the length of Lost Grove Mine, and I'm not sure we'd even -- you might want to think about that in how you schedule it. Because that one's going to -- the Lost Grove Mine may take a little bit of time. I know they want to bring in new witnesses, so -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it's come to my attention that it may be an issue with the boat dock and that petition so it may need to be rescheduled anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd carefully think about that day. Does anybody on the Planning Commission know if they're not going to be here for the January 5th meeting? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I may not be back from New Hampshire yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's cold up there, young lady. Page 2 of 59 1612 A Tecember 15, 2011 Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm looking forward to being cold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been too cold down here the last few days, and this has been a warm winter so far. Okay, we'll still have a quorum. ** *Approval of minutes. We were distributed electronically the November 17th minutes. Does anybody have any corrections or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made the motion. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. ** *BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on Tuesday, December 13th, the Board of County Commissioners approved the conditional use for the NABOR building. That was petition number CU -PL- 2011 -855. That was approved on their summary agenda. So that adopted all the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's good. That was yesterday's or -- MR. BELLOWS: Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tuesday. How did the RLSA come out? I don't even know. Anything -- because that was something we had asked about. Did that -- MR. BELLOWS: Let me see if I can get Mike Bosi to come up and talk about the RLSA. He walked in at the right time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, I don't read the paper and I don't get to watch all those meetings, so I don't get to see the results of a lot. I used to read the paper, I used to write for it, but I stopped in August. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Yesterday at the continuation of the BCC's public hearing, the Board directed staff to accept the proposal for Stantec to package the amendments as accepted by the Board at their April 21 st, 2009 BCC hearing, provide the data associated with it. But also, an interesting twist was The Conservancy offered $90,000 to provide for an outside independent review to review the data and analysis associated with the amendments and make sure that they felt that they were appropriate to have a third party independent voice within the process. Not to tie it with the EAR -based amendments at adoption, but to trail it and -- because there's going to be some time required for the RFPs associated with the Page 3 of 59 161 2 15, 2011 outside consultant, the coordination of the various contracts and aspects of all the parties. So it's not going to be included as part of the EAR -based amendments but it's going to be lagging behind it somewhat based upon the premise of almost a triple participation. Because you've got the property owners providing some monetary consideration with the packaging and the data provided, you've got The Conservancy provided monetary contributions for the outside independent review, and then the county provided the county staff and application and all the processing of the actual amendments and the time for the hearings. So it was -- I think it was a good solution that's going to allow us to move forward with it in the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's good. I'm surprised. I'm glad The Conservancy's jumping in like they are, since they had a lot of concern over the plan. And whenever it comes before this Board, as it boils down, I would suggest that we talk as it gels up, depending on how all these new entities and the quantity of the data and analysis comes in. But I would expect we will take multiple meetings to get through that. And we may want to schedule irregular meetings to do that, not interrupt our normal process. And I want to make sure that this Board has absolutely plenty of time to review every paragraph, every sentence of that entire document, so -- and the data and analysis to support it. We just need a lot of heads up on that. That will have a -- that's a major impact to Collier County, so I think we need to study it hard. MR. BOSI: Understood. And we understand that there will be a tremendous amount of eyes and scrutiny and attention to the process. And we would schedule it like we would schedule the EAR -based amendments, separate, outside of your regularly scheduled meetings so it wouldn't interrupt that schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You probably need more than one meeting, though. MR. BOSI: Yes, understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would consider that. Last time too, one of the biggest issues was the panther habitat issue. Is someone going to be getting that nailed down? Because there was a big discussion over what is and what isn't primary and secondary. And that will have a big bearing on how the processes out there go forward. And I know there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the property owners and a group of scientists to resolve it. I can't recall where that went. But is all that stuff going to be part of the data and analysis that's going to be coming towards -- MR. BOSI: Well, remember the -- what you're talking about is the process for -- the moving forward with development within secondary panther zones to the primary panther zones. That's the association of the habitat conservation plan. That's what the Board of County Commissioners was going to tie, wait until that process ran its course. The Board said we're not going to wait until that process runs its course, because we're not sure if it's ever going to run its course. And that's for the federal permitting side of the issue. Let's create and deal with our land use issues, the issues that are under our control within those individual policies, and move it forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it would be important for this Board's analysis as time goes forward, and if you're going to start lining up experts and people to look at it, to understand the impact of secondary and primary on the buildability of areas. Because that will be a big issue with upcoming applications, and it would be nice to address it during the process. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, would it be to our benefit maybe in -- (Outside noise.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gong is going to come out and get you next. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have a cold, but that wasn't my voice. (Laughter.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Since we need to do an RFP on this, would it be to our benefit maybe in January just to maybe, I don't want to say, put an agenda item just to -- say an outline of maybe a one -hour discussion on what's important for this commission to understand, maybe just put together an outline for the RFP? In other words, these are the concerns we had in the initial review and want to make sure these are covered so that we're focused on those specifics? Page 4 of 59 A7 1612December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it can fit within your process, I would think that would be helpful. My concern is that it would be nice to have the experts who know the secondary and primary, those kind of issues, put some factual measurement or quantitative values we can look at so that when we study it and make a recommendation and the Board adopts something, it's locked in. That's what we do from now on. No more of this going back and forth, or you're violating this habitat or you're violating that. No, here's the rules, here's what we've got. And I'm trying to get there is what I'm saying. If we can find some way that this process can help us get there, that would be a huge help to this Board. Mike? MR. BOSL• I would say I understand those issues, and I believe we will make every effort. But we also have to realize that the financial contribution for that outside independent review was $90,000. And that also trying to bring in additional specialists to coordinate further studies, I think we may be limited in terms of that ability. Not sure. And I think maybe that's why Nick's proposal to kind of clarify these issues with you as an agenda item probably will be in the best interest, so we all know that road map moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have some big operators looking at moving forward in another big area in the RLSA. It would be to their best interest to get that answer nailed down and everybody. So maybe you'll find some way of getting that done. But I think that's important. I'd hate to see us have to debate every single new town out there over the issue of secondary and primary. We just ought to get it done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Why don't we put on the agenda for January just what I would call a scoping discussion for what is the primary areas of interest in this RLSA review based on what we've heard in the review that was adopted and any concerns that you've had through discussions with, you know, landowners, individuals, and say look, these are the things we want to make sure we review and cover, and we haven't left it out and we've not -- don't find ourselves six months later saying we should have looked at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. To have a comprehensive plan addressing everything, we don't -- that limits the amount of debate we're going to need to have on issues that are black and white then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay? Thank you, guys, appreciate it. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman, can we go back to the actions of the Commission just for a moment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're still on. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The RLSA discussion was something they took up yesterday about moving that overlay forward. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I just wanted to mention that I had a meeting with Tom Henning a few minutes ago before we started this, and he told me, and he would like me to tell the people here, that his decision on the newspaper article about the -- that was today, his decision was the right decision to make as far as his properly in the Immokalee -- he, with the passage of that, his property would have been enhanced and would have zoning enhancements. So he said he made the right decision and he wanted everybody to know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was a newspaper -- again, I don't read the paper, so you got me at a loss. What was the paper -- since you opened it up, I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I was alluding to the paper. I should have been just alluding to what happened with the Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew that it was a -- I know there was only four members voting. I didn't know all the particulars. But if there's a conflict of interest because of property ownership or because of a perception of property, then nobody should vote on it who has that. I know I have abstained from this Board for a possible conflict on properties at a time when I was working on nearby adjoining properties. So, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that if he's got that property out there he did that. That's certainly within reason. Ray, did that overlay -- how did the -- the Immokalee Master Plan did not move forward then, right? Is that going to come back with any decisions made in that regard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. They're just going to just review it as a community and decide what they want to do at some later time. But there is no plan to bring it back right now. Page 5 of 59 1612A� .1 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to think of anything else about that. The Planning Commission's recommendations weren't all intact when it got to the Board, were they? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They were. I think the recommendations -- I think Penny talked about -- actually, Penny presented or just said that the three items that were discussed prior would be the same as with the last time they came to the Board of County Commissioners, so if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but the last time it came it was modified by the CRA inconsistent with this Board on some of the issues. I was just curious how it ended up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, so exactly what came to the Board last time was what came to the Board this time. No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as anything else, that was -- so we only have one land use item besides those two items on the agendas, so, okay. ** *Chairman's report, I think we've already expressed my concerns over the RLSA. That was where 1 was going to go during the report. ** *Advertised public hearings. We'll move right into those. First item up is PUDA- PL2011 -47, the Sabal Bay MPUD. 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. Anybody have any meetings, discussions? Mr. Vonair, since you're the new kid on the block, any time that you've met with or had any discussions on an item that comes before the Board, you just need to disclose it in the beginning. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a meeting with the applicant's attorney and -- Pat Utter, I believe, of the applicant. And we discussed all the issues that I'm going to repeat here today, the questions that I had. So with that, Mr. Anderson, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. I want to introduce the other members of the project team. Mr. Pat Utter and Valerie Pike from Collier Enterprises. Margaret Perry from Stantec. John English, also from Stantec. Our transportation consultants, Reed Jarvi. And Andy Woodruff from Passarella Environmental Consulting. This is an amendment to the Sabal Bay PUD. The Sabal Bay project has been around for a number of years. Most recently it was last approved in 2005. Sabal Bay comprises 2,416 acres, of which 938 of those acres are identified for residential uses, 50 acres of commercial uses, 32 acres for public facilities, and 16 acres of recreation village center uses that are wholly interior to the development. There is 780 acres identified on the master plan to be deeded to the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and an additional 522 acres of additional preserve area in addition to the lands to be deeded to Rookery Bay. That means that more than half of the acreage of this project will be in a state of preserve. The balance of the acreage consists of right -of -way and Lely canal easements. The biggest change to this PUD is the removal of golf course as a permitted use. In connection with the removal of the golf course, the preserve area is being increased by 45 acres. Additional changes that are being made: Adding approval for outside storage, except for boats, and adding a car wash, post office and docks and electrical boats as an allowable use within the recreation village center area. There is an increase in the commercial acreage by five acres, from 45 to 50 acres. I'm told by the project engineer that that results as a result of inclusion of additional right -of -way that is within the boundaries of the commercial activity center. There is, however, no increase in commercial square footage proposed. Another amendment proposed is to allow the height of assisted living facilities and continuing care retirement communities, which I'll abbreviate in the future as ALF and CCRC. The proposal is to allow those facilities to go up to a height of 80 feet, and to allow a floor area ratio of 0.6. The reason for the increase in building height and floor area ratio is to allow some flexibility to meet market demands for what seems to be larger sized units today. This amendment will remove the affordable housing section of the PUD, which contains requirements that Page 6 of 59 1612 A 7 ,+ December 15, 2011 were not uniformly applied to other development. The bald eagle and gopher tortoise management plans are both proposed to be removed from the PUD to simply require compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. From time to time those requirements change, and we want to avoid the necessity of having to come back for a PUD amendment each time those requirements change. There are two access points being added to the PUD master plan. One is at Danford Street and the other is along U.S. 41 opposite the entrance to the original Lely development at Saint Andrews Boulevard. The Danford Street access is to allow for direct access to the Hamilton Harbor Marina and Clubhouse. And the new U.S. 41 access is to provide for direct access to a so- called orphan parcel that is separated from the rest of the project by an FPL transmission line easement. There are other changes proposed to the development standards, including some deviations from additional Land Development Code requirements. The Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition last month and unanimously recommended approval. And we respectfully request your approval as well. Yesterday I met with the chairman of the Planning Commission, and there are some housekeeping items that I'd like to get out of the way based on that meeting. Some of these items are in the existing PUD, and we were not proposing to change them. The reason being when you come in for a PUD amendment you try to change as little as possible, only what is necessary. But the Chairman recommended that additional clean -up was needed from the existing PUD, and my client is ready to make those changes. Throughout the PUD there are references to owner. All of those references should be capitalized so that we know that we're specifically referring to the two Collier entities or their successor. Throughout -- also throughout the PUD there are references to ALF, assisted living facilities. To each of those references we should add or, and/or continuing care retirement communities, CCRC. Those are the two global changes. Additional housekeeping items are to update the amount of commercial development that has been constructed since the 2005 PUD amendment. The -- and those would be to sections -- the statement of compliance Section 2.13 and Section 2.2 of the PUD. That new commercial square footage number is 101,894 square feet of existing constructed commercial. Section 1.1 of the PUD states that the ownership information is contained in that section, but in fact it is not. And that should be struck, the reference to ownership being contained there. There's potential for a community development district to provide infrastructure to this project, and there are references in different sections about private ownership of the roadways, and you should strike ownership from there. They won't -- they may or may not be privately owned. So they should read privately or CDD owned. Section 2.6 of the PUD presently allows up to 10 percent of each lake, of the fill from each lake to be hauled off -site without the necessity of getting a commercial excavation permit. Again, that's in the existing PUD. That is different than the Land Development Code requires. So the reference to per lake would be struck such that this provision complies with the requirements in the Land Development Code that no more than 10 percent total of the excavation material not to exceed 20,000 square feet may be hauled off -site without the necessity of getting a commercial excavation permit. Section 2.14, there was a proposal to add a new use relating to telecommunication facilities. Staff has advised us that no special zoning approval is needed for these facilities unless they are communication towers. And there are provisions in the Land Development Code for permitting of communication towers. Lastly, there are two references to the potential use of time share units and the fact that they would not be counted as hotel units. There is a limitation in the PUD for 250 hotel units. Instead, any of those time share units would be counted as regular residential dwelling units, like any home. The Chairman asked that we, rather than that being implied, that we come right out and state that they would be counted as residential dwelling units, and that is a change that we're willing to make. And with that, I will conclude my formal presentation, and I or other members of the project team are available to answer your questions now or later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions at this time from members of the Planning Commission? Page 7 of 59 .ff1 A 7 1 6 L December 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll ask one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, this might be to staff. And it's about the affordable housing. I mean, back in -- when this was done, 2005? -- everybody felt we needed to put $1,000 on the -- I don't want to go into the other two, but are we going to totally wipe that out from future projects or have we determined there's no need for affordable housing in the county or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maybe, Commissioner Schiffer, I could speak on that because I worked on the agenda item that was at the Board just recently. The Board gave staff direction to come up with a process to eliminate it, whether in whole or in part, as each PUD comes forward. But as PUDs come forward that have that commitment, they do want to evaluate if they feel there still is a need and make that decision. Some of the Board members expressed that there wasn't that need today and therefore we shouldn't be asking for those dollars. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it said that staff determined that there was, so there is no need to deposit money in the affordable housing trust anymore. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it depends. If you ask the Affordable Housing Committee staff or the board members, everybody's got a different perception. One of the concerns that came up is four years from now we could be in the same position we were four years ago, where there could be a need and those dollars could be spent wisely. These could be unencumbered non -grant dollars, so they wouldn't have the same restrictions like NSP -1 has, so these might be more flexible. But right now the county did a study last year that showed the median price or the market rate price that matches the affordable housing prices, that there's an abundance of that in the county today. So I think the Board is reacting to what they're hearing today and have said if petitioners feel that those dollars should not be put towards affordable housing, the Board is sympathetic to that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you know, buying affordable houses is a two -sided thing. You have to have price and you also have to be financed. So while we definitely have the price, we don't have the financing at all. So that money could be used to help people get into these houses that are now affordable. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Buy down mortgages or down payments or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the analysis it says staff says that that's no longer needed. So that came from what you just described that you're under direction from the Board that is no longer needed to fund the affordable housing trust. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Based on the premise that the prices that are out there right now, there's enough units at those rates to qualify for programs that you wouldn't need any more units that are considered affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the trust also helps with down payment assistance and stuff like that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so that's the side I think that needs that help now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This Commission could recommend to the Board that that money be spent specifically for that. And that's something we would carry forward if you felt as a majority that that's what the Board should hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just to comment on that discussion, it would seem to me that the prudent thing to do for the county is to try to plan ahead. And we've heard a lot of bravado in the past months about how well and how badly others before them planned ahead. This cycle is going to repeat itself. And it would seem a prudent thing to do that when we have the opportunity that we should, you know, have a fund or have contributions to a fund to prepare for the eventuality that's going to come. I mean, we're going to run out of housing at some point and we'll be right back behind the eight ball. I would be in favor of a recommendation to basically follow along the lines that Brad and you discussed, that at least go forward and say it might be prudent for developers as appropriate to continue to contribute to this fund for possibly some restricted or different uses than in the past. But at least we'll have something to start with. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Certainly. If the majority felt that way, we would carry that forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not done with it yet. Page 8 of 59 € 11 161-4 Z A 7 December 15, 2011 Anybody else? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Heidi, what are the legal ramifications for having certain PUDs contribute to this fund and other PUDs not? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I certainly would want to treat them all the same. I know there was a Board item yesterday on the affordable housing commitments and I don't know that that was resolved. But we certainly want to treat them all the same. So whatever our policy is, we should apply it across the board. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the better question is, Heidi, what is our policy on exacting money for affordable housing from all PUDs equally throughout the county as it stands today? And what policy may we have had in the past that you know of in written format by resolution or ordinance that allows for such exactions on an equitable basis? Any? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There have been ordinances that have been adopted in the past by the affordable housing. I don't believe at this time we currently have a policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Therein lies I think where the real crux of the problem is. In the past it was thought that this was a legitimate way to possibly improve the affordable housing inventory in Collier County. It was moved forward in an inappropriate manner, from the best I could see, in the sense that we don't have a rational nexus determination, we don't have a standard in which we know every development of a certain value, of a certain size, of a certain type is required to make a certain donation to affordable housing. While it's a nice thing to do, it may not meet the specifics that the law needs to set those values. And I think that's where it's an injustice to property owners. Either we do it all for everybody equally or we don't do it at all until the laws are passed that provide that benefit. Just like we have impact fees. And I believe that's where I would be coming from on this. I don't see affordable housing as something we shouldn't consider, but I think the emphasis should be on the officials who make our laws to create one that standardizes this. And until they do, I think it's unfair to just arbitrarily pick on different developments and people to do that with. Paul first and then Phil. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You know, looking back on having lived through this 10 years ago, and that was my first major comment when I came on this planning board about affordable housing and how I had experience with families in Immokalee before they were able to qualify for affordable housing and living in bad expensive housing and after they were able to get into something that was affordable and how it had such a positive impact on those families, the kids, the parents, everybody. And now looking back after 10 years, it seems like a lot of the problem wasn't so much that there was an affordable housing need as much as there was the overvaluation of property in those days. You know, now we see a house that in those days was worth 240,000 is worth about 80,000. And so the real values of housing was inflated. And that I think contributed to a lot of the affordable housing problem, which had to do more with the market than with other things, you know. So I agree with you, Mark, we have to sort of -- it's probably going to be very hard to get a rational economic analysis that takes into account the needs of working class families and somehow the housing market, and should there be some obligation in the county, not so much an obligation, but it's sort of like a prudent thing for the good of everybody, because we all are one county, we're all people who live in this county, and to make the county better for everybody, maybe it would be a logical and a prudent thing for people to contribute. But the basis for it, I agree with you, it sort of has to be logically determined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Understanding what you said, I don't disagree with that. But I think on the -- where do we go from here? I mean, if it -- and a big if. If it's a consensus of this Board in terms of our future responsibilities to evaluate PUD petitions, rezone petitions and so forth or use of the land, how can we add our voice to solve the issue? If the issue must be resolved at the County Commissioners level, then how do we get this policy in place if we feel it's beneficial? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I don't think this Board has the encompassing background to jump into that with any kind of recommendation. But there's a couple of things that I think we should consider: Number one, we shouldn't perpetuate something from the past that we know it may not have been done in the Page 9 of 59 1612 A7 December 15, 2011 best way possible. And we should clean that up. And that's the objective of some of the issues in this PUD. The second thing is Brad is on a committee that deals with strictly the issue of affordable housing. It would seem to me that that committee could initiate recommendations in regards to standardization of affordable housing. However, I do know that's been attempted in the past and it's not been met with success. And that may have been for a reason, reasons beyond the control of this Board. But the only thing I can suggest, if it feels -- if a -- for a group as focused as that Affordable Housing Committee is, and that's their sole criteria, where ours is much more scattered, if they were to continually put that request through in different formats, and one of them got accepted, then across the board every applicant coming in here knows what to expect. And that's where I think the source ought to be, more than haphazard attempts to enforce something that really shouldn't be enforced. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That was my question, who can we look to or should have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Blame it all on Brad. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Brad, get busy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He started it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just raising the question. I think it's naive to think that the problem with affordable housing is the price of the affordable house. Because these people are not getting financed, so they're not getting the house anyway. The problem is they're not getting the house. So you have to help them with the financing. I do agree that these thousand dollar things, I was here during that time, and these things were put in in some cases at the Commission meeting. I don't want to comment on whether that was fair or not. But the point is it was done, it was done by the Commissioners, the Commissioners that are mostly still sitting. So I think I would rather see the Commissioners take it out and make that statement, if they're the ones that put it in. I would -- at least A and B. C, I definitely think we should scratch from this. But there still is an affordable housing problem, you know, no matter what the prices look like. And that money is going into a trust fund that solves the problem from a couple different directions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to recommend something to the Commission. And along the lines of the changes to the PUD, one of the requests to change is A, B and C. I'm not against A, B or C. And if this Board recommends to support that, we're not making the decision, we're still leaving it up to the Commission. All we're saying is it's reasonable to consider this, and they can then debate it at their level. I think for us not to take a position on it or to take a position we disagree with, it might send the wrong signal. So I would rather see us take an affirmative position that hey, A B and C basically are outdated, they're inconsistent with any policies we have on the books, and until a new policy is formed we recommend you consider their request. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And people are looking for it. It's 8. 10, A, B and C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Page -- in the staff report, it's Page 7 of the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, there's no doubt at the time these projects were coming forward people were sticking these requirements into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they were sticking it into it at the hearing. And we discussed the pros and cons of that. And then I guess as the price slumped in the housing everybody forgot about it, because policy should have been done at that time. I agree with that. But I think they were being stuck in at the meetings by the Commissioners in some cases. Let the Commissioners make a formal stand. Staff said it was taken out of one before, but it wasn't really done at that level, it was, I guess -- what is the history of taking it out of the prior PUD? I don't -- in the staff report it mentioned the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: In terms of what the Board just directed staff to do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it mentioned one of the PUDs where -- Sonoma Oaks, what happened there? How did that happen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was part of the amendment. They came through the amendment process and took it out. And then recently Sandalwood PUD that was part of a Burt Harris claim settlement agreement came and requested from the Board that that be taken out from them as well too. That's what was the nexus behind the amendment or the request that the Board asked us to do with the LDC. If I could refresh your memory a little bit. One of the issues why this came up, the thousand dollars, was the Page 10 of 59 1b 2 7ecember"15,2011 concept of inclusionary zoning. If a development wants to do all high end and not provide for that balanced mix of service workers or people being able to provide teachers living in the urban area, then they would pay into this housing where the county could provide it. That's where that thousand dollars started to come up with. So when development came in and said we're going to have a broad mix where we have commercial, residential, and some of that residential will be for the first -time buyer, the service worker, then obviously the Board wasn't asking for that thousand dollars. But if someone said I want to do a high -rise or I want to do a high -end development, there's no opportunity for your police officer or teacher to buy into a home, a development like this, that's where that thousand dollars started popping up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. Are you finished? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I was just going to add to that, you know, that part of the issue, and especially with the land values at the time, if you're building 1,000 units, you needed to have a certain percentage of affordable housing. And developers didn't want to put one area of multi - family housing in the middle of a high -end community. And when you looked at the values, it was cheaper to do the thousand dollar buy -out, basically, to affordable housing than it was to try to build that and take the loss on the market value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, it was kind of a clumsy mitigation of the problem. But again, the problem now is not the value of the house. There's plenty of houses out there that have the right price. They can't get financing, so they need the money for that. But anyway, I'm really not making a recommendation whether we put it in or not. I think if we decide to take it out, then I wouldn't mind seeing some policy on that, not just that staff said they did it in another one so let's do it here. And at the time I honestly wasn't a big fan of essentially putting a gun on the people and taking the thousand bucks anyway at that time. So I think it would be better, and it's kind of I think what Mark was alluding to, that there become a policy to -- you know, and it should be a formal policy that people can debate and vote on rather than how these things got in here. So, you know, the only reason I would favor taking it out -- and again, C, I would never put in, but take it out -- is just to bring it up as the issue. Because the applicant will want to take it out and he'll want to take it out in front of the Commissioners. And it will be noted if we did recommend that it stay and it would make it a conversation that they had to have. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have had almost everyone who has one of these who hasn't started, they are coming back with an amendment taking out the affordable housing. They are just plain removing it. So we have been taking out a lot. I spoke with someone in the housing administration and they said we really don't care anymore, because we got $10 million from the federal government. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the background from this Board's perspective, when this all started five, eight, 10 years ago, and I was on this Board, I had sat in a very -- meeting with the housing director to try to understand the policy and the procedures and how this money was being allocated or taken and requested. I was assured at that time that it was an acceptable way of making sure there was money for affordable housing. And that was from the housing director at the time. But it turns out there was never really any -- no formal rational nexus established or policy done. And that's kind of the things we learn as time goes on, that maybe what we've done in the past isn't as -- done as well as it should. Not that the intentions were wrong, not that it was something that we shouldn't have done at all, but we just didn't go about it in the right way. So I would think that when these projects come through and ask for release of this information to send it forward with agreeing to that release but reminding the Board that we still need to have a policy in place to establish the rational nexus between the demands equally to all is something that should be considered if we're going to do any of these in the future. Page 11 of 59 161 }. ,_1 December 15, 2011 So I would agree with Brad, we can make that point as part of the stipulation but at the same time agree to let this project move forward in that regard with the issue that they requested. Anybody have any other questions of Bruce at this time? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One global question of someone for clarification of the project master plan map. I just have a couple of questions on that before we get into some detail. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: While we're still on the affordable housing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When we get to what we actually recommend, you know, I'd suggest that we recommend taking this out but maybe putting it -- suggesting to the Affordable Housing Subcommittee that they try to come up with some sort of a balanced thing that recognizes that there is always going to be a need for people in this county who are working in low wage jobs to access housing for their families, and that if they can, you know, explore alternate means besides this of trying to accomplish that, that might be a good thing for us to suggest to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it would establish a much broader base in which to generate funds rather than piecemeal and individual selected, you know, step by -- different -- property owners on a more selective basis isn't the way to go, we should do it across the board if we're going to do it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. And it's not necessarily funds only but, you know, just sort of like broader policy and incentives too, not just disincentives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when we get to that point in the meeting, we'll probably have something together by then. Thank you. Okay, Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for the future discussion here in a few minutes, Bruce, what is the definition of the R213's, R2A's, R6's and so forth? If it's in the PUD, I fail to find it. MR. ANDERSON: First of all, those designations were put in by WCI in 2005. And I believe the primary purpose of those was to cull out areas where there were going to be specific height limitations. And that was the way they were culled out and distinguished. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So it's sort of a geographical designation of different areas. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, you're not done? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you moved to the left, towards Hamilton Harbor, can you explain -- I mean, I'm trying to find the true border of the project here, and I'm having a bit of difficulty. There's a -- what's that skinny little white area between the R5 and then the potential access road going out to Hamilton Harbor? It looks -- is that part or not part of the project? Move your pen to the right, to the right, to the right. Right. MR. ANDERSON: Your right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's talking about R5. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, the R-- it's just --there's a small area to the left of R5 that is in white. And I'm trying to distinguish -- because if I take the white, then that runs all the way up towards Thomasson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Bayshore Drive, I think. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And it's labeled Bayshore Drive. But that's not -- that specific area is Bayshore Drive, it's not a part of the project, but -- I'm not explaining myself correctly, I know that. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English with Stantec. I'm trying to find a drawing that might be a little more clear. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, the project encompasses everything that's in -- outlined in bold black, correct? MR. ENGLISH: Hopefully these lines may be a little darker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have an exhibit that might help. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You colored yours in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pass it down and put it on the screen, it will help John explain, too. When I do these things at home, I try to highlight them so I can read them better and know what's in and Page 12 of 59 A 7 k . December 15, 2011 what's out. And I think that portrays what's in, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's heartening to know I wasn't the only one having difficulty. MR. ENGLISH: You're referring to this piece right here? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. MR. ENGLISH: Correct. There's -- the boundary, there's the PUD area here, and it comes around here, and there's an extension here, if you will, from this side, and there's an extension, if you will, from this side. But they never touch. Bayshore separates them. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I think that helps me. I was looking for a continuity of bold lines, and I found that area by Hamilton Harbor was sort of like -- MR. ENGLISH: On a small scale it's difficult to perceive that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, fine. I'm goad. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I apologize for not having the right crayons. MR. ENGLISH: Here's your colored drawing back, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, you could have left it up there, it does it better than yours, to be honest with you. I'll have questions from that when we get going. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your road section, section A just has six -foot sidewalks, but it's the road that a bicyclist would take off of 41. So all throughout the development is nice 10 -foot sidewalks which would be great for bicycling on. Why didn't you connect in your typical Section A a wider sidewalk? MR. ENGLISH: We -- the entrances are going to be gated to the community from the surrounding public roads, Thomasson Drive and 41, and so our intention was to provide a biking -- a 10 -foot wide multi use path for the residents of the community. And so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if they went outside the community, which hopefully they do to go shopping or something, when they came back in, so going down road section A, which is your main entrance road section, where would the bicyclist be in that road section? MR. ENGLISH: On Section A, which is going to U.S. 41, that section had its -- of course it's a 12 -foot path, I believe, up to the bridge and then it becomes two six -foot sidewalks. But we just -- our plan for the pathways were a bicyclist -- that the multi use path would be for internal for the residents to enjoy the community. If they wish to ride their bike out onto U.S. 41, I'm not sure the best way to do that. We had not got down to that level of detail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your answer might be they're walking their bike down the six -foot sidewalk. MR. ENGLISH: In reality that's probably what would happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or they're in the roadway. MR. ENGLISH: Because it's going to be a gated community, and we haven't gotten down to how we would gate all those access points to that level of detail. But you're probably right, they would have to get off their bike and walk through some sort of gate, manually open a gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, are we going to go page -by -page through the PUD or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just -- no, it was just asking our questions. We didn't -- it's up -- I mean, I'm going to go through page -by -page, but I figure normally you guys don't have that many questions. So if you wanted to -- if you want to, Phil, I can walk through. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I have some in the PUD we might as well get to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we go through the -- we can take it like that. That may help in the long run. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're going to hear speakers after all that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's when we usually do. The first section is the statement of compliance. Unless that's a -- then there's two -- it's a 1I, and then the second page is a III. Does anybody have any questions on those two pages? Page 13 of 59 p 161 z A 7 e4 December 15, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Bruce, I'm confused over something I read in the staff report, and I guess -- is the attorney who represents the EAC here today? I knew that answer. I'd like to know why number two was -- what that has to do with the environment. MR. PERRY: You knew that answer too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that answer and it's frustrating. MR. WILLIAMS: Steve Williams, Assistant Collier County Attorney. You know the answer as well as I do. And if you watch those meetings on TV, you probably see what we frequently tell them, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, like the paper, I don't watch those meetings and I don't read the paper, so -- MR. WILLIAMS: I would say it is beyond the realm of their environmental concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because the numbers that they came up with have no -- I can't figure them out, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, what are you looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the Roman numeral II, under statement of compliance, number 2 -A. The proposed residential density of Sabal Bay used to be 1.26, now it's .85 dwelling units per acre. Well, if you look back at the staff report, the EAC had requested that all those numbers be changed to 1.29 units per acre. And I'm not seeing the reasoning behind that. Not that I care, because it's not an environmental issue. But I thought for the record I'd clear it up. And I don't -- and so much for that. Margaret, you're going to jump into something that doesn't need to be jumped into, but go right ahead. MS. PERRY: I don't think I will. Again, for the record, Margaret Perry from Stantec. What happened at the EAC was it was recognized that the calculations were changed in the statement of compliance, but the same changes weren't made in the Section 1.4. Section 1.4 relating to density still said that density of 1.26. After the EAC meeting I received a call from Kay Deselem and Michele Mosca and said the way that we were calculating density was incorrect. The only thing -- the only acreage that should be omitted when calculating density is for commercial and industrial. We shouldn't have been eliminating the density for, say, the public facility use and for wetlands. So therefore after EAC we changed it to read to what it is today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What it is today is consistent and correct; is that right? MR. PERRY: That's my understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to know. Thank you. On the Roman numeral III -- I mean, Page 3, number seven, I did receive those other documents, or I found those other documents online. I didn't find any conflict between those and this discussion, but that's the only note I had on that page. So with that, let's move on to -- let's take a couple pages -- a section at a time. Section 1, does anybody have any questions on Section 1? Which covers two pages. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The cleanup by the applicant was to remove the references to property ownership. I believe that is warranted. Section 2, that covers pages 2 -1 through 2 -10. Anybody have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment on 2.213. Again, it could be my old eyes, but I didn't find an Exhibit A. I find a master plan in the -- labeled master plan, but I don't find anything specific to Exhibit A. I think I know what it is, and it's commonly labeled or labeled now master plan, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The master plan by Wilson - Miller says Exhibit A, Pages 1 of 3. And there's three pages. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Where are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very last pages of the document. Actually, just before Exhibit C. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Which document, Mark? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD. Turn to the back of the PUD. It's just before the legal description, which Page 14 of 59 161 2 December 15, 2011 is Exhibit B. You've got the master plan. The right side of the page on the master plan says Exhibit A, Page 1 of 3. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is this it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one right here. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not finding it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's in the back of actual PUD. The ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look under the bottom of the page, Phil, under the name Wilson - Miller. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right, I got it. I knew it was old eyes. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else in that section? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 2 -4, Section 2.5A, the sidewalks -- and Bruce, I want to make sure you catch this in your references. It says all privately owned roads internal to the Sabal Bay MPUD, you're proposing a change. You mean all privately and/or CDD owned; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still working -- number 2.11 on Page 2 -6. The common area maintenance. The word is shall be provided by the CDD. Since you're going to have some sections of the roadways, mostly your collectors and arterials -- there's no arterials in this, but mostly your collector roads -- I would imagine CDD, you may have cul -de -sac roads or others that are not. I don't think you want to be bound by all the common area maintenance. By shall, I think you should substitute the word may. MR. ANDERSON: Agreed. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, I think shall works okay, because it says or a property owners association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but then -- so if they don't do it through a property owners association they have to do a community development district. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that would be the only two options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I was concerned, if they opt not to go CDD, then the whole project would have to be by a property owners association. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, usually they have a master association or individuals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I would read that to be included but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that one way or another it's covered and nothing's omitted. So if you're comfortable that they're both covered by the word shall, we can leave it as it is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It really doesn't matter. If we're talking about roadways as far as common area, I'm not really sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, actually, see -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- this is a little bit atypical the way this -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could be broader than that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's broader than that. CDD's go beyond just roadways. They go to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I know they do. But usually we don't put in the common area maintenance in our documents. This is an older PUD, as you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we don't have to change it, we don't need -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But may is fine with me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we don't have to change it and you guys are comfortable with it, leave it like it is then. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to make it more readable. And the last couple of pages, 2 -8, number nine, your outside storage areas on Page 2 -8. I understand you're now dropping 10, staff has confirmed that that is already a given. But number nine, you were going to limit that to a specific area because it's in the general requirement so it could go anywhere in the entire project. And I really think in my discussion with you, you were talking about trying to limit it to a -- was it R5? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that would be -- it would be limited to the R5 area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's the case, then we would -- I guess we -- yeah, is it -- I guess we just add the words R5 only on the end, something to that effect? That works for you? Page 15 of 59 � A 7..., Y - December 15, 2011 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On the subject of the outside storage, will you have -- will there be walls tall enough that -- you're looking like -- it looks like you're only going with the walls and fences eight feet high? Will there be masonry walls to hide an RV or -- wall? MR. ANDERSON: I'll ask Ms. Deselem to -- I believe the LDC would require some sort of buffering or MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed the question. What was the question again? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On the outside storage, the masonry wall probably or whatever to hide what is in there. MS. DESELEM: I don't remember the exact definitions of what the wall must be made of, but yes, there is a requirement for additional buffering. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, everything here looks like it's not going to be higher than eight feet -- six feet, eight feet. And the perimeter walls and fences, I'm assuming that means perimeter walls of the development. That would be four -foot berm, eight -foot -- up to an eight -foot wall, that would be 12 feet. But that's not the storage? MS. DESELEM: Right. There are special requirements for outdoor storage to be screened and buffered. And it's in a separate section of the code that's referenced in the staff report, and they would have to comply with that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, on the same item in the staff report, on Page 7, referencing the storage areas, you just say or equivalent landscaping or a combination thereof, not less than seven feet in height above ground level. And I agree with Commissioner Homiak, that if you're putting RV's in this storage area, you know, seven feet is not going to shield those RV's, if that's the intent here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just heard Kay say something, though, that the perimeter of the project will be bermed with a four -foot berm and an eight -foot wall on top of that. Kay, is that correct? I mean, I could look it up. But I assume if you just looked it up, you'll save me the trouble. MS. DESELEM: Let me check and verify that. I'm not certain it's actually a requirement. It's an option of the petitioner whether or not they want to do that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Two -six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, here's where I'm going. If you look at tract R5, it's got bounded on the north and south by the perimeter boundary. So if 2.12.13.1 applies to those two locations, then the only exposure would be to the internal roadway, which is internal to them. I'm not sure there's an issue there for -- from a perspective of anybody being affected by the mere fact that the outside boundaries have the higher and more intense walls. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well, I didn't see in here where it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just want Kay's confirmation -- no, I'm just -- yeah, I know you didn't, that's -- but it's only limited to that little strip R5. But Kay, and I guess Bruce, would you acknowledge that 2.12.13.1 will apply to any storage areas built in the R5 zoning -- or the R5 tract? MR. ANDERSON: The applicant does not wish to be required to have a berm. They're fully willing to comply with the LDC requirements to buffer this from the outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why don't you tell me where 2.12.B. I in your mind applies. Because you're looking at separating commercial areas from residential areas. The parcels to the north and south of that G or R5 I believe are residential. One for sure is. And the other I can't quite read it. So where do you think that applies? And storage is not a residential use, it's more of a commercial use. So why don't you tell me where you think that applies. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English for Stantec. The intent of that request was to be able to provide a berm and a wall to screen the residential area proposed in this area from the commercial area here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only place you intend to apply B.1 is between the purple and orange and purple and yellow. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir, that was how it was conceived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what happens to the RecNC area in the center against the R4, which is to the Page 16 of 59 r 1612 December 15, 2011 south -- or to the west? MR. ENGLISH: This area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. ENGLISH: The plan for that tract is more of a resort -- a typical community recreation facility, not an intensive commercial use, strip centers, retail. So there was no intent to build a berm or wall to screen that. There would be code required landscape buffers, of course. But we weren't going -- I don't believe the plan is to include a wall at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is an internal issue to your project that isn't yet developed. But I just wanted to caution you in your statement, car washes are C -4 in Collier County. That's a much more intense use than -- that's a commercial use. So I understand your reasoning, but you're saying that 2.12.13.1 was never intended to apply to all commercial uses. You're just talking about the commercial tracts. Because if you've got commercial uses on the rec. center, I would suggest it could be -- you might be bound by 1.12.13.1. If that wasn't your intention, I think you might want to clean that language up. And it wasn't the intention then that this word perimeter fences or walls applies to the perimeter boundary on where you're going to have the storage area? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it's an option, not a requirement under Section 2.12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, shall be permitted. So it means you don't have to do it, you can ask to do it. Okay. No, I understand. I was just trying to understand where you thought it applied. Now it's limited. It's not perimeter boundary, it's strictly the internal between the commercial they're going to put in and their residential. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question with R5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question with R5. On the R5, it looks like an entrance where the two are gated separately. It looks just like a road coming in there. This is where you plan to park these vehicles? MR. UTTER: For the record, Pat Utter, Collier Development -- or actually, CDC Land Investments, Inc. The roadway right -of -way width's likely to be 50 to 60 feet, and the parcel width would have, you know, an area that would be unutilized. And as long as we provide proper buffering, we were hoping to be able to use that for storage for the residents along that narrow strip. So I think it's 330 feet -- it's 330 wide. If you take out 60 for the road right -of -way, you have a balance of land that's -- we wanted the ability, we don't know for sure, that we could store the recreational vehicles, not excluding boats there. That was the intention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Pat, while you're up there, though, the storage of those kind of vehicles is usually not the best perception site -wise. It's not an amenity for sure for the outside people. And you are bordering residential areas. What kind of wall would you be willing to put there? And what should we be considering? And then we'll decide where to go after that. MR. UTTER: I'm not technically familiar with the exact language of the LDC, but my understanding is it provides for guidance on the proper buffering that would be required. And I don't know if that's complete shielding or not. I don't have that reference in front of me. But we would comply with the LDC for outside storage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your reluctance to do the more intense wall and berm that was -- MR. UTTER: There's no reluctance at all. I just don't know if it's 10 feet, 12 feet, 14 feet. I don't know what that limit would be or its -- I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your PUD allows you to be, that section, the storage area of R5, to be subject to 2.12.13.1, then you'd be allowed to do 2.12.13.1 or you could do that there, the PUD -- MR. UTTER: My reluctance is that with the limited 330 feet wide, that a berm starts to take up a lot of room in that space. And so maybe I would rather use a 12 -foot fence rather than a four -foot berm and an eight -foot wall. That's my reluctance. It's not the height I'm concerned, but when you say berm, it's a lot of fill, it's cost, it takes up land. You have the slope that eats up usable space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we -- MR. UTTER: So if you want to go with a 12 -foot fence, I'm okay with that. Page 17 of 59 1612 A7DecemXr 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or wall/berm -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A fence of a wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fence or -- MR. UTTER: Fence or wall. I'm not sure why -- you know, a shielded fence, something that would prevent the view from outside. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. I know that in my community we have a boat storage, RV storage that's a 12 -foot masonry wall gated, locked up, and it's -- you can't see -- I mean, there's villas right next to it, you can't see all the stuff. MR. UTTER: We're willing to shield it, you know, 12 feet, we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Pat. Appreciate it. Let's move on. We're still in section two. On 2.16, the -- I did find out the reason why the native vegetation reduction, it's because of the LASIP canal. So just to let you know, I don't need your guy to tell me that today. Next section is section three. It goes from 3 -1 to 3 -5. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad, then Phil. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, I think you might enjoy this. Three -four, your description of -- it's actually 3.4.A.4, the end of that paragraph I think it's a little too frisky where it allows 165 -foot tall 10 -story buildings, so -- do you see what I'm reading? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Shouldn't that be scratched out or -- none of your building standards have buildings over 80 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a little -- it's already -- if you look at footnote number five, this is a discussion that he and I had yesterday, and we were certainly going to rejuvenate it for today. If you go to the building standards table, see the asterisk on -- see the maximum height, where it says 50 feet above FEMA elevation, five comma seven. Go to asterisk five over in the footnote. I didn't see that until yesterday either, Brad, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it's saying though is that -- well, first of all, Tract R is everything with the R in front of it, correct? There is no single R tract somewhere, is there? MR. ANDERSON: No, it's R4. The limitation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deja vu. The same question came up yesterday. The four isn't actually crossed out, even though it looks like it is. So they're only referring to those two southern tracts surrounded by the -- down south by the preserves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you want the 10 -story buildings down there, that's the intent? MR. ANDERSON: We wish to retain the prior approval, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know if I'm against it. I thought I was pointing out a scrivener issue, but it's a design. I mean, I think maybe it could have been clearer, but -- and those would be for only multi - family. How come in the 50 feet you don't have that -- where's the footnote five coming off of your development standard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you to go maximum height, go over under multi - family time share dwellings, you see the footnote five and footnote seven after the word elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm down in this -- I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's certainly hard to see, that's for sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay, that's what they had before. I won't comment on it, I guess. Wait till they're finished. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: While we're waiting for them, could I read in a change I have on this page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm just at the top where it says multi- family timeshare dwellings in caps on the top. Just put underneath it, paren, excludes townhouse. Because multi - family is three or more townhouses. It doesn't have a number that is specified, it's just you can't have anybody living above you. And that would clarify which Page 18 of 59 161 A -7 December 15, 2011 category to use. And I've discussed it with Bruce and he's okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have a further question then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next one, Bruce. In time share you note which shall not be counted as temporary lodging. Obviously that's what it says. But why did you put that in there? It's kind of scary when you add things. In other words, we don't have temporary housing anywhere in this development, do we? Is there anywhere in here that we -- in other words, we have a density of maximum residential units. A time share would be a residential -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And you put that in to actually help us clarify that -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not to -- okay. Because I was afraid somewhere there's temporary housing and you're taking time shares out of that. MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Yeah, I'm done with that then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Phil and then Karen. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just to comment on the 10 -story building, and I understand it was previously approved. This esthetically, it bothers me to have a 10 -story building sitting down there adjacent to a preserve and that skyline. Just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the 80 -foot ALF can go in anywhere, or do you have a specific area? I mean, you're eliminating three areas along the -- MR. ANDERSON: In Section 3 point -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. You're eliminating just three areas over by Bayshore, R7, R5, and RB -2. So the 80 -foot building can go along 41 or anywhere, that's what you're proposing? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. And again, that's only for an ALF or CCRC use. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And is there any chance you would eliminate any of those areas, like R3 and R8 where you have -- R8 you specifically have written in a footnote that it should be 50 feet, buildings there would be 50 feet. But that would go away with the ALF also. MR. ANDERSON: The applicant no longer owns that parcel, and would not want to change the limitations or allowances that currently exist on that piece. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Which piece? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On R8, you mean? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the building height, it's 50 feet, cannot exceed 50 feet. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, wait a minute, though. You're not having an exception for R8 to the new language you're putting in the residential section. So all R would get the benefit of that. It may not be a decrease in their issues, it would be like an asset. It would be an up increase. MR. ANDERSON: We can add that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to exclude R8 from any of this language? MR. ANDERSON: Or simply state that R8 is limited to 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'd be safer just saying R8 is exclu -- well -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's in a footnote, though, for the table, same as the 165, number seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, number seven is 50 feet for RG8. Are you changing the designation on the new plan? Yeah, it's R8, okay. Yeah, that would work. Anybody else have any questions on section three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, let's go back to Page 3 -3 where you talked about your development standards Page 19 of 59 1612 A� .i December 15, 2011 for yard requirements for the ALF, and then the ALF is going to be ALF /CCRC. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those standards are for the time when it was a 50 -foot building. You have a different size building now. And I believe the standards need to change to accommodate the additional height, otherwise we're still setting the standards for a 50 -foot building. And I believe that when we spoke it was the building height or half the building height that was the -- should be considered. So if you go to an 80 -foot building, your front would be 40 and your rear would be 40, and I believe the side would be half the sum of the building heights. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, do you want to weigh in on that since you usually pick up these things? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, which one is it, Mark, again, I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three .513, on Page 3 -3. We're trying to accommodate the higher height with greater setbacks. I believe that what you're used to seeing and I thought I had been is that we use half the building height for front and rear and half the sum of building height for in between. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or it's even half the combined building heights in between, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I said, half the sum of the building heights. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm -- in thinking of Karen's comment about the Tract R3, remember the issues we had in discussing the Target Store or potential Target Store on 41? Saine kind of application. And I can't remember if we established fixed setbacks along 41 or we used a calculation like we're proposing here. Do you, since you were -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we put a minimum on that one of 50 feet. I remember that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was about the same height, ended up about the height we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I think where we're heading is, we would certainly increase the standards suggested like we talked about. But if you're along 41, we would have a minimum of 50 -foot setback from the 41 right -of -way. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: The side yards in the PUD would not change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's -- yeah, because it would come under -- well, the side yards in the PUD are 15 feet. You can't have 80 -foot buildings with 15 feet -- 30 feet between them. You'd be looking at at least half the sum of the building heights. How would you -- that's what you've got, a minimum distance between principal structures, ALF's, 15 feet or half the sum of the building heights, whichever is greater. That's what you call out now. And now you're saying you don't want that? MR. ANDERSON: No. Look -- okay, half the height is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Half the sum of the building heights? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have fun writing this one up. Kay, are you taking good notes? MR. ANDERSON: We'll have two scriveners, Kay and Margaret. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, it might be easier if we just move the multi - family requirements over to the ALF. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Are you leaving in the language except for no setbacks shall be required from any lake easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. Give me a reference for that. I may have one -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: On Page 3 -3, 3.5.13. I thought those were the changes that you're making to the front, rear and in between the buildings, 80 -foot buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The only -- the setback to the lake easement, that's 20 feet back from the water already. Page 20 of 59 A17 1612 December 15, 2011 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So you're going to keep that the way it is? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So Mark, what you're saying is there already is 20 feet from the setback for maintenance purposes, which has always been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a South Florida rule. It's not going to change. All your lakes have 20 feet around them. Especially today. Anybody else, while we're still on three? Brad, did you have anything else you wanted -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, just to make sure -- I mean, I think all's we really have to do is add the perimeter requirement, and isn't three okay then? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, three would be -- the front would be half the building height. The side would be half the sum of the building height, the rear would be half the building height, and then we would add a 50 -foot minimum for along 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The reason I'm -- I mean, these are really requirements for internal platting of sites, which it's their development. I don't -- it's not going to mess up the community if they got them closer, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Table 1, Heidi had made a suggestion, one of the things that's missing from the table is whether the height that's being referred to is zoned or actual. I understand it's zoned. But then actual height isn't referenced. Have you guys come up with an addition of actual height to be added? MR. ANDERSON: Just add 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To each one of those? So you're going to put a new line in that just -- or are you going to just amend the footnote that says actual height? MR. ANDERSON: Customarily I understand that it should be 15 to allow on top of the zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think there's a customarily in that. In fact, I can show you plenty of them where the 30 -foot -- where the residential houses are -- actual is 10 feet or less. Some of them are 42 feet versus 35. So -- Brad, you're the architect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have to be careful in the multi - family, especially if you're 150 feet. What I want to actually specify is 165 feet as the actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do that on the footnote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But be careful on anything that has an elevator or something that requires penthouses, because you could get yourself -- and it's not like it's going to enhance the look of the building if you squash the roof structure. So just, you know, you could lose floor -to -floor height and you could lose the ability to put in nice looking roof structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first four categories, if you were to go 35 for zoned and 45 for actual, and then the last three categories go to your 15 feet, I think that would work. That would be more consistent with what we're used to seeing. MR. ANDERSON: That would be great, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The asterisk number nine as a footnote, it says minimum separation between parking decks under mid -rise structures shall not be less than 60 feet. If I'm not mistaken, this is where you have principal towers and the parking decks extend beyond the base of the principal towers, kind of like the wedding cake design. But the measurement for that bottom layer is a minimum of 60 feet. Is that -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what your intentions are? Okay. What does number 11 mean? And the only reason I'm bringing it up is we have a way of measuring zoned and actual height in the code. I hate to messy the code up with new definitions. And that number 11 establishes a new definition for how zoned height is looked at. MR. ANDERSON: Again, that was a leftover from the prior developer. My client's willing to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number 11 will be struck. Page 21 of 59 i a A _. ,..� 161 r� December 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --have a little bit of a concern. The zoned height of the building is allowed to be measured from the flood plain elevation. The actual height of a building is measured from the center line of the adjacent road. You're in flood plain zones here. So you take your 10 -story building you want to do -- well, that one's -- well, even that one's dangerous by saying 165. You could be 15 feet above the road. So, I mean, these heights, you've got to be careful just arbitrarily picking an actual building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the zoned building height was clearly defined, you can't go wrong, but the actual could be below the zoned building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the actual they picked here is already in the document. I'm not asking them to change that. If you look under footnote number five, it says a maximum actual height of 165 feet and zoned height of 150. So they've picked the 150 based on their predecessor. But I think the question is if you're going to measure from the crown of the road, how high is the 25 -year road elevation set in comparison to the FEMA elevation for the residential in that area? Because your road can't go down to base, it's got to be set for a 25 -year storm minimum. So you may not be that far off from your road crown to your building height. MR. ENGLISH: John English, for the record, Stantec. And Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. Average existing grade out there is in the vicinity of elevation five or six or seven. And the FEMA flood elevations are in the vicinity of seven to nine, so we will -- minimum road will have to be two feet above -- there won't be a tremendous difference between the road crown and finished floor in many of these cases, required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but you're going to lose that difference in your -- it's going to be taken out of actual. Now, the other -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you could -- if I may, you could put in your PUD that the actual height is going to be, you know, 15 feet or whatever number over the zoned height, so that, you know, you're not mixing apples and oranges. So you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are apples and oranges, that's the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They are. That's why I'm saying you can correct it in your PUD, if you'd like to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, when this was written, I don't know if there was the definition of actual height in the LDC at that time. So, you know, the intent is clear that you're going to go 15 feet above it. But these are two different dimensions from two different bases, so just be careful. We could be -- and take the, for example, your description of the 10 -story building is over parking levels, which could be two parking levels, and that area is eating up the actual height too then. So you're in trouble with that building, I mean, or at least you're not going to have the floor to floor heights you were hoping for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, I hate to consider what you're asking. Are you suggesting they get these heights up to 200 feet or something like that? I mean, 165 is pretty steep for an -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm suggesting that they could find out where they may be -- you know, the actual height may be actually lower than the zoned height, which means they've got to really push the building floor to floor down. They're not going to get what they're asking for here. I don't think they should get more than they're asking for. I mean, I was actually surprised to notice what they were asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that they already have this in their PUD, it makes it a little harder to take it away. But I wouldn't want to add more to it. It seems like we're compounding the problem then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except for the fact someone should research to see if the definition of actual height was in the code in 2005 when this was written. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I don't know if that was in the code when this PUD was approved, but the actual definition, as you say, for building height is the vertical distance from the average center line of the adjacent roadways to the highest structure or Page 22 of 59 1612 A 7 December 15, 2011 appurtenances without the exclusions of Section 4.02.01 of the LDC. Which that talks about air conditioned equipment rooms, so we don't count that towards the building height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anyway, it just -- they are apples to orange, and I don't think you have 15 feet always above the top of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: My client understands that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to section four. Starts at 4 -1 and goes through 4 -5. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Cherie' might need a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie' never needs a break, she loves what she does. But you're right, thank you for reminding me. Cherie', for the first time, I think I forgot you were sitting there with the break, so I apologize. And we will -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: She was ready 15 minutes ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. We'll take a break now until 10:45. Okay. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, welcome back from the break. And Cherie' is refreshed, we can now move forward. We were on section four. Does anybody have any questions on section four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I'm assuming the time share reference to Page 4 -5, Item 32 is going to have the same disclaimer concerning the fact it's not part of the temporary lodging units? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Even though it is in the recreational village, if you use time share there, they will be considered regular unit counts. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 -4. I think my question's been answered. Yeah, it has. Okay, never mind. You cleaned up some of this when we talked earlier. Four -five under G. Ray, in the middle of the paragraph they refer to Collier County Zoning and Land Development Review Director. Do we have a different name now? Everybody's titles have changed. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the department director is the Department of Land Development Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure. We usually change those references up when we catch them in the cleanup of PUDs, so if we could just make that -- make it right. MR. BELLOWS: It should be under the new PUDs using term the County Manager or his designee that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why don't we -- MR. BELLOWS: As amendments go on in the future with -- or changes within the division, that will be covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will be other -- I'll point out other ones as we go through. But we ought to clean that one up. And then the last sentence I believe needs to be struck, otherwise I think it's a deviation. That is the architectural criteria. Okay, I see everybody nodding their head in agreement. So we'll get that clean -up issue done. Anybody else got anything on section four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, section five is the commercial office area. And because that is owned by a series of other entities, we really are not in the position to change that today. And I believe that's why there's been no changes, with the exception that the applicant has changed accessory uses and added docks and electric boats. Where is a lake that you're going to need that on in the commercial area? MR. ANDERSON: My client advises me that it's the Lely canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the one to the south -- oh, okay. That's interesting. How long is that canal? MR. ANDERSON: Mile and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public have access to it? MR. ANDERSON: Nope. Not from the PUD. Page 23 of 59 i 1612a7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if someone -- I didn't say I. If someone had a kayak and jumped in the water right there by that commercial parcel, they could be subject to all kinds of trouble? Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yes is the answer. Planning Commission Chairman arrested. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then why are they putting it in the commercial -- is the commercial going to be gated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're saying the property itself is private. So the property that that's sitting on is apparently -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: But they're going to put this equipment on commercial property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What equipment? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The boats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no, they're saying they want to have as accessory use to the commercial area docks and electric boats that would go on the canal, not on the -- so maybe they may want to find a concessionaire who would lease out kayaks or canoes or little electric boats so they can paddle up and down that canal. I would imagine it's a touristy type thing they're proposing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Could they then put it in their own recreation area within? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's already been added to that too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we go back to that architectural standard thing, because the more I read it the more that makes sense to keep that sentence in. What they're addressing there is -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be 4 -5. What they're addressing there is that if the architectural standards get in the way of them doing a traditional mixed use neighborhood, they want the ability to ask for variations from it. And the sentence that we took out states that at the application time they want those, which I think they call deviations in that sentence, to be noted on that application. I mean, it probably would be anyway, but I think the intent of this paragraph is we'll use the architectural standards, but if it starts to get in the way of making a nice little mixed use traditional community there that they can get deviation from it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there's a problem with that, because in my discussions with staff yesterday when we actually discussed that, and I believe, staff, you had an -- Kay, I think it was you that may have addressed this. Can you re- address it today? MS. DESELEM: For the record, again, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner in Zoning. I had a discussion yesterday to make sure that I understood the issue with Carolina and Bruce together. And we looked at the LDC, that particular section citation. And for a PUD you have to get the deviations as part of a public hearing process. You're not able to come in and get administrative deviations in a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was suggesting -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the whole paragraph's a problem. I mean, or if variations from these guidelines are needed, you know, that's essentially a deviation. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, they can't get deviations, unless they do it now, like they did in the 2005 amendment, I believe, they asked for a deviation and got for approval for something to allow gray buildings, or a different color -- gray roof, that's what it was, that was not in compliance with the LDC architectural standards. And my understanding is that's the way it's to be done, you have to call it out as part of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the suggestion would be then to drop all of G, is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think we want to use the architectural standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are being used, they're in the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you were talking with Bruce or with Carolina, in the architectural standards there is a deviation process. Would that be available? MS. DESELEM: No. Within that deviation process it specifically excludes PUD zoned projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then the only thing that would -- that is allowed in this paragraph Page 24 of 59 I 161 z December 15, 2011 is up to the word LDC. Then the rest of it is just pretend? I mean -- MS. DESELEM: I wouldn't call it pretend, but yes, it seems like that could being stricken unless, like I said, if they wanted to make reference to the fact that they could get amendments through the public hearing process. But that seems redundant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they always could. MS. DESELEM: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the rest of that paragraph could be construed that they're allowed to have a deviation process different than what you described. So maybe the -- as we're taking stuff out we go all the way up to the first word, LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe -- well, first of all, if G wasn't here at all, would they still have to conform to the commercial development standards in that district pursuant to the code? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then why don't we just drop G and make it simple. MS. DESELEM: In this particular one there wasn't any strike - through/underline, they were just reiterating what was in the prior PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the objective was to clean up those things that were maybe not quite as appropriate in the prior one as they would be known to be today. So if that's the case, and we can clean up G just to eliminate G so there's no confusion, is that a better thing? MS. DESELEM: That seems appropriate to me, but I'm sure Bruce may want to chime in and give you his opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's saying whatever you say is okay with him. MS. DESELEM: I like him. I always have liked him. MR. ANDERSON: Go ahead and strike G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you will have to use the architectural standards anyway, on the record. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let's go back to five and see if there's any other questions in five. Five is the commercial section. And that's the one that is primarily sold and you guys are leaving in the docks and electric boats, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During your presentation, I just made a note, you said that the only area that was going to have those is the recreation center, so now it will be two areas, the recreation center and the commercial area. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just caught it because I remember it was found in two places. I wasn't sure you meant that. Section six, does anybody have any -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Six dot four A four. I just can't envision a 75 -foot high viewing platform adjacent to a preserve. MR. ANDERSON: It would be above the tree canopies. You'd be able to view --I understand that an example exists in Myakka State Park that's quite popular. And it's to enhance the experience within the preserve areas, so you could see more. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: How in the heck do you get up there? Just out of curiosity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steps. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you do a handicap ramp up 75 feet? MR. ANDERSON: We'll work that out at the time of SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Get a waiver from the state. Page 25 of 59 7 1612 7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I hate pushing all this off to the SDP, because there are errors in a lot of SDPs, and that's never brought back to us. So if you're planning something, I would prefer it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your reference to errors, I know you've had some experiences, but they've mostly been older PUDs. I find that stuff coming through now has been -- with the tighter staff we have, it's been much more carefully looked at. So I have a lot of confidence the SDP can handle it. But I share the comment that 75 feet, until someone had told me that there was one already there, and I just started thinking of how much space that would take up. In itself it won't, but when you put a handicap ramp on it, you're going to be -- if you have to put one. I don't even know if the guidelines require one. But we'll see where that goes. Anybody else on six? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I have is 6.4.A.3. Development standards says from lake zero feet. You mean from lake maintenance easement zero feet, right? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. See, that's what bothered me on the other one too. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section seven, anybody have any questions on -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Excuse me, I'm in section eight. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Section eight. Phil, go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On 8.6.13. Why did you delete the analysis portion, last portion of that paragraph? MR. ANDERSON: It's an engineering question. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English. That was eliminated because this project already had -- the Harper analysis is an analysis that is used through the South Florida Water Management District permitting process. This property already has an approved ERP. And we're not changing the land uses, so a Harper analysis would not be technically required. We did do a Harper comparison when we did the Water Management District permit anyway, but it does not seem appropriate to be left in the PUD. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the removal of the golf course in terms of a land use doesn't have a material effect on pollutant loading? MR. ENGLISH: It was improved by removing it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on section eight? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Same. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Eight point seven, same question on 8.7.13 and C, just in terms of the rationale for deletion of the management plan for the preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Summer, welcome. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning. That's because it's redundant. It's already a requirement of the LDC. That's actually at your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice that quite a bit of this PUD, because it's the old style, has redundancy throughout it. Some of it's been attempted to be cleaned up but not all of it. So what we can clean up, I'm glad we are. Some of it just didn't warrant it at this stage. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. MS. ARAQUE: And I'm here if you have any other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we'll have some. Anybody else on section eight? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more, 8.7.C.1. In the additions to that paragraph it says about halfway down, for so long as LASIP permit requires water quality, blah, blah, blah. And I guess my comment there is Page 26 of 59 t �. 4,. A 7 1612 December 15, 2011 it's -- it comes across as a very indefinitely period. I mean, is there -- for so long as the LASIP permit requires water quality monitoring. So you're saying as long as -- I'm going to read back -- that's exactly what you're saying then. So there's no expiration on the LASIP permit requirement? MR. ENGLISH: Our understanding is that it's an ongoing monitoring program that may be subject to change. That's the county's permit for the LASIP canal system. And what we're basically stating there is simply as long as they're doing water quality monitoring, we will acquire a copy of that and provide it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So there's no time limits, it's just as long as it's in -- MR. ENGLISH: I won't tell you I know exactly -- I could tell you exactly what the conditions were, but it was indefinite as far as I recall. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's fine, thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jerry, could you? MR. KURTZ: Jerry Kurtz for the record. I can add a little bit of information. We -- the water quality monitoring requirement for LASIP is, upon completion of the whole project we need to monitor the discharge for five years. Completion isn't going to be till 2015, a couple more years away. But we chose to start monitoring a couple years ago. So we're already monitoring. And we'll monitor up to the point of completion and then five years beyond that. And we more than likely will continue to monitor even beyond that period. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks, Jerry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on section eight? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One more, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, that's a long paragraph. Eight point eight E, last sentence. If the final design contract is not approved by the BCC by January 1, 2015, this requirement shall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since this has been written, I believe that this whole paragraph is going to be -- going to go away. And there's been a separate private agreement arranged between the developer and the Bayshore or the CRA, so that it's no longer an issue. And I believe it's satisfactory to the Transportation Department as well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So this paragraph is proposed to be deleted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Is that correct, John? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, yes. John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning Department. Eight point E is being deferred to a private agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John. Okay, Phil, do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm exhausted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're exhausted. Let's start on Page 8 -2. Section 8.3.C, just need to reference the right entity there, Ray, just like we did the last one. This one says CDES Administrator. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, as long as we're doing that, way back on 2.4 -- item 2.7, just change that reference to Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator as well. I was going to bring that up at the end, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or whatever it has to be changed to -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Whatever it has to be changed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, 8.5.D. Now, there was a piece involving this in the staff report that the owners object to. And I believe that's a legitimate objection. This one is again requiring utility and access easements for wells and all that. Heidi, is there a basis in our code for an exaction for land of this nature without compensation to the owner of the property? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Which page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on page 8 -2 under Section 8.5.D. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, this is a commitment that was agreed to in the prior PUD. The only change here is to underline owners. So, without going back and researching what was in existence on that day, I really can't answer that question except to say it was a commitment previously made. Page 27 of 59 Ile 61 Z A 7 f December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any -- there's ever been a study to prove a rational nexus between these needs and projects and then an established value for the property so that the compensation can be provided to be fair to the owners of these properties, or is this just another exaction with no compensation? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, give me a second to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we made mistakes in the past. We're trying to correct them. We started that today. And if this is another mistake, it needs to be corrected. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, this language says that they'll reserve -- they're reserving easements, that, you know, they're not actually conveying. So I don't know what was intended. I really can't tell you. But a reservation is different from an actual conveyance. So it's ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the fact that they're reserving still provides the right for compensation, so it's not MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, not through a reservation. They have to set aside an area. If the Utilities Department wants it, then they'd have to negotiate those terms at a future date. I can't tell you it was intended, but this is how I read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the applicant's perspective, have you guys -- is that your understanding at the time this was done? Because if you did that intentionally, that's fine. But it doesn't say you're not going to be able to be compensated for the land that you have to give up. Is that your understanding of this? MR. ANDERSON: We would certainly be open to compensation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that, Bruce. I'm trying to -- my objective is to make sure that the rules we have are based on a solid foundation and they're applied equally to all. Again, to go around and ask for exactions on big projects or little projects, if there's a basis in our code to provide that, then that's fine. I don't know of any, but from based on the County Attorney's interpretation, this isn't yet an exaction, they're asking you to reserve an area, but the means of compensation have not yet been worked out, which provides the ability for you guys to either establish some credits or something else in regards to what's being asked here. Under that basis, do you have any objection to it? MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I would suggest we leave the existing language as is and not entertain the new language that was trying to be a stronger position for the Utility Department. I guess the Utility Department wants these on a lot of projects. I think if it's warranted, that's fine. But they need to go through a process to get there. MR. ANDERSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Page 8 -4 on the top of the page, there's a paren -- number two, it's called the Avalon outfall canal system. In the middle it says to place an 80- foot -wide drainage easement to be purchased by Collier County. Has the Collier County purchased that or how has the pricing of that been established for purchase? MR. UTTER: Pat Utter for the record, with the applicant. The agreements through the LASIP permitting -- actually, the contribution and companion agreements define -- we had to obtain an appraisal. They've actually approved the appraisal. So the only question is the exact square footage of the easement. So the value has already been determined and agreed upon by the county. And when the canal is completed a description will be created and then it will just be multiplied by the number of square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. As we move forward on Page 8 -6 -- actually, 8 -5, it's under C, that paragraph would be better read if we just start the word or that sentence -- start the word where it says -- where the word owners is underlined. Owners agree to the following. Drop the reference to the agencies and committees they agree that are part of it. Actually, it's Collier County that has accepted the conditions of Rookery Bay and The Conservancy as part of this PUD. We don't need to reiterate it there. So just start out owners agree to the following. Anybody see any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get on the next page, and number one, I wanted to -- and Jerry kind of alluded to where I was going with some of this in regards to the water quality. It says the report will be provided to Page 28 of 59 i 161 ecember 15, 2011 Rookery Bay National Estuary Reserve. Wouldn't that be really going to Collier County? And then if the county wants to or the Rookery Bay wants it as a document from the county they could obtain it that way? How do we monitor whether or not these are going through to the Rookery Bay, and how do they know when they're coming down to them? Wouldn't it be better just as the county being the central focal point for all this information and be disbursed from there? Summer, it looks like -- MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, Environmental Planning. I think in regards to your first question, I don't know if this kind of makes things more complicated. But the reason that staff preferred for that language to be in there was so that it was clear as to why it was in there. Because if they came in for another PUD amendment in the future, if that -- if they wanted changes to that language or if that was requested to be removed, we know who to go to and we know why this was in there. That's why we have that in there. Because in 10 years we wouldn't know why that was put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we should be putting things in there because they're warranted, not because any particular group or anybody asked for it. It would be like if someone from the public came in and said I don't like the setback on this particular use, I want it to be 35 feet. So then we have to put that Mrs. Smith says the setback should be 35 feet? I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning. I think we should base our reasoning on what our codes provide and the uniqueness of a PUD. The PUD is a unique document, they're allowed to have some flexibility. If that flexibility meets the test of the public's scrutiny then I would suggest we add it for that reason, not because an agency wants it there. I mean, I have great respect for The Conservancy, but putting them into a public zoning document doesn't seem to be the right way to go. I'd rather we did it on the reasons that we believe are right, whether they introduced them or anybody else. MS. ARAQUE: Well, the agreement that was had was in there from the previous PUD document. So I don't know if you want to discuss that with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all you just said earlier you were cleaning things up that -- MS. ARAQUE: Right, exactly. But we wanted to make it clear that the reason --that there's a reason that this is in there. And it's because of certain parties. So that's about all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think these are legitimate requests? Do you think that the owner agreeing to these things, these are things that the county should enforce, that the county thought were correct? Are you supportive of it or are you against it? MS. ARAQUE: I didn't really get into that discussion with them, because this was already in the PUD and there wasn't -- really, that discussion was had between The Conservancy and the applicant. So maybe you might want to ask the applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just concerned about how we're going to --we're putting outside language into a document and we're trying to disclaim, I guess, authorship of that language because we, what? I mean, either we like it and it's the right thing to do and then that means Collier County is in charge of it, or we -- I mean, I don't know why we would be referring to other agencies and other people. MS. ARAQUE: If you give me a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give you a minute? Okay. The next one I would have, number three, the developer /owner shall allow The Conservancy to review and comment on the draft master declaration document pertaining to any provisions that will address language to protect and sustain the environmental integrity of the development's preserves. I'm just wondering how that works from a zoning perspective too. Where is that a -- how is that a zoning issue to be in a PUD? And if it isn't, I suggest it be struck out. Not that I'm against The Conservancy's involvement, but zoning is zoning, and we need to stick to it and not bring in outside elements that aren't pertaining to Collier County zoning. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm having heartburn too. As I look at this, it says under three, the developer or the Page 29 of 59 1612 Dece er 15, 2011 owner shall allow The Conservancy to review and comment. Anybody can comment on any declaration. Sustain environment to the development's preserves. I mean, we have a preserve management plan, it's public, anybody can pull those documents up and look at them. So I don't know why one entity that's private would have the right to review this in a PUD document. And nothing against The Conservancy, they've been great working with us in all the projects we've had lately. But I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it belongs in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I worry about, this opens the door to a lot of other possibilities besides The Conservancy. I mean, if they can be mentioned in a document to be a specific party to something, then we are looking at every kind of organization that may want to chime in. And I'm not sure that's appropriate in a zoning document. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it is, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest that this section, one, two and three, especially, be looked at to be rewritten in a more neutral and zoning compatibility term than private preferences. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner I agree again, and they've worked well with us, but I don't think it belongs in the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you can come up with some better language. I'm not too concerned about that language, knowing the concern that you just heard here. Nicole, do you have any comments on this? I think you understand or maybe you don't understand where we're coming from? Or if you don't, since you represent The Conservancy? MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy. This language was really an outgrowth of commitments from a legal settlement agreement with the applicant from the Hamilton Harbor Marina. And so these are, I guess, points that we wanted to make sure -- when a PUD comes forward, I think it's helpful for staff to understand that there are obligations for other entities through settlement agreements and such that these other entities at least have to be notified to have the ability to review a document before it moves forward through the county process. Now, in this case they don't have to have our consent or agreement, but we do have to be notified. So that's -- yeah, that's, you know, both of our understandings, that this came out of that legal settlement. If it's taken out of this, then it's going to be -- we're going to have to have it put into some legal MOU or some sort of binding contract that I think would need to be an exhibit to the PUD so that it isn't lost in the shuffle. So I -- yeah, I think it really needs to stay in here so that everyone knows that through a legal settlement agreement for Hamilton Harbor we do have the ability to take a look and review. Yes, everyone through the public hearing process has that ability also, but we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, take it a step further, then. You're saying that if I were to go into a title review of this property and find any legal settlements out there, we'd have to reference all that in a PUD? I mean, doesn't the legal document stand on its own, and it's up to the entities part of that document to monitor it on its own? And if it is, why are we dragging the county into it then? It's a document -- if it's legal, and whatever the case the judge decided and you're part of that case, you have rights based on that case. Why are we put in the position of having to see that it's enforced? MS. JOHNSON: Well, as part of the review process, I think we felt that having it in here then gave county staff the notification that this was in place and this needed to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Is it the county's obligation to notify you or the owner's? MS. JOHNSON: It would be the owner's obligation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if they don't, then don't you have recourse against them based on the fact that you have an agreement that you basically won on to some extent? I'm just, again, why is the county in this position? MS. JOHNSON: Well, we do. But this -- I mean, this is a PUD between the county and the owner. And so if some of the owner obligations are contained in the commitments, I just don't see why that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the zoning document between the owner and the county. MS. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you reviewing a private declaration has anything to do with the zoning or the whole settlement agreement that you apparently have with them. But I certainly would like to ask the County Attorney to take a look at it and come back to us with a response at the next meeting if -- Page 30 of 59 wt December 15, 2011 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, I can respond now. You know, I've said before my preference is not to put these private agreements in PUD documents. I think it's fully appropriate as part of the back -up documentation that you might review that a copy of the agreement be in there and placed in the record. But I'm not in favor of putting private commitments in PUD documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just as soon we clean this up in that regard. And that if by the next meeting you want to include a copy of that in the record so it goes forward with this PUD -- in the record, not as an attachment, I have no problem with that, Nicole. And it gets on record and it further emphasizes your ability to have it there. But I just don't like -- I think this will muddy the waters with not only your agency but many others that would come down the road and ask for the same thing based on precedents like this. And I think that's wrong in a zoning document, so. And based on the County Attorney's comments, I think if staff were to proceed along that line, we could review it on the consent. Is that -- I think you've got mostly nods okay. Pat? MR. UTTER: Pat Utter for the record, with the applicant. Just to clarify. The Rookery Bay commitments are not included in any type of settlement agreement. Those were just we felt like it was important to work with Rookery Bay. So those specific call -outs were not part of any legal settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Rookery Bay a government agency? MR. UTTER: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I don't have a problem with them being in here. MR. UTTER: All right. So I just -- I want to make sure that was clarified. So you're saying we can leave in the Rookery Bay comments because they're a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're another government agency, just like Fish and Wildlife is referred, the Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District. But I think we need to draw the line with private entities, non - government owned, coming into play. MR. UTTER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. But our Conservancy agreement, what it states is that any time we apply for changes within Sabal Bay to change the land uses, we have to provide notice to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's other agreements out there that, not just on your project, but many projects. MR. UTTER: No, I'm not contesting your point, I'm just saying that it's a very — it's a notification requirement only. And that based on our discussions privately, we've agreed to certain terms. But that's -- I understand your concern, that may set precedent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you want to leave some form of the language in, we can clean it up so it's a notification to the Rookery Bay with a copy to The Conservancy, that it's the owner's idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're on the same page as we are, and if you could just come back with a clean -up at the consent, that would work. On the bottom of that page it references the developer will include in the design of the backbone surface water management system four additional BMPs. Why four? Is there a reason you selected just four? Or was there seven and you dropped three? MR. UTTER: No, again, this was a -- we were working with The Conservancy trying to replace prior language that was based on a rule that was never adopted. So it -- what this describes is the -- our ERP design for water quality treatment. And John English could probably better describe that. But that's what this is, this is a description of our ERP water quality treatment plan. And The Conservancy asked us to include that in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't have a problem including it in the document. But I'm just concerned about the difference between BMPs and then four BMPs. So why did you single out to the point where you had to specify four additional BMPs? How does that reference to all BMPs? MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English on behalf of the applicant. The -- they were actually enumerated four because the prior language enumerated there were five -- BMPs had to be drawn from five sections of what was the old Water Management District basin rule guideline, which is now abandoned, nobody uses. Page 31 of 59 161 December 15, 2011 So we did have a different version, and after -- of a rewrite of that, based on what we are providing today. And when we met with The Conservancy, they requested that we enumerate them. So that's why we did it this way. We did note at the end that after describing those things, that it should be noted that it's the purview of the Water Management District to review and approve such items, which we have done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with them being added in this language. If you had said based on our agreement with The Conservancy, I would have had a problem with that, but just adding them I think that's the way that we should interact with the private sector. I just want to make sure that there's nothing missing by saying that you only have to adhere to the four of them out of whatever number there may be. Because it said four additional BMPs, and that's what struck -- I mean, mostly it's either you're going to abide by the best management practices or you're not. In this case you're only abiding by four of them. And I just couldn't figure out why, what didn't you like about the rest. MR. ENGLISH: Well, really, we abide by all the rules of the various agencies that govern stormwater design. We're adding these best management practices as enhancements, if you will, above and beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last -- let's see if I have anything else through eight. Oh, on 8 -10, Item 8.9.A, just for the record, and I think I found out what this is, there was a sentence added to the timing of when the playgrounds will be put in, but then there was some old language left in there that says the playgrounds will meet the ASTM design guidelines. From what I understand from Kay, the only thing that is is that they will be built to the safety standards of ASTM. Is that -- MR. UTTER: That's quality and safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as everybody understands that, I'm fine with it. The next section we have is the master plan and the legal description. Let's say Exhibits A, B -- let's go through the exhibits. Anybody have any issues on Exhibits A, B, C, and C (sic)? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The deviation number ten, you refer to privately owned roadways in the middle. I think you need to put privately owned/CDD roadways so that applies to those as well. That wraps up the PUD. Does anybody have any questions on the PUD? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have back -up documentation. Do you have any questions of the applicant on the back -up documentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one comment I wanted to make to the County Attorney's office. The ad for this project says the Sabal Bay MPUD -- well, first of all is being changed to provide for a new site plan which eliminates the 18 hole golf course and allows for more lakes. The ad goes on with other details that I've been able to verify. The part of it that says allows for more lakes, I guess by the words allows for means that by taking out the golf course they can put more lakes in, but they don't have to, because there's no quantitative analysis of how many lakes were there in the first PUD versus how many are in the second. And I just wanted to make sure that from an advertising viewpoint, since it allows for it, we didn't have to get into such an analysis. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I'm satisfied that the ad is sufficient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And other than what I've got questions on staff, that's the remainder I have at the basis of the applicant's presentation through this point in time. Does anybody else have anything before we get to staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I have one clarification to make. At the beginning of my presentation I made a reference to a new connection to Danford Street. It should be to Bay Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 32 of 59 A7 1612 December 15 2011 Okay, Kay, you want to -- are you -- I think it's your staff report, so -- MS. DESELEM: Good morning, again. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner in Zoning. You do have the staff report that was prepared for this hearing. It's last revised 11/30/11. And we also have other staff members here, as you've heard from already. We have Mike Bosi that can address any Comp. Plan issues; Summer Araque, who has already identified and responded to questions about environmental issues. John Podczerwinsky is here to address transportation issues; and Jerry Kurtz as you know is here and he can respond to questions about the LASIP program. David Jackson was here and I didn't turn around to see if he's still here, but he was here, so -- no need for me to belabor the presentation, you've gone into great detail on what we have in front of us. So suffice to say the staff report is on the record. Staff is recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And we believe that it is compatible and we are recommending approval of the PUD amendment application as you have amended it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of Kay or staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, let's -- no, no, you're not going to get away that easy. I'm sorry. Let's start on Page 8. Something I caught when I reread this thing last night. Up on top it talks about the 80 -foot ACLF /CCRC. By the way, do you staff have any objection to adding the acronym CCRC after the words ALF? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the caveat that continuing care retirement use structures would not be abutting any external residential uses. And the caveat is, note however, that these uses are not permitted uses in B -- I mean, R2 -B, R5 or R7. Well, if you look at the plan in front of us, R4, at least the northern piece of R4, is abutting the RSF -3. Did you take that into consideration when you made that statement? MS. DESELEM: Excuse me a minute, I'm looking at the plan to see exactly where you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at the colored plan, see the turquoise R4's in the south part of the site? MS. DESELEM: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That large triangular piece of R4 abuts the RSF -3 immediately to the west. Your statement, though, says it would not be abutting any external residential uses, with the caveat that it wouldn't apply to R2 -B, which is that green area, R5 -- okay. MS. DESELEM: I therefore stand corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, so -- now, does that change your perspective any? MS. DESELEM: I think that it may be appropriate to increase the setback like we did for that use today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they also have a minimum perimeter setback of 75 feet anyway, which would be against that residential use. MS. DESELEM: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as that's taken into your consideration, that's what I was trying to find out. On Page 12 of 22, Deviation 12, petitioner's rationale. You talk about the justification of the rip -rap and how you intend to use it at a 36 inches height. Can you provide an example of how this is and where this is going to occur? Not you -- I mean, Kay, I guess this was part of your deviation analysis, but if you want to turn to the applicant for that, I don't mind a bit. MS. DESELEM: That's what I would prefer to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was under your staff report, that's the reason I brought it up now. MS. DESELEM: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English on behalf of the applicant. The reason for the request for the deviation is two to one rip -rap slopes are allowed by the Land Development Code but with a limited height. And we have several locations where we have roadways that are -- the alignment takes them through preserve on both sides. Page 33 of 59 i6I 2 A- q *�T` December 15, 2011 And in some cases, for instance, this case here, there's a potential roadway connection -- is bordered by preserve on both sides. They had a limited corridor. In an effort to try to get a roadway and any necessary utilities through there, we wanted to afford ourselves the opportunity to potentially use rip -rap to slightly higher height to avoid having to do more costly methods of getting the roadway through that corridor, such as retaining walls. There's other cases that, for instance over here on the road that connects to the intersection of Hamilton Harbor, and there are some internal roadways that might -- there will be certainly conservation areas internal to some of these development areas where we will have similar situations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's back up then. Because when you started it out, it made sense. You said that you needed it where there's wetlands or preserve areas to minimize the impact on those, and I think that's great. But the way it's written, it could be used anywhere in the project. Now you just said it could be used on internal conservation areas to the various tracts; is that a fair statement? Did you just mean -- I mean, is that what you said? MR. ENGLISH: Well, the intent was to be able to -- those are the two obvious uses. There are other areas internal that will have conservation area that roadway may run by that we might need to use that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me. Because there's none shown on here. Internal means internal to the unit, to the parcels, correct? Where would -- there's no internal -- there is no internal conservation areas, they're all external to the parcels. MR. ENGLISH: Mr. Chairman, there are actually -- in actuality we are conserving some areas inside, some of these parcels that are not called out as preserve on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, that backs up. Are they counted in the acreage that you're asking for but they're not shown on the master plan? MR. ENGLISH: I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess Kay, in your analysis of the acreage of the preserves, was it including acreage that's not shown on this master plan? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, what is shown there and what is depicted as preserves is what we reviewed as preserves. However, I don't know that that precludes the applicant from providing more in other places. It just wouldn't be, you know, preserved per the zoning. But if they want to set aside some area that they want to internally call preserve or conservation or whatever, they could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. What I'm concerned about is, is that the acreage that they show and calculate that's supposed to be portrayed on this master plan is met. Acreage equals what's portrayed. If they're going to add some in addition to that acreage, that's fine, but if it isn't portrayed on this plan, we need -- then it's included -- but it's part of the acreage they want to preserve, we need to see it. That's what I was worried about when he made his statement. MS. DESELEM: My understanding that what's required is shown as preserve, and that's what we have analyzed and reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, back to the question of the road rip -rap. You're looking at putting in some internal conservation areas that can be of any dimension or width that you want to build them to because they're not part of the required preserve. In those areas you want to have a change in the -- they want the deviation to apply to those areas as well, but those are self - imposed areas. So how are they legitimately applied to those then? MR. ENGLISH: Legitimately, if we have areas that we would like to preserve, then any tool that we could implement to where it makes sense -- and mind, we're not asking for carte blanche height use of rip -rap for slope stabilization, we're just adding another foot to basically what the Land Development Code allows. But yes, if there are areas within the future development areas that we find a way to preserve but we need to get a road through there, we would like to have that tool to help us minimize any impacts to those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so all areas in which Deviation 12 would apply would be areas where there are preserves along roadways. MR. ENGLISH: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we add that note to Deviation 12? MR. ENGLISH: That would be fine. Page 34 of 59 �r A 161 lecember 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, if you could just remember to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Going to add which note or notes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have a note to Deviation 12 to reference the fact that this is to be used in areas where roadways adjoin preserves on one side or more. I think that's all I had. Kay, that's great. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. The first one is Gary Stumbo, to be followed by Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just use any speaker you wish to, and state your name. And you may have to spell it first for the court reporter. MR. STUMBO: My name is Gary Stumbo, S- T- U- M -B -O. And I live on Holly Avenue at the end of Bayshore. And I only have a couple questions about since I got The Conservancy on one side of me and the Rookery Bay all around me, what they're going to do with my part of the land. It's 46 properties -- 56 properties on that piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, first of all, could you pull the mic. a little closer to you. It's getting a little hard to hear you. Maybe you could work with the gentleman to your right, who could try to find out where your property is so we can see if there's anything that involves your property. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Turn that upside down, Ray. MR. STUMBO: No, wrong way. It's going Bayshore that way. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You had it the right way. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Couldn't read it, though. MR. STUMBO: I'm not really worried about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, just to --he's directing his comments to Ray. MR. STUMBO: Can you move that over where I can see where it's on the old map? That right there. Yes, sir. Okay. Now, you see where we are enclosed by everything around us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, except you have access through Bayshore. MR. STUMBO: And -- right. And Bayshore stops at the end of Holly Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. STUMBO: And the way the map shows it, it shows it's going right on past out in the woods and back to the back property up there. I don't know what they may say, but you don't show roads, you don't show maps, you don't show anything. And then they want to change some laws about roads, private roads, and I don't understand that. I'm not a lawyer. And they want to put roads in that I don't see on there. And one of them's going to -- the way the map looks to me is going to run down my property line here and go across the street. But there's no road showing. But they own the property on both sides. But it was my understand, if you're going to go to 41 and want to go that way, you've got to have roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the roads that these gentlemen or the applicant is putting in aren't roads that would be on your property. They would be on their property. So they won't be impacting your property with a road because it's not theirs to do, they can't go into your property. MR. STUMBO: I understand that. But they go beside mine with another road. What does that involve then? Because now they want to move the turtles that's right across the street from me where they can put a road through there, where they can have that road going from their property across Bayshore -- I mean -- yes, Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat, do you want to try to help out? MR. UTTER: For the record, Pat Utter, with the applicant. I think what he's asking -- there's two questions. The first question -- let me see if I can refer -- can I borrow Page 35 of 59 A7 1612 December 15, 2011 the mic. The area -- there's an area we do not own. Let's see if I can point it out. Oh, it's -- this area. We do not own this white area. So the -- right. This is Holly Avenue, which he's referring to. There's a number of platted lots on this street. But this white area we do not own. There is a county right -of -way that extends Bayshore beyond its pavement. And it's not in existence, but the right -of -way does exist. The county does own right -of -way beyond the end of the pavement at Holly off of our property. And we're not intending to do anything with the property we don't own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's kind of where I was trying to explain. MR. UTTER: But there is an access point crossing Bayshore just to the north of Holly, the platted subdivision of Holly, if you want to call it that, that will cross and run -- it will parallel Holly some distance behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that property, though, that -- MR. UTTER: We do own the property on both sides. We would be crossing Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all that would be on your property. MR. UTTER: The new roadway would be on our property, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope that gets to your question, sir. MR. STUMBO: If the road's going to be down my property line where they only have enough room to make the road go through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever they put up there on their property, they would have to provide a buffer between theirs and yours, something that would protect your -- MR. STUMBO: Okay, I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of our code. MR. STUMBO: That's what they want to move the turtles for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe, I'm not familiar with the turtle issue, so -- MR. STUMBO: Okay, thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate your time today in waiting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for him but -- question for Ray. Ray, all that land, and obviously his starts out, I guess his is zoned VR. What is that, just out of curiosity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Village Residential, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a special overlay that some areas have. If it's VR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it says VR. MR. BELLOWS: Let's see if I can zoom in a little bit better on there so we can see it. The property over here is zoned VR. This is zoned RSF -3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So one side, the western side of Holly is VR, the -- or just that piece for his little -- MR. BELLOWS: Village Residential under the orange. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But he brings up a question, since it wasn't shown in the environmental information. Is that land all subdivided with dedicated roadways and everything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lands in the VR? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the RSF -3, all that land, what is going on in there? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to pull plat maps up and take a look at it. Sir, staffs going to be answering that question. MR. STUMBO: I know. But my understanding is off down Bayshore and going, turning into Holly, that's my street and it's dead end. How I understand by years ago, that is what they call a hurricane evacuation route. So it's kind of like a state road -- and I don't know, you know. That's what it was zoned as. Holly Avenue is a part of that road for hurricanes. And we are in a row area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, my point is that if -- on these when you give us data, these are platted subdivisions through there, shouldn't -- I mean, I'd be curious to know that. MS. DESELEM: This is -- for the record, Kay Deselem. This is an exhibit from the application. And from Page 36 of 59 1612A7 December 15, 2011 this it appears that that Holly Lane, Road, Avenue is the only area that is at least developed. Now, some others might be platted, but they're not developed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think if we do have approved subdivisions adjoining properties we're looking at, it would be kind of nice to know that. We obviously -- north of that we do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MS. JOHNSON: For the record, Nicole Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy. When the applicant, and at that time WCI also, started putting together the development proposal for Sabal Bay in that 2004, 2005 time frame, it was through the previously mentioned Hamilton Harbor settlement that The Conservancy really got a seat at the table to discuss concerns and issues. And we had a lot of concerns about this property. A lot of wetland impacts, but also a lot of important upland scrub areas. So we worked with both WCI and CDC to take a look at how do you minimize the impacts to the important wetland areas, what wetlands could be sacrificed in order to protect some of those very unique scrub areas to protect gopher tortoise, and it was through that process that we did get a series of negotiated concessions from the applicant for things such as the BMPs that you were asking John about. We felt that if you were going to have such impacts so close to Rookery Bay and important wetland areas, you needed to go above and beyond what the Water Management District standards were for water quality treatment. And that was one of the reasons why we requested that those BMPs be specified in there. We were concerned that if it said just BMPs that they might choose one. And so we felt that the four and the description of the four really got to the intent of what we had negotiated back in 2005 and was a suitable replacement for the language that they wanted to delete in that environmental section. So in looking, you kind of threw me for a loop. Since it wasn't language proposed for change, I didn't know that that was going to come up. But in looking at the two areas that you had requested be deleted, these are actually additional concessions that The Conservancy and the applicant agreed to above and beyond what was in any settlement. So if it's taken out of this, then we just need to find away to memorialize that in away that is equally as binding as the PUD document. I'm sure that we'll be able to do that, we will work on that. But we want to make sure that we don't lose these, because these are more than what the general public could do. This is talking about being part of the conservation easement, the general public isn't part of that. Draft comments on the master declaration document, that isn't something that the public is allowed to do, I don't believe. So we just need to, if we take them out, put them somewhere so we don't lose them. And we will work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest you get with the County Attorney's Office, and those areas that are outside the settlement agreement but have been added as agreements with the developer to be provided as a, I don't want to term it as a concession to you all, because that's not fair, as something that they're going to additionally do to entice this project's approval. That is different than the way this is worded. And if you want to -- if they've agreed to provide access to the master declaration, it can't be just to you. This is a zoning document, so I would think that it's a public document. And I would think that if you're going to have that access afforded you through a public document, then everybody should have it. So those are what my concerns are. We need to be fair to everyone equally in the zoning aspects of this project. So it shouldn't be written just to favor one entity over any other in regards to add -on entities like yours. So with that in mind, I think if you want to work with the County Attorney, we'll be pretty flexible in what comes back to us, but I would like to see the future going forward to be more in line with zoning codes and ordinances and public agencies rather than any private. And that is for the protection of all of us. Your agency may do a good job on this behalf, but if we have to open it up to you, we have to open it to all, and not everybody may do an equally good job, so -- MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. I think there shouldn't be a problem in having everyone work something out on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll look forward to the resolution at the consent then. Page 37 of 59 1612 December 15, 2011 MS. JOHNSON: Just one other follow up on the RLSA issue that you talked about before. We said up to $90,000. You don't have to spend it all if you don't need to. So just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I need to drive out there so you guys have to buy a new truck for me and things like that -- that won't work? That's up to 90,000. That's good -- MS. JOHNSON: Up to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that was good of your organization to offer that. And I think that unbiased look at it would be a very helpful thing for the community as a whole, all of Collier County. So that was a good move on your part. Nothing to do with this application, but thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nicole, you were going to bring up one other thing? MS. JOHNSON: Well, one other issue that -- it isn't something that's required, but I do think that in the context of living the master mobility plan for the past year or so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this part of this project's -- MS. JOHNSON: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOHNSON: Connectivity. And this is a PUD that has a commercial component. Granted, the commercial component has already to a great extent been constructed and has been in place for many years. But you have where the Publix and Foxboro is located in this area, and you don't have any internal vehicular connectivity between the residential and the commercial. And if we're talking about having PUDs be truly connected, you need something more than just a pedestrian or bicycle pathway. And it was discussed in the master mobility plan that it can be a burden to try to go in and retrofit that type of connectivity in already developed PUDs, but here you have something that has not yet been developed. So if you could design the roadway to allow that internal connectivity. And I know it's something Pat and I have discussed, they really don't want to do that. But I just -- I bring it up as perhaps an opportunity lost, because this is exactly what we think the master mobility plan should be about. So I just bring that up to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you don't think that people living within this development can get to the commercial? I don't see -- I mean, every road there gets you to -- MS. JOHNSON: They have to go out onto Thomasson or 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, that's what the roads are for. MS. JOHNSON: But if you had a back entrance into the commercial areas, then you wouldn't have to put those cars on the main roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you get a back entrance? Like, take the R2 in the center, what are you proposing that one do? MS. JOHNSON: There would need to be a road constructed, maybe an easement through the RI so that someone that lived here could come in, go to a back entrance to get to Publix without having to go out to the main roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the road to -- that road that dips down between P8 and P6, what's wrong with using that road as a public -- MS. JOHNSON: That's Thomasson -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. MS. JOHNSON: -- that's one of the main roads. If you're looking at internally connecting the PUD, you don't have connectivity between these two. And that's what we've been discussing in the master mobility plan. So I bring it up as something that I know they're not obligated to do, but I see it as an opportunity lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, Nicole, I would think that from a conservation viewpoint the less roads the better, and we ought to use the roads we have to the maximum extent possible. And if you've got a road going -- if your project -- inside your project you have a road like Thomasson, why wouldn't you use it to get to other parts of your project? I don't understand the -- I just don't understand why you wouldn't expect that to be -- why you would want a second road on top of the one that's already there. MS. JOHNSON: It's in a residential area. You're not putting a road --I'm not suggesting the road go through any preserve areas but through the currently designated residential area, so that you don't send traffic onto the outer main roads. Page 38 of 59 It I 1612 A 7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 41. How is Thomasson an outer main road? It's enclosed within the project. MS. JOHNSON: Well, it is, but it's a connector road that gets you from Rattlesnake down to botanical gardens and other projects and developments in that area. Yes, it is inside the PUD, but it is not an internal PUD road in that it's cutting through and going to different areas. So I just bring it up as we saw it as a potential opportunity lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just -- I agree with Nicole. I think she's absolutely correct. I mean, that's just the way -- Lakewood there's many communities that can get over to King's Lake Shopping Center. Kings Lake, Queens Park, Lakewood, Glade, everybody can get -- they don't have to get out on a road. This is exactly what the master mobility plan was about. And I think she's absolutely right. And this is an opportunity lost if it's not done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, one gentleman has -- he hasn't filled a slip out but he wants to talk -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody that hasn't filled a slip out is more than welcome to speak. One at a time. So, Phil? Were you sworn in? MR. LITOW: My name is Philip Litow and I'm a resident of Danford Street. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your last name for me. MR. LITOW: L- I- T -O -W. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? MR. LITOW: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LITOW: I wanted to question this entrance onto Hamilton Avenue through Section R7. I do not understand really the necessity for it. And I just feel that it is more likely to put additional traffic onto Hamilton Avenue where it's not necessary for traffic to go there. Supposedly it is to -- we were told at a previous public meeting that it was just to snake it easier for the people living within the development to hook up with Hamilton Harbor. I don't know why we need to have a special exit onto a public street for that, a separate one. And why can't, if that is necessary, since these two entities seem to have some sort of a connection, why they can't just make a connection right there without actually emptying onto the public street and thereby increasing traffic, which I think is more likely to be used by the residents of R7 just to do shopping in the area, rather than I can't imagine there are too many people on R7 who are going to be members of Hamilton Harbor. And I don't know how that can be predicted. That is my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, we'll try to get answers. Thank you, Phil. Does the traffic engineer for the applicant, is he here? Good morning, Reed. Yeah, still morning. MR. JARVI: Good morning. Reed Jarvi, Omega Consulting. We did do the analysis, and I will tell you that this is one of the minor changes, or one of the changes from the previous analysis that was done for WCI that did not have this connection. There would be an amount of traffic from that orange one, R7 is it, that more than likely would use Hamilton Harbor. At the same time, we think that having the access to Hamilton Harbor basically through the development would provide access that would get people off of Thomasson that would use the internal connections to go to Hamilton Harbor at the same time. So there's an amount that would be added and probably an amount that would be subtracted from Hamilton Harbor -- excuse me, Hamilton Avenue from this PUD versus the last one. They have not -- it's not been delineated because there really isn't any way to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that on Hamilton Street at the very end where you enter into your Hamilton Harbor, you have a gated access there; is that right? MR. JARVL• That's correct. Page 39 of 59 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this particular correction is going north of that gated access? MR. ENGLISH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to move that connection to go south of the gated access, and then people coming in and out of Hamilton Harbor would simply have to use that gated access, is that -- how does that cause -- MR. JARVI: I think there's issues that John has -- MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chairman, the Hamilton Harbor project which already exists has preserve along that edge that the only way -- we are connecting at intersection of Bay and Hamilton to try to -- we looked at trying to go into Hamilton Harbor directly, and there is preserve there that is in conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's preserve all the way through from where tract seven ends north, so what is the difference? MR. ENGLISH: Yes. But that's within our PUD, they're not recorded conservation easements. We've gone through and were able to mitigate for those impacts and craft conservation easements, whereas the Hamilton Harbor preserves exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying the ones in Hamilton Harbor along that roadway are recorded easements. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide those to us on consent? Okay. And some detail of that area so we can see and verify what you're telling us through visuals that we can see. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to move this project forward today in some manner. But if something regarding that issue on consent is inconsistent with what is being portrayed, I certainly want to reserve the right to further discuss it, so -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is Hamilton Harbor gated, that roadway? MR. ENGLISH: Yes, the entrance to Hamilton Harbor is gated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you be coming in with what Mark's talking about behind the gate or ahead of the gate? MR. ENGLISH: We'd be coming outside of the gate at the intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the public side of the gate. The way it is now, if you came in lower, would it be behind the gate? MR. UTTER: Pat Utter, for the record, with the applicant. I think this is -- the primary goal for us is to accommodate potential members to Hamilton Harbor. But there's a secondary, if you live in R7, we also think those residents should have access to Bayview Park as well as -- I mean, there's another public park there that we think it's important that they have connectivity through, as well as a more direct route of transportation. And we're talking a very small -- we're not -- we're not -- there's not a lot of density in this particular area. This is a very small area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you put it behind the gate, that would really cause a problem, all the residents would have to be able to go through that gate if they use it for anything other than Hamilton -- MR. UTTER: If they're behind the gate then they have -- then we've lost our security. If, let's say they're not a member of Hamilton Harbor, and I would assume that some may and some may not. So if you live in R7 you may not choose to join. But if you have a direct interconnection behind the gate, you would have free access to Hamilton Harbor, which provides a security issue for us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's about what I'm imagining, so -- MR. UTTER: But the distance that somebody travels on a public road is a matter of less than 100 feet to get between the two properties. So it's a very -- it's not that we're adding traffic under a long stretch of road, it's generally an intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for curiosity, where R7 and R5 is with Bayshore or maybe some other name, what is that going to be, double gated? MR. UTTER: It'd be a double gated, probably like a card access system of some type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it, thanks. Page 40 of 59 612 A7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this particular correction is going north of that gated access? MR. ENGLISH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to move that connection to go south of the gated access, and then people coming in and out of Hamilton Harbor would simply have to use that gated access, is that -- how does that cause -- MR. JARVI: I think there's issues that John has -- MR. ENGLISH: For the record, John English on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chairman, the Hamilton Harbor project which already exists has preserve along that edge that the only way -- we are connecting at intersection of Bay and Hamilton to try to -- we looked at trying to go into Hamilton Harbor directly, and there is preserve there that is in conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's preserve all the way through from where tract seven ends north, so what is the difference? MR. ENGLISH: Yes. But that's within our PUD, they're not recorded conservation easements. We've gone through and were able to mitigate for those impacts and craft conservation easements, whereas the Hamilton Harbor preserves exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying the ones in Hamilton Harbor along that roadway are recorded easements. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide those to us on consent? Okay. And some detail of that area so we can see and verify what you're telling us through visuals that we can see. MR. ENGLISH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to move this project forward today in some manner. But if something regarding that issue on consent is inconsistent with what is being portrayed, I certainly want to reserve the right to further discuss it, so -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is Hamilton Harbor gated, that roadway? MR. ENGLISH: Yes, the entrance to Hamilton Harbor is gated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you be coming in with what Mark's talking about behind the gate or ahead of the gate? MR. ENGLISH: We'd be coming outside of the gate at the intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the public side of the gate. The way it is now, if you came in lower, would it be behind the gate? MR. UTTER: Pat Utter, for the record, with the applicant. I think this is -- the primary goal for us is to accommodate potential members to Hamilton Harbor. But there's a secondary, if you live in R7, we also think those residents should have access to Bayview Park as well as -- I mean, there's another public park there that we think it's important that they have connectivity through, as well as a more direct route of transportation. And we're talking a very small -- we're not -- we're not -- there's not a lot of density in this particular area. This is a very small area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you put it behind the gate, that would really cause a problem, all the residents would have to be able to go through that gate if they use it for anything other than Hamilton -- MR. UTTER: If they're behind the gate then they have -- then we've lost our security. If, let's say they're not a member of Hamilton Harbor, and I would assume that some may and some may not. So if you live in R7 you may not choose to join. But if you have a direct interconnection behind the gate, you would have free access to Hamilton Harbor, which provides a security issue for us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's about what I'm imagining, so -- MR. UTTER: But the distance that somebody travels on a public road is a matter of less than 100 feet to get between the two properties. So it's a very -- it's not that we're adding traffic under a long stretch of road, it's generally an intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just for curiosity, where R7 and R5 is with Bayshore or maybe some other name, what is that going to be, double gated? MR. UTTER: It'd be a double gated, probably like a card access system of some type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it, thanks. Page 40 of 59 b 5� 161 ZA 7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, for the Planning Commission, I was trying to get this one finished up before we broke for lunch. Cherie', is that going to work for you? We shouldn't be too much longer. And we'll just take a little late lunch, especially the applicant's attorney has a, I guess, hearing or something that he has to leave for at 1:00. So I would rather get this done while everybody's present. So as long as nobody objects, we'll continue on. John, Podczerwinsky, John Pod. By the way, I met your mother yesterday. Nice lady. I even said good things about her to you -- to her about you, I should say. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner Strain, I'm glad we got that on the record that she's a nice lady. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, she is. Does a good job over there too. How much traffic. First of all, is the Hamilton Road or Drive or whatever it is, is that capable of handling the projected traffic from what might come out of the area that's being connected here? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. The traffic that's shown distributed here and we agreed with in the methodology meetings with the applicant's traffic engineer was shown to be relatively negligible. It's less than a percent. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, I was approached by this gentleman here who has requested if you're -- let him speak, but I just wanted you to be aware of it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, give me a minute. Yes, that's fine, thank you. I did catch him coming up, thank you. Okay, so you don't believe -- the projections aren't very much for that roadway? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a lot of logic in connecting this project to that roadway, because it does allow the -- if you look at the project, it's long. And if you relegate that to a dead end on tract seven, everybody's going to have to move eastward to get out and I'm not sure that's the best condition. Most of the people in the eastern part of the project wouldn't go that direction, wouldn't be any incentive to, it would be just a longer drive, when they've got Thomasson right within the project to connect to, so -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the results are going to be negligible on that roadway. I would have to agree with transportation's predictions. Thank you, John. We'll ask for the next speaker. Sir, please identify yourself for the record. Were you sworn in? MR. NELSON: No, I wasn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you'll have to be sworn in first, and this young lady will take care of that. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. NELSON: Robert Nelson. I'm an abutting landowner. My property is on, again, surrounded by on three sides by this project, and that's probably a good thing. I'm just curious, how is that going to affect -- can anybody tell me how that's going to affect these small lots on, for instance, Andrews Avenue, right where -- yeah, where those two little pieces go across Bayshore. The thinnest piece is at the southern side. And I'm just curious as to what can I expect. I haven't built there yet, but I am thinking about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know your particular lot, but this will authorize construction to go in that development around there with new homes and -- a lot like, you know, any developing neighborhood. So you're going to have a neighborhood closer to you that may not be a neighborhood right now, maybe trees. And there's going to be mostly residential. In fact, along you will be mostly residential. That little strip in the middle could potentially have some storage of RV's or things like that, but those would be shielded by walls. I'm not sure what you mean by affect. It's not going to be anything -- no one's going to be touching your property. MR. NELSON: No, no, I understand that. Now that puts another wrinkle in it. Which thin piece is going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The yellow piece would have some storage, could have like outdoor storage on it. The orange piece would be residential. MR. NELSON: So there's going to be a 12 -foot wall then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There'll either a wall or berm/wall combination to provide 12 -foot in height. MR. NELSON: Okay, at the end of that little group of house lots there. Page 41 of 59 161 2 A 7 December 15 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know about the house lots. It will be along the perimeter boundary of the yellow parcel. MR. NELSON: Yes, well that's the end of -- you're probably aware that there's a -- one, two, three, four streets there with some minimum size house lots. And there are some houses there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why we were concerned about making sure there was a wall and a buffer put in, so that anything on that property would be shielded from your view. MR. NELSON: I guess I appreciate that. The last ramification I'm wondering then, will those houses and the condominiums that are going to be built, or the highrises, are they going to -- is it possible to affect the building lot size down the road? I mean, now that I own that, am I grandfathered in if you folks decide to expand the size of a minimum size building lot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever your zoning is today is your zoning. There's no attempt to change that. I don't know what zoning you are. It might be residential three. Whatever your lot sizes are, if they were platted at that lot size, we're not making any changes in that regard here today. MR. NELSON: Okay, because I'm familiar with some zoning, not this one, but some zoning groups changing the size, minimum size. These are minimum size, changing the minimum lot size so all of a sudden a person couldn't build on a lot he bought several years ago to build but didn't get to it, and then the size, the lot size changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we break for lunch, you might want to get that gentleman's business card. He can be very specific to your lot and tell you exactly what to expect. We can't do that as well, because we don't have all the data in front of us. But he's got a wealth of information. MR. BELLOWS: I'll be glad to help you after the meeting. MR. NELSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Bruce, do you have any closing comments -- MR. ANDERSON: I just want to make a clarification. That 12 -foot wall or combination with the berm in that area would only be if there's outside storage there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Yeah, that's -- I think I referred to it when the storage was mentioned. But if there's no storage, there wouldn't be a wall. No, I understand that. Okay, we'll close the public hearing and turn to the Commission for discussion. I've made some notes as we've gone along, we've actually talked about a lot of changes, and I understand staff and Margaret has, both of them have made notes so that hopefully you guys can get together by consent and get all that ironed out. County attorney is going to clear up a section of the PUD. I've made five separate notes other than all the little things we worked on. One is that part of our recommendation to the Board, in agreement with staffs recommendation and the request to remove the affordable housing requirements is to standardize the policy, look to standardize policies on how to handle affordable housing in the future. Second would be storage area, if it were to go in, the parcel, I think it's R5, would be required to have a 12 -foot or a wall with a berm combination to equal 12 -foot in height. Third one is that the building heights that we discussed, and staff will come back with those, we discussed alternate building heights for the ALF and CCRC. The fourth one is the clean -up of the private settlement language on Page 8 -6, which is what the County Attorney's going to work on in conjunction with The Conservancy and the applicant. And then an additional note to deviation number 12 concerning its use and the roads that have a preserve area at least on one side of them. Is there anybody else that have any other issues? Paul and then Brad. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We were talking about the affordable housing that we suggested should be through the affordable housing subcommittee to help draft that. Page 42 of 59 �4 f 1 612A7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we could add that to the --but I'm just wondering if the Board may --the Board may want to make their own decision on how the policy is developed. We might just want to suggest that they work on a policy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's my sug -- well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to add the -- to tell them a specific group to work on? That might be a little -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, since they're already working on -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's more -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it would be a good aside that staff in their presentation point out that that was a recommendation that there be a consistent policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I would like to talk about that same thing. You know, they've been paying in the commercial areas, they've been paying this already, the 50 cents a foot? They haven't? They were ignoring it anyway? MR. UTTER: Pat Utter for the record. No, the -- if you read that -- I think it's Section B, it's the original commercial areas were already previously determined under a PDA agreement and the zoning that WCI created. So it only encumbered, I think, CO -3, which is the remaining 12 -acre commercial piece. So no monies have been paid towards the affordable housing as of yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do recall that conversation at the time this came through. He's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right, it does exclude one and two. The other question of fairness would be to these other people with PUDs that this has been put in. For awhile there it was a pretty common thing, and a lot of people with PUDs just came up and accepted it and entered it on their own. So, I mean, is it fair to them that we're taking it out? Does that mean they have to come in to open it up. I mean, it's not a simple issue. And you don't want to go back and point out like our conversation almost did that it was wrong to do it in the first place. The reason we take it out is not because it was put in wrong, nobody ever should think that. But -- and the argument is taking it out now, giving the illusion that we don't have an affordable housing problem to me is wrong also. But anyway, were you going to say something, Ray or -- MR. BELLOWS: I was just going to reiterate that for those PUD's that have that language, they would have to, until some other policy is set, would have to come in and amend the PUD like this applicant to remove that language. But as part of this and other projects, I'm sure we can recommend the Board look at the policy, and I believe, I think that's what Nick said earlier, that they are looking at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in a sense of fairness, a lot of communities are being developed, or were developed or were approved, maybe they're not being developed, accepting this, and assuming that, you know, it's something that they wanted to do. Is it unfair to them to take this out of this one? That's my question. And again, the Commissioners will take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have one thing. I can't support this if there's going to be a 80 or 95 -foot buildings along 41 in that R3 tract. That's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's no different than other buildings we've approved along 41, so -- but I mean, that's up to you. We just got done with a Target along 41, same height. Actually, this setback is -- Page 43 of 59 L 1612 A7 �4 December 15, 2011 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just saying the Planning Commission. You may not have been here at the time. The Planning Commission, in cooperation with the developer, provided a setback on that 41 access. I think it was less than this one. This one's a -- but that's up to you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's at 80 feet, 95 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was 75 feet, I believe. Remember the height of that Target? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it was similar height. And we did push this thing 75 feet back from the property line. The roadway and everything else is obviously further back. There may even be drainage structures, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quite a ways back. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll still. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did anybody second that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but if you want to second it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll gladly second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa. Melissa, do you want to finish? Did you finish your motion? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion that we forward PUDA- PL2011 -47 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the stipulations you listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad seconded it. Any further discussion. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: One question. Commissioner Homiak. Would it make any difference to you if we increase the setback from 41? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The setback is now what, 40? MR. ANDERSON: Fifty. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seventy -five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-five feet. Your perimeter setback for these -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't have that in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was one of the stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was one of the things we walked through. Bruce, did you not understand that? MR. ANDERSON: Seventy -five is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that's one of the clarifications we made to the 41. 1 mean, I can go back through and find it in our notes, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're suggesting to Ms. Homiak is what? MR. ANDERSON: It was 75 along the R4. My notes have 50 -foot setback from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. Yes, it was 75 along the R4. It says with minimum U.S. 41 at 50 feet. So if we go to 75 feet, would that satisfy you, Ms. Homiak? Or was it 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet, what would you think -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, 2,000. She just doesn't want to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, I mean, that's up to you. I don't want to see that happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I'm content with the 50 feet that we all agreed to earlier then. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my confusion is I thought we were going to -- along the perimeter of the property everything was going to be 75 feet. The ALF did not have that in the chart, so I thought we added that to that description, what was like 4 -13 or something. First of all, I think in design -wise putting all ALFs, for the people living in it 50 feet away from the roadway or the road's not a good place for them to be living. So.we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we got to debate -- if we want do go back and amend our recommendations, Page 44 of 59 1612 A7 k4 € December 15, 2011 we need to do it before we vote on this. So if 50 feet isn't what everybody is looking for and they want to go to a greater depth, then someone needs to say something. Brad, are you looking at what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, first of all, I think the confusing thing is the development standards is able -- and in this case for the ALF they went, go back to see a paragraph. So I think in terms -- MR. ANDERSON: My client is willing to live with 75 -foot setback for the ALF along 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which essentially means 75 -foot setback for everything on the property line. MR. ANDERSON: Along the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all, the perimeter of the development. MR. ANDERSON: Perimeter, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's, I think, the best we can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's word that again. He's saying everything is the 75 -foot setback. MR. UTTER: From the perimeter, not between internal parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know that, from the perimeter. So along 41 he's not saying just the ALF, he's saying everything. You need to be on record. You're going to have to get up to use -- MR. UTTER: I'm sorry, Pat Utter for the record. Thought we were referring specifically to the ALF. He mentioned the ALF paragraph, so that's -- relative to the ALF because of the potential height that we've requested, we would be willing to adopt the 75 -foot setback from the perimeter of the property line. But that's only for ALF or CCR, not for other uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. UTTER: Because that would apply to the commercial and residential and all kinds of uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I stretched it too far. I was wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at 75 feet for the ALF /CCR along the perimeter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which is Tracts R3 if we want -- MR. UTTER: There was a clarification. If you look at R -- the tract along 41 becomes narrow in an area. In an ALF many times there are multiple buildings with different heights. If you look at it, most of them, there will be certain towers that may be 80 -foot, but then a lot of their subsequent facilities are one and two stories, and so the 75 -foot setback only applies to the 80 -foot buildings, that we would be requesting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we get vague, because what does it mean to a 79 -foot or a -- MR. UTTER: Or, I mean, it could be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pat, why don't we say the setback is equal to the height of the building, setback along 41. That way you do a 50 -foot building, you could have 50 feet. And that's pretty close to where you're going. That would resolve the discrepancy he's going to head to. MR. UTTER: I agree, something simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's perfect, yeah, that works. MR. UTTER: That works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So staff, do you understand it? What will happen is the setback along 41 for the ALF facilities would be equal to whatever that facility's height is. If they put a two -story building in, it's a two -story setback. If they put an 80 -foot building in, it's 80 -foot setback. It's pretty simple. Okay, does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, just be careful that if a building has a three story part and then a four story part you don't -- I mean, I just think the height of any structure -- MR. UTTER: It's going to be measured to the -- I mean, if -- a building would be defined by the outside perimeter and then it would be the ultimate height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But be careful, because you could have a portion that's tall and a portion that's short, and you don't want to pull the portion that's short back necessarily. So I just think that, you know, I mean, there are communities that do angles for setbacks and this would have Page 45 of 59 161 ZA7 Decem 15 2011 been a good example. MR. UTTER: Like a wedding cake, you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, don't use that word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the height along U.S. 41 for the ALF /CCRC would be equal to the -- the setback will be equal to the height. MR. UTTER: For that use only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that use only, right. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I will amend my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, will you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -1. Okay, with that we'll take a break. We'll come back at 1:20 for lunch -- after lunch and then resume at that time. Thank you. (A lunch recess was taken.) CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from lunch. We will resume where we left off on the agenda. ** *The next item up is PUDZ- PL2011 -2115. And it's the Community School of Naples CFPUD. It's on 13275 Livingston Road. 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. Anybody? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I had a phone call from counsel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did talk -- I met -- well, we talked on the phone, Rich and I talked on the phone. I had three or four issues, and I believe you're going to be addressing those during your discussion, so -- okay, Rich, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Bobby Sullivan, he's one of the trustees of the Community School; Patrick Vanasse with RWA, who's the professional planner on the project; and Chris Wright, with RWA, who's the professional engineer on the project. On the visualizer is an aerial of the Community School campus, which is outlined in yellow. As you can see, it's roughly a 77 -acre site. The primary access is off of Osceola Trail, which is -- sorry, 73 acres, my mistake. The primary access is off of Osceola Trail and off of Livingston Road. There is also another access point off of Pine Ridge Road. But the campus has been built over a many year period, starting in the Eighties and up until today. The original zoning for the property, and it started from the south to the north, with this being the earliest portion of development and then the upper school, and field house came along most recently. And I'll highlight some of those dates for you. Page 46 of 59 1612 A7 December 15, 2011 But the project was originally developed under agricultural zoning with a provisional use, and that terminology changed to a conditional use, for a private school. And at that time the height in agricultural was 35 feet zoned height. And the provisional use, conditional use also authorized the Planning Director to vary the height requirements for the buildings at the time. Around the year 2000, the property was -- some additional lands were acquired and the holdings at the time were rezoned to community facility, because that was the standard zoning district that basically allowed private schools and the types of uses that the campus was anticipated to be developed with. And when that happened, the zoned height became 30 feet. And then again a few years later additional lands were acquired where the ball fields basically are now and added -- and that property was also rezoned to CF, community facility. And again, 30 feet was the required height. Around the year 2005, the upper school and the field house were built. And I'll point those out on the aerial. The upper school is this building right here, and the field house is this building right here. Those were both built pursuant to an approved Site Development Plan. Recently we were coming through to do a planned addition to the upper school and basically wanted to basically build what's already there, and it was determined at that time that to and behold, the upper school was built at a zoned height of around 33 feet and not 30 feet, as authorized in the community facility zoning district. As soon as we learned that we said well, what do we do? We have an extension that we want to build. Do we build the expansion at 30 feet, but that doesn't address the 33 -foot issue that we know we have. So we immediately started this process, which was to rezone the entire property to a CFPUD, community facility PUD, with basically the same uses that are allowed under today's CF zoning, and the same development standards that are allowed under CF zoning and the Land Development Code, except for changing the height to address the buildings that exist today and the planned expansion. So we're before you today requesting the Community Facility PUD with a zoned height of 45 feet, and that really is the zoned height that applies to the media center building. And the media center building is this building right in the middle. And that is a building that has an odd roof. It's almost like a church steeple type roof. So it's -- and one of the earliest buildings built as part of the campus under the old agricultural zoning. So that's where we came up with the 45 feet. And I've got a table of all the existing buildings, but the zoned height would be 45 feet. The actual height of that tallest building with the church steeple is 75 feet, six inches, I believe, so we would ask for 71 feet to play safe in case we're a little off on that. So the actual height in this PUD would be 71 feet. We are asking for a few deviations that basically address the campus that exists today. And I'll put the master plan up. And I'll try to walk you through the four deviations. And if I get anything wrong, Patrick will correct me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During that process, Richard, could you tell us why you have four and staff has three. Explain that as you go through. MR. YOVANOVICH: You, know, and I'm afraid I apologize, I didn't get to ask. But we did ask for four deviations. They're all related to landscaping. It may have been that we added one in relation to staff comments, and when he was preparing the report, there may have been three at one time and we added one to address something that came up during the review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it was so bad that he decided not to even take it under consideration. MR. YOVANOV ICH: I don't think that was the case, but anyway -- whoops. Deviation one really applies to the buffer along Osceola Trail. And you can see the one here and another one up in this area. We're asking to reduce the width of the landscape buffer along Osceola trail from the 20 feet to 15 feet. And that was actually constructed as part of Osceola Trail and under -- we worked with the school district in conveying Osceola Trail to the school district. And it's nearest our ball field, so that didn't seem to be a big issue and a big need for a buffer from the road since it was next to our ball fields. The second deviation also applies to that area, and it applies to the two lakes that are right here. And what we're asking for is -- and Heidi has got some language that I'm going to read into the record. But we're asking for the deviation there as well to allow the buffer to encroach into the lake area. And one of those lakes was actually conveyed to the school district as part of the road agreement we had with them. And the other one's an existing lake. So the lakes as they exist encroach into the landscape buffer, so we're asking for a deviation there. And Heidi has got some language that she submitted to me that I'm going to read into the record, and we'd Page 47 of 59 1612 A7 December 15, 2011 like to modify. And this is also the one that I think we had an incorrect reference, correct, Patrick, to the site. The correct cite of the LDC should be 4.03.08.B.1, B as in boy, one not C -1. And then Heidi would like to add a new sentence at the end and it reads, in accordance with Sections 22 -112 and 22 -120 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances, the County Manager or his designee has approved this deviation. So I think that ties better together, since this is really a deviation that applies also to the Code of Ordinances and not just the Land Development Code I think is the reason we're adding that sentence. Deviation number three deals with the required vegetated buffer along the development's boundary. And that is in this area right here, which is -- again, that's a lake that we conveyed to the school district. And instead of having the buffer come on this side of the lake, the buffer goes along the road frontage. So that's what deviation three is intended to address. And then finally deviation number four, and we have a continuation of the master plan up here, okay, this is along Pine Ridge Road. We have an entrance road along Pine Ridge Road that's been there since the initial campus was built and you can see the number four right there. In that one area we don't have any buffer. And since the road is already there, we're asking from a deviation to not put a buffer in there. So that should be the four deviations. Did I get them all right? MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. Regarding deviation number four, it's important to note that when the road was built the land was zoned ag. for the Community School, and so was the adjacent property. The required buffer for two ag. parcels is zero, no buffer. So that's why the road was built that way. Also, on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which road are you talking about, Pine Ridge or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The entrance off of Pine Ridge Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The internal road you're talking about? MR. VANASSE: Yeah, where the number four is, right at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a driveway, then. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. VANASSE: Yes, the drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the process of a conditional use you weren't required to put a buffer in there? MR. YOVANOVICH: At the time the two abutting zoning categories were both ag., no buffer. And then just to clarify the lake -- if I can just point here -- this lake over here, the buffer was installed prior to the conveyance and the lake being built. So when the buffer was put in, that was part of the Community School. Then it was approved under an SDP. And later it was conveyed to the school board for the roadway for water management. And what we're asking is that that existing buffer be considered the buffer to the project, even if it's not on the Community School property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But now you're asking for a buffer on someone else's property? MR. YOVANOVICH: When the school board bought the property, the buffer already exists. So what ended up happening, in order for the school board to get the land that is now Osceola Trail, there was an exchange of property between the school board and the Community School. And when that exchange occurred, they got not only Osceola Trail but they also got that, where it says L, lake, they got that with the buffer in it already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a document allowing you to represent the school in this decision, to ask for this deviation? MR. VANASSE: Essentially we're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What we're saying is don't require us to have a buffer, use the buffer that's already existing in the road. So essentially you can either say we'll ask for a deviation to not provide a buffer at all in that location or allow the buffer that exists in the lake to serve as our buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to ask the County Attorney's Office in regard to this issue, honestly I didn't pick up the fact that you were doing this on that parcel till you mentioned it, Pat, so I appreciate it. Heidi, on that particular parcel that is part of the school board's property and not this project's property, they want a deviation to allow the buffer that's on the school board property to act as their buffer. How do we do that? I mean, what if the school board were to change the buffer or to do anything that changes then -- I don't see Page 48 of 59 t.r 161 z A7 December 15, 2011 the need for them to have a buffer in that location at all, myself. I'd rather they just completely didn't ask for a buffer to be eliminated from around that lake -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't we rephrase that deviation to say in that area we're not required to have a buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's smarter. Because you've got a lake that's giving you quite a bit of a setback from the road. And I don't like the idea of getting into someone else's buffer to protect your property, because you have no control over it. What if they stop irrigating it, what if they do other things? MR. YOVANOVICH: That works for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what deviation number was that we're messing with now? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was number three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to reword that so that the buffer -- basically you're asking for permission to -- relief from the requirement for the buffer along the north side of that area cut out for the lake. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's better, unless somebody else has a concern over it. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, it's better to just eliminate the requirement for a buffer through that section rather than burden the school district parcel with maintaining their buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you don't like that idea, huh? MR. EASTMAN: I don't. And I appreciate the change very much, thanks. I have an additional question. In the bargain for exchange, the Community School did receive some additional lands. Are those reflected within the property boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not asking to change any of the zoning on that spoon piece, Tom. We're leaving it as it is, RSF -3. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Where is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's actually to the north -- I'm sorry, the west of our boundary, adjacent to the school district's complex, which is -- in that area you have Osceola Elementary School, the administration building, and Barron Collier, that's kind of their entire complex over there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, could you point to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: On the aerial? It would be in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Had you finished with your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner, you had a comment, I think it was note number three on the master plan and whether or not we needed a deviation or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the generalities of that question bothered me. It said the lake maintenance -- this is on the PUD master plan. It's on note number three. Lake maintenance easements are generally consistent with the LDC. Why aren't they consistent with the LDC? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, in that particular area, the LDC actually defers to the rules of the South Florida Water Management District. And the South Florida Water Management generally requires 20 -foot lake maintenance easements. In this particular case we have a permit that doesn't require us on some of those internal lakes to have that 20 -foot lake maintenance easement, because there's sufficient access to those internal lakes and we already have improvements that exist within that 20 -foot area. So the note is to let you know there are certain areas where we don't meet the Water Management District's 20 -foot rule but they've approved a permit with those improvements in them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You said that the Water Management District allows -- the easement is generally consistent. They allow a general consistency with the 20 -foot requirement for the easement, and that our rules allow us to accept South Florida's rules. So if the LDC is right, then the lake maintenance easements are consistent with the LDC section, because they defer to the South Florida Water Management District; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why do you have the word generally in there? We are consistent. I just Page 49 of 59 f Member 15, 2011 don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand where you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That could be taken a lot of different ways and way out of the context that you intend it to be used. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we wanted people to know is, look, everybody -- usually you'll have a 20 -foot wide lake maintenance easement. Everybody's used to that. We just wanted you to know that there are instances where we don't have that 20 feet. The Water Management District is okay with that. We just wanted to make sure the county knew that and we were -- you weren't assuming there was going to be a 20 -foot wide lake maintenance around those existing lakes. It was an informational note, not a deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If county staff doesn't know those things, I would say shame on county staff. They should know those situations. My experience with them is they do. So I really don't like the word generally. It opens up too many Pandora's boxes of where you could go with that, unintentional. Unless you want to lay out every specific location where you have a change so that we can get it noted, then it's not generally, it's consistent with this plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we probably don't even need the note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that makes life a lot simpler. MR. YOVANOVICH: As long as we're all on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think anybody is upset with what you're saying. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I know. And it was just a disclosure, we wanted people to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, it's one thing having it on there, but where it could go 10 years from now, who knows. I would just as soon keep it clean. So we're going to drop that note on -- drop note three on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the -- your staffs recommending approval and we're requesting that the Planning Commission transmit to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval of our CFPUD. Now, we handed out to you the survey, and we handed out to you some revisions to the master plan which were in response to some comments from staff. And let me -- if -- I'll take you through them real quick. On the master plan change up in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to -- yes, I was just going to ask him what we're talking about here. So the master plan we have in our packet is not the one you're asking for approval on today. The one you just MR. YOVANOVICH: I just gave you -- the only change is we've added -- they asked us to change the name of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the mic. MR. YOVANOVICH: They asked us to change it to a CFPUD, which we made that change. And we were asked to include a preserve table as to what's the required preserve and what's the amount of the preserve that we are providing on the master plan. Which we've added, Mr. Chairman, right here. We are providing more preserve than is required under the Land Development Code, and we've shown that on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the first correction you said you did? MR. YOVANOVICH: We changed the -- we had labeled it -- we had RPUD originally, and it should have been a CFPUD on the title of the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine says CFPUD on mine, but maybe Page two of three? So does Melissa's, so does Karen's. So I think we've got that change already in our packet. But we don't have the table for the preserve requirements shown in the packet, so that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, you don't have that. And -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's only the preserve table that we're -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I just took as true to the comment that we needed to change the RPUD reference. So we must have made a change somewhere to do that, and maybe it's not in your documents. With that, I think we've addressed -- we had our NIM and only one person showed up and had no objections. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It was a quick NIM. Page 50 of 59 I 1b A7 � December 15, 2011 MR. YOVANOVICH: It was actually informal. She said you don't need to do one, because we had met with her as we were waiting for others to show up, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. How many students does the school hold? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I need to introduce somebody who showed up, John Zeller, who is the head of the school. So we have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to repeat what he said for the record because we can't have a record from the audience. No, sir, you need to -- Rich, you know the rules. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. We currently have 714 students. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question on that, because in reading, there was -- it was 600 and something. I'll have to try and find it. MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- actually our TIS was approved at 850. So there's room for expansion. We have not asked to have more than 850 students. We have 714 right now. But the analysis was done based upon 850. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Originally when this is done or now to this date? MR. YOVANOVICH: When it was originally approved and as we're moving forward today, the traffic analysis has been based upon 850 students. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. You said that there was a mistake in the SDP? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, actually, what had happened was as we were going through the SDP process, the SDP that allowed the construction of the upper school said 30 feet. But the building that was actually approved when it went through the building permit review process was approved at 33 feet, and got built at 33 feet. As we were coming through to do the expansion, someone looked at the expansion building pen-nit plans and said you're asking for a building that's taller than the CF zoning. And we went, oops, and realized that the existing building, the existing upper school, nobody caught in reviewing the plans, both sides nobody caught that it was actually taller than the CF zoning district. So we're fixing it. We're fixing the issue. And if you look at -- let me just put the aerial back up again real quick. From a perspective of driving down Livingston Road, here's the upper school. And that's got to be 300 or so feet I would think from anybody driving by on Livingston Road. So from a perspective of driving up or down Livingston Road, I don't think you'll notice anything. And even at the 45 feet that we're asking to cover all the buildings. And the beauty of this request is it's what you see is what you get. People have been living with this 33 -foot building since 2005. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then why does it say that research indicated that other existing buildings on the campus also exceed the maximum building height? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And as I was going through the process I was talking about the early campus was built when it was ag. zoning, which would allow 35 feet. And it also gave the planning manager the ability to go taller than 35 feet. And that's the LMA building that I was telling you about. That is taller than 30 feet today under the existing zoning. So we're trying to fix that so we have a campus that is 100 percent consistent with the CF zoning that's on the property. Because that building would be a legal nonconforming building because of the change from the original ag. zoning to CF zoning. So we're just trying to make sure we've covered all the buildings and that they're all legal buildings and not legal nonconforming buildings. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No such thing -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then you mention -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: --just nonconforming by definition of the code. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Then you mention something about going 71 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: And that is to the -- again, the LMA building looks like a church steeple. The top of that steeple is 70 feet, six inches. So we're asking for actual height of 71 feet. Because as you know, the CF zoning district, actually, straight zoning doesn't contain max heights, it just contains zoned heights. And PUDs have added a Page 51 of 59 y, rt 1612 A7 December 15, 2011 max height. So we're adding that to the PUD to address what PUDs have customarily required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Not at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just so I understand, the tallest -- what you just said cleared up one of my questions. So in the CF zoning there is no, quote, maximum height. Because I was going to pick up on the 70 -some feet. And this is in the staff report, so -- but I just want a clarification. Your proposed new building is proposed to be 32 feet, 33 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In that vicinity, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The zoned height would be 32,33 feet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Because on Page 2 in the staff report in the first paragraph it says except for the maximum zoned building height, which is proposed as 45 feet. That's what sort of tilted me in understanding. MR. YOVANOVICH: And what that is, is all the standards in the PUD are consistent with the standards in the existing CF zoning district but for the height. Zoned height under straight CF zoning is 30 feet. We're asking for 45 feet, because that will make all of the buildings consistent with the zoned height. And that zoned height will be 45 feet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one further comment I have is that you might want to, for those that may have not watched yesterday in the BCC meeting, can you just quickly summarize what you're going forward with as far as the conditional building permit better -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. This is a real project. I mean, we're ready to go, we're chomping at the bit to build this expansion, which is roughly a 25,000 square foot expansion. We were already in the building permit review process when this error was discovered. We went to the Board of County Commissioners yesterday and said please let us get started on our building. So what they did was they agreed to issue us a phased building permit that would allow us to start construction of the building as we're going through this PUD process. But we can't go taller than 30 feet until the PUD is formally adopted to allow us to go above that. And that's what was -- the board consented to the building official issuing us that type of a permit yesterday so we can stay on track so we can be open in the fall. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just wanted to get it on the record for this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, because I remember Mr. Coyle saying no more than 30 feet -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Until we get the PUD -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- and that's when you stopped and said, okay, we won't. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we had said that in our correspondence, we were never going above 30 feet until the PUD was done. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's all I have, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Rich. Staff report? MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl with Land Development Services. The summary that Rich gave was correct. This was discovered during the SDP review and this is basically a corrective measure to bring all the buildings that are too high into compliance. A cure, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're assuming a cure is needed for all buildings when in actuality the buildings were constructed over different times with different zonings in place. So I wouldn't characterize it as a cure for all buildings. It's a cure for maybe one or two buildings that may have questions about them. Because you have agreements dating back to 1994 that allowed administrative changes for some of the heights. Plus you had different zoning districts that allowed heights to be higher than what they are today. So I think in all that there really aren't as many errors as possible, because a lot of it is grandfathered in under previous approvals. MR. REISCHL: Right. And the LMA building is basically the one that was permitted as higher than the ag. maximum, and when the zoning changed to CF, that became nonconforming. Page 52 of 59 161�A7 December 15, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want it to appear as a mischaracterization that all of a sudden they've been doing a whole bunch of things there that are wrong. They have not. MR. REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were consistent most of the time. There was one error apparently, then another submittal that got caught up. And it was good that it did, and I've got to give the staff credit for catching it. So we're getting it corrected now. And in return they're coming in trying to do the whole thing in one shot under a better system. So I think it's a far vast improvement to what they had before and it clears up a lot of confusion, so -- MR. REISCHL: On the site plan, it was two different things on the site plan, too, because the engineering plans said 30 feet, the architectural plans said the 32 feet. So there was even confusion that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, why did -- what's the situation with the four versus three deviations? And have you reviewed all four and do you concur with all four? MR. REISCHL: Yes. And that was, I guess I can call it a rookie error, just count as rookie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not a rookie. You've been around this county more than most people. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, he doesn't get that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golly. MR. REISCHL: As I was writing the staff report, because we did agree to make sure that we got as quickly as possible to the Planning Commission, that I was doing the deviations from memory, and the fourth deviation that I did not include was the one with the ag. to ag. buffer. And I did not include that, and we support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wanted to make sure for the record, that you reviewed all four and you support all four. Even with the changes and modifications suggested today? MR. REISCHL: Yes, I have those down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Is there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, do you have any rebuttal to nothing? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm actually hoping that these changes are so minor that I don't have to come back for the consent agenda. But we'll see what you say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like you getting into that habit. Are you under a time crunch for the consent? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just need to make sure we get to the BCC at the end of January -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd be first up on January 5th. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, I know that. I just need to make sure we're not -- it's not going to affect the schedule for January, then we're good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like to get into the habit of waiving consent. There are special circumstances, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have a problem with that. I just want to confirm we're still on schedule. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is simple. I don't see a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess we'll close the public hearing. And I had four comments and stipulations that we had talked about. One is actual height will be stated at 71 feet. That lake buffer easement -- I mean, lake buffer in the north will be modified to -- the deviation request will be modified to eliminate that buffer need where the lake is that's owned by the school board, for this project at least. They're going to drop note three on the master plan and they're going to add a preserve table to the master plan. Does anybody have anything else? Page 53 of 59 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. A 1 Member 15 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa made a motion to -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: To move PUDZ- PL2011 -2115 forward to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the four stipulations you read. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And motion seconded by Barry. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, were there any staff recommendations? MR. REISCHL: (shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that we'll call for the vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. I can't recall. All those in favor, signify by saying CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. ** *Now the consent item that we have. The item for consent that's up next is a recommendation to accept the master mobility plan Phase II report with our previous voting to make sure the language is consistent with what we acknowledged to staff. So with that in mind, I just need to make sure we've taken a look at it, and anybody has any questions, that we can get them on the table for further discussion. I'll wait till all you get your -- Nick, if I'm understanding it correctly, we have review done in blue and we have highlighting done in yellow and blue. Can you tell us the differences in the meaning of the colors? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Debbie prepared that. I'll let her explain. MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you tell me what report you're referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everything is in either blue or yellow and blue. You have some verbiage that is written just in blue text and you have some verbiage that is in blue text but highlighted with yellow. Why the difference? MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't believe that that was meant to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, you did it a lot of places. MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you talking about throughout the report or just in Section 5 that I handed you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just in the section you -- just the Objective section. MS. ARMSTRONG: That's incorrect -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look on the first Page 5 -1. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have nothing in -- it's either blue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm the only one that's got -- no, everybody here has got highlighted. See the highlighting? MS. ARMSTRONG: I do see the highlighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of it's highlighted in yellow with blue writing underlined below it and underneath the yellow, and the other's just blue writing with underlined. I'm just wondering what the significance is Page 54 of 59 �6I2A7 December 15, 2011 in the two. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me do this. If I could swap with one of you and just give you this. This is the clean version with nothing in it. I'll just compare the two side by side just to make sure there's nothing strange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we always have these things. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought we were the yellow. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, I thought we were the yellow and their comments were in the orange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've got orange, oh, okay. I know, I'm just teasing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's in the mind of -- the eye of the beholder. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, Debbie's saying it's the track changes which you have. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. All right, now I know why. The track changes, the yellow are the CCPC comments, and the other ones were comments we received from the public, stakeholders and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no problem. And the orange is additional comments that you're submitting for discussion. MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, before we start, may I ask Mr. Casalanguida a couple of questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, absolutely. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He loves questions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know he does. The funding for this, how much was it and where did it come from? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Came from a Department of Energy grant. And I think Deb can probably dig up the funding. But I think we covered this before. Roughly 300 and some thousand dollars in one and then we received a little bit more. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. The whole county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the -- you can't do that from -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have that exact number in front of me. I don't have the contract in front of me. It was all -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I thought -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want the grant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner -- Chairman, if you have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what it is, $473,476. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Total. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I heard it was 700 and something. So this is part of the stimulus package from 2009? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Department of Energy grant. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And may I ask Ms. Armstrong, how long have you been working on this? You started on this when? This is -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I started with Transportation Planning in September of last year. But the project started before that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So this has been going on for quite a while already. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, since 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, did you have anything you wanted to throw in or just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was no changes, we've accepted all the changes in the included that you have. So on Page 5 -1 there is nothing I wanted to add unless you have -- Page 55 of 59 161 ZeA715, 2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to go page -by -page. I don't think we should have that many questions of the Commissioners -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think there's one, talking about the objective with regard to the Estates. We had recommended on Page 5 -3, staff recommends the composition to be designated at the time the advisory board or task force is established by the BCC. Originally you had said of only the Golden Gate Estates residents, and there was a vote, I believe, of 7 -1 or 6 -1. Staff was going to put in the language that said that we were recommending including other people. And I think through discussions, I think this solves the issue. We recommend putting that as the language, that it's determined at the time the BCC appoints it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Planning Commission language can't change at today's meeting because it was voted on prior to this, this is just consent. But your recommendation in contrast to the Planning Commission's vote was that you're going to recommend the compromise -- the designations of the task force members or the board members be allocated at the time the Board actually forms the committee. Is that a fair statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair statement, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's -- either way it goes, then, I think it works for the Estates residents. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good. Okay. And I think there was one other section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have two other orange areas. Page 5 -7 is one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The statement below B. The CCPC approved this objective 7 -0 as written above. THE COURT REPORTER: Say that again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The CCPC approved this objective 7 -0, as written above. CCPC also requested item B below, state consider constructing the bridges. Staff recommends promote constructing the bridges. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but in this particular case, under B you inserted your request instead of ours, where in the previous one that you disagreed with, ours was in the language referred to and yours was in the orange bracket as being considered. I think you got them reversed here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Gotcha. We'll fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was probably Bob's fault. And the next change you had is on 5 -10. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. On 5 -10, the CCPC recommended removing those A and B below. And we recommend, staff recommends the BCC consider keeping A, explore countywide habitat conservation plan HCP that specifies impact fees towards a regional mitigation program. And B, consider tying mitigation to the basin or impact here where the project is located. So we struck it out as you recommended, but we're going to insert that language and staffs recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you guys insert is up to you as long as the Planning Commission's vote remains intact. And I think it did. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It did, sir. And that's it, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a consent item. So it's not a matter of voting anew, it's just a matter of concurring that the issues raised or issues provided to us are consistent with what our previous vote was. Anybody have any problems? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I do have a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You weren't even here last time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I was not here, I was home sick. But I was ready for it and I was turning the pages as you were having your meeting. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Shame on you, Mark. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Let me tell you, from the other side of the television, it's quite different than being on this side. One thing I did notice, there was nothing in there about -- you did mention the CAT. But there was no route structure or anything like that. I was here Tuesday, and Michele Arnold was also here. We went out and got one of these. We are lacking -- Collier County is really lacking in their bus routes. Page 56 of 59 161 2 A 7 iA December 15, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree. But I think as part of the mobility plan, a lot of it is to enhance and tie into the bus routes. So there's a lot in here that talks about growing with the CAT system, TOD Development, putting bus stops in, including routes that tie into pathways or connecting into roadway facilities and infrastructure that's there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's just what we were talking about in the last PUD. Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And how do you figure -- one other question was how do you figure people per household? Because I was reading the 2007 and then I went to the 2080. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Comp. Planning I guess has worked out, there's an average that's done. And I know they're not here, so I'm going to have to -- I'm fumbling to get the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They use the Census Bureau statistics after they're done every 10 years. And then they have a computation based on the rooftops built currently. The last census that I recall was 2.39. It may have changed slightly, but that's what it used to be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And there were students per household and then there was obviously the Ave Maria discussion that said for "X" amount, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Different -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's about two people per household, is what you're going by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's a bit more than that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, there's a two point something factor per household. It's 2.3 or -- I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. But we use the standardized approved number, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to approve this item on consent? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I make the motion to approve it on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait, I abstained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0 with one abstention. And I'm assuming your abstention is because you weren't here during the vote. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Vonair was not there. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: I wasn't here either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so I'm sorry, there's -- thank you for that correction. It's 7 -0 with two abstentions. I forgot Mr. Vonair wasn't here. Seems like he's been here all along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Nick. Other communities got this grant also, right, to Page 57 of 59 A7 16 1 December 15, 2011 do the same thing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some did. We're hearing throughout the state. We're actually getting contacted by Clearwater and a couple of other places that are doing the same thing we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there away you could link to us their reports, just for -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. When we come out, I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we one of the first ones out? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't say we're one of the first ones. We've looked at other -- and maybe in the State of Florida we might be the first one. But Steve's working on other ones in the State, and there are certainly other ones in the nation, if not the region. Canada had a couple of really good plans that we kind of looked at as well too. So I think a lot of communities that went through the growth that we did, especially out west, are doing the same thing during this, what I would call down period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be good if you become aware of them to send us links or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. If I could take a moment to thank you for your participation. This has been great. I think the fact at the last meeting the people that showed up and provided comment. This really became a community centric plan. And your participation as well helped a lot. So Happy Holidays from staff and appreciate what you've done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Okay, we're going to wrap up the meeting. I wanted to kind of follow along that last statement of Nick's. This is the end of the year and our last meeting this year, and the holidays are approaching. So there's some special thank yous. And Cherie', you're top of the list, you and Terry. Thank you guys for all you've done for us. And the treats that you did bring every meeting, that's a good habit to get into. Melissa's eating them right and left. The girl doesn't get any food unless she comes here. And Kady across the hall, thank you for all you do with the television. It helps out a lot, because you're on top of it constantly. So we appreciate that. The records office, we want to thank you for the coffee supply. Without it some of us may be sleeping. So even though you think we might be sometimes, we aren't, so, but thank you. And especially thank you, Nick and Ray and the entire county staff. You guys have done an excellent job this year. Every year it seems to get better, and this year has been a fantastic year. And I wholeheartedly support what staff has been doing. Your product quality is excellent. It's gotten so much better. And Diane, you alluded to errors in SDPs. There were. But I'll tell you what, they're far less. In fact, the Community School is an example of what's being caught, and things that may not have been caught as much in the past. So we've got a much better outcome with the team that's in place. I want to thank the Comprehensive Planning Department for their assistance in all the things, the EAR, and everything they work with. And Mike Bosi's doing an excellent job. And John, thank you. Your mother says you're a nice guy. On top of that you do a good job. So thank you, John, we appreciate your patience. And then last is Heidi and Jeff. I can't think of a better time we've had working with the County Attorney's Office as we do now. Jeff is doing an excellent job. And Heidi, your coordination with CDES and this Board has been fantastic. So with that, I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And again, thank you very much. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can I just say something real quick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just want to say Happy Holidays to everybody. It's been a pleasure working with you. And I also want to say for all the small children that might be watching on TV, to avoid the confusion we had last year with my son, Mr. Strain is Santa's cousin -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that clarification. I'd have a heck of a time giving out all those presents. Go ahead, Diane. Page 58 of 59 r 15 1 1612-A-Z COMMISSIONER EBERT: And well, Tuesday's BCC meeting we had two people here who have been here for 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? Brad and Paul. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, Mark and Paul. And it was --it's just really great. And then Phil also got an award for five years on -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Floodplain management planning -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Floodplain management. So a very active board we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's been doing good. So everybody appreciates it. So thank you all. MR. BELLOWS: From staff, I'd like to also thank the Planning Commission. This has been a great Planning Commission and look forward with our new Commissioner joining today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a good year coming up. With that, I know there's no old or new business. The public comment, we just finished it, so motion to adjourn, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Homiak, do you second it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? We're out of here. Thank you all. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:09 p.m. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on 1— I e1 " I I COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �/ I 0LJ � MARK . STRAIN, Chainnan as presented ZL�'"or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 59 of 59 161Q A 8 October 19, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING Naples, Florida,.Gete4Cr-19, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala✓ Hiller ►�� Henning T FF Coyle ✓ Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: 311 22 112. Item #: 11 (a== Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz (Excused) Vice Chair: Lee Horn Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Richard Joslin (Excused) Thomas Lykos Robert Meister (Absent) Jon Walker Patrick White (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney 1612A8 tl October 19, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and 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. I. ROLL CALL: Vice Chairman Horn called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Five members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Addition: • Under Item VI, "New Business" — o (E) Orders of the Board Clarification: • Under Item VIII, "Reports o (A) Fiscal Statements will be presented at the December 21St meeting. (Scrivener's Note: The correct number for "Reports" is Item IX) Correction: • Under Item X, "Next Meeting Date " — o The Board will not meet in November as noted. o The next meeting is scheduled for December 21, 2011. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, S — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 21,2011: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by `ferry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, S — 0. V. DISCUSSION: (None) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section, the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) 2 16 2 A 8 4. October 19, 2011 A. Christopher Dwayne Rayburn — Waiver of Examination / Credit Review Michael Ossorio noted: • Mr. Rayburn was originally licensed in 2001 • He allowed his license to expire in 2009 Christopher Rayburn stated: • He applied to reinstate his license and re -open his company, "CDR Flooring, LLC" • He was unable to pay the renewal fees in 2009 due to financial hardship • He has continued to work in the field as an employee of several vendors including Diamond Carpet, Inc., and Maurice Gutierrez who is a licensed flooring inspector • He became an authorized Karastan Carpet Installer in 2004 • When his company was operating, no claims were filed against it • There are several companies that have work for him as a Subcontractor Vice Chairman Horn noted some issues with the Applicant's personal credit report and asked what had been done to correct the situation. Mr. Rayburn stated he scheduled an appointment with an accountant to set -up payment plans. Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Rayburn why he was petitioning to reinstate his license without the required retesting. Mr. Rayburn stated he has problems with written tests. He took the Business & Law test three times in 2001 but could not pass it. He held his license for seven years and never had problems installing flooring or a complaint from customers. Michael Ossorio provided the following background information: • Mr. Rayburn was licensed in 2001 • Contracting Licensing Office Supervisor Bob Nonnenmacher waived the exam requirement in 2001 • Mr. Rayburn's license was categorized as "null /void" in December 2009 • After a period of three years, an applicant is required to re -take the Business & Law exam in order to reinstate the license o If an applicant remains active in the trade during the three -year period, the Board may elect to waive the exam requirement • Mr. Rayburn petitioned the Board for a Waiver of the test requirement and presented his credit report for the Board to review • No complaints were made against Mr. Rayburn's company when it was in operation • IIe had been licensed in Lee County Thomas Lykos noted Mr. Rayburn had been granted a Waiver in 2001 indicating he never actually passed the written exam. Vice Chairman Horn stated Mr. Rayburn was required to take the Business & Law exam because he held a Specialty license. 1612A8 October 19, 2011 Jon Walker asked the Applicant if he had been working in the same trade since 2009. Christopher Rayburn stated he has been working for Diamond Carpet as a crew member since 2010. When asked if he would re -open his own company or qualify another company, Mr. Rayburn stated he intended to re -open his company and he would be the sole operator — no employees would be hired. Thomas Lykos stated his concern `for the record" that waiving the requirement again would not be in either the applicant's or the community's best interest because the applicant had never passed the exam in the first place. He had already been granted a benefit. Everyone else is required to pass the exam in order to become licensed and open a business. A Trades exam is not required but would probably have been waived by the Board due to the applicant's experience. Mr. Rayburn stated he had been unable to pay the fees to due economic reversals and lost his home to foreclosure in 2009. He further stated he knows flooring and how to install it. He acknowledged taking the business classes but could not complete the college -level test. Jon Walker noted the civil judgments against the Applicant indicated he might benefit from the Business & Law exam — despite his ability to perform the work — since it covered how to conduct business. Attorney Neale reminded the Board to consider only the Applicant's business credit history when making the determination concerning his application. Christopher Rayburn confirmed only the Home Depot judgment was related to his former business and stated he has established a payment schedule with the Company to pay off the business credit card. He stated he did not file bankruptcy because he intends to pay off the obligations to re- establish the good credit rating that he once had. Terry Jerulle asked if the Board could approve granting the license to allow the Applicant to work but also placing him on probation for a period of time while he took the exam. Attorney Neale cunfirined the Board cats set arty probationary condition deemed to be appropriate, i.e., allowing the Applicant to work as long as there was no risk of harm to the community. Michael Ossorio noted the exam is given in Bonita Springs by a testing company. • The Applicant could take the exam in Gainesville where he would obtain immediate results and could take it again the same day if necessary. • The Gainesville testing company offers an open book exam taken on a computer. He stated the Board has previously granted restricted or provisional licenses with specific conditions to be met before probation is lifted. Vice Chairman Horn concurred with Mr. Lykos' concerns and suggested taking the test in Gainesville might be beneficial to the applicant. 4 1612 A8 October 19, 2011 Mr. Rayburn stated as long as he could begin working, he would take the test as many times as the Board required. Mr. Lykos indicated he would support a Motion to grant a restricted license allowing the Applicant to work while placing him on probation until he passed the Business and Law exam, and also addressing the outstanding judgments filed against him. Terry Jerulle stated the Applicant had not given up and was trying to "dig himself out" from under but the Board must be fair to all applicants. Contractors are required to take the test. Vice Chairman Horn asked the Applicant if there were any other tax liens or outstanding judgments, in addition to Home Depot, against his company. Christopher Rayburn confirmed he has contacted the Internal Revenue Service to work out a payment plan. Vice Chairman Horn cautioned the Applicant that if the Board decided to place him on probation, he would be required to prove progress had been made on all issues including the State of Florida's tax lien. He advised the Applicant to also contact the State's Department of Revenue. Thomas Lykos moved to approve granting a probationary license to the Applicant, subject to the following: • The Applicant is to return after a period of one year to verify that he took and passed the Business & Law test, • The State Tax lien is to be paid in full; • Concerning the three personal credit issues, produce documentation of agreed payment plans; and • Provide a revised Credit Report. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, S — 0. B. Dale Miller — Application for Waiver (To reinstate License without testing) Michael Ossorio provided the following background information: • Mr. Miller has not been licensed since 2005 His Certificate of Competency has been categorized as "null /void" His license is current in Lee and Hendry Counties Mr. Miller petitioned the Board for a Waiver of the test requirement which includes the Business & Law and a Trades test for tile and marble Dale Miller stated: • Ile has never been "out" of the business • He has been working as a Sub for other Contractors • He kept his license current in Lee and Hendry Counties because he has been working there • The Contractor he worked for has closed his business • His company is "Miller's Custom Tile, LLC" 1612 A 8 October 19, 2011 Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Miller why he did not want to take the test and the response was that he passed it in 1999. Chairman Horn asked the Applicant if there had been significant changes in the Industry in the past twelve years. Mr. Miller stated he has "kept up with the changes." Michael Ossorio outlined the process: • Mr. Miller will pay fees for the past three years • He will pay the renewal fee for the current year • He will pay a reinstatement fee • Total fees due: approximately $800.00 He continued there were no issues with Mr. Miller's business credit and the Trade test has not changed significantly in the past twelve years. Recommendation: Approve the application and grant a Waiver to reinstate his license without requiring testing. Terry Jerulle moved to approve reinstating Dale Miller's Certificate of Competency as a Tile/Marble Contractor without the requirement to re -test. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. C. Rejjla C. Lastra — Application for Waiver (To reinstate License without testing) Ms. Lastra stated: • She petitioned the Board to reinstate her Certificate of Competency as a Fencing Contractor (Specialty trade) without requiring her to re -take the Business & Law test • Her license is current with the City of Cape Coral, as well as in Lee, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties • She changed her company's name from "All Fence Sale Corp." to "All Fence Contractors, Inc." • Shc was unable to pay the renewal fees in 2009 due to economic losses • The State tax lien was paid in full and she produced a date - stamped copy of the receipt • The other issues on her credit report are in the process of being satisfied Michael Ossorio clarified the Applicant's license was classified as "null /void" in 2009 and the applicable test is Business Procedures. Vice Chairman Horn asked the Applicant if she had taken and passed the Business and Law test; she responded affirmatively. He requested to the review the documents brought by the Applicant. (Procedural Note: The Hearing Reporter verified that the Applicant produced four pages of documentation concerning the payment in full of the lien, made to the Department of Revenue on October 18, 2011. The documentation included 612 A 8 October 19, 2011 copies of the Warrant, Warrant payment, Receipt, and letter of confirmation of payment and had been filed with the Clerk of Court, Miami -Dade County. The 4 -page documentation was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and was reviewed by the Board.) Thomas Lykos requested the County's recommendation. Michael Ossorio stated since the Applicant was licensed in other jurisdictions, was the process of paying her obligations, and had passed the Business & Law test, the County recommended approving her application for a reinstatement of her Certificate of Competency. Vice Chairman Horn asked the Applicant if there were other outstanding debts. Ms. Lastra stated she was waiting for notification and further stated her intention to pay the balances in full within the next month. Thomas Lykos moved to approve the application of Regla C. Lastra to reinstate her Certificate of Competency (Fencing — specialty trade) without requiring testing. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. BREAK: 9:35 AM RECONVENED: 9:43 AM Vice Chairman Horn inquired of the Board's Counsel it a Motion was not required to enter the documentation in the previous case into evidence as County's Exhibit `:4. " Attorney Neale responded the case did not necessitate a full Public Hearing. D. Thomas E. Shallcross — Application for Waiver (To reinstate License without testing) Michael Ossorio provided the following information: • Mr. Shallcross' Certificate of Competency has been cancelled since 2009 • He is licensed in Palm Beach County • He passed the Business & License test and the Interlocking Paver test • His personal and business credit ratings were excellent (noted on Page 2 of the Credit Report Thomas Shallcross stated: • His company, "A Superior Pavers, Inc." is based in Palm Beach County and has worked as a Subcontractor for Home Dynamics Corp. and its subsidiary, Amberton Isles & Point • A project will begin in Collier County (on Airport- Pulling Rd) in the near future • He has maintained his continuing education and is certified by the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute ( "ICPI ") to Industry Standards 1612 A8 October 19, 2011 County's Recommendation: Approve the application and grant a Waiver to reinstate his license without requiring additional testing. Terry Jerulle moved to approve the application of Thomas E. Shallcross to reinstate his Certificate of Competency (Paving Block — specialty trade) without requiring testing. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, S — 0. E. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Vice Chairman. Second by Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, S — 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Gustavo DeLeon — Review of Probation Status Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. DeLeon appeared before the Board on April 20, 2011 • At that time, he petitioned for a Waiver to reinstate his Certificate of Competency (concrete forming and placing - Specialty trade) • Due to issues with his personal credit report, he was placed on probation for six months • He has returned and provided an updated Credit Report Gustavo DeLeon stated: • He had been working for another Contractor doing concrete work (pouring slabs, flatwork — driveways /sidewalks) as an employee • He applied to reinstate his license in order to work as a Subcontractor and re -open his business, "G.F. Concrete Corp." • At issue was his personal credit • His business credit report reflects that he does not supply material, only labor Vice Chairman Horn noted the Board is to review the Applicant's business credit report. He asked if any complaints had been made against the Applicant during the past six months and Michael Ossorio responded, "none." County's Recommendation: Approve lifting the probation. Thomas Lykos questioned why the Applicant was initially placed on probation if his business credit report was the sole consideration. Mr. Ossorio stated the Applicant had not been active in the business as a Subcontractor when he appeared before the Board in April. The Board allowed him six months to work as a Subcontractor. He was ordered to return to present an updated business credit report. 1612 A8 October 19, 2011 [ Excerpt: Minutes of Board Meeting dated April 20, 2011: "Richard Joslin stated while he did not have an objection to approving the application for a Waiver, he suggested placing the Applicant on probation for a six -month period to give him time to improve his credit. At the end of six months, the Applicant will be required to return and present an updated credit report to the Board. He stated the foregoing constitutes his Motion. Mr. Meister offered a second in support. Chairman Lantz outlined the Motion: • Approve the application for a Waiver of Testing and approve issuance of a license • Institute a six -month probationary period while Applicant is allowed to work • Mr. DeLeon is to return at the end of the probationary period with an updated business credit report Motion carried, 6 — "Yes "12 — "No." Terry Jerulle and Patrick White were opposed. "] (A copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order was distributed to the Board for review.) Thomas Lycos moved to approvefull reinstatement of the Certificate of Competency for Gustavo DeLeon (concrete forming and placing - Specialty trade) and to terminate the probationary period. Second by Vice Chairman Horn. Terry Jerulle did not recall why two abstentions were noted in the Minutes. Attorney Neale reviewed his notes — the issue of experience had been discussed. Michael Ossorio confirmed that Mr. DeLeon had been working an employee for a long time and had not been licensed in other jurisdictions. The Board had concerns about his ability to operate his own business and he was ordered to return in six months with an updated business credit report. Vice Chairman Horn called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, 5 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None) IX. REPORTS: A. Fiscal Year -end Reports (Will be presented in December per amended Agenda.) 6 1612 A$ October 19, 2011 X. MEMBER COMMENTS: • Thomas Lykos stated he has asked Staff to provide financial reports for the end of the calendar year as well as the fiscal year -end but due to the difficulty of obtaining information from the County's two software programs and the absence of Ken Kovitsky to provide an explanation, he agreed it was more appropriate to present the information at the December meeting. • Jamie French stated the information will be collected from the County's financial system ( "SAP "), "C/D -Plus" (the older program), and "CityView" (the new program) and compiled into a single, cohesive document. The information is not collected until after the 15th of each month. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Vice - Chairman at 10:00 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Z"orn, Vice - Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , 2011, "as submitted" U OR "as amended" [_1. 10 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING RECEIVED Naples, Florida, December 21, 2011 JAN 2 0 2012 Board of County C °rnftsioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: 61Z A8 Michael Boyd December 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING RECEIVED Naples, Florida, December 21, 2011 JAN 2 0 2012 Board of County C °rnftsioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Date: 3(1 3 11 -2, Item #: ( 4 -j-- Z VQ $ ALSO PRESENT: Copies to: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Ken Kovensky Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer CHAIRMAN: Kyle Lantz Vice Chair: Lee Horn Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle V/ Richard Joslin Fiala Thomas Lykos Hiller Robert Meister Henning T Jon Walker Coyle ✓ � Coletta e Patrick White Misc. Corres: Date: 3(1 3 11 -2, Item #: ( 4 -j-- Z VQ $ ALSO PRESENT: Copies to: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Ken Kovensky Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer 161 � A 8 December 21, 2011 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and 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. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Kyle Lantz called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. All members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Changes: Under Item IV, "Approval of the Minutes " — The date of the Minutes was corrected to October 19, 2011 Thomas Lykos moved to accept the change to the Agenda. Second by Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 9 - 0 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —October 19,2011: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes of the October 19, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: A. Contractor Licensing Cost of Service (FY 12) — Ken Kovensky (Copies of the Year End Report and the Budget were distributed to the Members.) Mr. Kovensky outlined the figures for the 2010 -2011 Budget — "budgeted" versus "actual" expenses. The budget for 2012 was $917,000 and he noted State renewals were due in 2012. The shortfalls were discussed. He noted approximately $35,000 of fees were collected during December 2009 -10 and it was impossible to predict how much would be collected during the last month of the year. It was suggested the amount budgeted for 2011 -2012 ($450,000) might be too high for the category of License Renewal Fees. Mr. Kovensky agreed and stated the figure for 2013 might be reduced. Chairman Lantz asked when the report was prepared and why it had not been distributed to the members in a timely manner. Patrick White noted the end of year report was part of a more detailed report. He asked if Mr. Kovensky could return at a future date to fully explain the document and answer questions after the members had an opportunity to review the information. Mr. Kovensky agreed. 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 B. Election of new Chairman and Vice Chairman The floor was opened for nominations for Chairman. Thomas Lykos nominated Lee Horn to serve as Chairman. Second by Terry Jerulle. Mr. Horn accepted the nomination and the floor was closed. The floor was opened for nomination for Vice Chairman. Chairman Horn nominated Richard Joslin to serve as Vice Chairman. Second by Terry Jerulle. Mr. Joslin accepted the nomination and the floor was closed Motions were made to approve the election of Lee Horn as Chairman and Richard Joslin as Vice Chairman. The motions carried, 8 — "Yes7] — "Abstention." Mr. Horn and Mr. Joslin, respectively, abstained from voting. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section, and Section VII, "Public Hearings," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorneyfor the Board.) A. Mark Militao — Application to Reinstate of License I Waiver of Examination Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Militao had a tile and marble license in Collier County but it was been null and void since 2008. • He took the tile and marble test in 2005 and the business test in 2004. • He is still active in Lee County. • He applied for a Waiver of Examination and to reinstate his license. Chairman Horn asked the Applicant for a status of his work experience for the past two years. Mark Militao stated he has worked continuously in Lee County and confirmed his previous debts had been discharged in Bankruptcy in November, 2010. Michael Ossorio stated the County had no issues with the application and recommended reinstatement. Kyle Lantz moved to approve Mr. Militao's application for reinstatement and waiver of examination. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. B. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Jon Walker. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. 1612 Atl December 21, 2011 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Nelly Nava - Review of Credit Report Chairman Horn asked Ms. Nava for a status of her credit and work history. Ms. Nava replied she has been working and has made several payments but her Credit Report is not perfect. Chairman Horn noted progress was made only in regard to the smaller bills. He stated the progress on the larger debts was minimal and expressed concern not only for her financial well -being but also for her customers. Michael Ossorio stated: • He has had several discussion with Ms. Nava • Her credit issues centered around a family member • Her company has been open since January, 2011 and no complaints have been received concerning her work • Recommendation: extending the probation for six month o Ms. Nava will return at the end of the probationary period with an updated Business Credit Report Attorney Neale reminded the Board when business has been open for at least one year, only the Business Credit Report is applicable. -W ekw White moved to approve continuing Ms. Nava's probation for a period of six months at which time she is to provide a current Business Credit Report to the Board Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Discussion: • Mr. Lykos stated personal credit should not be ignored when she reports back to the Board in six months. If there has been no significant change in the balance, the business entity cannot be generating the income required to repay her debts. • Attorney Neale stated it would not be a problem to request both credit reports for review by the Board Richard White amended his motion: to approve continuing Ms. Nava's probation for a period of six months at which time she is to provide a current Business Credit Report and an updated personal credit report to the Board Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. BREAK: 9:51 AM RECONVENED: 10:02 AM VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Case 2011 -11: Duane O. Thomas (d /b /a Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC.) 4 161 2A8 December 21, 2011 Chairman Horn outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. • Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions. • Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness before the Board. • Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense as described previously, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: • Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. • If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. • After the matters are decided, the ChairNice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Case No. 2011 -11, Collier County License #24326, Board of County Commissioners vs. Duane O. Thomas, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn stated the information packet was entered into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • Duane Thomas was the qualifier of Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC. • Mr. Thomas, the Respondent, was present at the Hearing. • Violation: Ordinance #2006 -46, Section 4.1.18 — Proceeding on a job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division or the County Building Review and Permitting Department. Duane Thomas admitted he was "guilty as charged but with an explanation." Rob Ganguli presented the County's Case in Chief: • August, 2011 — the Contractors' Licensing Office was notified that a new seal wall at 617 Sunset Drive, Goodland, Florida, may have been built without a building permit • There was no record of a permit being issued in the County's databases • The property owner, Ronald E. Kahoun, was contacted 0 161,2 A8 December 21, 2011 • Mr. Kahoun verified in April 2011, he hired Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC, to remove an old seawall and to construct a new seawall for approximately $10,000 which was paid in full • Mr. Kahoun was unable to provide a copy of the contract because the document was in his home in Goodland and he was out -of -state at the time of the conversation • The property owner provided a signed statement dated August 31, 2011 (see "E-7") • August 26, 2011 — Mr. Ganguli met with Mr. Thomas and advised him of the violation. o Mr. Thomas stated the permitting discrepancy was caused by a delay on the part of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection which was to review the application prior to obtaining a building permit • The DEP was contacted to obtain a status of the application • Mark Miller, DEP Manager, responded via email that no application had been received from Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC (see "E -9 ") • After a recent check, a Collier County permit has been issued Duane Thomas presented his Case in Chief: • April, 2011 — He filed a Notice of Commencement • DEP penmits are registered online and his application was rejected by the system and thought it was a computer glitch • He hired Terrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. and presented a copy of a letter stating his application for review had been submitted through the State's online e- permitting process but he had never received a response • DEP approval was obtained on December 5, 2011 and he applied for a permit through Collier County • The County's permit was issued and a Final Inspection was conducted on December 20, 2011 • The seawall was broken and was an environmental hazard which is why he proceeded with the construction of the new seawall even though he had not yet obtained a permit from Collier County Mr. Thomas noted he had two other blemishes (from Marco Island) on his record in addition to the current issue. Chairman Horn moved to approve admitting the letter from Turrell, Hall & Associates, dated December 20, 2011, as Defense Exhibit "A." Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. In response to a question concerning the process, Mr. Thomas explained Collier County requires either a DEP Permit or a letter of exemption before applying for a permit from the County. He stated the application can be submitted online and the fee is $100. The existing seawall had failed. He filed a Notice of Commencement 162 Ao� December , with the County stating he was constructing a replacement seawall. He stated he was not trying to hide anything. He had obtained an engineering review and the requirement documentation to obtain a permit. He did not understand why his application had not been reviewed and hired Terrell, Hall and Associates to pursue the matter with the State. Patrick White asked the Respondent for documentation that the seawall had been inspected and had passed. Mr. Thomas stated the permit was issued on December 20 and he retrieved it. He did not have documentation of the inspection. Chairman Horn asked the Respondent if he was required to submit anything further. Mr. Thomas confirmed he was required to submit an Engineer's letter before he would be issued a Certificate of Completion. The Chairman also asked if the Respondent had received a formal answer from the DEP concerning the delay and the response was "no." Patrick White asked if T#rrell, Hall received an explanation concerning the delay and the response was "no." The Respondent stated he paid T,errell, Hall & Associates approximately $750 for their assistance to settle the matter. Rob Ganguli stated he notified the DEP of the construction of the seawall prior to obtaining permission but there were no repercussions. Thomas Lykos asked the Respondent what was the urgency and why did he skip the permitting process to begin construction. Duane Thomas replied the seawall was down. The location was a mobile home park which did not have any other protection. It had failed. The homeowner called him on a daily basis. Mr. Thomas stated the owner would have lost his mobile home. He further stated the City of Marco Island had no jurisdiction. Chairman Horn stated if he considered the situation to be a "Health/Safety and Welfare" issue, he should have contacted the County for assistance and advice. The Respondent stated he had used the same process many times before and thought the exemption would be issued without a problem — "it was a no- brainer." Patrick White stated there appeared to be a glitch in the system due to a prior application submitted to the State in 2008 by another contractor for the same location. Vice Chairman Joslin concurred. Patrick White asked Rob Ganguli about the two prior incidents on Marco Island and any formal outcome or conclusion. Mr. Ganguli stated a "Cease and Desist" Order was issued in each instance. Michael Ossorio stated the Respondent could have contacted the County Building Official and an accommodation would have been made, i.e., an "At Risk" Permit, to allow him to begin work on the seawall while waiting for documentation from the DEP. Chairman Horn asked the Respondent if he remembered signing a "Cease and 8 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 Desist" in the two previous cases and the response was "no." Rob Ganguli asked the Respondent if he constructed a seawall at 617 Sunset Drive in Goodland without obtaining a permit. The Respondent replied "yes." There were no "Closing Statements" from either the County or the Respondent. Chairman Horn moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Attorney Neale outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g)(5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of this matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay by itself is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in Civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the only ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in • support of the charges set out in the Complaint. 161 ZA8 December 21, 2011 Chairman Horn noted the Respondent admitted his guilt. Patrick White moved that a Finding of Violation consistent with the Staffs Administrative Complaint in Ordinance 2006 -46, as amended, Section 4.1.18, has been determined based upon the evidence presented. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Attorney Neale stated Sanctions were set out in Section 22- 203(b) (1) of the County's Ordinance, as follows: (1) Revocation of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (2) Suspension of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County Certificate of Competency; (4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and/or participating in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity. Any period of probation or continuing education program ordered by the CL Board may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed to consider said purpose. (5) Restitution; (6) A fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000); (7) A public reprimand; (8) Re- examination requirement; (9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building permits or requiring the issuance of permits with specific conditions; (10) Reasonable legal and investigative costs for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Neale continued in imposing the Sanctions, the Board shall consider the following: (1) The gravity of the violation; (2) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (3) Any actions taken by the Respondent to correct the violation; (4) Any previous violations committed by the Respondent, and (5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation. (6) The Board shall issue a recommended penalty to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board. (7) The penalty recommended may include: a. No further action; b. A recommendation of suspension or revocation; c. Restriction; and/or d. A fine to be levied by the State Board. 10 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 Chairman Horn requested recommendations from the County. Michael Ossorio stated Staff recommended imposition of: • A fine of $500 for administrative costs, to be paid within 30 days; • A fine of $1,000 to be paid within 90 days. and • A six -month probationary period; He further stated it not necessary to notify the State since the Respondent was a locally- licensed marine contractor. Terry Jerulle disagreed with the County's recommendation, calling for stronger penalties. Vice Chairman Joslin stated if the situation had occurred only once it might be a different issue, but it happened twice. Another issue was the extended period of time between when the job was started and a permit was finally obtained. Thomas Lykos asked the Respondent how many projects he completed during a one - year period and the response was "150." He cited a recent experience and detailed that it was handled through phone calls to the County and by a personal inspection of the job site. He stated he consulted the Building Official who made decisions about the existing conditions on the job site and the permitting process moved forward. He continued the Respondent had two previous violations, regardless of how he tried to justify his actions. He stated the Respondent chose to work in marine construction and to complain about how difficult it was to deal with the DEP was irrelevant. He has to work within the regulations of his industry. Mr. Jerulle reiterated the point was the Respondent should not have started any work without first obtaining a permit or direction from the County. Jon Walker asked the Board Members what type of message did they want to send in the case and was the fine recommended by Staff appropriate. Patrick White agreed that a strong message should be sent. He pointed out there were no previous violations — a "Lease and Desist" Order was not a violation. Mr. Thomas argued that he tried to obtain a permit — made several attempts — and he was not a habitual offender. He stated he did not try to "beat" the system, he did file a Notice of Commencement, and to be made a "scapegoat" for the errors of other contractors was wrong. He admitted he failed by not contacting Collier County but he did pay over $700 to 'Terrell to fix the problem when he should have been able to obtain his exception from DEP online. He was not the problem. DEP's system failed. Terry Jerulle stated the Board agreed the Respondent started the process but he still failed by starting work without obtaining a permit. The Respondent started and finished the seawall and did nothing else until he was caught. Mr. Thomas said the record shows that a permit was applied for and to say he did not do it was not true. He stated the Board said it wanted to send a message and asked why he had to be the one. Mr. Lykos reminded the Respondent the message was being sent to him because he didn't take any action to clear up the DEP situation until after he was caught by the County. The Respondent stated he kept trying to resolve the situation but didn't have the technical capability and that is why he hired Terrell & Associates as a last effort to do 11 161 December 21 2O1 what he should have been able to do online. Patrick White stated his opinion may not be in alignment with other members of the Board. He reviewed the points to be considered before imposing Sanctions. He further stated, in reverse order, the County did not prove there were prior violations and no documents of a "Cease and Desist" Order were provided. There has been conflicting testimony. He stated the Reyndent took as much corrective action as he possibly could before consulting ATel� Associates. As for the "impact," the Respondent acknowledged and under tood — the learning of the lesson. As for the "gravity" of the violation, he correchat otherwise would have been a personal property loss that could have become a health/safety /welfare issue from the sand washing into an area where it should not be — thus, the reason for the seawall. He stated the $1,000 fine seemed excessive and he did not understand the point of probation since the Respondent conceded what he has learned — he admitted he should have called the County. He cautioned if the Respondent ever were to come back before the Board with the same violation, the penalty will be severe. A prolonged discussion ensued. The points covered were that the Respondent's work product was not at issue — there were no complaints about his workmanship. The issue was his inability to obtain a permit before starting work and the Respondent's f,&ilt�t -wX+mtto follow the County's regulations. Michael Ossorio explained the different levels of probation. A motion made by Patrick White failed by a vote of 6 (opposed) to 3 (in favor). Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions: • A fine of $2,500 to be paid within 90 days, • A one-year probation during which time the Respondent is to report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor; • A $500 fine for investigative costs to be paid within 30 days • No recommendation to the State • If a second violation occurs during the probationary period, the Respondent's license will be suspended Second by Jon Walker. Terry Jerulle asked if requiring the Respondent to notify the Supervisor of each job would place an unnecessary burden on him. Michael Ossorio stated the Respondent can report his jobs by phone. It was suggested to amend the motion to state that the Supervisor will determine the terms of the job reporting. Vice Chairman Joslin accepted the suggestion and amended his motion accordingly. Second by Jon Walker. Motion carried, 7— "Yes " /2 — "No. "Kyle Lantz and Patrick White were opposed. 12 1612A8 December 21, 2011 Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on before the Contractors' Licensing Board on December 21 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against Duane O. Thomas, d/b /a Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC, the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 24326. • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issues its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact. • Duane O. Thomas is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 24326. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • The Respondent, Duane O. Thomas, was present at the Public Hearing held on December 21, 2011. • The Respondent, John Dennis Below, was not represented by Counsel. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I, under Section 4.1.18, "Proceeding on any joh without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division, or the County Building Review and Permitting Department, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: • The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: o The Respondent violated Section 4.1.18 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Orders of the Board: • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 9 in favor and zero in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. 13 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 7 in favor and 2 in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary actions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 24326. • Sanctions: • Payment of administrative costs of $500 within thirty days, • Payment of a fine of $2,500 within ninety days, • Imposition of a one -year probationary period during which time the Respondent is to report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor who will determine the reporting terms. • During the probationary period, if there are any violations, the Respondent will be placed on suspension until the next Board meeting • No notification will be made to the State. BREAK: 11:40 AM RECONVENED: 11:50 AM VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Continued) A. Case 2011 -10: John Dennis Below (d/b /a AllState Aluminum of SWFL, Inc.) Chairman Horn noted the Respondent was not present. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, verified that Respondent had been properly served notice of the Hearing. Patrick White moved to open the Public Hearing. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn moved to approve entering Case No. 2011 -10, Collier County License #33911, Board of County Commissioners vs. John Dennis Below, into evidence. Second by Patrick Wliite. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn stated the information packet was entered into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Michael Ossorio stated: He contacted the Respondent on December 20 and advised him of the Hearing. Mr. Below requested that Mr. Ossorio speak to the Board on his behalf and "do what you wish." Mr. Below was embarrassed and understood that he was in serious trouble. • Mr. Below was advised to hire an attorney but he stated he did not want to do so. 14 161 Z8 December 21, 2011 • Mr. Below's license is considered to be "inactive" for insurance purposes • Mr. Below stated he will dissolve the corporation and sell his company's truck. He will work under the license of a General Contractor in the future. Mr. Ossorio recommended revoking Mr. Below's license. Chairman Horn read the following portion from page E -33 of the County's Exhibit: "Order of the Board" 1. Probation for a period of twelve (12) months whereby the Respondent will perform his contracting activities under the supervision of the Board. During which time, should the Respondent violate the Ordinance in any respect, his license will be immediately suspended and a hearing on the suspension and violations shall be held at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting. " Thomas Keegan stated: • John Dennis Below is the qualifier of A11State Aluminum of SWFL, LLC, • John Dennis Below is the holder of record of Collier County License Certificate Number 33911 • Mr. Below is charged with three counts of violating Section 4.1.18 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, to wit: Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspection from the City Building and Zoning Division or the County Building and Review %Permitting Department. • Violations occurred at the following addresses: 0 355 Cypress Way W., Naples, FL 0 33122 nd Street SE, Naples, FL 0 7525 Garibaldi Court, Naples, FL • Mr. Below is also charged with one count of violating Section 4.1.2 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, to wit: Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his /her competency as listed on his /her card, and defined in this Ordinance or as restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board. • The violation occurred at 7527 Garibaldi Court, Naples, FL Mr. Keegan read his Summary (Pages E7 and E8) into the record: • October 25, 2011: A complaint was received regarding erection of two screen cages without a permit and a site visit was conducted • October 27, 2011: Meeting at Contractors' Licensing Office with Michael Ossorio, the Respondent, and Investigator Keegan. 15 612A8 December 21, 2011 • A Notice of Hearing was issued to the Respondent for two charges of commencing work without a building permit at 331 22nd St. SE and 335 Cypress Way W., and he was ordered to obtain all necessary after - the -fact permits. • November 8, 2011: A "Stop Work" Order was posted at 7527 Garibaldi Court and a copy of the contract was received • November 10, 2011: A new Notice of Hearing was sent for the two new charges of commencing work without a building permit and for working outside the scope of his license. The Notice was signed for on 11/23/11. • November 21, 2011: The owner at 7527 called the Contractors' Licensing Office to report a violation of the "Stop Work" Order — the job was finished by AllState Aluminum of SWFL, Inc. Mr. Keegan confirmed a permit had been issued for 33122 "d Street, but the permit application for Cypress Way was rejected due to conflicting information between the architect and the engineer. No permit was issued for the Garibaldi location. In response to a question from the Board, Michael Ossorio confirmed both the fine and the fee for investigative costs had been paid by the Respondent. Attorney Neale confirmed the Board can revoke the Respondent's license as well as impose fines. Patrick White moved to approve finding that a violation occurred, consistent with Staffs Administrative Complaint under Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 4.1.18 and Section 4.2.1, respectively. He also moved to approve closing the Hearing. Second by Kyle Lantz. The Motion to close the Hearing was carried, 9 — 0. The Motion to declare the Respondent guilty of the violations was carried, 9 — 0. Attorney Neale stated the Charge to the Board was the same as in the previous case with the same issues with the addition of the 4th Count. He noted the Board would impose any one or all of ten different Sanctions, as explained in the previous case. Michael Ossorio outlined the County's recommendations: • Count I: imposition of a $5,000 fine • Count II: imposition of a $5,000 fine • Count III: imposition of a $5,000 fine • Count IV: imposition of a $5,000 fine • Revocation of the Respondent's Certificate of Competency • Public Reprimand (via press release issued by the Contractors' Licensing Office) Mr. Ossorio contacted with Suncoast Pools and all of job sites have been protected, i.e., new permits were applied for and a new aluminum contractor was hired. 16 1612 A8 December 21, 2011 Patrick White asked if any of the fines could be applied to make any homeowners whole. Attorney Neale explained the fines would be paid to the Board of County Commissioners and any disbursement would be under at its discretion. He stated the Contractors' Licensing Board could authorize that the Respondent make restitution. Michael Ossorio stated he was not aware if John Below contracted privately with homeowners or the extent of any potential damage. Jon Walker moved to accept and approve the County's recommendations regarding the imposition of Sanctions as follows: • Count I. imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Count II: imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Count III: imposition of a $5, 000 fine, • Count IV.• imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Revocation of the Respondent's Certificate of Competency, and • Public Reprimand (via press release issued by the Contractors' Licensing Office). Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on before the Contractors' Licensing Board on December 21 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against John Dennis Below is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 33911 • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issues its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findinzs of Fact: • John Dennis Below is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate Number 33911 • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • The Respondent, John Dennis Below, was not present at the Public Hearing held on December 21, 2011. • The Respondent, John Dennis Below, was not represented by Counsel. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Counts I through III, under Section 4.1.18, "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable 17 161 A� 8 cember 21, 2011 permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division, or the County Building Review and Permitting Department, " and as Count IV under Section 4.2.1, "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his /her competency as listed on his /her card, and defined in this Ordinance or as restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: • The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: o The Respondent violated Section 4.1.18, and Section 4.2.1 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Sections set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Orders of the Board. • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 9 in favor and zero in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 9 in favor, a unanimous vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary actions and related Orders are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 33911. • Sanctions imposed: • Section 4.1.18, Count I. imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Section 4.1.18, Count II: imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Section 4.1.18, Count III: imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Section 4.2.1, Count IV.- imposition of a $5,000 fine, • Revocation of the Respondent's Certificate of Competency, and • Public Reprimand (via press release issued by the Contractors' Licensing Office). IX. REPORTS: A. City of Naples — Interlocal Agreement: Michael Ossorio and Patrick White were contacted by the City of Naples to revise the Interlocal Agreement to be effective for a period of five years. B. Richard Joslin has given fifteen year of service to the Contractors' Licensing Board and is the longest serving member of the Board C. Attorney Neale has been the Board's attorney since August 1995 but will no longer continue in that capacity. His service has been greatly appreciated. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: Thomas Lykos stated the Board should have input concerning the selection of a new Attorney in the future. 18 1612A8 December 21, 2011 Chairman Horn nominated Attorney Patrick Neale for the County's Outstanding Service Award for approval by the Board of County Commissioners and requested Staff pursue the matter. Michael Ossorio stated the award was specifically for members who served on an Advisory Board. XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 12:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BO� Lee The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 201 f "as submitted" [_ I OR "as amended" [_1. 19 16 1 2 A 9 •.4 o �-71,W3 Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda BY. °• °••••• °• ° ° ° °••••••••• County Manager's Conference Room July 20, 2011 2:00 P.M. I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 6/8/11 D. Acceptance of the Insourcing /Outsourcing Subcommittee meeting minutes from 5/18/11 and 6/29/11 Fiala Hiller Henning II. Old Business Coyle /� Coletta .J C�- A. Update on the Capital Improvement Projects Study -Vlad Ryziw B. Update on FY 2012 Budget Process -Mark Isackson C. Update from the Insourcing /Outsourcing Study Subcommittee -Gina Downs D. Update from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee -Janet Vasey III. New Business IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments- V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is scheduled for Sept 21, 2011 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Misc. Comes: De: 51131 12 copies 10. 1612 A,9 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Minutes — July 20, 2011 2 p.m. Members Present: Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, Steve Harrison, Vlad Ryziw, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey. Members Excused: Gina Downs, Cheryl Pavlick, Leslie Prizant, Joe Wall and Rich Federman were excused. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was in attendance. Staff Present: Kelly Jones, Clerk's Office; Tom Wides, Operations Director Public Utilities; Jean Myers, Sheriff's Office; Norman Feder, Administrator Growth Management; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Mark Isackson, Director Corporate Finance and Management; Susan Usher, Senior Budget Analyst; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Harold Hall INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison confirmed the establishment of a quorum and called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. Approval of the Agenda for June 8, 2011: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the agenda, Janet Vasey seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the June 8, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Vlad Ryziw motioned to table the approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Janet seconded and group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the May 18, 2011 and June 29, 2011 Insourcing /Outsourcing Productivity Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: Because the members of the sub - committee were not present, the group decided to table the minutes to the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: Update on the Capital Improvement Projects Study: A copy of the preliminary capital project review subcommittee was in the handout packet for this meeting. Mark Isackson is reviewing the initial recommendations and is going to write some return comments and bring it back to the group. 1612A9 Update from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review: Janet told the group that the public utilities capital subcommittee was looking at the policies for replacement, the cutoff point until the equipment fails before we replace it, developing a capital improvement worksheet, sheets that expand each project, capital reserves, Fitch ratings, asset management project and changes in impact fees to user fees. The members of the sub - sub - committee are Vlad, Doug, Leslie, Gina and Janet. She said that the group would be visiting water and waste water sites to see what actually happens. This will be a 3 -4 month long project and she hopes to finish the final report in November. Norman said that pavement conditions and monitored every year and the most critical roads are scheduled to be done first. He also explained that there are 3 levels of performance in public utilities: the first being where everything is perfect, the second - everything running good and third - sewer in the streets. Update on the FY 2011 -12 Budget Process: Mark Isackson addressed the budget process and discussed economic growth. He said that on July 26, 2011 the tentative budget will go to the Board and the Board will determine the maximum millage rates which will be used for the property tax bills. The final budget hearings will be September 8t" and 22nd — both at 5:05 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: Arthrex: Commissioner Coletta informed the Committee that he expects Arthrex to make a decision about their expansion very soon. Steve Harrison told the group that Arthrex was having some difficulty finding trained workers to run their complicated machines. He also said that we should be going after medical tourism — we have a very large number of hip and knee replacements being done in Collier County. Public Comments: Harold Hall told the group that he comes to the meetings to give his thoughts based on firsthand experiences. Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Jim Gibson seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. September 21, 2011. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 02. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 2 161 2 A*9 . -i p 3071N Collier Count Government ; :;0 D Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room BY: ....................... September 21, 2011 2:00 P.M. I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 6/8/11 (continued form July 20, 2011; draft minutes section 1 -E have been corrected) D. Acceptance of the Insourcing /Outsourcing Subcommittee meeting minutes from 5/18/11 and 6/29/11 (continued from July 20, 2011) E. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from July All Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ II. Old Business Coletta C� A. Update from the Insourcing/Outsourcing Study Subcommittee -Gina Downs B. Quarterly report on Impact Fee Revenue -Amy Patterson C. Discussion regarding Impact Fee Indexing (Government Buildings, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, Law Enforcement, Parks, Library, Dependent Fire Districts, Emergency Medical Services) III. New Business A. Discussion regarding the report, Strategy for Strengthening Economic Development in Collier County IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments- V. Public Comment Misc. Corres: VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is scheduled for Oct 19, 2011 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Dab: -1 lb ( IZ ftn t l ( '-V 2, lA' COPWS to: 1612 A9 -0 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Minutes — September 21, 2011 2 p.m. Members Present: Steve Harrison, Jim Gibson, Joe Swaja, Doug Fee, Vlad Ryziw, Gina Downs, Cheryl Pavlick, Leslie Prizant, Rich Federman and Joe Wall. Members Excused: Janet Vasey was excused. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was in attendance. Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director CRA; Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office; Norman Feder, Administrator Growth Management; Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator Growth Management; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Amy Patterson, Manager Impact Fees; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Harold Hall and Chuck Mohlke. INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison confirmed the establishment of a quorum and called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Approval of the Agenda for September 21, 2011: Gina Downs motioned to approve the agenda, Vlad Ryziw seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the June 8, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Joe Wall motioned to approve the minutes, Joe Swaja seconded and group unanimously approved. Approval of the July 20, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Vlad Ryziw seconded and group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the May 18, 2011 and June 29, 2011 Insourcing /Outsourcing Productivity Subcommittee Meeting Minutes: Gina Downs motioned to accept the minutes of both meetings, Doug Fee seconded and the group unanimously approved. 1 1612A9 OLD BUSINESS: Update on the Insourcing /Outsourcing Study: Gina Downs addressed the group regarding the progress of the sub - committee, and the beneficial contributions of the administrators. She said there was more outsourcing than expected being performed throughout all departments in the county. Steve Harrison asked about payroll outsourcing. Mike Sheffield stated that he recalled that the Productivity Committee had previously discussed the functions of the Clerk in regard to payroll and had decided that outsourcing payroll was an inefficient option. Mike said he would find a report from awhile ago and forward it to the committee members. Gina said that she will report back in November with additional information. Impact Fee Review: Amy Patterson passed out a report on impact fee revenue for the past several years and recapped the highlights for the group. She also gave a brief overview of impact fee calculation for the benefit of the new members. She stated that most activity is coming from the residential side, not commercial. The impact fee indexing starts on October 1St, following the regular program. She will bring more information back to the November meeting. She said that Parks will feel the effects because of the land based fees. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion on the report, Strategy for Strengthening Economic Development in Collier County: Steve Harrison asked the group if it was possible for everyone to agree on "what Collier County wanted to be when it grew up ". He proceeded to review the report compiled by KMK Consulting, and it was noted that the Productivity Committee was specifically mentioned on page 22 of the report. There was group discussion regarding attracting large non - retail businesses into Collier County. Steve reviewed his implications for Collier County Government. A sampling of issues that were discussed: • Should Lee & Collier County be working together to bring in jobs? • The creation of a capital investment fund. • A dedicated funding mechanism and proof that Collier will benefit. • Could EDC work from Horseshoe Drive? • We should be going to the press with good news. • We need a public information campaign. Steve stated that Hodges University is conducting a comparative analysis of economic incentives by county, and asked Leslie to review and report back to the Productivity Committee at an upcoming meeting. 2 1612 A9 'a Gina Downs motioned that Steve should attend the BCC /EDC workshop on September 23 to represent the Productivity Committee, and express the Productivity Committee's willingness to assist. Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously approved. Steve stated that the Productivity Committee should hear the County's long -term vision for managing assets. Mike stated that he will arrange for a presentation of the asset management system for the November meeting. Steve further requested that the Productivity Committee receive a briefing on the situation with the Housing and Human Services Department. Mike will arrange. Sunshine Workshop: Mike informed the group that a Sunshine Workshop is being held on October 3, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in the third floor boardroom. He said that all members who had not already gone to this workshop should plan to attend. Public Comments: Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Jim Gibson seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wed. October 19, 2011. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 161 z A9 --i Collier County Government o Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda �- I., 0 1Q1 County Manager's Conference Room October 19 2011 2:00 P.M. BY' ...................... I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 9/21/11 D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcomm' Veeting minutes from 7/20/11, 8/10/11, 8/30/11, and 9/28/11 Fiala Hiller Henning II. Old Business Coyle Coletta 3� A. Report from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee -Janet Vasey B. Update regarding the BCC Economic Development Workshop held on Sept 23, 2011 - Steve Harrison III. New Business A. Follow -up regarding the Prod Cmt's recommendation to the BCC from 2009 in regard to an Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court (signed /approved July 27, 2010). IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments A. Upcoming term expirations: Steve Harrison, Janet Vasey, Joe Swaja, Doug Fee, Jim Gibson, and Vlad Ryziw V. Public Comment VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is scheduled for November 16, 2011 at 2 m in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Misc. Cow. Date: -bI l'b(17- Item #: t is S 2 A c C: -oies to: 1612 A19 , COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Minutes — October 19, 2011 2 p.m. Members Present: Steve Harrison, Jim Gibson, Janet Vasey, Joe Swaja, Vlad Ryziw, Gina Downs, Cheryl Pavlick, Rich Federman and Joe Wall. Members Absent: Doug Fee and Leslie Prizant. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was in attendance. Staff Present: Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts; Chrystal Kinzel, Finance Director Clerk of Courts; Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Connie Murray, Clerk of Courts; Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office; Jamie French, Manager Growth Management;; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Harold Hall and Joyce Fletcher. INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison confirmed the establishment of a quorum and called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Approval of the Agenda for October 19, 2011: Vlad Ryziw motioned to approve the agenda, Joe Swaja seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the September 21, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Joe Swaja motioned to approve the minutes, Vlad Ryziw seconded and the group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the July 20, 2011, August 10, 2011, August 30, 2011 and September 28, 2011 Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee meeting minutes: Janet Vasey motioned to accept the minutes of all the above listed meetings, Gina seconded and the group unanimously accepted. OLD BUSINESS: Report from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee: Janet Vasey informed the group that the study has wrapped up and she has started to draft the final report. She will forward the draft report to the members of the sub - committee for review prior to the next subcommittee meeting, with the 1612 A9 goal presenting the final report to the Productivity Committee at the November 16th meeting. Update regarding the BCC Economic Development Workshop held on September 23, 2011. The Committee discussed the closure of the EDC. Steve stated that the Chamber of Commerce has taken some of the functions previously performed by the EDC. The Board authorized the County Manager to proceed with the process of hiring an Economic Development Director who will work closely with Jamie French and Nick Casalanguida to navigate new entrants into the market. Steve said that Hodges University is conducting a study to identify where redundancies exist in government. Vlad Ryziw asked who is maintaining roles, responsibilities and relationships in the community. Commissioner Coletta stated that there must be clear direction from the Board as to the role of this new director. Janet Vasey suggested that whoever is placed into the new position should be someone who is currently a person of stature in the community and someone who has pull with big organizations, not just an internal promotion. Rich stated that an advisory group is essential. Mike Sheffield stated that the County Manager is currently drafting a job description, and he'll provide a copy to the Productivity Committee when it's complete. NEW BUSINESS: Status of Interlocal Agreement between the Clerk of Courts and the Board of County Commissioners: Steve stated that two years ago, the Productivity Committee had recommended an interlocal agreement between the Board and the Clerk of the Courts. The interlocal agreement was signed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 27, 2010. Dwight Brock spoke to the group regarding the interlocal agreement, turn back money, and the many functions of the Clerk. Mr. Brock stated that his staff has a close working relationship with Budget staff. Commissioner Coletta stated that the County Manager has informed him that the interlocal agreement is functioning well. Recording BCC meetings: Steve stated that he and Mike Sheffield had considered the reasoning behind the County contracting with an outside company to take verbatim minutes when all of the BCC and Planning Commission meetings are videotaped and audio recorded. Is this redundant? Mike stated that the City of Naples Council takes summary minutes. Mike stated that last year, the County paid just over $54,000 for verbatim minutes for the BCC meetings. Steve stated that text form is important for word searches. Gina stated that verbatim minutes are important so the stenographer can read back motions to the Board. The cost savings wouldn't justify the elimination. 2 1612 A9 Expiring Terms: Mike Sheffield reviewed the list of members whose terms are expiring soon. Several members expressed the desire for the Productivity Committee to take on larger, more significant projects. Public Comments: Joyce Fletcher of the League of Woman Voters said she would like to see the Productivity Committee meetings videotaped. Harold Hall said that the committee is too good of a group to become negative. Adjournment: Steve Harrison motioned to adjourn the meeting, Gina Downs seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on November 16, 2011. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 3 16L2 A" # .+ ovei Nr 2, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING p 30311d3 DEC 1 3 2011 November 2, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller Henning f. oyle ✓ Vice Chair: David Dunnavant James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Blair Foley George Hermanson David Hurst Robert Mulhere Reed Jarvi Excused: Marco Espinar Reagan Henry Mario Valle William Varian, Chairman Absent: Ray Allain ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison misc. Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Date: �) 3) 12, Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Kenneth Rech, P.E., Director — Environmental Health/Engineering item it I U-X :2 ►4 % Fred Reischl, Zoning Division Copies to: 1 4 '• ;. 1612 410 November 2, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman David Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM in the absence of Chairman Varian. The Vice Chair reminded the Committee and attendees to change their cell phones to "silent" ring. A quorum was established. Nine members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Blair Foley moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (George Hermanson arrived at 3:05 PM.) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 5, 2011 Meeting: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes for the October S 2011 meeting as presented. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Gary Harrison, Building Code Official, stated he would retire on December 2, 2011, after seventeen years of employment with Collier County. He has been in the construction industry for forty (40) years. He thanked the DSAC Members for their support over the years. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION — STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities Division: Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities • Gravity Sewer: Maximum depth requirement of 10 feet o Correction: Announcement as "new policy" during October meeting was incorrect • Will be reviewed by Utilities Discussion Group on November 15'' and at January meeting • Feedback was not positive at October meeting • Options /alternatives were requested • Will be brought back to DSAC at a future meeting for vetting after consensus has been reached concerning maximum depth requirement Blair Foley suggested convening a meeting of the DSAC/Utilities Subcommittee to discuss possible options. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted the Utilities Department had, in the past, provided a copy of changes to the entire Utilities Standards Manual for review by DSAC. There was too much information to review and decisions were made without input from Industry. He stressed the importance for DSAC's Civil Engineers to participate in the Subcommittee meetings. Blair Foley volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. Vice Chairman Dunnavant suggested that Laura De John and George Hermanson request the assistance of the members from their respective firms. Clay Brooker asked about availability of Staff to schedule meetings. 1612 A 1� I ovember 2, 2011 Judy Puig noted a presentation on the LDC Amendments was scheduled and a subcommittee to hear those changes would also be necessary. Nathan Beals suggested waiting until the December meeting to discuss the issue and schedule meetings for the DSAC/Utilities Subcommittee in January or February. James Boughton requested a brief synopsis concerning why the issue was under consideration. Nathan Beals stated the issue was the creation of requirement for a maximum depth for a gravity sewer. The problem is the shallow water table in Collier County. If a gravity sewer is 20 feet below grade, maintenance may become difficult for staff or a contractor. Currently, a maximum depth has not been specified. The minimum depth for water mains and force mains is 36- inches. Vice Chairman Dunnavant asked why Industry was concerned about the suggested ten -foot depth. David Hurst noted the suggest depth of ten feet from finished grade would mandate installing more pump stations — imposing additional costs on a developer and, possibly, on Collier County for maintenance. He noted analysis has not been performed and a specified maximum depth has not been required elsewhere in Southwest Florida. He suggested there may have been an over - reaction to an incident. Vice Chairman Dunnavant stated there were concerns about how often repairs would be needed and the cost per pump station of approximately $120,000. The cost of adding more pump stations could significantly impact a project. David Hurst stated the average depth requirement is approximately fifteen feet. There have been cases where more depth was required, depending on geographic surroundings. B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office (Excused) • Monthly Activity Report was submitted for September 2011. o Plan Reviews conducted: 746 (August total — 899) C. Transportation Planning Division: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering • Davis /Collier Project: The groundbreaking ceremony was held o Lanes will be increased (from 4 to 8 and from 2 to 6 on Collier) o Collier County advanced funds to begin construction and will be reimbursed by the State (approximately $20M) in July 2012 o The total cost is approximately $28M • Golden Gate Blvd. Project: [Design/build for two bridges] The deadline for submission of bids is November 7 • White Blvd. Project: [two bridges] Preparation of bids is in process and will be advertised by the end of November Vice Chairman Dunnavant requested a status report concerning discussions of a study to consider a fly -over at 951 and South Tamiami Trail. Mr. Ahmad stated a "PD &E" (Plan Development & Environmental) Re- evaluation Study is in process. An overpass was not recommended initially at the intersection. Widening the intersection was proposed as an interim solution while preparing the intersection for a future overpass (at 951 over US 41). The Re- evaluation has been in process for approximately 1 1/2 years. Final submission will be in February 2012. He noted the projected growth did not occur and developments have not been built. }- 1612, 1 November 2, 2011 D. Planning and Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • Will provide permit activity figures via email Inspection requests have increased • Staffing issues —due to illness and time away from job • Budget office has agreed to hire 3 additional inspectors as "job bankers" for the next 6 months (through "season ") Interviewing has begun for Gary Harrison's position • Will hire 1 - Structural, 1— Electrical, and 1 - Mechanical Inspector from the job bank • Attempted to hire a Senior Planner from the job bank but the City of Marco offered him a position as a City Planner • Chris Scott has been hired from the private sector — he is familiar with the Land Development Codes and will assist with update of Administrative Code • Re: "CityView" o PORTAL is live, functioning at 99% and the application is working VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. Update: Audit of CC Health Department by State of Florida — Kenneth Rech, P.E., Director, Environmental Health/Engineering • The Audit Report was initially discussed at the June 1, 2011 meeting. • Met with representatives from Tallahassee who were to review the Audit o A written report has not yet been received • Some of the changes discussed during the Audit have been implemented • Previously: if the square footage of a house had been increased ( "Work by Affidavit"), the existing septic system could not be used • Change: If the system is within one time size [adheres to the parameters of the Code] and functional — it can be certified as adequate, or the drain field can be certified and expanded • Previously: Could not add onto existing septic tanks • Change: Individual cases were referred to the State Variance Committee which either approved the system "as is" or the tanks "as is" Ken Rech noted there were other issues, such as setbacks from Tidal Influence Waters and from wetlands, different surface bodies of water on properties — the rules have been released and the Mean High Water Lines set by elevation can be approved. There has been additional training in "Soils" and "Wet Season Water Tables" which he stated was beneficial. Blair Foley noted a number of issues in the Audit were based on individual Inspector's opinions and sections of the Code had not been specifically cited. He asked if the Health Department had received any assurances that procedures would not be modified again in the near future. Mr. Rech stated the rules have basically been set regarding operation of the program. He stated more points had been assigned to Collier County. The next Audit will take place in three years. The Code views the State as "uniform" and the Inspectors had not i, 1612 A 10 November 2, 2011 taken the various regions into account. The Septic Rules are anticipated to be reviewed, revised, and clarified. Blair Foley asked if a policy statement would be issued to either retract or clarify earlier positions. Ken Rech noted policies and updates continue to be issued. He referenced Sea Walls in particular — i.e., a surveyor's report is not necessary to determine the high water line because DEP data may be used. The variance process costs $200 for residential properties and $300 for commercial. Under consideration: allowing Regional Health Departments to issue variances, eliminating the additional cost and time delays (approximate 30 -day turnaround) of the State's process. VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Report on Inter - Departmental Charges — Jamie French Vice Chairman Dunnavant suggested deferring the topic to the December Meeting Agenda. He noted the information for the topic was contained in the packet sent to the Members for their review. B. LDC Amendment Updates and Subcommittee Formation — Fred Reischl and Caroline Cilek, Zoning Division • A list of the draft Amendments was distributed to the Committee and is also available on line An email will be sent outlining the time line for the review process The Amendments will be presented to the various Advisory Committees (Planning Commission, etc.) and to the Board of County Commissioners in 2012 • DSAC was requested to activate the LDC Subcommittee to begin the vetting process (Committee size: 5) • The goal is to meet twice in November and December, then return to the full DSAC Committee in January o Volunteers: ■ Clay Brooker (current Subcommittee President) • Reed Jarvi • Marco Espinar (environmental specialist) was suggested • David Dunnavant • Robert Mulhere Committee Questions: Reed Jarvi: Will there be a change to the well fields again this year? A. (Caroline Cilek) It is a GMP (Growth Management Plan) mandated process. (Fred Reischl) It takes approximately three years to complete the Study to map the lines, then another Study begins. Robert Mulhere suggested removing the maps from the LDC and utilizing a separate instrument. There was a free - standing Well Field Protection Ordinance but it was incorporated. The Zoning maps indicate whether or not a property falls within a well field protection zone. Clay Brooker: What does "place holder" mean? A. (Caroline Cilek) A draft is in process but was not ready to go online — additional input may be required. 16 I 4..A',1,0 Vice Chairman Dunnavant: Has the CBIA- requested input been incorporated? A. (Fred Reischl) Some have been incorporated— others required additional research. (Caroline Cilek) We will meet with the CBIA to discuss the changes and they are working on some changes. A meeting has been scheduled for November 11 to review the Amendments. Vice President Dunnavant noted he was informed some of CBIA's initial proposals had been dismissed. Who made the determination — Staff and CBIA or just Staff? Fred Reischl confirmed the proposed changes were shown to the applicable Staff who offered their opinions. Caroline Cilek noted the submissions from CBIA have been included for review by the Subcommittee. Staff will also review and make recommendations. Vice Chairman Dunnavant: What is the status of the Administrative Code? Fred Reischl: It is on the "back burner" behind the LDC. Jamie French: We have taken a different approach and are bringing Chris Scott to work with Caroline directly so they are not in conflict with one another. Both are highly visible projects with due dates. As the LDC updates are pushed forward, Chris Scott will collect research and work with groups on the "Admin" side. We want to hear from our customer and the Industry before we move forward. Caroline Cilek stated a number of the Amendments were from Chapter 10 which will be incorporated into the Administrative Code. Fred Reischl noted the Planning Commission was promised that the Administrative Code would not contain any substantive changes. Robert Mulhere stated there is still a problem with the Land Development Code that will not be "fixed" by the Administrative Code, i.e., in changing from the "old" LDC to the "new" LDC, statements were made that there were no substantive changes — it was re- arranged to make it easier to use, yet people revert back to the "old" LDC to find out what to do and then search for it in the new LDC. "We still have a problem." Things were left out. The LDC is not user - friendly. Creating a completely new LDC is the way to solve the problem. Clay Brooker noted someone had been hired to "re -do" the "re -do." Robert Mulhere confirmed the firm of Tyson -Smith had been hired to work on the Administrative Code. Fred Reischl stated information in the re- vamped Chapter 10 will be self - contained and checking other areas of the Code will not be necessary. Robert Mulhere conceded there will be less volume and possibly less of an issue using it. Vice Chairman Dunnavant summarized after the current LDC Cycle is finished, the Administrative Code will follow during 2012. It was noted that, if necessary, advertising /press releases of the updates will be done. The proposed Amendments are online at the Collier County website under the Land Development Code link. Jamie French explained the process: Planning Staff reviews the changes and add comments. Input is obtained from Industry. There will also be an Administrative Review as well. The intent is to accomplish the review as expeditiously as possible with as much active input from the groups as can be collected. 16 f �2 A 10 November 2, 2011 Fred Reischl noted the BCC directed that the process is to be "well noticed" to obtain as much public input as possible. Public meetings will be scheduled for mid - November, December and January. Suggestions were made to help track the proposed changes to the Amendments, i.e., dating each revision and/or color -code for each Advisory Committee. Clay Brooker noted the procedure has been chaotic. VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: • Schedule July 2012 Meeting Date (First Wednesday is July 4th Holiday) Judy Puig suggested changing the July meeting date to July 11, 2012 which is the second Wednesday of the month. Consensus: The date was accepted. David Hurst suggested the Members recommend to Civil Engineers or General Contractors specializing in underground work to attend the Public Utilities Discussion Group meetings. It is important to obtain their feedback. Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted one of the issues is the amount of water to be displaced during repairs. The concern is the deeper the County is required to dig after a project has been turned over, the public right -of -way may be exceeded. It may be necessary to request permission to go onto private property to make repairs. • Jamie French noted there are six vacancies for membership on DSAC. The positions have been advertised by the Commissioners' office and the form to apply /renew is available online. • The terms for the following members will expire at the end of December: • Ray Allain, Marco Espinar, Blair Foley, Laura DeJohn, and Mario Valle • Reagan Henry will not renew his membership. • Judy Puig will send an email outlining the roster of members and the disciplines represented. • It was noted the only way to reduce the number of members on the Committee is to petition the Board of County Commissioners who could approve changing the Ordinance. NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted.) December 7, 2011 January 4, 2012 February 1, 2012 March 7, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chair at 4:12 PM. 1612 110 i November 2, 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE �-' David Dunnavant, Vice The Minutes werN Approved by the Board/Committee on , 2011, "as submitted" OR "as amended" U. 8 16L.2A1U December 7, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMI r (19 d MEETING Q JAN L 1012 December 7, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Correa. bm COOS to: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Div. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager Robert Wiley, Project Manager — FEMA/Watershed Project Chairman: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant James Boughton Dalas Disney Fiala Marco Espinar Hiller — Blair Foley Henning George Hermanson Coyle ,l Coletta _ David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Excused: Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon De John Absent: Ray Allain Reagan Henry (Term Expired) ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Correa. bm COOS to: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Div. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager Robert Wiley, Project Manager — FEMA/Watershed Project 161 ZA 1U December 7, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:03 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Nine members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Changes: • Jamie French will present (A) under Item VII, "Old Business" and (B) under Item VIII, "New Business," following (D) under Item VI, "Staff Announcements." • Reed Jarvi suggested changing the Department name to Transportation Engineering under Item VI (C), "Staff Announcements" Marco Espinar moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Reed Jarvi. Carried unanimously. 9 — 0. (David Hurst arrived at 3:07 PM.) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —NOVEMBER 2,2011: Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes of the November 2, 2011 Meeting as presented. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Robert Where arrived at 3:10 PM.) IV. DSAC POSITION VACANCIES: Chairman Varian noted there were six vacancies. Five current members applied to be re- appointed to the Committee. The Members voted as follows: • Ray Allain — General Contractor David Dunnavant moved to accept Ray Allain's application for reappointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint him to DSAC. Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. • Laura Spurgeon DeJohn — Land Planner Marco Espinar moved to accept Laura DeJohn's application for reappointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint her to DSAC. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. • Blair Foley — Professional Engineer Marco Espinar moved to accept Blair Foley's application for reappointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint him to DSAC. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Mr. Foley abstained from voting.) 2 161,2 December 7, 2011 • Marco Espinar — Environmental/Biologist Dalas Disney moved to accept Marco Espinar's application for reappointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint him to DSAC. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Mr. Espinar abstained from voting.) • Mario Valle — General Contractor Robert Mulhere moved to accept Mario Valle's application for reappointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint him to DSAC. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 10 — 0. (Mr. Valle abstained from voting.) To fill the vacant position, the Members discussed the applicants and voted as follows: • Ronald Waldrop — Civil Engineer Robert Mulhere moved to accept Ronald Waldrop's application for appointment and to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to approve and appoint him to DSAC. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. Chairman Varian requested Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, to notify the Board of County Commissioners, via email, of DSAC's selections and recommendations. V. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) VI. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Gravity Sewer — Maximum Depth • Utilities Discussion Group met in November and various options were reviewed • The Discussion Group will meet during the 3rd week in January, 2012 • Will meet with representatives of the National Utility Contractors Association in December David Hurst suggested appointing a Subcommittee to review the maximum depth requirement for gravity sewers. He volunteered to chair the Subcommittee. It was noted the DSAC /Utilities Subcommittee had not been disbanded and could review the issue. Mr. Hurst will contact Nathan Beals and Judy Puig to schedule future Subcommittee meetings. B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report was submitted for October, 2011 • Plan Reviews conducted— 770 (September total — 746) 3 1 December 7 2011 C. Growth Management Division - Transportation Engineering: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director • Bids were opened (two bridges — Golden Gate Blvd. — design/build project) • Lowest bid - $4M — will present to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to award the contract • Bids are out for the White Blvd. bridge /23rd Street Bridge project— will be opened on December 15th . The total project will include improvements for 23rd Street. • A Public Information Meeting concerning the Wilson Blvd. Extension project will be held at New Hope Ministries on December 15th between 5:00 — 7:00 PM. Mario Valle requested an update concerning Oilwell Road. Mr. Ahmad stated the project is ahead of schedule and anticipated date of completion for the eastern section is April, 2012. D. Growth Management Division — Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management • Could not provide figures due to transitioning process with computer program • Activity for November: • Building Permits — 1,400 • Inspections — 4,500 • New Construction — 58 • Multi- family — 1 o Commercial — 1 • SDP /I Applications — 5 • SDP — 1 or 2 • Land Development Services — 75 transactions • Temporary Use Permits — 50 • City View — moving forward — identifying last 10 remaining issues to be resolved • Entering "Warranty /Maintenance" phase • Maintenance contract was approved by the BCC through 2015 ■ Budget - $140,000 per year Inter - Departmental Charges and Finger Printing/County Ordinance: • IT Support charges— $108,200 (Fund 113) o Dedicated support: database, "hosting" of vendors who have access to the computer system • County policy: Background checks are to be conducted and all vendors doing business with the County will be finger printed • Board - adopted Ordinance • Every department that deals with outside vendors who have access to the County's server must comply Q. What is the most cost effective method of providing protection? 4 . 16 A 10 December 7, 2011 A. Money will be moved from Operations to cover the expense of fingerprinting. If the background checks are sufficient, may not need to "host" the vendors. Chairman Varian noted an issue has been raised concerning installing ladders on the trucks used by Inspectors. The Building Code states it is the responsibility of the permit holder or contractor to supply a ladder for use when an inspection is scheduled. Collier County Risk Management's policy is that two employees are necessary when a ladder is required. Jamie French stated he does not have additional full -time staff to schedule if a ladder is required. He noted it will add time to conduct an inspection, and he has not budgeted the cost to hire an outside contractor in his budget. Nick Casalanguida stated he will recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to prohibit installation of ladders if supported by DSAC. Dalas Disney moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to not approve installation of ladders on the trucks used by County Inspectors due to the increased cost, risk, and exiting regulations. Second by Mario Valle. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. NEW TOPIC: PERMITTING Nick Casalanguida stated in an effort to improve services, if a Plan Review is not required, a contractor may be allowed to register the permit and pay for the inspection online. • BCC enacted an Ordinance exempting single - family homes from a number of permit requirements • Building Official must approve It was noted that SDP/DPL Reviews have been delayed due to the requirement to notify the School Board. Jamie French will research the issue. VII. OLD BUSINESS: B. DSAC/LDR Subcommittee — Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner — Land Development • Request to continue the LDR Subcommittee in January to review the Administrative Code • Reed Jarvi, Bob Mulhere, David Dunnavant, and Mario Espinar volunteer to continue to serve on the Subcommittee VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Impact Fee Indexing — Amy Patterson • 2011 Indexing Cycle • There were major reductions for almost all categories • Fire did not change — due to equipment costs • Law Enforcement — inventory and credit issues drove fees up 0 12/2010 —there was a 33% reduction o Phase II rate will be implemented — it is higher but it is not the full rate — the scheduled increase is less { A U ter• December 7, 2011 Robert Mulhere moved to accept Staffs report and recommendation regarding Impact Fee indexing calculations. Second by George Hermanson. Motion carried, 10 — "Yes " /1— "No." (George Hermanson left at 4:12 PM.) C. New Floodplain Mapping — Robert Wiley, Project Manager — FEMA/Watershed • Flood Risk Zone — "AH" — new category • Coastal Study — rainfall analysis — new model was used • Received FEMA's "Letter of Final Determination" on November 16, 2011 • Scheduled to present to BCC on January 24, 2012 o Have not received the final map from FEMA • Flood insurance requirements — established by FEMA — become effective in May • LOMA ( "Letter of Map Amendment ") Application — appeals process to new map elevations • Information will be available on the Floodplain webpage or FEMA's website IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: • Chairman Varian wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. NEXT MEETING DATES: • January 4, 2012 • February 1, 2012 • March 7, 2012 • April 4, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:20 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVI RY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Coipmittee Chair on , 2012 "as submitted" [_I OR "as amended" Co m } �. .- anuQ 4 2012 r} MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 30119VIE1 January 4, 2012 FEB I 1 t1 � r_ BY... ..................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: f 71/ {iili. r H,e slirg C ✓le Chairman: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon De John Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Ronald Waldrop Excused: Ray Allain David Hurst ALSO PRESENT: Norm Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Div. Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering Misc. Cares: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office DO. 3) 31 � 2 Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Claudine Auclair, Manager — Business Center Item 9 L Z 2.1=1 1 U Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator lo: Copies Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Land Development Services 1 I. II. III. A 10 t 1612 January 4, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Nine members were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chan: • The topic, "Election of Chairman and Vice Chair," was added to the Agenda as Item IV. Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 7, 2011: Changes: • Page 4, "fingerprinting" • Page 5, Mr. Disney's motion should read "existing regulations" • Page 5, under Item VII — B, "Old Business" — Marco Espinar volunteered to be a member of the Subcommittee Reed Jarvi moved to approve the Minutes of the December 7, 2011 Meeting as amended Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. (Clay Brooker and Laura DeJohn could not vote because they did not attend the December meeting. Ron Waldrop had not been appointed to the Committee member in December.) (Robert Mulhere arrived at 3:05 PM.) IV. LVA ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE - CHAIR: ADDED ITEM — PER AMENDED AGENDA) The floor was opened for nominations for Chairman. Dalas Disney nominated William Varian to serve as Chairman for the 2012 term. Second by Mario Valle. Mr. Varian accepted the nomination and the floor was closed. The motion carried, 9 — "Yes7] — "Abstention." Mr. Varian abstained from voting. The floor was opened for nominations for Vice - Chair. Blair Foley nominated David Dunnavant to serve as Vice Chair for the 2012 term. Second by Dalas Disney. Mr. Dunnavant accepted the nomination and the floor was closed. The motion carried, 9 — "Yes7] — "Abstention." Mr. Dunnavant abstained from voting. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) 2 ,4,v- A'lGry4,2012 VI. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Utilities Discussion Group did not meet in December o Will meet on January 17, 2012 • Utilities Standards met with representatives of the National Underground Contractors Association ( "NUCO ") to discuss the maximum depth of Gravity Sewers. New language was suggested and will be discussed by the Group at the January meeting. • Will propose a maximum depth of 15 feet • Requested that DSAC's Utilities Subcommittee not meet until March Blair Foley requested that Mr. Beals present a report on the discussion at DSAC's next meeting. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBER: (new Topic) Chairman Varian introduced Ronald Waldrop who was appointed to the Committee by the Board of County Commissioners. Ron Waldrop provided the following background information: • He has resided in Collier County since 1993 • He is a Civil Engineer • Waldrop Engineering Group specializes in Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture and planning (Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3:10 PM.) B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report was submitted for November, 2011 • Plan Reviews conducted— 641 (October total — 770) • Overtime hours were reimbursed by the contractor who requested an expedited review in a time - critical situation C. Transportation Engineering: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director, and Norm Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division • Sidewalk rental fees - $100 (off - season) and $200 (peak season) /per day • Approved by the Board of County Commissioners in June, 2007 • Fee is charged if a lane /sidewalk is closed to accommodate a developer or if a lane /side walk has remained closed when not necessary Norm Feder stated: • During the height of the construction boom, there were a number of lane closures • Initially, the Board was opposed to allowing any closures • Fees were charged to encourage closures only when necessary and, preferably, during the off -peak season • The goal was not to place the public in harm's way • If an alternate viable path could be established, a fee may not be charged t (George Hermanson arrived at 3:15 PM.) 161 z A 14 January 4, 2012 David Dunnavant noted confusion about the application and enforcement of assessing fees in the past and asked if the cost had been applied to all right -of -way permits since 2007. He further stated the inclusion of closure fees in right -of -way permits has been fairly recent. Norm Feder stated if an alternate route can been supplied, there was some discretion regarding application of a fee. He further stated the public contacts the County — not the developer — to complain when a sidewalk or a lane is closed. He continued it made more sense to assess a fee than to not allow any closures. Bob Mulhere stated the rationale was to make developers plan for a minimal amount of interruption, while recognizing there could be situations where closing sidewalks was necessary. Mr. Feder again stated the point was to encourage such closures only during off season and only for responsible, required closures. Mr. Dunnavant stated assessing fees was a response to a precarious situation in a high - density area that has been applied throughout the County even in low - density situations. He further stated by continuing to add fees to the development of properties, it becomes difficult to do work and difficult to determine total project costs for a potential client. The lane /sidewalk fees could add $2,000+ to a project. (James Boughton arrived at 3:20 PM.) Mr. Feder stated lane and /or sidewalk closings did impact the community and was the reason for imposing fees. Mr. Dunnavant summarized when a Permit is applied for and issued, it is standard operation to assess a fee for some period of time. Mr. Feder corrected the Permit provides for a fee if the developer cannot provide an alternative in the event of a closure. If the closure is only for a short period, a fee may not be assessed for the day. Mr. Dunnavant noted most driveway work is extensive and could not be completed in a day. Mr. Feder stated the County's concern was to ensure safe passage. George Hermanson cited an example where the use of signage on a project [indicating to pedestrians to cross the road and use the sidewalk on the opposite side] was satisfactory and a fee was not charged. Clay Brooker asked if the funds collected were used for a certain purpose or if the amount charged was simply an arbitrary number. Norm Feder responded the basic fee of $100 was significant enough to encourage people not to keep lanes or sidewalks closed simply because it was easier. The fee seems to be working. Mr. Brooker asked if the County used the money. Mr. Feder stated the money is funneled to the Permitting Group and contributes toward keeping permitting fees lower. Mr. Brooker stated that the fee was, essentially, a penalty and Mr. Feder agreed. A10 1612 January 4, 2012 Mario Valle asked if the money collected for the right -of -way permit/sidewalk closures is part of the Transportation budget. Norm Feder confirmed the funds remain within the Right -of -Way Permitting Group. Chairman Varian stated sections of sidewalks are being repaired or replaced along Golden Gate Boulevard and asked why they were being repaired or replaced. Norm Feder replied there were a number of different reasons but the primary reason was to ensure the walkways were not a trip hazard. Jay Ahmad continued his report: 951 /Davis Road Project: on schedule White Blvd. /23`d Street Bridge: received a number of bids which are in the process of being evaluated. The bids will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in February. D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, and Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division (A brochure was distributed to the Members by Claudine Auclair, Business Center Manager) Nick Casalanguida: • The brochure is the Growth Management Division's Year -End Report • Outlines what was accomplished in 2011 • Projected goals for 2012 • Broken out by Sections • Certain categories (fences, HVAC, replacement of hot water heaters, fixtures, sheds, roofing) required customers to submit plans for review — the completed projects were to be inspected and o In an effort to reduce lobby traffic and long waits, certain permits (like -kind replacements) may be requested on line and will be available within the next few months o Document: "Request for Inspection Permit" o Permit Fee: $75.00 o May be paid online by credit card or check • New construction permits are increasing o Takes significantly longer to process permits for new building Q. What percentage of permits could qualify as a "convenience permit ?" A. (Jamie French) Approximately 40 %. A/C swap -outs, for example, would qualify. The criteria are that a minimal amount of review time is required. Jamie French stated the New Building Code will be released in March. He was aware that wind loads have been increased significantly. The entire State of Florida will be considered as a "coastal community." He further stated the Fee Schedule will be revised and adjusted. 1612 10 I A, A January 4, 2012 Dalas Disney confirmed wind speeds are increasing in the new Code but noted wind pressure has been reduced. He related a personal experience of sitting in the lobby for thirty minutes and it appeared that some front counter clerks were not assisting customers. He asked why not and what are their assigned tasks. Jamie French stated certain Staff are assigned to appointments but will also handle walk -in customers if the appointment is cancelled. An appointment with a developer for a new project is lengthy. Permit runners submit several applications at once. It may take up to two hours to review the documents. Front counter personnel handle in- person appointments as well as online applications. Re: "City View" Implementation Dalas Disney asked for an update linking various elements to parcels or address (including past permit requests for the location.) Nick Casalanguida stated Staff is in process to input all information which must be tied to a "City View" asset. Jamie French replied all of the legacy data once held in hard copy has been converted to a digital format. Items are still being scanned in the Records Room but there is only one person assigned. No "bridge" was designed between SIRE [the County's electronic management system] and "City View," but it is on the "to do" list. The goal is to enable the two systems to share from the same repository. Re: Building Official search Jamie French noted: • an interview panel was formed • approximately 10 applicants were screened • the top three candidates were interviewed • decided to search for more applicants • the new application period will close on January 12 • target date: hire candidate by February VII. OLD BUSINESS: (None) VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Introduction of Business Center Liaisons — Jamie French and Claudine Auclair, Business Center Manager • When the Business Center was established, a Code Enforcement component was missing o Renald Paul was hired as the Code Enforcement liaison • Mike Levy is the Land Development liaison • Paula Brethauer is the Building Department liaison • They will serve as the point of contact — and will identify repetitive problems /issues and seek solutions 16f2 A 10 January 4, 2012 B. LDR Subcommittee Recommendations — LDC Amendments, 2012 Cycle: Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator, and Clay Brooker Clay Brooker, LDR Subcommittee Vice Chair: • The LDR Subcommittee met five times and has spent approximately 15 hours reviewing all of the proposed Amendments at least once Recommendations have been formed for most of the Amendments The remaining five will be reviewed first by DSAC The proposals in the 2012 Cycle were drafted to: • Ease the regulatory burden on development, • Lighten the regulatory standards — more discretionary and /or reasonable, • Create alternate procedures Caroline Cilek, LDR Coordinator, thanked the LDR Subcommittee members for their time and efforts. She outlined the changes made to the Amendments already reviewed by the Subcommittee as follows: • The non - conforming provisions of the overlay Districts (Bayshore and Immokalee) have been amended to be consistent with Section 9.03.02 (F)(1) of the LDC • the time frame has been changed from 90 days to one -year • DSAC will review the Immokalee Overlay Amendment in February. • CBIA Amendments — Met with CBIA representatives on December 291h as directed by the Subcommittee to discuss the Reasoning /Justification sections Section 4.02.03 — Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildines and Structures Author: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Land Development Services Purpose: To eliminate confusion and allow the use of personal storage containers on properties zoned "Rural Agricultural" and "Estates" Ray Bellows: • Met with the Zoning Staff • Concern: maximum floor area (in C -2) and the maximum container size (10 x 48') with height of 8' • Justification: properties are 5+ acres • LDC language: restricted to 5% of lot area for accessory buildings • Square footage has been adjusted to 480 Q. On a five+ acre lot, why is there a restriction allowing only one container unit? A. When the concept of allowing containers was initially considered, the issue was single - family residences where a need existed to house lawn maintenance equipment due to the larger lot sizes. The goal was to retain the character of a residential neighborhood and not to look like an industrial area which would happen if more than one container unit was permitted. One container should be adequate to house the equipment. Re: Immokalee Amendment • The Advisory Board requested more time 161 2 4 January 4, 2012 Bob Mulhere stated the issue for the Advisory Board is to determine which Amendments can reasonably go forward whether or not the Immokalee Master Plan is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Marco Espinar asked if the containers would be used in residential as well as agriculturally zoned land. While he agreed with the restriction for residential use, he stated if there is a bona fide agricultural use, one container may not be sufficient. Ray Bellows responded if a larger container was needed, other more suitable types of storage facilities were available, i.e., a pole barn. Mr. Espinar stated the landowner should be allowed some flexibility especially in rural areas. Mr. Bellows replied consideration will be given for larger properties, such as 20+ acres. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 9.04.08 —Administrative Adjustments Purpose: To create an administrative adjustment process for non -use issues, for residential and commercial structures Nick Casalanguida suggested that Clay work with him and the County Attorney's Office to build in as much flexibility as possible in the Amendment. The issue of notice and appeal for changes (i.e., diminishing a setback or changing a landscaping type or not requiring a landscaping buffer along a certain property line) — how much is needed before it becomes a forbearance. The notice requirement has remained consistent with the variance process. Caroline Cilek confirmed notice of the proposed change is sent to owners whose property is within 500 feet in urban areas and 1,000 feet for rural areas. The homeowners are identified using the tax rolls. Clay Brooker explained the Amendment will allow an individual to apply for an administrative adjustment of up to 25% of a certain Standard. For example, 25% of a 20 -foot setback is five feet. Administratively, Staff could — as long as a certain criteria have been met — approve that adjustment without any need for a public hearing. He acknowledged some public notice is necessary: • The applicant must notify property owners within 500 feet of the subject property (or 1,000 feet in rural areas). • The property owners would be allowed thirty days to object. • As the Amendment is currently drafted, any objection would immediately place the issue on the Planning Commission's Agenda for a hearing. • Suggestion: If a letter of objection is not filed with the County within the time frame, the property owner's right to appeal should be waived. Bob Mulhere stated he thought the notice requirements for a post -take plan state that after a certain period of time, if no objection is received, the plan is deemed to be approved. 1612 A 10 January 4, 2012 Caroline Cilek noted it is similar to the language contained in the Administrative Boat Dock Extension. The same language can be applied. Bob Mulhere stated the burden should be placed on the individual making the objection. Clay Brooker replied the Subcommittee discussed the fairness of allowing one individual to control a neighborhood. The alternative was to impose the burden on the objector appeal the decision beyond simply writing a letter, and only an "aggrieved or affected" party can appeal. He further stated the Amendment is a work in progress and can be brought back to DSAC for further consideration in February. Discussion continued. Reference was made to the process utilized by the City of Naples (pile- drivers). It was pointed out the Amendment only permits Staff to approve minor adjustments when specific criteria have been met. Clay agreed to work with Nick and the County Attorney's Office. Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and returned to DSAC to review. 2. Section 6.02.01— Generally Section 6.02.02 — Transportation Management and Monitoring Program Section 6.02.03 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements Author: CBIA Caroline Cilek noted the section concerning "Reason/Justification" was updated by CBIA and Staff updated the Fiscal and Operational Impact section. Clay Brooker summarized: • The Amendment relaxed the standards by which a Traffic Impact Study ( "TIS ") is required. • Under 6.02.02 (M)(1), the percent of adopted LOS ( "Level of Service ") standard service volume was changed in Subparagraphs a, b, and c from 2/2/3 to 3/3/5, i.e., the standard by which a TIS would be triggered and required by the applicant was reduced. o A TIS would be required only if the impact on traffic was greater than 3 percent. Mr. Brooker noted the law requires that the LDC is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Subcommittee was concerned about the legality of the proposed change to the Standard. Staff noted the 2/2/3 requirement in the GMP applies to a different analysis. The recommendation approved by the Subcommittee limited the impact to fewer circumstances. George Hermanson explained that a TIS is still required. If the report identifies the impact to the LOS traffic is greater than 3/3/5, it will be considered as "significant." At that point, concurrency and mitigation become issues. : 1 Caroline Cilek noted it is similar to the language contained in the Administrative Boat Dock Extension. The same language can be applied. Bob Mulhere stated the burden should be placed on the individual making the objection. Clay Brooker replied the Subcommittee discussed the fairness of allowing one individual to control a neighborhood. The alternative was to impose the burden on the objector appeal the decision beyond simply writing a letter, and only an "aggrieved or affected" party can appeal. He further stated the Amendment is a work in progress and can be brought back to DSAC for further consideration in February. Discussion continued. Reference was made to the process utilized by the City of Naples (pile- drivers). It was pointed out the Amendment only permits Staff to approve minor adjustments when specific criteria have been met. Clay agreed to work with Nick and the County Attorney's Office. Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and returned to DSAC to review. 2. Section 6.02.01— Generally Section 6.02.02 — Transportation Management and Monitoring Program Section 6.02.03 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements Author: CBIA Caroline Cilek noted the section concerning "Reason/Justification" was updated by CBIA and Staff updated the Fiscal and Operational Impact section. Clay Brooker summarized: • The Amendment relaxed the standards by which a Traffic Impact Study ( "TIS ") is required. • Under 6.02.02 (M)(1), the percent of adopted LOS ( "Level of Service ") standard service volume was changed in Subparagraphs a, b, and c from 2/2/3 to 3/3/5, i.e., the standard by which a TIS would be triggered and required by the applicant was reduced. o A TIS would be required only if the impact on traffic was greater than 3 percent. Mr. Brooker noted the law requires that the LDC is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Subcommittee was concerned about the legality of the proposed change to the Standard. Staff noted the 2/2/3 requirement in the GMP applies to a different analysis. The recommendation approved by the Subcommittee limited the impact to fewer circumstances. George Hermanson explained that a TIS is still required. If the report identifies the impact to the LOS traffic is greater than 3/3/5, it will be considered as "significant." At that point, concurrency and mitigation become issues. .� 1612 January 4, 2012 Clay Brooker noted Staff's concern was that the different thresholds would create more work. The Subcommittee supported the change. It was noted the proposal was a private proposal and the applicant (CBIA) could bring whatever it wanted to the Board of County Commissioners regardless of DSAC's recommendation. It was also noted the TIS Guidelines and Procedures Handbook should also be amended for consistency. He stated if the CBIA accepted DSAC's recommendation, a suggestion was made that the CBIA also propose amending the TIS Guidelines and Procedures Handbook to the Board of County Commissioners. Caroline Cilek noted Section 6.02.01 outlined the different local development orders that are examined. Reed Jarvi stated the Subcommittee agreed that the change to three years was more consistent with the State of Florida. [Section 6.02.03 (D)] Caroline Cilek stated Subparagraphs E and G of Section 6.02.03 were outdated and removed from the LDC. Clay Brooker moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Amendment as revised as well as suggesting amending the TIS Guidelines and Procedures Handbook and the GMP. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. 3. Section 6.06.01— Street System Requirements Author: CBIA Caroline Cilek noted Staff and the CBIA examined the "Reason/Justification" section. She stated Staff did not agree with the CBIA on the following: • Under "Change," Paragraph 1, Median closure: There were no text changes. CBIA suggested adding the phrase, "based on an engineering evaluation." Ms. Cilek noted it was a health, safety and welfare issue. Clay Brooker noted it was not within the Committee's purview to debate the issue with Staff — the Members should either recommend or decline to recommend approval of CBIA's changes. Bob Mulhere stated he did not think the change would become a burden to the County and supported the proposed change. Clay Brooker noted the Subcommittee recommended reducing the width of sidewalks from 6' to 5' in limited circumstances. Suggested changes: • Page 6, Line 42: Delete the word "may" and insert the phrase "shall" 10 t 16 I Z A �Qary 4 2012 • Page 7, Line 23 — the sentence is amended to read as follows: "All pathways must be constructed of Portland cement. and shall be a minimum of 4- inches thick, over a compacted subgrade." Caroline Cilek stated she would advise the CBIA of the Committee's changes. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Amendment as revised by the CBIA as well as suggesting amending the TIS Guidelines and Procedures Handbook. Second by Clay Brooker: Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. 4. Section 10.02.03 (B)(3) — Submittal Reauirements for SDPs (Insubstantial Changes) Author: Growth Management Division Purpose: To adjust the language and allow for a speedier review process for insubstantial changes. Clay Brooker suggested the Amendment should be emailed to the Committee to review. There are certain standards to be reviewed, especially by engineers and architects. Judy Puig will email the document to the Members. Consensus: DSAC will review the Amendment at the next meeting. 5. Section 10.02.13 (E) — Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") Procedures Author: Private Applicant Purpose: To modify the PUD permitted use procedure, allowing for permitted uses to be text changes. Caroline Cilek stated the Amendment was not legally permissible as written. Clay Brooker noted State law requires an Ordinance to change the text of a PUD. Bob Mulhere stated recent changes to the GMP legislation allows a "Small -scale Amendment" which permits changes to text — it's an expedited process — as long as the text relates to a map change. Clay Brooker stated the problem is determining what is allowed by State law. Caroline Cilek noted a meeting has been scheduled with the County Attorney's office. Consensus: The Amendment will be reviewed by DSAC at the next meeting. Clay Brooker reminded the Members they could request further discussion of any Amendments previously approved by the Subcommittee. 11 61 10 uary 4, 2012 He suggested an omnibus motion to approve the Amendments if the Committee did not have any concerns. Bob Mulhere noted he would not vote on the Bayshore /Gateway and Immokalee Amendments due to conflict of interest. Robert Mulhere moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Amendments approved by the LDR Subcommittee with the exception of the Bayshore /Gateway and Immokalee Amendments. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 13 — 0. Mario Valle moved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Bayshore /Gateway and Immokalee Amendments. Second by Clay Brooker. Motion carried, 12 — "Yes " /1— "Abstention." Robert Mulhere abstained. IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: • Reed Jarvi announced his resignation from DSAC. He will begin working for the County as the LDC Transportation Planning Manager. • Clay Brooker will assume Chairmanship of the LDR Subcommittee. • Ron Waldrop volunteered to serve on the LDR Subcommittee. • Judy Puig will notify the BCC's office of the vacancy. NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • February 1, 2012 • March 7, 2012 • April 4, 2012 • May 2, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:15 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were ap roved by the Board /Committee Chair on �� , 2012 "as submitted" [ OR "as amended" �] 12 16I 2A4 JAN - Attention Attention Kristi Bartlett or Ian Mitchell: jig BY: Enclosed are the DSAC- Land Development Review subcommittees signed meeting minutes.­'-- ............. Sincerely, Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner, Growth Management Division X2485 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Item #._I U 73-- 2\ Copies to: 16 2A I `November 14, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida November 14, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Clay C. Brooker David Dunnavant Marco Espinar Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere STAFF PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Ray Bellows, Zoning Manger Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Christopher Scott, Senior Planner Fred Reischl, Senior Planner John Podczerwinsky, Manager — Development Review Project John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plan Reviewer A10` 161 W November 14, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:05 PM by Staff. A quorum was established; three members were present. II. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN: Robert Mulhere nominated Reed Jarvi to serve as Chairman. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Reed Jarvi arrived at 1: 08 PM.) Robert Mulhere nominated Clay Brooker to serve as Vice Chair. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Mr. Brooker abstained from voting.) Mr. Jarvi accepted Chairmanship of the Subcommittee. III. MEETING SCHEDULE: • Meetings will be held in Conference Room #609/610 • November 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM • December 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM (prior to regular DSAC Meeting) • December 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM IV. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2011 - CYCLE 1 A. Proposed Amendments: 1. Section 10.08.02 — Definitions Purpose: Revise the definition of "kenneling" to omit specific numbers, age, and zoning districts. Reason: The issue is not necessarily a zoning issue and is not regulated by the LDC. It will be regulated by the Domestic Animal Services Department. Suggested Change: (1) Change the word "kenneling" to "kennel." Discussion ensued concerning the benefit of removing the limitation on the number of animals. • Amanda Townsend will be asked to attend the next Subcommittee meeting to explain current policy, clarify the proposed changes and related issues. Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. 2 10 ovember 14, 2011 2. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions Purpose: Re- insert the definition of "Rural Subdivision" which was inadvertently omitted. Suggested Changes — Page 1: (1) Change heading to "Subdivision, Rural" to remain consistent with LDC. (2) First sentence: Change to "a" to "as" (i.e., "within the area defined as. . (3) Line 7: The sentence shall read: "The following prior or future division of lands shall constitute a Rural Subdivision, except ..." (4) Line 13: Add a semicolon after the word "way" (5) Line 13: Add the word "or" after the semicolon Page 2: (1) Line 1: Change "past" to "prior" (2) Line 1: Remove the phrase "and other areas of Collier County" from the first sentence (3) Line 1 shall read: "Any other prior or future divisions of land within the area defined as Rural/Agricultural on the Collier County Future Land Use Map not meeting the above ... " Consensus: Accepted 3. Section 10.02.03 (13)(1)(i - k) — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans Purpose: Stipulate that Collier County and F -DOT Right -of -Way permits may be submitted following SDP approval and at /or prior to the pre - construction meeting with the County. John Podczerwinsky stated the LDC requires an approved Right -of -Way Permit is in place before an SDP can be approved. Practically, it is more efficient to approve an SDP before obtaining an ROW Permit. He noted the definition should also be listed in the Right -of -Way Handbook. Consensus: Accepted 4. Section 4.02.03 — Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures Purpose: To add specific Standards for Agricultural and Estates Zoned properties. Reason: To eliminate confusion regarding the use of personal storage containers. 3 p 16 A 10 ember 14, 2011 Ray Bellows stated the LDC is silent on the use and placement of personal storage containers and how to treat them — as a permanent or temporary structure. The containers will not be allowed in residentially -zoned area and are required to be tied down, which changes the classification to a "structure." (David Dunnavant arrived at 1: 40 PM.) Jamie French noted some of the storage containers are so large and heavy that they are not required to be tied down. The application will go through the Building Permit process. Clay Brooker requested background information on the issue. Ray Bellows responded the containers had not been permitted previously as a permanent structure. The containers had been allowed on site under a "Temporary Use Permit" as a temporary structure during construction or remodeling. Bob Mulhere concurred there had not been a clear -cut policy. Suggested Changes: (1) Page 1, Remove capitalization from "personal storage containers" from the Section as appropriate (2) Page 4, Line 24, Add "and other similar products" following PODSTM within the parenthesis Consensus: Accepted 5. Section 10.02.03 (B)(4)(b) — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans Purpose: Revise extension dates for approved Site Development Plans from one to two years. Reason: Additional time is needed to complete improvements due to current economic conditions. Clay Brooker noted that, technically, the Amendment grants an unlimited number of two -year extensions and the Code could very likely change during that time period. Suggested Change: (1) Page 2, Line 7: Add "for good cause shown" at the end of the first sentence. Consensus: Accepted 6. Section 10.02.05 (B) — Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans Purpose: Revise extension dates for approved Construction Plans and Plats from one to two years. 4 �. 1612 A 10 a November 14, 2011 Reason: Additional time is needed to complete improvements due to current economic conditions, and to be consistent with State of Florida policy. Suggested Change: (1) Page 2, Line 6: Remove "Additional extensions" at the beginning of the last sentence. (2) Page 2, Line 5: Remove period from the final sentence and add the phrase, "and may be granted at the discretion of the County Manager or designee." Consensus: Accepted (2: 00 PM— Bob Mulhere left.) 7. Section 10.02.05 (G) — Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (new section) Purpose: To clarify the Construction Plan ( "CONSTR ") application process Reason: To codify the process to allow an applicant to submit construction plans which are not associated with a Plat or an SDP. John Podczerwinsky noted construction plans are required when a roadway is to be built within a platted development. Caroline Cilek confirmed the Section will also be included in the Administrative Code. Clay Brooker asked if "construction plans" was defined anywhere in the Code. John Podczerwinsky stated there is a dual submittal for Plats and Construction Plans. The process outlined in the Amendment would eliminate the necessity of submitting for Plat approval, i.e., for a developer to access his development. No structures would be developed on the roadway. Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. John Houldsworth will be present to explain/clarify issues. 8. Appendix "A:" Update of form — Letter of Credit Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. John Houldsworth will be present to explain/clarify issues. B. Corrections /Errors: 1. Section 2.03.01— Agricultural Zoning Districts Purpose: To restore a passage to the LDC which had been inadvertently omitted during re- codification. x 161 I --- I 'Tull, 1 wt November 14, 2011 ' Passage: "Side yard: 30 feet, except for legal nonconforming lots of record which are nonconforming due to an inadequate lot width, in which case, it shall be computed at the rate of ten (10) percent of the width of the lot, not to exceed a maximum requirement of 30 feet." Clay Brooker asked why the phrase "not to exceed a maximum requirement of 30 feet" was included. He noted the largest nonconforming lot is 149 feet in width. John Podczerwinsky agreed the language was confusing. Mr. Brooker referred to Subparagraph (d) at Lines 16 and 17 on Page 3, stating it was not mathematically possible. Suggested Change: (1) Remove phrase "not to exceed a maximum requirement of 30 feet" from the Section as appropriate on Page 1 and Page 3. Consensus: Accepted (2:20 PM- John Houldsworth arrived.) A. Proposed Amendments: 8. Section 10.02.05 (G) — Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans (new section) Chairman Jarvi asked Mr. Houldsworth for clarification of Section 10.02.05 (G) — Submittal Requirements for Improvement Plans and outlined his reservations concerning the proposed new process. John Houldsworth stated the process has been in effect. There is an application for Construction Plans when a Plat is not involved. John Podczerwinsky noted when a Developer submits a PPL (Plat and Plans), the plans submitted are construction plans. Chairman Jarvi asked if an SIP would also cover this requirement. He was concerned that a new process would need to be incorporated in the SDP process and other connections in the LDC. Caroline Cilek stated the Amendment formalized the process that has been in place by reducing it to a "writing." Chairman Jarvi reiterated his concern was the application of the new process to the LDC. Caroline Cilek noted the Section will be included in the Administrative Code and could be efficiently changed if necessary. John Podczerwinsky suggested limiting the Section to infrastructure and right - of -way, both public and private. Chairman Jarvi concurred. 6 -A .9 164 4 ovemIP14,2011 David Dunnavant asked if a document was issued at the conclusion of the process, i.e., a Certificate.. It was noted a final inspection of the project would be required and the fees were noted in the Section. It was agreed that the SDP process was significantly more involved that the process outlined in the Section. Clay Brooker stated the Amendment memorializes the existing process which allows a easy way to accomplish something under a unique set of circumstances. He asked if cross - referencing another Section that defined "construction plans" would be sufficient. Chairman Jarvi asked if a pre- construction or pre - application meeting was required as part of the process. Clay Brooker asked if there was be a chapter in the LDC that discussed "construction plans," when they could be applied for, what should be submitted for approval. Consensus: The Section will be revised for clarification concerning connections to the LDC and returned to the Subcommittee for review. 8. Appendix "A:" Update of form — Letter of Credit Mr. Houldsworth stated the only change was the addition of an address. Consensus: Accepted B. Corrections/Errors: 2. Section 2.03.08 — Rural Fringe Zoning District Purpose: To correct a Scrivener's Error by adding the word "from" to Paragraph (B)(1) (Line 7, Page 1). Consensus: Accepted 3. Section 4.02.01— Dimensional Standards 4. Section 4.02.04 — Standards for Cluster Residential Design Purpose: To correct spelling error, i.e., "principle" with "principal." Consensus: Accepted 5. Section 5.03.02 — Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls Purpose: To remove a reference to an illustration which does not exist. Consensus: Accepted 1612 A 10 r November 14, 2011 ' ` 6. Section 5.06.00 — Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classifications Purpose: For clarification and insertion of language omitted during rewrite. Clay Brooker noted a Court case successfully challenged the previous Sign Code and asked if the rewrites complied with the Court's decision. Chairman Jarvi questioned the definition. Marco Espinar referenced Line 27 on Page 4, and asked why the height requirement was specified. Michele Arnold reminded the Subcommittee there were specific regulations regarding the posting of "No Trespass" signs, including spacing requirements. Caroline Click will research the issue. Public Speaker: Dick Dahl asked if a Builder's name is on a flag, it is considered to be a "commercial message ?" If yes, is the "flag" then to be considered a "sign" which requires a permit? Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. Diana Compagnone will be present to explain/clarify the issues. 7. Section 5.06.05 — Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classifications Purpose: For clarification and insertion of language omitted during rewrite. Discussion ensued. David Dunnavant stated a goal of the codification process was the make the Code more "user friendly" and it has not happened. He objected to the color limitations in general and specifically concerning canopies. He asked if the Sign Code has always been correct. Clay Brooker stated more information concerning the Court decision was needed to determine if the rewrite complied with it. Consensus: Further review of this Amendment was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. Diana Compagnone will be present to explain/clarify the issues. 8. Section 3.05.02 — Exemptions from Requirements of Vegetation Protections and Preservation Purpose: To correct a Scrivener's Error. (Not discussed.) 6 1. A -10 vember 14, 2011 Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendments as previously discussed and accepted by the Subcommittee with the exception of the tabled Amendments. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. NEXT MEETING DATES: November 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM December 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM (prior to regular DSAC Meeting) December 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chairman at 2:50 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on , 2011 "as presented" [ _&] OR "as amended" ". 9 } IQ A X10 t tt 16 November 28, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida November 28, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Reed Jarvi Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker James Boughton (Absent) David Dunnavant (Absent) Marco Espinar (Absent) George Hermanson (Absent) Robert Mulhere STAFF PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Amanda Townsend, Director — Domestic Animal Services Ray Smith, Director — Pollution Control Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Fred Reischl, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager Jean Jordan, Project Manager — Bayshore CRA Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning Diana Compagnone, Sign Review i � 161L o I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM. A quorum was established; three members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Jarvi suggested changing the order as follows: • Signs, Water /Wells fields, CRAs, and Kennel Robert Mulhere moved to approve Agenda as amended Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Jarvi stated deferred approval until the next Subcommittee meeting. IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (Will be heard after Item is discussed.) V. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 Review of previously tabled Amendments: 1. Section 5.06.00 — Sign Regulations and Standards by Land Use Classification Caroline Cilek recapped, i.e., the definition of a flag was questioned by the Subcommittee at the previous meeting. Diana Compagnone stated flutter flags and banners that display advertising such as "Grand Opening," "Now Open," "Sale," "Open House," "Welcome," "Model Home," or the name of a developer are categorized as signs. A Temporary Use Permit is required to display "wind- driven floating material" that contains an advertisement. Guideline: If the banner or flutter flag attracts the attention of the public and is different from the American flag, a POW flag, a City, State or County flag, it is a sign. A Temporary Use Permit allows floating material signs to be displayed from one to thirty days. Longer durations are allowed for model home signs. Suggested Changes: • On Page 1, Line 7: Change the language from commercial "messages" to commercial "content." • On Page 3, under 1 (d.), Line 18: Add a comma and the phrase where applicable, following the word "and." Consensus: Approved 2 lble_ Al 1 NolWber 2 , 2011 2. Section 5.06.05 — Sign Regulal (Automobile Service Stations) Carolina Valera, Principal Planner — Comprehensive Planning, Architectural Review, stated the BCC requested Staff to propose limitations for automobile service stations to remain as unobtrusive as possible. Both the Code and the Architectural Standards Manual address acceptable colors for use throughout the County. Brochures are available for the public. No color has been prohibited, although some are restricted to no more than 10% use. Diana Compagnone stated the Amendment will be withdrawn. 3. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( "Kennels/Kenneling ") Amanda Townsend, Director — Domestic Animal Services, stated: DAS Advisory Committee recently formed a Subcommittee to examine changes to the Animal Control Ordinance Proposal: Create a permitting process within the Animal Control Ordinance for residences and/or commercial entities to allow housing of multiple, unsterilized animals Focus: Over - population issue and nuisance complaints It was noted the Subcommittee had previously suggested changing the term "kenneling" to "kennel." Bob Mulhere noted the previous Code stated the keeping of more than three dogs, six months of age or older, was not allowed in residential areas. He asked if the limitation on the number dogs is removed, how can it be enforced and it is regulated else. He also noted there was no restriction on the number of cats that can be housed. Ms. Townsend stated the mission of DAS is to educate the public and not create homeless animals. She explained there was a specific case where a DAS Code Enforcement Officer found an owner with six neutered, licensed animals at the residence. While there was no health issue, the owner was in violation of the Land Development Code limit. She stated DAS had never been called to the location abut a number of Code complaint calls had been received from one neighbor. Bob Mulhere stated if the limitation is removed, a burden will be placed on DAS because the Code will no longer indicate a Zoning violation and DAS will make the determination if there is a health or nuisance issue. Ms. Townsend confirmed appropriate animal care is a concern for DAS -- having a limit on the number of animals allowed DAS to educate the public concerning sanitary issues and barking. She stated the Advisory Committee is interested in exploring shifting the burden of enforcement to DAS in order to control over- population. She stated a permitting process is in place for commercial entities, i.e., pet shops, groomers, stables, rodeos. She noted an older Resolution ( #79 -93) regulates the standards to be met. She will propose to the Subcommittee to extend the permitting t IN Z& 21,201 process to the residential housing of multiple, unsterilized animals. A permit fee will be charged to offset the Departmental costs for inspection. Clay Brooker noted the statement under "Reason:" "This issue is not necessarily considered a zoning issue and is, therefore, not regulated by the LDC. " He asked why a definition was necessary if the word "kennel" or "kenneling" was not in the Land Development Code. Bob Mulhere stated it was necessary to create an opportunity for enforcement. He stated if you are a "kennel" in a residential area, by definition, the use is not permitted by zoning. Clay Brooker clarified "kennels" are a permitted use under certain zoning categories in the Land Development Code. It is a zoning issue and the "Reason" statement is not correct. The use is either permitted or not permitted depending upon the zoning category for the property. Amanda Townsend stated it is usually not a zoning issue in residential areas. Bob Mulhere stated the Amendment could acknowledge a "kennel" is a permitted use in C -4, C -5, and Industrial but is not allowed anywhere else. The definition acts as a trigger for enforcement. Clay Brooker stated DAS may request an amendment to the Animal Control Ordinance. He suggested tabling a decision until DAS has had time to explore its options before formulating a definition to ensure consistency in the LDC and the Animal Control Ordinance. Bob Mulhere concurred. Consensus: A decision will be deferred until Domestic Animal Services makes a presentation to the Board in January 2012, but no later than Cycle 2. Vl. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( "Hazardous Product or Waste ") Ray Smith, Director — Pollution Control, stated the Amendment has been deferred to the next Subcommittee meeting in order to divide the definition into two categories. Clay Brooker suggesting referring to the applicable definitions in the State Administrative Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. Mr. Smith concurred, stating the goal is to remain consistent and eliminate confusion if there are changes in the future. Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. 2. Sections 3.06.06 (A) through (H) — Regulated Wellfields Chairman Jarvi asked if the Amendments contained any substantive changes beyond changes to the shape of the wellfields. Ray Smith stated the utilities were contacted for each wellfield and a model was entered into based on the data obtained, in writing, from the utilities. Eight wellfields A 16l 2 A 10 November 28, 2011 were remodeled due installation of a new well, changes to the pump rates, or the abandoning of a well. Section 3.06.06 (I) — Regulated Wellfields (Port of the Islands) Ray Smith stated the Port of the Islands was added as a new water supply wellfield serving the community of the Port of the Islands. It as modeled because three wells fell within the surficial aquifer system. Since the water is recharged at the surface, there is a potential for a pollutant to be released at the surface. He continued the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection allow surficial aquifer systems because it provide "fresher" water with less salinity. The water from the Hawthorne system is brackish and costs more money to treat. Mr. Smith noted two proposed language changes: • Section 3.06.07 — Unregulated Wellfields Removing references to the Port of the Islands Wellfield from Unregulated Wellfields • Section 3.06.12 — Regulated Development Correction of a Scrivener's Error. Clay Brooker suggested removing the Amendment from the Land Development Code for inclusion in the Code of Ordinances to avoid the necessity of an LDC Amendment for every change. Consensus: Approved 3. Section 2.03.07 — Overlay Zoning Districts (Immokalee CRA) Section 4.02.27 — Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.28 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Jefferson Avenue Commercial Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.29 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -Farm Market Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.30 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Agribusiness Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.31 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Central Business Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.32 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -Main Street Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.33 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on this Amendment due to a conflict t 1612 A 10 November 28, 2011 of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He suggested deferring a vote until more Subcommittee members were present. He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. Bob Mulhere summarized: • An interim Immokalee Zoning Overlay provides for relief from some of the standards that apply to the Coastal Urban areas and were not appropriate for Immokalee • The overlay was designed to change the Land Development Code in areas as proposed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan ( "IAMP ") and to include some updates. The IAMP has not been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. It will be presented in December. • It was also intended to simplify the overlays which overlapped each other. • It was also intended to incorporate the other desires of the Community which were not addressed in the Interim Zoning Overlay or were not sufficiently addressed in the document or were not specifically part of the IAMP. Some examples: reduction in landscaping requirements or parking standards. Standards were relaxed to meet the specific needs of the Immokalee community. • Old sections were struck through and new sections were adopted. Clay Brooker asked if there was a hearing process and public input. Bob Mulhere stated there were discussions during the 2+ year Growth Management Plan process. Drafts of the CRA Amendments were completed and approximately four public meetings were held with the CRA Advisory Board. Two meetings held recently (in October and early November) to answer additional questions. Clay Brooker referred to the "Use Type" table. He noted certain uses did not have SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes and asked if that was because the SIC Codes were not applicable. He also questioned how an item could be classified as "P" and "CU" ( "permitted" and "conditional use ") at the same time. Bob Mulhere explained live -work units are allowed in the Central Business sub- district, subject to approved conditions. Suggested Changes: 1. Page 5, under "6. Density Standards" — • Fifth line: Insert the word "in" following the word "provided" • Fifth line: Remove the period following "A" 2. Parking Lot Placement (Illustration) — • Reference to a street and /or alley should be shown at the bottom of the graphic 3. "L. Nonconforming Provisions" — • Second line: Insert the word "lots," following the word "nonconforming" 161, A 10 November 28, 2011 Discussion ensued concerning the first sentence in "I. (b) — Nonconforming Lots." Clay Brooker stated if the paragraph changes existing law [Chapter 9 — LDC] by changing an owner's rights, it was a problem. Bob Mulhere acknowledged the paragraph could be deleted, but would first research why it was included. Clay Brooker referred to "I (d) (iii) — Nonconforming Structures" on the same page and stated it was confusing. He asked why not rebuild the structure as it was. Bob Mulhere explained to rebuild a nonconforming structure, you would be required to observe the current Building Code unless a variance was obtained. Under Subparagraph (iv.), Mr. Brooker objected to the word "sufficient" at the end of the second line. Bob Mulhere agreed to remove the word. Clay Brooker asked why there was a reference to Section 4.02.27 —E which was the Central Business District. The subject of the subparagraph was parking at a nonconforming non - residential structure. Patrick Vanasse, RWA, stated the Central Business District's landscaping and buffering restrictions were less restrictive than other areas. He will research the issue. Bob Mulhere stated he will make a general presentation to the Subcommittee at the next meeting. Chairman Jarvi requested that Mr. Mulhere also verify the information requested as well as incorporate the suggested changes. Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. 4. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions (Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA) Section 2.03.07 I. — Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay Section 2.03.07 N. — N. Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Section 4.02.16 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Neighborhood Commercial Subdistricts Section 4.02.17 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Waterfront Subdistrict Section 4.02.18 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (RI) Section 4.02.19 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (112) Section 4.02.20 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (113) Section 4.02.21— Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (114) Section 4.02.35 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD) Section 4.02.36 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R) Section 10.02.00 — Application Requirements Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on this Amendment due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He suggested deferring a vote until more Subcommittee members were present. He stated he would 161 2A 10 r. November 28, 2011 contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. Bob Mulhere summarized: • Staff was experienced with CRA but the there were problems with the existing Code which presented stumbling blocks to redevelopment • The Mixed -Use process was convoluted, difficult, expensive, and time - consuming Jean Jordan stated there were also formatting issues with the Code It was noted Section 4.02.016 is referenced throughout the document and the correct number should be 4.02.16. [Example: Page 9 — last sentence under c) ]. Clay Brooker noted the phrase "human -scale commercial" appeared on Page 17 and asked for the meaning. Bob Mulhere suggested substituting the phrase "pedestrian oriented" throughout the document. Mr. Brooker noted: • On Page 24, the table referenced Maximum Building Height • He asked if it was zoned height and not actual height since the LDC measures zoned height and not actual height unless stated otherwise. • Robert Mulhere suggested adding (zoned) in parenthesis. • On Page 52, under (h.), second sentence: o Delete the phrase "consideration shall be given to" o Delete "which would" and substitute "where it has been demonstrated that such contribution sufficiently..." o Add an "s" to mitigate o End the sentence after open space — add a period. o Third sentence begins: "This mitigation may also be in the form of a cash or ...." • On Page 92,: o "10.02.15 —Mixed Use Project Procedures" —Add in parenthesis (within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA) o "2. MUPs requiring Public Hearing" — Under Paragraph A: Delete subsections i, ii, and iii. Chairman Jarvi asked Mr. Mulhere to give a presentation at the next Subcommittee meeting, incorporating the suggested changes. Consensus: The Amendment will be tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. 8 ,t Y F � 16 2 e e 8, 2011 5. Section 4.06.03 — Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use areas and Rights -of Way It was suggested to co- author the Amendment with CBIA and the Naples Chamber of Commerce. Consideration will be given to flexibility and consistency in time frames, i.e, one year. Consensus: This Amendment was tabled. 6. Section 10.02.07 C — Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy Amy Patterson stated the Board of County Commissioners directed a change to the payment schedule. An applicant was required to pay 20% of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees, secured with a Letter of Credit or in cash. Payments of 20% are made each year for five years. The temporary Certificate is issued until the final payment is made. The Board directed to change the schedule to allow a one time, 33% payment to be made which will secure the Certificate in perpetuity. Consensus: Accepted Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendments as previously discussed and accepted by the Subcommittee with the exception of.• • Kennels /Kenneling which is deferred, • Hazardous Product or Waste which is tabled; • Landscaping Regulations which is tabled; • the Immokalee and Bayshore /Gateway CRAs for which Mr. Mulhere has recused himself. Second by Chairman Jarvi. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. NEXT MEETING DATES: December 6, 2011 at 1:30 PM (Note: Date was changed) December 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 3:17 PM. 9 A 10 6 1 Zvember 28, 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS lV/ JaOi, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on "as presented"[_] OR "as amended" W - 10 2011 ;i � , � 1612 1 December 6, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida December 6, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Reed Jarvi Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker James Boughton (Absent) David Dunnavant Marco Espinar George Hermanson Robert Mulhere STAFF PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Bill Lorenz, Director — Land Development Services Claudine Auclair, Manager — Business Center Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Fred Reischl, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Jeff Perry, Interim Transportation Plan Manager Laurie Beard, Planner — PUD Monitoring 1 j, 61 2A 10 8 December 6, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:05 PM. A quorum was established; five members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Marco Espinar moved to approve Agenda as submitted. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, S — 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Jarvi approved the minutes for the November 14, 2011 Subcommittee and the November 28, 2011 Subcommittee meeting as submitted. (Note: The Subcommittee members may request a copy of the minutes from Caroline Cilek.) IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (Will be heard after Item is discussed.) V. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 Review of previously tabled Amendments: 1. Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Section 2.03.07 — Overlay Zoning Districts (Immokalee CRA) Section 4.02.27 — Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -State Road 29A Commercial Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.28 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Jefferson Avenue Commercial Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.29 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -Farm Market Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.30 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Agribusiness Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.31 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee - Central Business Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.32 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee -Main Street Overlay Subdistrict Section 4.02.33 - Specific Design Standards for the Immokalee- Mobile Home Park Overlay Subdistrict Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on the Immokalee CRA Amendment due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. Chris Scott summarized the changes: • Line numbers were added to the text; 2 1U 161 ecember 6 2011 Page 35, Item "5. Parking" — Figure: A street reference was included for properties with frontage along Main Street, First Street or Ninth Street; Page 38, Item "1. Nonconforming Lots" — The prior language was inconsistent with Section 9.03.00 of the LDC and was removed. It was noted nonconforming lots are subject to the provisions of the Land Development Code. Page 39, Item "iv. - reconstruction" — Reference was changed to Section 4.02.27D or E, which ever is least restrictive Consensus: Approved 2. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Section 1.08.02 — Definitions (Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA) Section 2.03.07 I. — Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay Section 2.03.07 N. — N. Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Section 4.02.16 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Neighborhood Commercial Subdistricts Section 4.02.17 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Waterfront Subdistrict Section 4.02.18 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R1) Section 4.02.19 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R2) Section 4.02.20 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R3) Section 4.02.21— Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R4) Section 4.02.35 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD) Section 4.02.36 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R) Section 10.02.00 — Application Requirements Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on the Bayshore Amendment due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. Chris Scott summarized the changes: • Line numbers were added to the text; • Corrections were made to "Scrivener's Errors" that referenced incorrect LDC Sections (example: Section 4.02.016 to Section 4.02.16) and numbering errors • Page 18, Item " GTMUD Subdistricts" — the term "human scale" was changed to "pedestrian- oriented" and "building patterns of traditional neighborhood design" Mr. Scott noted he received an email from Patrick Vanasse of RWA requesting to include the term "transit- ready" in the language. He explained inserting the term would indicate the CRA was open to the concept of becoming "transit- ready" in the future, i.e., offering incentives if a development provides transit stops, shelters, and /or bike racks, etc. He suggested including the phrase in Section 2.03.07 N.6 (a). A„' { 16I 2A lU December 6, 2011 Chairman Jarvi questioned where the term would be included, whether it was to be included in the Immokalee CRA, and — if included — how it might change the text that had been approved. Chris Scott stated the change was not considered to be substantial and would add another description of the CRAB' intent. He suggested using the term "transit ready development patterns." He stated he would revise the document and return it to the Subcommittee for review. Discussion ensued concerning potential "incentives." Chairman Jarvi concurred the suggested revisions should be brought back before the Subcommittee for both Immokalee and Bayshore. Bob Mulhere suggested to continue reviewing the other changes already made to the Amendment. Chris Scott continued: • Page 25, Item "Table 11 — Design Standards" — maximum building height was clarified • Page 52, Item "h." — the phrase "consideration shall be given" was eliminated and the final sentence was clarified. Mr. Scott suggested inserting the "transit ready" language here. • Page 93, Item "I. Nonconforming Provisions" — the word "lots" was added to the first sentence following the word "structures." • Page 96, Item "2. MUPs Requiring Public Hearing" — the subparagraphs (i, ii, and iii) referring to criteria were deleted Consensus: The revised documents (Immokalee and Bayshore) will be reviewed at the next Subcommittee meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Section 5.06.03 — Dock Facilities Fred Reischl stated if an application for a boat dock extension met the criteria or if the criteria were not applicable, the application would be approved administratively. This applies to single - family residential boat dock extensions. Multi- family will remain under the Planning Commission's review. Clay Brooker questioned when the Administrative Code would be in place and effective. Caroline Cilek noted if the Administrative Code has not been completed prior to the issuance of the Amendments, references to the Administrative Code would be changed to "Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code." Mr. Brooker noted if the Administrative Code is not in effect in time, the language concerning meeting criteria should be included in the LDC. He suggested revising Paragraph "H" (Page 2) by adding subsections for • "residential, single - family," • "residential, multi - family," and • "non- residential." { 1612 A '1U December 6, 2011 It was noted commercial docks are handled through the Site Development Plan and docks on lakes require a building permit. Suggested changes: • Page 2, Line 8 — Remove "that are" from sentence. • Page 2, Line 8 — Change language: from "shall be considered met" to "shall be deemed satisfied." • Page 2, Lines 9 and 10 — Remove last sentence • Page 4, Line 15 — Remove apostrophe and "s" • Page 4, Line 23 — Remove "d" from demonstrate • Page 4, Lines 33 and 34 — Change language: from "is considered to be met" to "shall be deemed satisfied." (David Dunnavant arrived at 1:35 PM.) Consensus: The Amendment will be reorganized and reviewed at the next Subcommittee meeting. 3. Section 3.05.02 E and F — Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation Section 3.05.05 — Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation Stephen Lenberger stated Staff received comments concerning regulated trimming and regulated removal of mangroves. The Section was revised to remain consistent with State law. Clay Brooker asked if "Mangrove Trimming" was a defined term (Page 2, Line 12). If not, he suggested removing capitalization from "Trimming." He suggested adding a sentence to define the term: "mangrove trimming." Suggested Changes: • Page 2, Line 12, remove the word "that" following the word "trimming" • Page 2, Paragraph "G." — Correct spelling of "through" • Page 2, Paragraph "G." — Spell out Florida Statutes (not F.S.) • Page 2, Paragraph "G." — Add "Unless statutorily exempt," at beginning of sentence and end after "Florida Statutes." The sentence reads as follows: Unless statutorily exempt, a DEP permit has been issued for mangrove trimming or alteration in accordance with the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act, Sections 403.9321 through 403.9333, Florida Statutes. • Page 3, Line 2, strike the phrase "given a variance by the BCC" and substitute "authorized by variance or ..." authorized to be removed, etc. Consensus: Approved 5 1612 A IU December 6, 2011 4. Section 3.05.02 G — Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation Suggested Changes: • Page 2, Line 34, end "8." after the word "land." • Page 2, Line 35, create "9." (Sentence begins "Vegetation removal ... ") • Page 2, Line 35, remove the word "also" from sentence. • Page 2, duplicate last sentence and add as last sentence in "8" at line 34, i.e., "State and Federal agency permits or approvals shall be required, where applicable, prior to clearing." Consensus: Approved 5. Section 3.05.02 D — Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation Suggested Change: • Page 2, Line 24, "D. Pre - existing uses" — Remove "exemptions from" and begin sentence at "The requirements of Section 3.05.07C shall ...." Stephen Lenberger will review the exemptions to determine if the change is appropriate. Consensus: Approved 6. Section 3.05.05 — Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation Section 4.06.04 — Trees and Vegetation Protection Section 10.01.02 — Development Orders Required Stephen Lenberger explained the extensive reworking of the Amendment. He stated one goal was to build more flexibility into the criteria and to make the Amendment easier to read. Clay Brooker asked if, due to the restructuring, any provisions were more restrictive on the landowners. Suggested Chan • Page 5, Line 37, "A. Vegetation Removal and Site Filling" — Change beginning of sentence by adding the phrase, "With the exception of properties located within the Golden Gate Estates subdivision, "to the beginning of the first sentence. • Page 5, Line 40 — Remove the sentence: "The following shall not apply ..." • Page 5, Line 41 — Add the word "Section" before 3.05.02 • Page 8, " j." (Line 5) — Remove the phrase "This approval is good.." and substitute: "An EWA Permit is valid for 60 days ..." no 1612 A lU December 6, 2011 • Page 8, Line 5 — Spell two (remove number) and add the word "additional" following "two" Consensus: Approved 7. Section 10.02.06 E — Submittal Requirements for Permits Marco Espinar questioned Lines 5- 7 on Page 3 asking what were the "minimum requirements of the LDC." Mr. Lenberger responded the requirements included size, material, spacing, coverage, etc. Mr. Espinar suggested the paragraph (e) should be more specific. Mr. Lenberger agreed to rewrite it. Clay Brooker questioned the "time zero monitoring reporting" Page 6. He suggested revising the second sentence as follows: "Respondents shall then have the option of verifying success " by either .... George Hermanson pointed out success was to be demonstrated at the first and second year intervals. Mr. Brooker noted the current wording did not allow options. Mr. Lenberger agreed to rewrite it. Suggested Changes: • Page 4, Line 48 — The sentence shall read: "The plan shall provide the preparer's name, address and telephone number." Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and reviewed at the next Subcommittee meeting. 8. Section 10.02.06 D — Submittal Requirements for Permits Stephen Lenberger stated there was a "Scrivener's Error" under D. (1). (Land Clearing Permit in place of Land Clearing "Notice." Clay Brooker pointed out inconsistencies on Page 1, Lines 9 and 13, i.e., "Land clearing permit: and "agricultural clearing permit." He asked if the references were the same. It was determined the correct phrase should be "agricultural land clearing permit" and will be corrected throughout the Amendment. Marco Espinar questioned the use of the word "approved" on Page 4, Line 33. He stated there was no place to obtain "approval" — he suggested removing the word "approved." Consensus: Approved 7 161 2A 10 3 December 6, 2011 9. Section 10.02.07 — Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy Jeff Perry stated the Amendment removed the requirement to include an annual traffic count report in the PUD Monitoring Report. Suggested Changes: • Page 2, Remove Table 1 (It provides only background data). • Page 2, Line 7, remove "b" and move to another section. • Page 3, Line 43, add the following language at the end of the sentence, "for each approved external access points on the County's arterial and collector roadway network." Clay Brooker asked how the changes would affect existing PUDs that had portions which were built out and could qualify for a waiver. He suggested the language implied the $500 fee would be paid when it was not required previously. Discussed ensued. Laurie Beard stated the old language had been stricken and the new language did not reference "legacy" PUDs. She noted legacy PUDs that had begun construction and made the first payment in lieu should be grandfathered. Clay Brooker stated the Amendment should clarify that it applied to current PUDs that had not been issued a first C /O. Chairman Jarvi stated the legacy language and exceptions should be added. He stated the fee appeared to be appropriate. Consensus: The Amendment will be revised and reviewed at the next Subcommittee meeting. 10. Section 10.02.13 — PUD Monitoring (Part I) Jeff Perry explained language was added for PUDs that were only partially built out. Laurie Beard stated the Amendment would eliminate the annual monitoring reporting requirement for the portions of PUDs that have been completed for years. Consensus: Approved 11. Section 10.02.03 B— Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans Bill Lorenz stated the purpose of the Amendment was to provide in the LDC the criteria to determine the difference between an insubstantial Site Development Plan change and a Site Development Plan Amendment. He stated the document is still a work in progress and welcomed input from the Subcommittee. The determination to be made is whether to provide general language and guidance to Staff versus explicit instructions. A a I 2 Aeclo 6, 2011 16 Bob Mulhere stated it was important to add flexible language to give Staff the authority to make determinations along with enough criteria to serve as guidelines. It was noted all submittals would be reviewed to determine compliance with Code. Claudine Auclair stated the Amendment had been revised several times. Bill Lorenz noted the number of Reviewers required could affect whether the "insubstantial change" became an "amendment." Determination of the impact of the change is important. Chairman Jarvi suggested moving the phrase "an increase in trip generation" from Line 12 on Page 2 to one of the criteria. (Reed darvi left at 3:15 PM.) Marco Espinar stated he was concerned that the only criteria for environmental impact was preserve configuration or percentage. Vice Chairman Brooker stated the Amendment will be revised and returned to the Subcommittee for review. Vice Chairman Brooker noted the following Amendments had been discussed and the suggested revisions were approved by consensus: • 3.05.02 E • 3.05.02 G • 3.05.02 — Exemptions • 3.05.05 • 10.02.06D • 10.92.13 F Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendments as above - referenced. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. Caroline Cilek noted the Amendments will be added to the next Subcommittee meeting Agenda and suggested adding an additional meeting to the schedule to accommodate the additional review items. Consensus: Change the time of the December 14th meeting by expanding the length of the meeting to complete the reviews. NEXT MEETING DATE: • December 14, 2011 at 1:00 to 4:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Vice Chairman at 3:33 PM. 6 161 L IU-, December b 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Clay Brook , Vice Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on "as presented" [(� ] OR "as amended" [1. 10 2011 s 4 A.A0 1612 December 14, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida December 14, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Reed Jarvi Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker James Boughton (Absent) David Dunnavant Marco Espinar George Hermanson (Excused) Robert Mulhere STAFF PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Fred Reischl, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist — GMD Jeff Perry, Interim Transportation Planning Manager Laurie Beard, Planner — PUD Monitoring John Podczerwinsky; Project Manager 1 > 16 1,&ecCh411bC1111t0,/-V11 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM. A quorum was established; three members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chan: • The following items will not be reviewed: 3.05.02 (E) and 3.05.05 — Exemptions • The following item will be reviewed: 3.05.05 — Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation • Amendment 10.02.03 (D) will be reviewed as the last item of business Robert Mulhere moved to approve Agenda as amended. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Jarvi approved the minutes for the December 6, 2011 Subcommittee meeting as submitted. (Note: Subcommittee members may request a copy of the minutes from Caroline Cilek.) Caroline Cilek requested: • to schedule a meeting on Wednesday, 12/21, at 1:00 PM (A confirming email will be sent to the members.) • a "point person" to work with her to prepare the report to be presented to the full DSAC Committee in January. [The members nominated Clay Brooker.] • to break at 2:30 PM V. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (Chairman Jarvi surveyed the Public Speakers who will be heard after the Item is discussed.) IV. CHANGE TO APPROVAL/TABLE PROCESS: • After discussion of each Amendment, the consensus will be stated concerning whether the Amendment was accepted or tabled. (David Dunnavant arrived @ 1:14 PM.) VI. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Section 2.03.07 — Overlay Zoning Districts (Immokalee CRA): Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on the Immokalee CRA Amendment due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. 2 1612A10 December 14, 2011 Chris Scott stated the Board of County Commissioners did not approve the proposed Immokalee Area Master Plan. He noted the LDC Amendments, although a follow -up to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, were consistent with the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan and the CRA would like Amendments to remain in process. He stated revisions will be made to the opening statement but the text remains consistent with the GMP (Growth Management Plan). He outlined the changes suggested during the December 6th meeting: • The phrase, "transit ready development" was inserted • Page 16, Line 26 • Page 17, Line 12 • On Page 28, Lines 36 and 40, "MUP" ( "Mixed Use Project ") was deleted — it applies only to the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA Bob Mulhere noted: There was no conflict between most of the amendments and the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan. The purpose of the Amendments was to provide more flexibility in the development process. Amendments pertaining to the Central Business District will be reviewed to determine whether or not they can be brought forward. The LDC was amended on an interim basis for the period between when the Amendments were introduced and the adoption of the Master Plan. Since the Master Plan was not adopted, the timeframe of the Interim Amendments could be extended. Mr. Mulhere acknowledged there was an element of risk in bringing the Amendments before the Board of County Commissioners. He will contact the CRA's Executive Director, Penny Philippi, for further direction. Chris Scott suggested modifying the Amendment's introduction to remove references to the "pending" or "currently adopted Master Plan" from the text and substitute the following: • "The Amendments are consistent with the existing (or currently adopted) Immokalee Area Master Plan." David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco Espinar. Motion carried, 3 — "Yes"/ "0" with one abstention (Robert Mulhere). (Clay Brooker arrived @ 1:20 PM.) 2. Section 5.03.06 — Dock Facilities: Caroline Cilek outlined the changes: • The format of the Amendment was modified. • Extensions for multi - family uses cannot be approved by Staff. 1612 A 1U December 14, 2011 • Commercial dock extensions are approved via an SDP. • A threshold was inserted at Line 18 to permit staff to administratively approve a dock extension of up to 40 additional feet for single - family residential use. The total length of the dock (with extension) is not to exceed 60 feet. Bob Mulhere noted there may be confusion and suggested the following change: "not to exceed 40 additional feet (60 feet in total) protrusion or extension into the waterway." Caroline Cilek suggested the following language: "not to exceed 40 additional feet in length." Bob Mulhere suggested adding "from the water line." After discussion, he withdrew his suggestion. Clay Brooker suggested: "... protrusion into the width of the navigable water way." Ms. Cilek stated Staff requested adding the threshold which was also suggested by the Planning Commission Chairman. There was additional discussion concerning how to measure a dock. It was suggested to add a paragraph incorporate the State's requirements. • The following sentence was inserted to H. 2. (a): "Applicants may appeal an administrative decision to the Planning Commission." Clay Brooker suggested adding "pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 250- 58, Code of Ordinances" to the end of the sentence. • Line 27, under 2. (b): The following sentence was added: "The Planning Commission may be able to examine conditions outside of the primary and secondary criteria." It was suggested to add subparagraph (c.) under Paragraph 3 which would outline specific examples of concerns — objective versus subjective. Chairman Jarvi stated he could not support the Planning Commission's request for ability to "examine conditions" without some limitation or examples. Caroline Cilek stated she would obtain feedback. Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. 3. Section 10.02.07 C — Submittal Requirements for Certificates of Public Facility Adequacy (PUD Monitoring) Robert Where moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 4. Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA) 4 1612 I U December 14, 2011 Section 2.03.07 I. — Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay Section 2.03.07 N. — N. Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Section 4.02.16 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Neighborhood Commercial Subdistricts Section 4.02.17 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Waterfront Subdistrict Section 4.02.18 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (RI) Section 4.02.19 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (112) Section 4.02.20 — Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (113) Section 4.02.21— Design Standards for the BMUD — Residential Subdistrict (114) Section 4.02.35 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Mixed Use Subdistrict (MXD) Section 4.02.36 — Design Standards for the GTMUD — Residential Subdistrict (R) Section 10.02.00 — Application Requirements Robert Mulhere recused himself from voting on the Bayshore Amendment due to a conflict of interest due to his work with RWA and as Mulhere & Associates. He stated he would contribute to the discussion by providing background information and explanations, as necessary. Chris Scott summarized the changes: • The phrase, "pedestrian- oriented, transit - ready" was inserted • Page 6, Line 10 • Page 16, Line 10 • Page 18, Line 13 Page 40, Lines 24 and 25 — add "and gallery," The following sentence was inserted at end of the paragraph at the request of the CRA: "Non- residential uses may include ancillary retail, such as galleries selling art work and hair salons selling hair products." Marco Espinar moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by David Dunnavant. Motion carried, 4 — "Yes " / "0" with one abstention (Robert Mulhere). 5. Section 4.06.03 — Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas Caroline Cilek stated the goal was to extend the time frame from 90 days to one year for new property owners, or tenants, to occupy and bring a vacant property into conformity with the current Code. Bob Mulhere stated there were two issues: (1) a nonconforming use, and (2) other uses that are nonconforming. Chairman Jarvi noted if the rationale applied to landscaping, it should apply to the entire building. 161 ZA 1U z December 14, 2011 It was noted 9.03.02 (F.) (1), entitled Requirements of Continuation of Nonconformities, was not included for review but would be added to the Amendment for review at the next Subcommittee meeting. Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. 6. Section 10.02.06 E — Submittal Requirements for Permits Stephen Lenberger outlined the changes that had been made, i.e., on Page 3, subparagraph "e." was added and on Page 5, at line 48, clarifying language was added. Suggested Change: • Page 6, Line 2 — Remove "of' and add "or" Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. 7. Section 3.05.03 — Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation Suggested Chan: • Page 8, Lines 6 and 8 — Add the word "Permit" following "EWA" Marco Espinar moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. 8. Section 3.05.05 — Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation (Mangrove Trimming) Stephen Lenberger confirmed "alter" meant anything other than trimming. Consensus: No action was required VII. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Section 9.05.00 —Administrative Adjustment Caroline Cilek provided background information. Bob Mulhere suggested keeping the notification process simple. It should be at the discretion of Staff to determine if a 30 -day response period was necessary. 6 i 22 a' December 14, 2011 Public Sneaker: Mike Adams, McDonald's, appeared in support of the Amendment. He noted the Code allowed two speakers but not two Menu Boards. He stated the Adjustment process would allow the addition of the second Menu Board which would not affect public safety but would enhance the drive -thru traffic flow and reduce congestion. Suggested Changes: • Page 2, Line 12 — Add "Final, Local" to Development Order. • Page 2, Line 13 — The sentence shall read: "Administrative adjustments may be granted by the County Manager or designee subject to finding that the following criteria have been met:... " • Page 2, Line 20 — Add the word "substantially" before the word "meets" • Page 2, Line 22 — Remove "proposes equitable compensation" and add "provides reasonable mitigation" • Page 2, Line 22 — Remove "diminution" and add "adjustment" • Page 3, Line 18 — Add "or technical" following the word "dimensional" • Page 3, Line 18 — Add ", but not limited to," following the word "including" and add "to required yards" following the word "setbacks" • Page 3, Line 23/24 — Remove the sentence "Upon recommended approval ... • Page 3, Line 25 — Remove "recommended for denial" and add "denied" Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. BREAK: 2:35 PM RECONVENED: 2:50 PM 2. Section 3.05.07 H (1)(e) — Preservation Standards (Archaeological or Historical Sites) Mike Rosen, CBIA ( "Collier Building Industry Association "), stated County Manager Leo Ochs approached CBIA in December 2009 to draft Amendments to the LDC. Mr. Ochs requested CBIA to "delete or amend anything in the LDC that hampers economic prosperity in Collier County." CBIA's package was submitted to the County on November 29, 2010. It was noted the Landscape Architecture Subcommittee was chaired by George Hermanson's company. Mr. Rosen noted CBIA did not comment on Chapter 10 procedures because Nick Casalanguida is organizing a Committee specific to Chapter 10 issues. Steve Lenberger explained the Amendment. Marco Espinar suggested adding the following language: "Exotic vegetation shall be removed by hand unless otherwise authorized by the Preservation Board or another permitting agency." David Dunnavant questioned the necessity of additional language since the State's Permit would outline requirements concerning vegetation removal. A IU 161 December 14, 2011 Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 3. Section 3.05.07 (H) (4) — Preservation Standards (Mitigation) Steve Lenberger outlined the Amendment. David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 4. Section 4.06.05 — Alternative Landscape Design Standards Plan (New Section) Caroline Cilek provided background information. Suggested Changes: • Page 2, Line 9 — "25 %" was changed to "50 %" • Page 2, Line 12 — Remove "this" and reference Section (specify) Discussion ensued concerning determining building age — ten years old from when? Bob Mulhere suggested adding the following language after the word "old ": "measured from the date of issuance of the initial Certificate of Occupancy, and ..." (remove the word "with ") David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 5. Section 4.07.02 G — Design Standards for Planned Unit Developments Fred Reischl provided background information. Suggested Changes: • Remove Paragraph 1 completely and renumber remaining three paragraphs. • Page 3, Line 17 — remove "shall" and add "may" • Page 3, Line 18 — Sentence will end following the word "use." Delete "as usable open space." Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 8 r F 1612 A 1U December 14, 2011 6. Section 5.05.08 — Architectural and Site Design Standards Su�ested Changes: • Page 2, under "Fiscal & Operational Impacts," the sentence shall read: "There are no additional fiscal and/or operational impacts to the County." • Page 4, Line 7 — Remove "in curtain wall assembly," "but" and "may not" • Page 4, Line 7 — Add "and shall" following the word "allowed" Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert Mulliere. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 7. Section 6.02.01 D (12) — Management and Monitoring Program (Concurrence) 8. Section 6.06.02 C (1) — Street System Requirements Caroline Cilek stated there were several inconsistencies with the GMP ( "Growth Management Plan "). Consensus: The Amendments were tabled. (Marco Espinar left at 4:00 PM.) 9. Section 10.02.03 B — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 9. Section 10.02.03 — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans (Conceptual — not completed.) Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. 11. Section 10.02.13 —Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") Procedures Caroline Cilek stated the Amendment is not legal and is under review. Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. 12. Section 10.08.00 — Conditions and Safeguards Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 9 '61 ember 4, O1 13. Section 10.02.03 B — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans (Construction) Consensus: The Amendment was tabled. NEXT MEETING DATE: • December 21, 2011 at 1:00 to 4:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:23 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on I1,� , 201 JL "as presented" 4 OR "as amended" DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Clay Brook e47, Vice Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on `'� , 201 "as presented" [X] OR "as amended" [_ ]. 10 161 Z A lu J ecember 21, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida December 21, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION, in Conference Room #610, at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Reed Jarvi Vice Chair: Clay C. Brooker James Boughton (Absent) David Dunnavant Marco Espinar (Excused) George Hermanson Robert Mulhere STAFF PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Amanda Townsend, Director — Domestic Animal Services Ray Smith, Director - Pollution Control Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager 1 j 4 1612 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Jarvi called the meeting to order at 1:02 PM. A quorum was established; four members were present. AIQ Decembe1, 2011 II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: David Dunnavant moved to approve Agenda as presented. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of Minutes was tabled until the next Subcommittee meeting. (Note: Subcommittee members may request a copy of the minutes from Caroline Cilek.) IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) V. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions ( "Hazardous Product or Waste" ): Ray Smith, Director - Pollution Control Department, outlined the purpose of the Amendment. Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. VI. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Section 4.05.04 — Parking Space Requirements: Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation, stated the Land Development Code limits grass parking to only 15 percent; the purpose of the Amendment is to modify the limitation. Clay Brooker asked if the term, "public parking," was defined in the LDC. Suggested Changes: • Page 1, Line 9 — Add ", in accordance with South Florida Water Management District regulations," following the word "included" • Page 2, Line 3 — Add ", and other similar Community uses," following the word "Parks" • Page 2, Line 3 — Add "up to a maximum of 50% of the required spaces." following the word "parking" • Page 2 — Add Line: "3. For Church parking, refer to LDC Section " Robert Mulhere moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 2 (George Hermanson arrived@ 1:30 PM.) 16 IA 2 A 1U December 21, 2011 V. OLD BUSINESS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 2. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions (Kennel): Caroline Cilek outlined the changes made to the Amendment, specifically that the proposed Amendment removes the language pertaining to the number and age of a dog and the housing location. Amanda Townsend, Director — Domestic Animal Services, stated DAS Subcommittee for Ordinance Revisions has met and approved some changes to the Animal Control Ordinance but did not make any specific changes concerning definitions. The goal is to regulate any residence or business establishment that permanently houses multiple unsterilized cats and dogs by developing a permitting process. She further stated one of the Subcommittee's proposals was to require that all pets receive identification microchips. All changes will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on January 24, 2012. She noted boarding facilities are already regulated. George Hermanson suggested removing the word "licensed" from the definition. Suggested Change: • Kennel: An establishment required to be licensed which operates as a facility housing dogs, cats, or other household pets. Robert Where moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, S — 0. 3. Section 6.02.01 (D) (12) — Adequate Public Facilities (Generally) John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager, outlined the substantive changes and explained interpretation. It was noted Staff did not agree with a number of CBIA's recommendations because the proposed changes were inconsistent with the Traffic Impact Study ( "TIS ") Guidelines and Procedures. Several of the proposed changes would create a discrepancy between the LDC and the GMP concerning the methodology applied to traffic study reviews. It was suggested that CBIA approach the GMP Committee. Suggested Chang: Under 6.02.01 (D) (12) • Page 2, under (1.) — the word "grant" was changed to "vest" • Page 3, Line 12 — The beginning of the sentence was changed as follows: "Application of this system is limited to the following Final Local Development Orders:..." • Page 3, Line 14 — "Subdivision" was added following the word "and" 3 4 Member 21, 2011 Under 6.02.02 • Page 4, Lines 9 through 19 — Remove (1.) under "M" Under 6.02.03 (A) • Page 4, Lines 24 and 25 — Remove last sentence ( "This evaluation ... ) • Page 4, Line 24 — Add the following sentence: "Evaluation under this Section is limited to the following Final Local Development Orders: Site Developments Plans, Insubstantial Changes to Site Development Plan, Site Development Plan Amendments, Site Improvement Plans, and Subdivision Plat/Plan projects." Under 6.02.03 (D) • Page 4, Lines 34 through 36 — Remove the words "or second or third year" and add "3 years" following the word "first" (where applicable) George Hermanson moved that the Subcommittee accept the Amendment as discussed and revised, recommend to DSAC to approve the revised Amendment, and recommend that CBIA propose a revision to the TIS Guidelines for consistency with this Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Motion carried, 4 - "Yes "W — "No." David Dunnavant was opposed. 4. Section 6.06.01— Street System Requirements It was noted Staff does not agree with CBIA's proposed changes and requested justification for same. Suggested Changes: Under "S." • Page 5, Line 4 — Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (M.U.T.C.D.) "Traffic control devices shall be provided by the developer when an engineering study indicates traffic control is justified at the project street entrances." "Traffic signals at project street entrances shall be required in accordance with an engineering study and shall be paid by the developer in a `fair share' proportion." After discussion of the above - referenced suggested language, it was the consensus of the Subcommittee that no action will be taken regarding this Section. (Robert Mulhere left at 3:05 PM.) 4 16 A10 December 21, 2011 Under 6.06.02 (F) • Page 6, Lines 34 through 40 — Remove the last sentence ( "Expansion joints ...") • Page 6, Line 33 — Add "Sidewalks, including those across residential driveways, located along private roads may be constructed of a minimum of 4- inches of concrete over a compacted subgrade." • Page 7, Line 2 — add "and sand cushion." Following the word "base" BREAK: 3:20 PM RECONVENED: 3:30 PM It was noted the Amendment was too confusing in its current format. Consensus: Refer to full DSAC for further discussion of the Amendment and Section 6.02.01 (D) (12) entitled Adequate Public Facilities (Generally). Staff and CBIA will revise the header section to provide clear justification and reasoning and will present the revised document at the next DSAC meeting. 7. Section 5.03.06 — Dock Facilities Suggested Changes: • Page 4, Line 34 — Delete the phrase "and Section 10.03.05 B.11" • Page 4, Line 36 — Insert the word "include" following the word "shall" • Page 4, Line 37 — Delete the word "justification" • Page 4, Lines 40 through 49 — Delete subparagraph (a.) entirely • Page 5, Line 1 — Insert the phrase "or property owners who received notice in accordance with Section 5.02.06 (H) (5)" following the word "Applicants" Clay Brooker moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by David Dunnavant. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. 8. Section 4.06.03 — Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas David Dunnavant moved that the Subcommittee accept the revised Amendment as discussed, and recommend to DSAC to approve the Amendment. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. NOTE: The following Amendments were not reviewed by the Subcommittee: • Section 10.02.03 — Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans • Section 9.05.00 — Administrative Adjustment • Section 10.02.13 — Planned Unit Development ( "PUD ") Procedure 5 6 ' v Decem10 ber 21, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:05 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Reed The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on "as presented" [,N] OR "as amended" DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 11�xzf, Z0.10� Clay Brook, Vice Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on `j / 2- , "as presented" [�- ] OR "as amended" 6 a #1 1612 A11 November 4, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD J/ MEETING Fiala D M E Hiller tg II W 1E Hennin g November 4, 2011 Coyle r _ Naples, Florida JAN 2, 3 0 Coletta ' L BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Misc. Corres: Date: 311 31► 2 Item t ► Le--1:'2— \A 1 \ Copies to: Chair: James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Walter Kopka Rosemary LeBailly, RN Chief Robert Metzger Jerry Pinto ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner Fred Coyle, Collier County Board of County Commissioners Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Maria Franco, EMS Administrative Assistant Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Dan Bowman, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Tabitha Butcher, Battalion Chief All November 4, 2013 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM. A quorum was established. Five members were present. 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Today's Agenda Chief Robert Metzger moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Jerry Pinto. Carried unanimously, S -- 0. B. Approval of Minutes: August 19, 2011 Chief Robert Metzger moved to approve the Minutes of tite August 19, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (Note: • Jerry Pinto could not vote because he did not attend the August meeting. • Assistant Chief Kopka could not vote because he resigned as a member of the Boatel. • Battalion Chief Butcher could not vote because site was not a member of the Board at the August meeting.) 3. OLD BUSINESS: (None) 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. Establish Schedule for 2012 Meetings The Policy Advisory Board approved and adopted the following schedule: • January 20, 2012 • March 23, 2012 • May 18, 2012 • July 13, 2012 • September 21, 2012 • November 9, 2012 The meetings will be held in the Conference Room at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 121 Goodlette Road North, commencing at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise notified. Chairman Talano noted: • Assistant Chief Walter Kopka resigned from the Policy Advisory Board to serve as Interim Chief of EMS due to the retirement of Chief Jeff Paige. • Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher was appointed by EMS as the EMS representative to the Policy Advisory Board. Chairman Talano called for nominations for Vice Chair: Battalion Chief Butcher nominated Chief Metzger to serve as Vice Chair. Second by Jerry Pinto. Carried unanimously, 4 -- 0. Chief Metzger abstained from voting. 2 1612 'A f November 4, 2011 B. Discussion: Ambitran's COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Application Interim Chief Walter Kopka provided background information • Ambitran submitted an Application to obtain a CIass-2 COPCN in September. • The Application was reviewed by Staff and forwarded to the BCC. • The Naples Daily News published articles concerning billing issues between EMS and the Hospitals. • Ambitran applied to fill a specific niche: to provide inter- facility medical transfer services within and outside Collier County • The Board of County Commissioners approved the application on September 27, 2011 and granted Ambitran a Class 2 Inter- Hospital Certificate. Chief Kopka noted a Billing Resolution, adopted by the BCC in 2008, provided that the hospitals would be billed by EMS on a monthly basis for transports from their facilities. The system functioned as intended, i.e., the hospitals were invoiced and paid the invoices, until approximately July 2010 when the hospitals stopped payments. He stated: • EMS allocated an additional ambulance for the inter - hospital transports, and paid the Staff and Crew necessary to provide the service • Meetings were held with Staff from both hospitals but the hospitals refiised to pay the invoices • Due to the news coverage, Ambitran became aware of the problems and applied to provide the service The Chief continued: • EMS is not geared to handle inter - facility transports --- it is dedicated to providing "911" emergency service. • Ambulances that provide transport services are configured and equipped differently than rescue services vehicles. • The inter - facility transport staff is trained differently and paid at a different rate than First Responders. • Ambitran is dedicated solely to providing inter - facility transport. • It is in EMS' best interest to allow Ambitran to provide the transport service. • After Ambitran submitted its application, NCH sent an email to EMS stating it would no longer provide inter- hospital transport. He explained a COPCN is not necessary to provide out -of- County transport, i.e., any ambulance company can pick up a patient from Collier County and transport to a facility in another County because the service is not regulated by the BCC. • Ambitran works in Tampa, in Charlotte and Lee Counties, and has a contract with the VA to transport clinic patients from St. Petersburg to Lee County. + f Positive] References were obtained from Lee and Charlotte Counties, as well as from Physician's Regional Hospital. i61Z A 11 November 4, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger asked why the COPCN Application was placed on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda before it was vetted by the Policy Advisory Board, Chief Kopka stated County Manager and Staff determined that EMS had been carrying the loss and to continue to pay for the inter - facility transports would place an unfair burden on the County's taxpayers. The goal was to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Battalion Chief Butcher asked if Ambitran would be used for emergency transports. Chief Kopka stated both Dr. Tober and the hospitals will determine whether or not Ambitran could service an emergency call if necessary. He noted the Ordinance references only "inter - hospital transports" because the definition of "emergency" differs from case to case. Dr. Robert Tober explained he has been called by cardiologists for an "emergency" transport of patient to the cath lab who is in stable condition. In that situation, Ambitran could transport the patient instead of using an EMS vehicle. [The cardiologist wanted his patient at the lab as quickly as possible and he considered it to be an "emergency. "] Chief Kopka stated while EMS may never totally extricate itself from transport, its position would be as "back up" to Ambitran. Ambitran will handle its billing. There are complicated Medicare rules and regulations to be followed unless the hospital has an agreement with a provider. The Billing Resolution stated the hospitals were to be billed monthly for the services provided. The Resolution had been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. In July 2010, the hospitals decided the Resolution did not apply any longer and refused to pay the invoices. He stated the billing issue was a difficult thing to decipher. Vice Chairman Metzger asked if the current Billing Resolution was going to be changed and Chief Kopka replied affirmatively. C. North Naples Medication/Procedure Request Deputy Chief Wayne Watson stated: • On October 21, 2011, EMS received a letter from the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District requesting the addition of several medications and three protocols to the current ALS non - transport protocol. • North Naples met with Dr. Tober to begin discussions • He noted Marco Island submitted a similar request approximately two years ago. Marco conducted a lengthy study based on its geographic isolation and the time to respond to locations. Suggestions were made to add several drugs. The Medical Director met with Marco Island, reviewed the data presented, and expanded the protocol by four drugs. Marco Island agreed to adopt the medications, and increase its training and ride requirements. • Based on the Marco Island research, EMS will provide four medications to North Naples, i.e., Atropine, Sodium Bicarbonate, Amiodarone /Lidocaine, and Narcan, which have been proven effective. • North Naples will be required to share its data, and revise its training to administer the medications since they were not included in its standard medication list. • Regarding the 12 -lead EKG, due to technological advances and a reduction of cost, the Medical Director granted preliminary approval to add it to North Naples' protocol. 4 1612 A 1� November 4, 2011 • Marco Island participates in the Quality Assurance program and shares its results with EMS. • Marco Island presents a unique circumstance because it is an urban community in a rural setting. Vice Chairman Metzger stated he carried the same four medications in his med box when he was initially certified in 1981. He noted their applications may have changed over the years but he did not consider them to be "controversial." He asked what was the basis for North Naples' request, especially with regard to the other medications. Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera responded North Naples had created an EMS Council following its entry into the ALS Engine Program. Among the members of the Council are the North Naples Medical Director and the two Associate Medical Directors who are on Staff at NCH and Physician's Regional. During a Council meeting, discussion was initiated by the Associate Medical Directors who suggested other medications that should be included as minimum Standard of Care medications for an ALS provider. He continued the Marco Island Fire Chief sent a letter in support of the addition of the medications to the North Naples' protocol. He stated North Naples did not want to wait until there was an incident in the field to request the additional medications which are also considered to be Standard of Care by the American Heart Association. Dr. Tober noted North Naples had acquired the same software as EMS and requested to be provided monthly reports on ALS activities and hand -offs. He continued that in view of the quick response time of the transport units and the average time /use of the requested drugs, there may not be a compelling medical reason to distribute them. He recognized there may be political reasons motivating the request for additional drugs. Deputy Chief Aguilera requested Dr. Tober to provide his recommendation in writing. Vice Chairman Metzger requested clarification from Dr. Tober. Dr. Tober responded he has not received any reports on North Naples' activities, i.e., what is being done on scene and when. EMS run reports specify when a call originates in North Naples and he stated one item of study is the overall provision of medical care at the scene. While inclusion of the four drugs initially requested has been approved, a decision on whether or not the other drugs are actually necessary can not be made until he has received reports from North Naples. Chairman Talano moved to approve distribution of the four drugs (Atropine, Sodium Bicarbonate, Amiodarone/Lldocaine, and Narcan) as requested, and supported Dr. Tober's proposal to determine if the other five medications are necessaf y only after North Naples has submitted its monthly activities report. Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 5 — 0. Dr. Tober stated there were two unrelated issues concerning the 12 -lead EKG. One was to conduct the procedure in a quieter environment after patient is loaded onto the ambulance. The other issue was if applications for 12 -leads are granted to Marco Island and North Naples, would it also be necessary to purchase 12 -leads for the City of Naples. Interim Chief Kopka noted cost is a factor. Auto - pulses are available and exceptions have been created for its use. He confirmed Fire Districts are not obligated to obtain a 12 -lead EKG. a.� 1612 A 11 Noveinber 4, 2011 Chairman Talano stated there are situations during the critical first 17 minutes of the call when use of a 12 -lead would be more helpful than the standard leads. He noted the request for the 12 -lead EKG had been approved by Dr. Tober. Vice Chairman Metzger asked why chest decompression and external jugular would not be granted. He acknowledged the procedures are not new and do carry some risk, but chest decompression specifically could be acutely necessary. He was concerned that paramedics would not be allowed to perform the it. Dr. Tober responded part of the issue is to determine exactly what his office is responsible for with another system's COPCN when it is implied he is the final overseer. He does not train the North Naples paramedics. He continued the likelihood of a paramedic competently performing either of the procedures is rare — even for full -time EMS providers — and less so for North Naples where it would be the first time for many of its paramedics. He referenced the Blue Ribbon Committee which strongly suggested that the number of people armed with ALS capabilities is limited to mirror King County (Seattle, Washington). Almost immediately after the suggestion was made, the Board of County Commissioners did the opposite by granting a politically- charged COPCN to North Naples. Vice Chairman Metzger admitted there were only a few times when he needed that skill (i.e., chest decompression) but when it was necessary, it was an immediate need because the "patient as circling the drain" and without the ability to give chest decompression, the outcome for the patient may have been different. Dr. Taber stated King County has a population of two million and 250 paramedics while Collier County has approximately 200 paramedics but only 450,000 people at the height of season. The issue is adopting King County's proven profiles versus doing "whatever" based on political whims. Vice Chairman Metzger stated chest decompression is a training- associated skill that all paramedics should know. Dr. Tober countered external jugular is totally unnecessary since there are much safer, easier way to access circulation. Deputy Chief Watson noted the response units are equipped with I -O needles. Vice Chairman Metzger reiterated check decompression should be granted. Dr. Tober asked if it should be a BLS skill. Battalion Chief Butcher suggested a more important skill was the ability to recognize when chest depression should be administered immediately versus when it was necessary to wait. Deputy Chief Watson stated since it is does not come up very often, a protocol for tension pneumothorax had not been developed. Dt. Tober confirmed that 99% of chest decompressions administered were during traumatic cardiac arrest calls. Chairman Talano noted the other component was training and the availability of required equipment. Deputy Chief Aguilera stated simulators or manikins were used for practice. Dr. Tober agreed with Battalion Chief Butcher that the ability to recognize when chest depression was appropriate was more important than the ability to administer it. Vice Chairman Metzger concurred but stated recognition was part of the physical skill that should be taught as part of the training process. He stated supported granting the request although not necessarily as a BLS skill. Individuals trained only as EMT/First Responders should not necessarily be exposed, but definitely for Paramedics. 6 1612A11 November 4, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve granting North Naples' request to administer chest decompression along with 12 -lead EKG. (It was noted the request for the 12 -lend EKG has been granted) A second in support of the motion was not made. The Motion failed. D. North Naples Equipment — Field Test of the Lucas Device • It is an external chest compression device similar to the auto - pulse. • It does not use bands as does the Auto Pulse — which are costly — and has a better battery system. Chairman Talano asked how the devices differ from each other. It was noted: • Originally it contained compressed air — it has been revised as a piston driven devise — precision designed • The rate of compression follows the AHA guidelines at 100 per minutes • The Auto -Pulse rate of compression is 80 beats per minute • The Auto -Pulse bands are single -use only and cost $130 each • The Lucas features a suction cup which is reusable after cleaning and sterilization • It is lighter and smaller • Preliminary field test results are that it is quicker and easier to use. • The Lucas Device is used when a patient has suffered cardiac arrest and is not breathing — it performs chest compressions. The piston is adjustable and sensitive to the depth of a patient's chest. Deputy Chief Watson noted despite the expense, there have been very good results from use of the Auto - Pulse. He stated the goal is to achieve comparable results from the Lucas Device which is being tested by North Naples.. Dr. Tober stated the mechanical compression device used by EMS "bear hugs" the patient and it has been very successful. The battery life is a problem and the expense of the single -use bands. 5. STAFF REPORTS: Interim EMS Chief Kopka • Extended an invitation to the Board to ride along on an EMS vehicle • Is still trying to absorb the office procedures and will base his decisions on statistics -- data driven • Is available to provide information on a quarterly basis regarding budget items or response times, etc., as requested • Trying to utilize technology: Investigating a new tablet which is similar to the I -Pad but less expensive — i.e., dispatch information with a map and directions is sent to the tablet • Also field testing new programs such as Google - translator (from English to other languages and vice versa) — it has the ability to ask simple medical questions, i.e., "Where is your pain? Do you have chest pain ?" 1612 A November 4, 2011 Chairman Talano requested a report on the effectiveness of the new tablet on response times. Chief Kopka will present data at the next meeting. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) 7. BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION: (No ► ►e) 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Friday, January 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 4:43 PM. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James T lan , .D., Chairman The Minutes werepproved by the Board /Committee Chair on�a/�cl ! 2011, "as submitted" [\/1 OR "as amended" [^] 8 } b 1612 A 11 ,� JAN 2 ' � Q I � November 18, 2011 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD EMERGENCY MEETING November 18, 2011 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 PM in EMERGENCY MEETING SESSION, at the Neighborhood Health Clinic, 12 Goodlette Road N., Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: James Talano, M.D. Vice Chair: Chief Robert Metzger Fiala Battalion Chief Tabitha Butcher Hiller Rosemary LeBailly, RN Henning -t FY_ Coyle (Vacancy) Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: _31 Item * I (.oT 2 FA I i ALSO PRESENT: Copies to: Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director Walter Kopka, Interim Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Maria Franco, EMS Administrative Assistant Jorge Aguilera, Deputy Chief, Medical Services /Community Relations Y November 18, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman James Talano called the meeting to order at 4:07 PM. A quorum was established. Four members were present. (Note: Jerry Pinto's term of office expired.) Chairman Talano noted the emergency meeting was called to comply with a directive from the Board of County Commissioners. Chief Kopka stated the Commissioners asked if the EMS Policy Advisory Board had reviewed and voted on the COPCN application from Ambitran. When it was noted the EMS Board had only reviewed and discussed the Ordinance, the BCC requested the Board to review it again and take a vote. Chairman Talano expressed concern that approving a contract was not within the scope of the Policy Advisory Board's responsibilities. Vice Chairman Metzger stated the EMS Board was asked to review the changes to the Ordinance, which is not a contract. He further stated the EMS Board has previously reviewed other Ordinance drafts that related to EMS services. Chief Kopka confirmed it was within the Policy Advisory Board's purview to review all factors that relate to pre - hospital emergency care. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES: A. Approval of Agenda Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4— 0. B. Approval of Minutes: November 4, 2011 Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2 -011 meeting as submitted. Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 4— 0. 3. OLD BUSINESS: A. Ambitran's COPCN ( "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ") Application Review and Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners Chief Kopka reviewed the changes to the enabling Ordinance as follows: • Page 2. "K' (The item was added.) Chief Koplca stated Ambitran was issued a Permit in October 2011. The Ordinance was changed because Ambitran did not fall into any of the categories within the COPCN. He noted the COPCN allowed inter- hospital transport services. Ambitran is a private company that provides transport services but is not hospital - based. He further stated Commissioner Hiller asked for data concerning how the new service (Ambitran) would affect the current service, i.e., how many ambulances would be needed, how many patients Ambitran would transport. She wanted to 2 .j 1612 All November 18, 2011 know what NCH had done, what was EMS doing, and what would be done by Ambitran. Chairman Talano stated his understanding that NCH provided only facility -to- facility transfers, and Ambitran would provide transfers only from facility to facility. Chief Kopka stated EMS was still providing transfers to Physicians' Regional Hospital. Chairman Talano asked if Ambitran would provide service to both NCH and HMA. Chief Kopka confirmed that was the goal although EMS realizes there will be occasions when Ambitran will not be available and EMS will provide the necessary service. Vice Chairman Metzger stated the Ordinance opened the door for a private sector transport company, which would not be problematic as long as the provider remained viable. His concern was that the EMS system would be altered to accommodate the private sector and, if the provider failed, EMS would be required to alter its system again to absorb the absence of the private sector provider, Chief Kopka reminded the Board that EMS was forced into providing service on October 22, 2011 when NCH sent an email at 4:00 PM announcing it would no longer provide facility -to- facility transports. Page 2, Section Two, "13 Chief Kopka stated Paragraph "B" summarized and combined the two stricken subparagraphs (2 and 3.) on Page 3 in an effort to simplify the document. • The "Class -2" will provide post - hospital inter - facility medical transfer services within and outside the County. • If requested by a Class 1 -ALS Rescue Operator (i.e., EMS), the "Class -2" will also provide emergency pre - hospital backup service. • The "Class -2" may provide their Medical Director who will work cooperatively with the County's Office of the Medical Director. • The "Class -2" will comply with all guidelines and policies approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. • The "Glass -2" will notify all hospitals and facilities of the services it provides and will work cooperatively with them. Chairman Talano pointed out the reference to Florida Statutes, Section 401.265 and to the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 64J- 1,004(4)(a) had been eliminated. Suggestion: Insert a comma and the phrase, "as set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 401.265 and the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 64J - 1.004(4) (a)" following the word "utilized" at the end of the last sentence in Paragraph B. (Dr. Robert Tober arrived at 4 :25 PM.) P � 161[.p11 November 18, 2011 • Paragraph G - "Certi ication: " Chief Kopka noted clarification was needed. He suggested changing the underlined portion of the second sentence to read as follows: "Each Collier County EMS Paramedic and Class -2 Operator Paramedic who contracts with the County for Medical Director services must work ..." • Page Four, Section Sixteen: Chief Kopka noted the word "Central" had been stricken from the title "Place of Business" as well as from the first sentence of the paragraph. Public Sneaker: Deputy Chief Jorge Aguilera stated North Naples concern was Item "K" on Page 2. He referred to the current Ordinance and cited from Section Seven: "The Board of County Commissioners shall not grant a Certificate unless it shall find, after public hearings and based on competent evidence, that each of the following Standards has been satisfied: (a) that there is a public necessity for the service. In making such determination, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider as a minimum the following factors: 1. The extent to which the proposed service is needed to improve the overall Emergency Medical Services capabilities of the County; 2. The effect of the proposed service on existing services with respect to the quality of service and cost of service; 3. The effect of the proposed service on the overall cost of EMS service in the County; 4. The effect of the proposed service on the existing hospitals and other health care facilities; and 5. The effect of the proposed service on the personnel of the existing service and the availability of sufficient, qualified personnel in the local area to adequately staff all existing services." He stated the information requested in Item "K" already exists within the Ordinance. He stated he was not sure if Commissioner Hiller was aware of this section within the Ordinance. He finrther stated the Applicant did not respond to the questions in the COPCN application, nor did it provide any evidence. He continued Item "K" was redundant since there were several other sections within the Ordinance which required the Applicant to produce evidence, 4 z a.i1 November 18, 2011 He reiterated North Naples' objection and noted the reason for revising the original Ordinance was to clarify that the provider was not associated with any local hospitals. The initial Ordinance specified that the private provider must be associated with a local hospital in order to provide transport services. He concluded North Naples requested deletion of Item "K" since it had no bearing on the reasons why the Ordinance was revised. He also suggested requesting a review of one of the changes, i.e., the inclusion of the reference to the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, by the County Attorney's Office since it may be problematic for the COPCN provider under its quality assurance program because it required sharing documents with the County. He stated it was a problem when North Naples applied for its COPCN. It was noted that Ambitran was issued a Certificate to Operate despite not answering the questions. Vice Chairman Metzger stated he supported removing Item "K" from the revised Ordinance. Battalion Chief Butcher asked if Ambitran was required to provide ride time. Chief Kopka confirmed it was not required to do so. Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve the revisions to the draft Ordinance as amended by discussion by lire Policy Advisory Board, to wit. • To strike Item "K" on Page 2; • To insert a comma and the phrase "as set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 401.265, and Chapter 64J- 1.004(4)(a) of the Florida Administrative Code." following the word "utilized" at the end of the last sentence in Paragraph B o Interim Chief Kopka will submit the revision to the County Attorney's Office for review. • Paragraph G, "Certification:" The underlined portion of the second sentence is changed to: "Each Collier County EMS paramedic and Class -2 Operator's paramedic that contracts with the County for Medical Director services must work with a ...." • Paragraph H, "Ride Time Requirement:" the underlined portion of the first sentence is changed to: "that has entered into a contract with the Countyfor Medical Director services ..." • Section Sixteen: Strike the word "Central" from the title "Place of Business" as well as from the first sentence. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve providing advance approval of the revised Ordinance pending the determination 41, the County Attorney's Office and any changes suggested by the County Attorney's Office relative to the portions concerning inclusion of the reference to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Second by Battalion Chief Butcher. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. November 18, 2011 4. NEW BUSINESS: (None) 5. STAFF REPORTS: (None) 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) 7. BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION: Chairman Talano: • suggested changing the meeting time during "Season" from 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM. Dr. Tober concurred, stating it would be impossible for him to arrive earlier than 5:00 PM. Consensus: Meeting will begin at 5:00 PM only during "Season." ChiefKopka: • noted Jerry Pinto's term as a member of the Policy Advisory Board has expired and he has not submitted an application to renew his membership. • He suggested changing the representative category from "Pharmacist" to "Physician" or "ER Physician." • It was noted nominations would be made by the Medical Society. Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve revising the Committee's composition by replacing the position of "Pharmacist" by a "Physician Trained in Emergency Medicine" as nominated by the Medical Society. Second by Rosemary LeBailly. Carried unanimously, 4 — 0. Chairman Talano suggested contacting Margaret Eddington at the Medical Society for potential candidates. Staff will prepare a notification letter to the Board of County Commissioners petitioning for a change of composition of the Policy Advisory Board. Consensus: The Committee approved allowing the Chairman to sign the letter to the Board of County Commissioners without their prior review. Vice Chairman Metzger. • Stated there was an error of interpretation in the Minutes of the November 4th meeting concerning the use of 1.2 -lead technology by North Naples. Vice Chairman Metzger moved to approve authorizing North Naples to use 12 -lead technology under its protocol. Second by Battalion Chlef Butcher: Carried unanimously, 12 — 0. 1612p11 November 18, 2011 8. NEXT MEETING DATE: Friday, January 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM There being no further business for the good of the County, the Meeting concluded by order of the Chair at 4:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD James Ta ano, .D., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee Chair on J(-),201}1, "as submitted" [)C ] OR "as amended" [_j 7 .11 16 I i2 1 No ember 2, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL Naples, Florida, November 2, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: D E'u CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon 0 7 2011 VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman BY Michael Sorrell . " " " " David Bishof Gina Downs Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta J fi ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist William Lorenz, Director, Land Development Services Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Misc. Corees: pate: '2:7112a) 12 Item #: t to _ -2— ,R 12 Copies to: 1 1612 . November 2, 2011 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 4 — 0. Mr. Bishof arrived at 9: 01 am IV. Approval of the September 7, 2011 meeting minutes (October meeting was cancelled) Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 1, Headsheet — from "Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist" to "Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist;" "Jack Mackenna" to "Jack Mckenna;" "William Lorenz, Director, Environmental Services" to "William Lorenz, Director, Land Development Services" • Page 7, paragraph 5 from "Ellen" to "Ellen Peterson, Sierra Club — Calusa Group" • Page 8, paragraph 9, line 2 from "The project is not in subject to..." to "The project is not subject to..." • Page 8, paragraph 9, line 3 from "...mining as permitted..." to "...mining as a permitted..." • Page 11, paragraph 2 from "...to be cued..." to "...to be queued..." Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously S — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development Amendment PUDA PL2011 -047 Sabal Bay PUD Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 & 36, Township 50 South, Range 25 East Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East All those providing testimony were sworn in. Staff submitted the "Environmental Advisory Council Staff Report — Meeting of November 2, 2011 — Petition No: Planned Unit Development Amendment PUDA PL2011 -047 " for the record. Margaret Perry, WilsonMiller Stantec provided an overview of the project highlighting: • The project was originally approved in 1986, with the most recent Amendment in 2005. • The property is located on the south side of Thomasson Drive, abutted by Tamiami Trail (US41) on,the east and Treviso Bay on the South and east. • It is 2416 +/- acres in size. The Amendment request consists of the following: 2 1612 A 12 November 2, 2011 ♦ Adding two interconnections through preserve areas, while increasing the preserves by 46 acres. ♦ The elimination of the golf course. ♦ The addition of 2 access points — one on US41 lining up with St. Andrews Boulevard and one at Hamilton Avenue. ♦ Revision to the allowed height for car retiremen uses from 3 stories to 80 feet in residential areas; and allowing a floor area ratio of 0.6 for this use. ♦ Inclusion of car washes and post office as f allowed use in the recreation/village center area. ♦ Inclusion of outside storage areas (excluding boats) and telecommunications facilities as allowed uses. ♦ Changes to some of the conditions of approval. John English, WilsonMiller Stantec provided an overview of the proposed surface water management system highlighting: • The amended Plan incorporates a new surface water management system. • The stormwater will be collected and transported into the Sabal Bay lake system, discharged into a wetland filter marsh with overflow into existing wetlands before final discharge into the outside receiving body. • The discharge rates remain the same or less than previously approved. • The discharge points are the Lely Manor Canal, Lely Main Canal and an adjacent shallow wetland with sheet flow to tidal waters. • The applicant is in the process of amending the South Florida Water Management District Environmental Resource permit. Discussion occurred on the projects potential impact(s) on the Collier County Watershed Management Plan. Staff reported comments in reference to the Plan were not provided on the application, as the application was reviewed prior to Staff finalizing, and the Board of County Commissioners adopting the Plan. Staff will be providing comments on applications and impacts on the Plan on future applications, when applicable. Andy Woodruff, Passarella and Associates provide an overview of the environmental aspects of the Amendment highlighting: • The proposed preserve areas have been modified to include the provision of future right of way areas for potential access points to adjacent properties /roadways. • There is a net increase of 46 acres of preserve. • The Bald Eagle Management Plan has been updated as required by State and Federal Agencies. • There will be preconstruction meetings with County Staff prior to the initiation of construction of each phase (development area) of the development including provision of an updated listed species survey. 3 November 2, 2011 The Council recognized Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida had submitted an email to EAC members dated October 31, 2011— Subject: Sabal Bay. The email apprised Council members on concerns with proposed language in the PUD document. Council discussion occurred on: • The language contained in Section 8.7.A, line 1 of the document "Sabal Bay — A Mixed Use Planned Unit Development — Exhibit A " and any recommended changes (see condition # 1 in motion of approval). • Any applicable water quality reports will be submitted to Staff at Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for information purposes. Break: 10: 45am Reconvened.• 11:00am • The status of the wetland mitigation (including onsite) required. • How Gopher Tortoise relocation will be provided onsite. • The MPUD document cites conflicting allowed densities of 1.26 dwellings per acre and 1.29 dwellings per acre and should be revised for consistency. • The opportunities for the development to incorporate the use of pervious pavements /materials and other Low Impact Development Design standards where applicable. Mr. Dickman moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment — "PUDA PL2011 -047 Sabal Bay PUD" subject to the following conditions: 1. In Section 8.7.A, line I of the document "Sabal Bay —A Mixed Use Planned Unit Development — Exhibit A" - Deletion of the portion of line I stating, "Per Agreement with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida." 2. The MPUD document(s) be revised where necessary to cite the allowed density (1.29 units per acre). 3. The applicant considers the use of pervious pavement/materials where applicable. 4. The applicant consider utilizing low level, directional exterior lighting (to protect the integrity of existing and proposed preserve areas). S. The applicant considers incorporating Low Impact Development design standards within the project. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. VII. New Business (Item heard prior to Item VIA.) A. Elect Chair and Vice -Chair (per Code this is done every October) Ms. Downs moved to appoint Dr. Judith Hushon as Chairman and Mr. Andrew Dickman as Vice Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Council. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. B. Discuss July 2012 meeting date M 161 2A 12 November 2, 2011 Summer Araque reported the tentative date for the Environmental Advisory Council July 2012 regular meeting is Tuesday, July 3, 2012. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects Summer Araque reported: • Hacienda Lakes was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 10/25/11. • Cope Reserve approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 10 /11 /11. • Lost Groves Mines application will be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission on November 3, 2011. IX. Council Member Comments Chairman Hushon reported she attended the Gordon River Greenway informational meeting at Freedom Park and an informational meeting at Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on the new proposed Florida Department of Environmental Protection water quality standards. Mr. Sorrell suggested the Council consider developing a position on the concept of the County requiring County wetland mitigation when wetlands within the County are negatively impacted. Mr. Bishof noted wetland mitigation is already required under permitting by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and a County requirement may be redundant. Ms. Downs requested Staff provide a report to the Council on where an applicant's contribution to the "Wildlife Foundation of Florida" for Gopher Tortoise mitigation for "regional habitat" is allocated/expended. X. Staff Comments (Item heard prior to Item VIA.) A. Introduction of Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Bill Lorenz, Director, Land Development Services introduced Mr. Kurtz who will be providing Staff support to the Environmental Advisory Council. The Council requested Staff to provide them with an Operations Chart identifying the Staff positions associated with the Land Development Services Division for information purposes. XII. Public Comments None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 12:10 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 61 5 Ilk a 1612 A November 2, 2011 Chairman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended G i 1612A44i J A N A 4 O BY: ....................... FOREST R()kDVV"' _kNAXI UAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 December 14, 2011 Agenda I. Call to Order 11. Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — November 9, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report-Windham Studio VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Next meeting is January 11, 2012 at 10-00 a.rn Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 4 1 7 151191 A-'-seshoe Drive Snit.o-h Naples. Fit- 3,110j4w Misr. CWW. D*: -A 12)-h Item -r);es to: 0 1612 q113, LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 December 14, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. Il. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg (Excused), Dick Barry, Kenneth Bloom, Kevin McKyton (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Joel Wildey- Public, Joel Hedenstrom - Public, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — November 9, 2011 Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the minutes of November 9, 2011 as submitted. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $118,687.92 • Available Operating Expense $154,504.01 B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard reported on the Forest Lakes Sidewalks Project: • The Contract was awarded for Phase I Project • NTP was issued to purchase Materials 1 1612 A 13 o After evaluation of the traffic transiting the Front Entrance it was recommended to delay Construction until after the new year - A Meeting is scheduled with Staff, Risk Management, and Traffic Operations to assess the traffic flow and the Front Entrance Project Dick Barry noted the Traffic Light only allows 3 cars to pass through when the light is green (exiting Forest Lakes onto Pine Ridge Road.) • Target date for NTP to commence construction at the Front Entrance is January 9th • Notification Letter to the Residents will be mailed during the first week of January Discussion took place on Residents utilizing the Woodshire exit during construction. It was concluded that signage may be posted to detour traffic to the Woodshire exit. VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham reviewed the preliminary Budget for Phase II - Total Estimate $1,182,657.29: (See attached) Landscave / Inivation Construction and Site Fumishings • Total Estimate $672,557.65 • Street and Traffic Sign Replacement cost $118,169.70 • Directory Sign (corner of Forest Lakes and Woodshire) • Site Furnishings consists of - (3) Benches - Trash receptacles Sidewalk / Stripinq / Drainage Construction o Total Estimate $73,210.61 (area along Turtle Lakes) Lighting Construction o The Estimate is similar to the Project cost of Phase I Darryl Richard stated Staff is coordinating with Property Owners to complete the Easement Acquisitions. Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report for Phase II Project: (See attached) • Conveyed that the Residents of Woodshire Villas did not like the proposed (2) parallel parking spaces - They deemed that the existing 4 -5 spaces (with drainage issues) are essential for homeowners and guest parking • Modifications were made to the Parking Design (See attached) - Proposed Parking lot No. 2 was incorporated (additional 5 spaces) - The proposed (2) parallel parking spots were removed 2 16d 2A 13 o Noted Windham Studio has expended all approved hours and allotted funds (for the Design work) Michelle Arnold perceived that the Parking Project is evolving into Site Improvements and not the original intent. Discussion ensued and it was determined the existing parking is in the ROW and an Easement would be required for the modification. George Wildey stated that the Resident concern is the number of available spaces to park (4 spaces are preferred) and not that it was parallel parking. Kenneth Bloom expressed the following concerning additional modifications to the parking: • He approves of the proposed Parking Design • The MSTU would incur additional Design fees • An additional Easement is required Michelle Arnold summarized the input expressed by the Home Owners at the Woodshire meeting: • They were amicable on relocating the parking spaces at the pool • Contribution Funds were not available for Easements (by Property Owners) • Comments on the North parking spaces - Property Owners were indifferent on the parking spaces as they are located in the County ROW - Very Few individuals use the parking spaces - Property Owners were advised that the number of parking spaces may be reduced due to limited ROW - The concept of reduced parking spaces was not rejected by Property Owners • Subsequently the Design Plan was prepared • The MSTU Committee approved the Design • The Parking Project benefits (1) Community in the Forest Lakes Development Kenneth Bloom stated the MSTU is fiscally responsible for the entire Forest Lakes Community. He suggested tabling the item until the entire MSTU Board is present (January meeting.) Michelle Arnold suggested the following to avoid Site Improvements: • Add(1) parallel space to the proposed parking • Add (1) space to the pool area parking 161k2 A is Scott Windham replied: • The number of parallel spaces may be increase to (3) • The handicap space can be eliminated (not required) • Add (2) spaces at the pool area to create (6) standard spaces in lieu of the proposed (5) Joel Hedenstrom requested Darryl Richard and Kenneth Bloom attend the January 23rd HOA meeting (at 5:30 p.m.) to present a Cost Estimate and Project timeline. Kenneth Bloom requested a quote from Windham Studio to modify the Parking Design to include: • Increased parallel Parking to 3-4 spaces • Add (2) standard spaces in lieu of (1) handicap space Kenneth Bloom moved to table the Sidewalk Project (F58 — F60) Cul- de-sac Improvements until the January 11th MSTU meeting. Second by Dick Barry. George Wildey and Joel Hedenstrom were in favor of the proposed parking spaces that were discussed. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VII. Old Business - None VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:10 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Char an These minutes approved by the Committee on 1 • 11^ I �-- , as presented or amended_. Next meeting is January 11, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 n 34 OPERATING EXPENSE 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN 36 TRAFFIC DEVICE IMPRO 37 CAPITAL OUTLAY 38 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR 39 TRANS TO 259 BOND 4o TRANSFERS 41 BUDGET TRANS APPR 42 BUDGET TRANS TC COL TRANSFER CONT. RESERVE FOR CONTINGE RESERVES $ 240,598.61 $ 69,193.25 $ 20,431.64 $ 150,973.72 $ 1,719,029.83 FOREST LAKES MSTU 17,103.00 $ 832,453.60 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - FY 12 Gross Taxable Value FUND 159 $ 869,473.23 $ 17,103.00 $ 832,453.60 Minus: New Const. Annex. 78,038 Millage 1.1395 0.2606 Plus: Amendment #1 TV January 11, 2012 - $ 29,200.00 Component Amended $ $ Actual Available Adj. Taxable Value $ 529,200.00 Open P.O.s FY 10 Amt. $ 64,200.00 11 Levy Budget Commitments Expenditures Total Vender Name PO# Item Remaining Actual Paid 1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (151,600.00) $ $ (122,859.84) $ (28,740.16) 0.2602 1.2468 1.0369 2 FIFTH THIRD 0/N INTEREST $ - $ $ (278.08) $ 278.08 a DEL AD VALOREM $ - $ - Aquagenix 4500130369 3 Fountains Modification $ 2,250.00 $ 450.00 4 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (5,000.00) $ $ (3,272.49) $ (1,727.51) Cecils Copy Service 4500133834 Mailing to Residents $ 1,015.30 $ - s INTEREST TAX COLLECTOF $ - $ $ - $ - Commercial Land Maint 4500130298 Main Enter & Woodshire $ 16,540.00 $ 2,660.00 6 REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (156,600.00) $ $ (126,410.41) $ (30,189.59 ) Commercial Land 4500130299 Swale Mowing $ 26,425.40 $ 5,605.60 7 TRANSFER FROM APPRA $ - $ - $ - $ - First Title Abstract 4500131667 0& E Reports $ 825.00 $ 175.00 Q8 TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ $ Florida Power Light 4700000779 Electricity $ 4,344.95 $ 1,205.05 9 CARRY FORWARD GENERA $ (3,772,700.00) $ $ $ (3,772,700.00) Florida Irrigation 4500130336 Sprinkler and Irrigation Supplies $ 500.00 $ - 10 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $ (42,728.44) $ $ $ (42,728.44) Florikan 4500130432 Fertilizer $ 6.08 $ 293.92 11 NEG 5% EST REV $ 7,900.00 $ $ $ 7,900.00 Indirect Reimbursement Direct Collier County $ - $ 7,500.00 12 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $ (3,807,528.44) $ $ $ 3,807,528.44 Insurance General Direct Insurance $ - $ - 13 TOTAL REVENUES $ 3,964,128.44 $ $ (126,410.41 ) $ Junstaff, Inc. 4500130360 Secretarial Services $ 3,924.41 $ 575.59 14 ENG FEES $ 32,498.61 $ 10,562.11 $ 1,936.50 $ 20,000.00 Postage & Freight UPS Direct Postage $ - $ - 15 SURVEYING FEES $ 8,500.00 $ - $ - $ 8,500.00 Naples Daily News 0 Legal Advertising $ - $ 16 ABSTRACT FEES $ 3,000.00 $ 825.00 $ 175.00 $ 2,000.00 3RS Equipment 4500132975 -C PH Sidewalks, Lighting, Planting $ 841,492.40 $ 40 17 EVER MAINT AND REP $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 RWA Inc 4500126714 Prepare Sidewalks $ 8,500.00 $ - 18 INDIRECT COST REIMS t� 19 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTALS $ 15,000.00 $ - $ $ $ 7,500.00 $ - $ 7,500.00 $ - RWA Inc Visa Credit Card 4500127559 Direct Add Surveying Svs Sec 14 Yousenit On line Svs $ 474.65 $ - $ 1,936.50 $ 29.98 20 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SEF $ 150,000.00 $ 45,215.40 $ 8,715.60 $ 96,069.00 Southern Signal 4500133835 Lighting Maint $ 2,500.00 $ - 21 POST FREIGHT UPS $ - $ - $ - $ - Staples 4500130396 Office Supplies $ 300.00 $ - 22 ELECTRICITY $ 6,000.00 $ 4,344.95 $ 1,205.05 $ 450.00 Windham Studio 4500117575-C Sidewalk. Lighting Improv. F -58 $ 27,980.83 $ 17,103.00 23 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 900.00 $ - $ - $ 900.00 Windham Studio 4500124888 Maint Consulting Svs Proj F -58 $ 1,587.46 $ - 24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINT $ 3,500.00 $ 500.00 $ $ 3,000.00 25 RESURFACING $ 5,000.00 $ - $ $ 5,000.00 Lines 34 +37 = $ 938,666.48 $ 37,534.64 26 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ $ - 27 PRINTING / BINDING $ - $ 1,015.30 $ $ (1,015.30) 28 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 400.00 $ - $ $ 400.00 29 OTHER MISC. $ 10,000.00 $ 3,924.41 $ 605.57 $ 5,470.02 3o FERT HERB CHEM $ 1,000.00 $ 6.08 $ 293.92 $ 700.00 211,647,248 31 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ - $ 300.00 $ - $ (300.00) 176,394,909 32 BOOKS PUB $ - $ - $ $ - 145,888,273 33 OTHER OPERATING $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ 300.00 133,055,175 34 OPERATING EXPENSE 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN 36 TRAFFIC DEVICE IMPRO 37 CAPITAL OUTLAY 38 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR 39 TRANS TO 259 BOND 4o TRANSFERS 41 BUDGET TRANS APPR 42 BUDGET TRANS TC COL TRANSFER CONT. RESERVE FOR CONTINGE RESERVES $ 240,598.61 $ 69,193.25 $ 20,431.64 $ 150,973.72 $ 1,719,029.83 $ 869,473.23 $ 17,103.00 $ 832,453.60 Total $ - $ - $ - $ - FY 12 Gross Taxable Value $ 1,719,029.83 $ 869,473.23 $ 17,103.00 $ 832,453.60 Minus: New Const. Annex. 78,038 Millage 1.1395 0.2606 Plus: Amendment #1 TV $ 29,200.00 $ - $ - $ 29,200.00 Component $ 500,000.00 $ $ 465,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Adj. Taxable Value $ 529,200.00 $ $ 465,000.00 $ 64,200.00 11 Levy 38,018 Rolled Back Rate (less $ 3,200.00 $ $ 161.34 $ 3,038.66 Amend. One) 7 $ 1,468,300.00 $ 1,468,300.00 026.95 $ 773.05 91% of Rolled Back Rate 188.29 $ 3,811.71 FY Of: Final Taxable Value FY 10 Final Taxable Value FY 11 Final Taxable Value FY 12 July 1st Taxable Value Adj. 11 to 12 Debt Property Tax Limitation Impact -8.80% Service Operations Total 2.7532 0.5228 3.2760 133,055,175 FY 12 FY 11 A185,700 92,200 577,900 78,038 Millage 1.1395 0.2606 2.8605 0 Extension 151,616 38,018 1.1395 4.0000 132,977,137 380,600 151,600 532,200 38,018 0.2859 Variance 59,400 - 45,700 91 % of 0.2602 1.2468 1.0369 161 2 A 13 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. Chris Tilman, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: November 12, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 5 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree project and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: 100% Landscape Construction Plans (Windham Studio and Abney and Associates): • An information meeting with the Turtle Lake residents was held at their clubhouse on 12/9 to review the entire project. We have been evaluating their comments and input with staff. • WSI completed 2 additional sidewalk layout site meetings with Malcolm Pirnie on Woodshire Lane. The sidewalk alignment was again minor field adjusted due to existing trees, grades and various utilities. Also, again, WSI has revised the base drawing and planting and irrigation plans accordingly. • In addition to sidewalk layout changes, we met with representatives from Emerald Greens concerning an irrigation supply line which comes from the Woodshire Lane east ROW area back across the road to irrigate a parking lot island. We discussed providing a new directional bore and valve across the parking lot on the west as an alternate water source in order to abandon the random fragment of irrigation supply across the street on Woodshire. • We have received preliminary approval from the City of Naples for the 2" effluent meter water use permit. We need only to submit the final application together with meter installation fee and the meter should be installed within 2 -4 weeks once the work order is issued. • WSI has continued to hold on submittal of the final revised 100% landscape and irrigation plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable Cost and Bid Tabular for bidding in order to address the public information meeting feedback and Woodshire sidewalk field adjustments related revisions. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Entail: scottC windharnstudio.conn www.v�lindharnstudio.com _.., • WSI anticipates that the plans will be submitted within the mont f �'dn12A following staff review of the street signage plans, specs and budgets. 1 3 j • WSI has prepared the attached cost estimates for the alternate LED and induction system lighting as discussed in the last meeting. 100% Sidewalk Construction Plans (ABB): • The plans and specs are complete and WSI anticipates submitting final revised sidewalk construction plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable Cost and Bid Tabular for bidding within the month of January together with the other project plans. 100% Sidewalk Lighting Construction Plans (TR Transportation): • The plans and specs are now complete including the entry landscape lighting FPL components and WSI anticipates submitting final revised sidewalk lighting construction plans to county staff together with final Opinion of Probable Cost and Bid Tabular within the month of January together with the other project plans. We've moved our office; please notice our new mailing address below and update your contact information for us. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1.239, Bon..ita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Ernail: scott @wirtdliamstudio.com www.urindh- nstudio.com " N -=-mom I I WOODSHIRE LANE STA 1 +50 - STA 5 +85 SCALE: 1"=20.9 cs --` 3 LS ' N Exlsling Bahia � Sod _ Light 6 +0 7 +� ( — w Existing + 'z Woodshlre Sign 8.00 wQQO iT ®g +1 s Light 1 �ci st WOODSHIRE PHASE 1 CAS S OR. 1131, PG. 1770 2 70x WOODSHIRE LANE STA 5 +85 - STA 10 +75 SCALE: V = 20.0' 0 WOODSHIRE LANE STA 10 +75 - STA 16 +55 SCALE: 1" = 20.0' WOODSHIRE 1180. PG PHASE II O.R. 1180, PG. e34 RIGATED STREET TREES PLANT LIST ° Oty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 7 CAS Cassia suratensis Yellow Cassia 10' oa x4' spd. 2" cal N 3 CB Cordia boissied White Geiger 10'oa x4'spd. 2" cal N 3 CS Cordia sebestena .Orange Geiger 10' oa x4' spd, 2" cal Y 3 U Lagerstroemia indica Muskogee Crepe Myrtle (Lavender) 30 gal. 10' oa, 2" cal. Multi-trk Y 6 LS Lagerstroemia speciosa Queen Crepe Myrtle 30 gal. 10' os. 2" cal, Multi -trk N 3 TI Tabebula Impel girlosa Pink Ipe Tabebula Tree 10' on x4' spd, 2" cal N MISCELLANEOUS _ Oty Syrn Botanical Name Common Name Specification Notes 750 SF Paspalunnotatun Belie Sod ,- Nonimgated Contractor to verify Oty 3" Depth - for exd sting and 360 SF Pro Eucalyptus Colored Mulch, Forestry Resources proposed tree ring wittrn ROW 40 LF Root Barrier fir Existing Planting 20LF of bio- barrier, 4407 -006 See Detail Sheets 25 Bags Tree Watering bags Small Trees- 25 gallon Ooze Tubes (Dark Chocolate) with 1 emitters Note: Contractor to fill watering bags once every 4 weeks for 6 months following planting installation. (Contractor to provide a unit cost tocontinse filling water bags ona monthly basis if requested). Contractor to dean weep emitter holes once every 4 weeks to remove debris and prevent clogging as needed. L-4 IRRIGATED ROW PLANT LIST 12!13!2011 TREES - - 611+1 S Botanical Name CorrmonNarre Specification Spacing Natide 2 CF 'Cassiafistula Golden Shower 11oax6'_spd,1'cal N 3 LS Laqerstroemia speciosa Queen Crepe Myrtle 30 cia1,10' ca, 7 cal, Mufti -trk N SHRUBS City Svm 'Botanical Name CommcmMrne Specification Native 35 ALO Alocasia odora'Ca(ifornize Dwarf alocasia 3 ciallon ful N 17 ALP Alpiniazerurrbet Vadeciata' Variegated Steil Ginqer 3 gaion24" 48" oc Y �\ 101 CLU Clusia m tifera Small Lzaf Cllsia 10 gallon 48" 48" oc N 42 GIF Ficusmecrocarpa 'Green Islard',GreenlstandFicus 3galonlEf' 30" oc N b 82 NED Neorecielia'Gazioacho' Gazpacho Bromeliad 1 galonlU' 30" oc N GROUNDCOVERS Qtv Svm 'Botanical Name CorrmonName 'Specification Native 96 "EUP Etphorbia'BigRose' Thai Crown of Thorns IIgalonlU' _ _ QUA N 77 POL PoNpodiunscolopendrium Wart Fern 1 cialon 1 (I'full 14 ' oC N VINES Oty Svm Botanical Name Common %me 'Specification Native 12 *THU 'Thurbercliacirandiflora LavenderSkvFlower 3ctalorl41rellis B'oc N MISCELLANEOUS O�S�'BotanicalNarre mnonNarre Specification NotesmronNarre Specification Notes 9,544 SF Remove exirtinq Baha SBdto preparefor proposed plardim and St. Auclusine (Contractorto verify (Ay) o w 9,009 SF StAuqustireFloritamSod Sod Cortractortoverify0ty, - 535 SF Pm Eucalvotus Colored Mulch Forestry Resources 3' Depth ALO Root Barrier for Proposed 35 120 LF Planting 20LF_ofbio-barrier ,4407 -006 See Detail Sheets Root Barrier for Existing 20 LF PlanUm 20LFBfbio-barrier .4407 -006 See Detail Steels px, Sian 101 LF B'Chain Llnk Fence for Vines To match existilq fence See Detail Sheets 9.544 SF AdurrabclrrigationSvstem 100% Head-to head coverage ` Contra ctor to remove vines from nursery trellis and attachto B' fern e. "American Farrra or approved equal St. Aupuss e ( Sad \ � I 'NOTE: Trim E#sfing Trees to accommodate tallerfence u rmd fthm. AAA mndrape ArAii KA MU16 an*11>���lir MM. i0iiiRiil' JiiiY V Y�(i�B/J I! / / /IM W' it•' � % :�i' d ijil 11 iY �' AiiiilN x=01 tR � EMMESM psis .1/ lnn/ma rr®v Air �fo�ioii iu iii I11M po box 1139 bonita springs, florida 34133 phone: 239.390.1936 fax: 239.390.1937 scoff@ windhamsmdio.com D 0 D L? LL Z H• Q o V) U LU LJJO w O LL Q J DC z U CL D 0 F_ Q V) LL Z U W ° W 02 0 O Q Uj w LL m U a JOB #: 034.09 Tbit 0. and dene. ­k P.P,dY, WmAw dmdi4 is Pont rhA nd h mpim m npmdumd wnh out permw d Widhm Smdin k n ZS € Z �C Z Z — .E E _E J N W E � Q J 2 r amas for prop—d plantings and St %'% � �` °O ° �j % °o 0 WOODSHIRE LANE STA 10 +75 - STA 16 +55 SCALE: 1" = 20.0' WOODSHIRE 1180. PG PHASE II O.R. 1180, PG. e34 RIGATED STREET TREES PLANT LIST ° Oty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 7 CAS Cassia suratensis Yellow Cassia 10' oa x4' spd. 2" cal N 3 CB Cordia boissied White Geiger 10'oa x4'spd. 2" cal N 3 CS Cordia sebestena .Orange Geiger 10' oa x4' spd, 2" cal Y 3 U Lagerstroemia indica Muskogee Crepe Myrtle (Lavender) 30 gal. 10' oa, 2" cal. Multi-trk Y 6 LS Lagerstroemia speciosa Queen Crepe Myrtle 30 gal. 10' os. 2" cal, Multi -trk N 3 TI Tabebula Impel girlosa Pink Ipe Tabebula Tree 10' on x4' spd, 2" cal N MISCELLANEOUS _ Oty Syrn Botanical Name Common Name Specification Notes 750 SF Paspalunnotatun Belie Sod ,- Nonimgated Contractor to verify Oty 3" Depth - for exd sting and 360 SF Pro Eucalyptus Colored Mulch, Forestry Resources proposed tree ring wittrn ROW 40 LF Root Barrier fir Existing Planting 20LF of bio- barrier, 4407 -006 See Detail Sheets 25 Bags Tree Watering bags Small Trees- 25 gallon Ooze Tubes (Dark Chocolate) with 1 emitters Note: Contractor to fill watering bags once every 4 weeks for 6 months following planting installation. (Contractor to provide a unit cost tocontinse filling water bags ona monthly basis if requested). Contractor to dean weep emitter holes once every 4 weeks to remove debris and prevent clogging as needed. L-4 IRRIGATED ROW PLANT LIST 12!13!2011 TREES - - 611+1 S Botanical Name CorrmonNarre Specification Spacing Natide 2 CF 'Cassiafistula Golden Shower 11oax6'_spd,1'cal N 3 LS Laqerstroemia speciosa Queen Crepe Myrtle 30 cia1,10' ca, 7 cal, Mufti -trk N SHRUBS City Svm 'Botanical Name CommcmMrne Specification Native 35 ALO Alocasia odora'Ca(ifornize Dwarf alocasia 3 ciallon ful N 17 ALP Alpiniazerurrbet Vadeciata' Variegated Steil Ginqer 3 gaion24" 48" oc Y �\ 101 CLU Clusia m tifera Small Lzaf Cllsia 10 gallon 48" 48" oc N 42 GIF Ficusmecrocarpa 'Green Islard',GreenlstandFicus 3galonlEf' 30" oc N b 82 NED Neorecielia'Gazioacho' Gazpacho Bromeliad 1 galonlU' 30" oc N GROUNDCOVERS Qtv Svm 'Botanical Name CorrmonName 'Specification Native 96 "EUP Etphorbia'BigRose' Thai Crown of Thorns IIgalonlU' _ _ QUA N 77 POL PoNpodiunscolopendrium Wart Fern 1 cialon 1 (I'full 14 ' oC N VINES Oty Svm Botanical Name Common %me 'Specification Native 12 *THU 'Thurbercliacirandiflora LavenderSkvFlower 3ctalorl41rellis B'oc N MISCELLANEOUS O�S�'BotanicalNarre mnonNarre Specification NotesmronNarre Specification Notes 9,544 SF Remove exirtinq Baha SBdto preparefor proposed plardim and St. Auclusine (Contractorto verify (Ay) o w 9,009 SF StAuqustireFloritamSod Sod Cortractortoverify0ty, - 535 SF Pm Eucalvotus Colored Mulch Forestry Resources 3' Depth ALO Root Barrier for Proposed 35 120 LF Planting 20LF_ofbio-barrier ,4407 -006 See Detail Sheets Root Barrier for Existing 20 LF PlanUm 20LFBfbio-barrier .4407 -006 See Detail Steels px, Sian 101 LF B'Chain Llnk Fence for Vines To match existilq fence See Detail Sheets 9.544 SF AdurrabclrrigationSvstem 100% Head-to head coverage ` Contra ctor to remove vines from nursery trellis and attachto B' fern e. "American Farrra or approved equal St. Aupuss e ( Sad \ � I 'NOTE: Trim E#sfing Trees to accommodate tallerfence u rmd fthm. AAA mndrape ArAii KA MU16 an*11>���lir MM. i0iiiRiil' JiiiY V Y�(i�B/J I! / / /IM W' it•' � % :�i' d ijil 11 iY �' AiiiilN x=01 tR � EMMESM psis .1/ lnn/ma rr®v Air �fo�ioii iu iii I11M po box 1139 bonita springs, florida 34133 phone: 239.390.1936 fax: 239.390.1937 scoff@ windhamsmdio.com D 0 D L? LL Z H• Q o V) U LU LJJO w O LL Q J DC z U CL D 0 F_ Q V) LL Z U W ° W 02 0 O Q Uj w LL m U a JOB #: 034.09 Tbit 0. and dene. ­k P.P,dY, WmAw dmdi4 is Pont rhA nd h mpim m npmdumd wnh out permw d Widhm Smdin k n ZS € Z �C Z Z — .E E _E J N W E � Q J 2 St. Aupuss e ( Sad \ � I 'NOTE: Trim E#sfing Trees to accommodate tallerfence u rmd fthm. AAA mndrape ArAii KA MU16 an*11>���lir MM. i0iiiRiil' JiiiY V Y�(i�B/J I! / / /IM W' it•' � % :�i' d ijil 11 iY �' AiiiilN x=01 tR � EMMESM psis .1/ lnn/ma rr®v Air �fo�ioii iu iii I11M po box 1139 bonita springs, florida 34133 phone: 239.390.1936 fax: 239.390.1937 scoff@ windhamsmdio.com D 0 D L? LL Z H• Q o V) U LU LJJO w O LL Q J DC z U CL D 0 F_ Q V) LL Z U W ° W 02 0 O Q Uj w LL m U a JOB #: 034.09 Tbit 0. and dene. ­k P.P,dY, WmAw dmdi4 is Pont rhA nd h mpim m npmdumd wnh out permw d Widhm Smdin k n ZS € Z �C Z Z — .E E _E J N W E � Q J 2 16 FOREST ROADN,N'AN' VNI) DRAINAGE LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 September 14, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by George Fogg. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones (Excused), George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kevin McKyton, Kenneth Bloom (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: V. C. Windham Studio Change Order A13 George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — August 10, 2011 George Fogg requested to add the following comment to the minutes: Page 4, IX, fourth bullet - No one will use the sidewalk and the liability for Pedestrians using the shortcut will remain. George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 2011 as amended. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the following information: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $36,797.11 • Available Capital Outlay $1,313,452.78 • Encumbered monies ($881,255.50 from Capital Outlay) for 3 -Rs Equipment Inc. Bid Award (upon approval by the BCC) will be reflected in the October Budget Report 1612 Ali Discussion took place on the Phase II Project Final Cost Estimate. George Fogg inquired on the sum of monies that will be remaining upon completion of the Phase II Project and asserted that unused Funds may be applied as early repayment on the Bond. Darryl Richard responded with the following: o Items are being added to Phase II ( Woodshire) o The Final Cost Estimate will be emailed to the Committee and reviewed at the next meeting (Staff Action Item) • Final Carry Forward will be reflected in Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Report • The options for unused monies will be reviewed with the Finance Department Dick Barry requested the status on the Gordon River Project. Staff did not have an update from Storm Water. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard Darryl Richard presented sketches by Windham Studio for Woodshire Pool Parking Areas No. 1 and No. 2. (See attached) o (2) Designs for Area No. 2 were reviewed - Page 12 reflected a parallel parking layout 10:26 Dick Barry left. Discussion ensued on the Parking Design options. 10:27 Dick Barry returned. The Committee and Staff agreed on the following: • Perpendicular parking layout (page 13) was safer than parallel parking (page 12) • Approved the Design for Area No. 1 - Page 11 George Fogg moved to approve Concepts on pages 11 and 13. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. D. Windham Studio Change Order Darryl Richard reviewed Windham Studio Change Order Request 5 (PO 4500113538) in the amount of $14,854.00 to: (See attached) • Separate out Phase II areas for Bid • Realign the sidewalk • Design Woodshire Parking areas George Fogg moved to approve (Windham Studio) Change Order for Design Services. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. F) 161'2 AU3 VI. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio - None VII. Old Business — None VIII. New Business George Fogg reported that the hanging trees have not been trimmed by the Maintenance crew. Darryl Richard stated that George Fogg will not be present for the October meeting. The Committee agreed to cancel the October meeting. George Fogg moved to cancel the October meeting. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IX. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 10:45 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee George gg, Vice Chai n These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented _2� or amended Next meeting is November 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 3 1612A13 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: November 8, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 9 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: PHASE I: • The Phase I preconstruction meeting was held on 11/8 and construction is tentatively scheduled to begin on December 8. Staff will issue a notice to proceed for ordering materials to get the long lead time light poles ordered and stagger the construction notice to proceed to coordinate the Thanksgiving Holidy with the December start. PHASE 2: • ABB has completed the design and specifications for the two new parking areas at the Woodshire pool area and north two parallel spaces along Woodshire lane. WSI has completed revisions to the landscape-and picnic table pad at the Woodshire pool parking lot and street trees by the two parallel parking spaces. (See attached plan) It was determined by county staff that the final parking configuration will not require the SIP permit review as it remains in the R.O.W. • WSI received the approved PO for Change Order 3 on 10/31 which includes the parking area design and specs as well as additional services to revise the construction drawings to separate out the Phase II areas for bid, accommodate recently provided underground utilities locations along Forest Lakes Boulevard between the Quail Forest Blvd and Woodshire Lane. • WSI and the consulting team have continued to revise the plans in light of the underground utilities, new parking areas and phase II subdivisions. Upon completion of the revisions, WSI will submit the plans to staff for final review. Our and staff's intent is to include the parking lots within the final Phase II construction project. We anticipate submitting the plans by 11/18. • We will separate the parking lot construction as alternates within the Phase II bid package so that in the event that there are delays or complications with easements, the remaining portions of the project may proceed. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com Please email or call me if you have any questions. 1612 A 13 1 Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhimstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com J13 ' cs 1 3 �s _ __ _ _ iiat Root Barrier 6 +00 W=hl.81 , 8 +00 OODS ------------- WOODSHIRE PHASE I OR 1131, P0. 1770 WOODSHIRE LANE STA 5 +85 - STA 10 +75 _. SCALE : r•aoa ftric Tanta Arw �Ex. McMbnanm ��.. \ e0L - Q 51 Acp�sllne a _ 1 2f /" �F.l_ 2 +00 EUP�- . I r. t U? WOODSHIRE LANE STA 10 +75 - STA 16 +55 I ewnu w�v�. ixnn WINDHAM studio inc. po ha: 1779 Eoniw �pri�t, Aaida 71177 Pllane 139.790.1976 - 239.790.If31 uo116xmdha ,wdi9.mn Iax;111o1 -__ iw w-a1„tiw r -- qMtlYr F 1 Ms0-n ax� • 'YnYM4 3 H � z d,e LUY rig Q - a Q e W S 161,E p 113 From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Friday, October 07, 20119:07 AM To: OchsLeo Cc: FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick; KurtzGerald; AhmadJay; BishopMargaret; LynchDiane; Vliet]ohn; GossardTravis; IsacksonMark Subject: FW: ADMIN /STW 2745 Gordon River Extension /Forest Lakes Bullet Points Leo: Update on Gordon River Extension/ Forest Lakes proposed project: • The engineering and surveying consultant has been hired and development of plans for the proposed work is underway. • Two drainage easements are necessary to get the work done; their extent will be determined within the next three weeks. • Staff anticipates bringing a recommendation to the BCC for easement acceptance on either 11/12/11 or 12/13/11. • The work cost estimate based upon the conceptual plans remains at between $800,000 - $1,000,000. • Final costs will be determined upon receipt of construction bids currently planned for February - March 2012. • If a construction contract is executed prior to March 18, 2012, no permit extension will be required. On behalf of Jerry Kurtz, GMD P/R Barbara From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:13 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: FederNorman; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; KurtzGerald; IsacksonMark; BetancurNatali; LynchDiane; AhmadJay; BishopMargaret Subject: FW: ADMIN /STW 2745 Forest Lakes Bullet PointsFW: SIRE Mail Message Importance: High Leo: At Norman's request, I am forwarding you an update on the Gordon River Extension (formerly called Forest Lakes) project as of 9/1/11. Jerry Kurtz, GMD P /R, met with both golf course superintendents last week. Jerry has advised that both are still in favor of the project, familiar with necessary easements, and are very cooperative with advancing work. The work will need to be done April 15 — June 30th and we will need to hustle to hit the 2012 window. Jerry is not sure the project can be done in that time line, but that's what staff's goal is. Jerry is meeting with ABB today, 9/1/11. Staff needs them to produce a minor set of maintenance work plans in order to obtain accurate quantities for bid or quote. This project is all about the removal and disposal of material: approximately 1,000 truck loads with rock involved. Access and hauling route issues have been discussed and agreed to by Royal Poinciana Golf Course. Jerry will get it (hauling routes /access) in writing as part of the easement agreement. Jerry told u that we will need to compensate Royal Poinciana for easement (approximately $48 K). The Count Club of Naples is donating their easement. Staff is planning to bring the easement acceptance to he BCC in October, 2011. On behalf of Jerry Kurtz, GMD P/R Barbara 16 12 A'13 1216 FOREST LAKES BOULEVARD - RESIDENT REQUEST FIRST DAY- DURING RAIN EVENT SECOND DAY THIRD DAY 161 c A 13 FALLEN TREE - ON NAPLES BATH & TENNIS PROPER�Y FOREST LAKES I. Call to Order 11. Attendance ROADNNAN" AND DRNINAGENI.S.1'.V. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 November 9, 2011 Agenda Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — September 14, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report-Windham Studio VII. Old Business A. Gordon River Extension VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Colefta Next meeting is December 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Cones: Oeie: 31 1 311 � It an Copies to: FOREST LAKES 1612 A13 R()Al)t`4 XN A N 1) 1)ItA1NA€" F Nt.SA'.t . ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 November 9, 2011 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kenneth Bloom, Kevin McKyton (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. Vlll. A. 1216 Forest Lakes Blvd. Resident Request Vlll. B. Woodshire Fallen Tree Vlll. C. FPL Tree Trimming George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — September 14, 2011 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of September 14, 2011 as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) FYI year end Ad Valorem Tax (effective September 30th) • Collected - $36,797.11 • Uncollected - $1,302.89 1 1612 A{13 November 2011 Budget Report • Current Ad Valorem Tax Budget $151,600.00 • Open P.O. $77559.35 • Amended Budget Capital Outlay $1,719,029.83 • Carry Forward $3,772,700.00 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reported on the Forest Lakes Sidewalks Project: • Pre - Construction meeting was held with 3RS Equipment • Anticipates a NTP (for Construction) - December e • NTP will be issued today for Materials purchase and Permitting • Subcontractors on the Project - Hannula Landscaping - Community Electric • Community Electric indicated the Pole Order would be delayed Discussion ensued on the delayed Pole Order. Staff stated that Community Electric suggested the County order the Poles for a possible cost savings (approximately $14,000.00.) After discussion it was undetermined if a Pole Vendor was under current County Contract or if a competitive Bid was required. George Fogg noted the priority was to not delay the Construction. Staff stated they will confer with the Clerks Office to confirm if a competitive Bid is required for the Poles if they are purchase by different Vendor. George Fogg moved to have Staff explore the alternative of having the County purchase directly the power Poles with the stipulation that this process not delay the Construction. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 40. VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham gave the following information: • The Contractors are collaborating to provide efficiency on the Project • The Front Entry will be completed first Michelle Arnold recommended sending a notice to update the Community on the Project. Scott Windham reviewed Phase II Layout configuration for the (2) Parking Lots on Woodshire Lane (See attached) Exhibit (STA 5 +85 - STA 10 +75) • Consists of (2) parallel parking spaces • Parking spaces are scaled appropriately for the area 2 1612 A 13,,1 Exhibit (STA 10 +75 - STA 16 +55) (Recreation /Pool Area) • Consists of (5) parking spaces • Picnic Table area was maintained • Existing pavers will connect to the concrete walk George Fogg reported the following issues: • A drainage problem along the sidewalk on Woodshire (from the pool area to Pine Ridge Rd) - Requested Scott Windham assess the bank area to determine if it is stable • Requested removal of the Brazilian Pepper by the corner of the Golf Course Maintenance Building - The Brazilian Pepper is located on MSTU property Scott Windham noted that installation of Clusia (along the fence) will be needed directly following the removal of the Brazilian Pepper. Darryl Richard stated a review of exotics in the area will be conducted. Discussion took place on the aesthetics of the continuous staking of Cassia Trees in the Community. After discussion the following was concluded: • Annual Pruning will be necessary if the Trees are not staked • Conversely Maintenance is required for the stakes • Scott Windham will review and present alternatives for the Cassia Trees at the December meeting Discussion ensued on the cost to maintain the Trees. It was determined the Maintenance and Cost components will be identified after Plans are at 100% for the Trees and Drainage System. Darryl Richard reported the Golf Course Board approved the Easement Acquisition at the October 18th meeting. Michelle Arnold requested Staff verify the Easement status by the North Property Owners (Phase II.) George Fogg moved to have a mailing to notify the Members of the MSTU Homeowners as to update of status. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 40. Locations for Christmas Decorations were discussed. Darryl Richard confirmed the Golf Course Club House is installing Decorations only on the (Club House) Entrance Sign. Scott Windham suggested installing electrical outlets for the Landscaping Lighting source (at the Front Entrance.) 1612 a13 The committee concurred and additionally requested electrical outlets at the East Entrance. VII. Old Business A. Gordon River Extension Darryl Richard reviewed an Update Report on the Gordon River Extension /Forest Lakes Bullet Points (See attached) • Country Club of Naples is donating the Easement • Royal Poinciana is requesting $48,000.00 for Survey Fees • The County Project will be conducted during the spring George Fogg questioned the status on the adjustment to the current Landscape Maintenance Contract to include Tree Pruning to clear the walkway on Woodshire. Pam Lulich responded a meeting is scheduled tomorrow with FPL and FPL Contractor. Additionally CLM will be requested to attend. VIII. New Business A. 1216 Forest Lakes Blvd. Resident Request — Discussed under Vlll. B. B. Woodshire Fallen Tree Darryl Richard reported Naples Bath and Tennis assured Staff that the Tree will be removed by the end of the week. (See attached photo ) Darryl Richard presented photographs depicting standing water on the driveway at 1216 Forest Lakes Blvd. (See attached photo) Discussion ensued on the photographs of the driveway. Kenneth Bloom noted the driveway was originally paved with the dip by the builder. Michelle Arnold stated the Property Owner requested consideration by the MSTU Committee to install a Culvert to correct the drainage issue (dip in the drive.) After much discussion it was concluded that the Property Owners request was beyond the purpose of the MSTU. Kenneth Bloom moved (send a letter) to address the Homeowner that the water issue is a natural swale and not an MSTU issue. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. George Fogg announced that he is not attending the December meeting. C. FPL Tree Trimming — Previously discussed under Vll. A. 4 i612Ad34 IX. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:36 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee "I'VEW 24Robert Jones, Z 6a 0 These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended Next meeting is December 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 + - + - FOREST LAKES MSTU FUND 159 Decemberr 14, 2011 . • Amended Actual Available Open P.O.s FY 10 Amt. Budget Commitments Ex enditures Total Vender Name PO# Item Remaining Actual Paid CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (151,600.00) $ $ (118,687.92) $ (32,912.08) FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST $ - $ $ (278.08) $ 278.08 �' . DEL AD VALOREM $ - $ - Aquagenix 4500130369 3 Fountains Modification $ 2,475.00 $ 225.00 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (5,000.00) $ $ (3,272.49) $ (1,727.51) Commercial Land Maint 4500130298 Main Enter & Woodshire $ 17,660.00 $ 1,540.00 I INTEREST TAX COLLECTOF $ - $ $ $ - Commercial Land 4500130299 Swale Mowing $ 28,827.80 $ 3,203.20 o. REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (156,600.00) $ $ (122,238.49) $ (34,361.51) First Title Abstract 4500131667 O& E Reports $ 82500 $ 175.00 zJ TRANSFER FROM APPRA $ $ $ (245.61) $ 245.61 Florida Power Light 4700000779 Electricity $ 4,559.84 $ 990.16 +c TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ (356.10) $ 356.10 Florida Irrigation 4500130336 Sprinkler and Irrigation Supplies $ 500.00 $ CARRY FORWARD GENERA $ (3,772,700.00) $ $ $ (3,772,700.00) Florikan 4500130432 Fertilizer $ 6.08 $ 293.92 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $ (42,728.44) $ $ $ (42,728.44) Indirect Reimbursement Direct Collier County $ $ 7,500.00 11 NEG 5% EST REV $ 7,900.00 $ $ $ 7,900.00 Insurance General Direct Insurance $ - $ - ��i TRANSFERS & CONTRI13 $ (3,807,528.44) $ $ (601.71 E 3,806,926.73) Juristaff, Inc. 4500130360 Secretarial Services $ 4,295.97 $ 204.03 REVENUES $ (3,964,128.44) $ $ (122,840.20 , = °` Postage &Freight UPS Direct Postage $ - $ ENG FEES $ 32,498.61 $ 10,562.11 $ 1,936.50 $ 20,000.00 Naples Daily News 0 Legal Advertising $ - $ 15 SURVEYING FEES $ 8,500.00 $ - $ - $ 8,500.00 3RS Equipment 4500132975 -C PH I Sidewalks, Lighting,Planting $ 841,492.40 $ ABSTRACT FEES $ 3,000.00 $ 825.00 $ 175.00 $ 2,000.00 RWA Inc 4500126714 Prepare Sidewalks $ 8,500.00 $ - 17 EMER MAINT AND REP $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 RWA Inc 4500127559 Add Surveying Svs Sec 14 $ 474.65 $ 1,936.50 18 INDIRECT COST REIMB $ 15,000.00 $ $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 Visa Credit Card Direct Yousenit On line Svs $ - $ 14.99 1s LANDSCAPE INCIDENTALS $ - $ $ - $ - Staples 4500130396 Office Supplies $ 300.00 $ - 2o OTHER CONTRACTUAL SEF $ 150,000.00 $ 48,962.80 $ 4,968.20 $ 96,069.00 Windham Studio 4500117575-C Sidewalk. Lighting Improv. F -58 $ 44,265.33 $ 818.50 21 POST FREIGHT UPS $ - $ - $ - $ - Windham Studio 4500124888 Maint Consulting Svs Proj F -58 $ 1,587.46 $ - 22 ELECTRICITY $ 6,000.00 $ 4,559.84 $ 990.16 $ 450.00 23 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 900.00 $ - $ - $ 900.00 Lines 34 +37 = $ 955,769.53 $ 16,901.30 24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINT $ 3,500.00 $ 500.00 $ $ 3,000.00 25 RESURFACING $ 5,000.00 $ - $ $ 5,000.00 26 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 2,500.00 $ $ $ 2,500.00 27 PRINTING / BINDING $ - $ $ $ - 26 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 400.00 $ $ $ 400.00 i 211,647,248 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 29 OTHER MISC. $ 10,000.00 $ 4,295.97 $ 219.02 $ 5,485.01 176,394,909 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 3o FERT HERB CHEM $ 1,000.00 $ 6.08 $ 293.92 $ 700.00: I! 145,888,273 FY 11 Final Taxable Value 31 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ - $ 300.00 $ - $ (300.00) 133,055,175 FY 12 .luly 1 st Taxable Value 32 BOOKS PUB $ - $ - $ $ - Property Tax Limitation Impact -8.80% Adj. 11 to 12 33 OTHER OPERATING $ 300.00 $ - $ $ 300.00 Deot 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 240,598.61 $ 70,011.80 $ 16,082.80 $ 154,504.01 FY 12 Gross Taxable Value 133,055,175 FY 12 FY 11 Service Operations 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ 1,719,029.83 $ 885,757.73 $ 818.50 $ 832,453.60 Minus: New Const. Annex. 78,038 Millage 1.1395 0.2606 2.7532 0.5228 Plus: Amendment #1 TV 36 TRAFFIC DEVICE IMPRO $ - $ - $ - $ - Component 0 Extension 151,616 38,018 485,700 92,200 37 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 1,719,029.83 $ 885,757.73 $ 818.50 $ 832,453.60 Adj. Taxable Value 132,977,137 38 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR $ 29,200.00 $ - $ - $ 29,200.00 11 Levy 38,018 2.8605 1.1395 Rolled Back Rate (less 39 TRANS TO 259 BOND $ 500,000.00 $ $ $ 500,000.00 Amend. One) 0.2859 380,600 151,600 4o TRANSFERS $ 529,200.00 $ $ $ 529,200.00 91 % of Rolled Back Rate 0.2602 41 BUDGETTRANSAPPR $ 3,200.00 $ $ 80.67 $ 3,119.33 Variance 59,400 91 %, of 42 BUDGET TRANS TC COL $ 3,800.00 $ $ 2,943.51 $ 856.49 1 2468 1.0369 TRANSFER CONT. $ 7,000.00 $ $ 3,024.18 $ 3,975.82 RESERVE FOR CONTINGE $ 1,468,300.00 $ $ - $ 1,468,300.00 RESERVES $ 1,468,300.00 $ $ - $ 1,468,300.00 Total 3.2760 577,900 4.0000 532,200 - 45,700 1612 A413 FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK, F -58 PHASE 2, 100% OPINION OF PROBABLE COST SUMMARY Prepared by: Windham Studio, Inc. 12/6/11 WSI AND ABNEY: LANDSCAPE / IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Planting, Site Prep, MOT & Bond Includes 10% Contingency) $236,865.00 Irrigation Includes 10% Contingency) $259,505.95 Landscape Lighting (Signs) Includes 10% Contingency) $12,100.00 Site Furnishings Includes 10 % Contingency) $11,517.00 Director Sin Includes 10% Contingency) $12,650.00 Street and Traffic Sign Replacement Includes 10% Contingency) $118,169.70 Root Barrier Includes 10% Contingency) $21,750.00 SUB TOTAL: $672,557.65 ABB: SIDEWALK / STRIPING / DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Sidewalk, striping, drainage $63,661.40 15% Contingency $9,549.21 SUB TOTAL: $73,210.61 TR TRANSPORTATION: LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION Budget Item Estimate Lighting Supply and Install (HPS light, 20' pole, upgrade owdercoat $379,903.50 15% Contingency $56,985.53 SUB TOTAL: $436,889.03 GRAND TOTAL: 1 $1,182,657.29 no 1612 p 13 STATUS REPORT To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ABB Reid Fellows, TR Transportation, Inc. From: Scott Windham Date: December 13, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Report 10 Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Forest Lakes Sidewalk, Lighting and Street Tree and Culdesac Improvement project: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: PHASE I: • Phase I construction Notice to Proceed is scheduled for 1/9/12. Hope to begin entry medians demolition within that week. There will be an on site MOT safety strategy and FPL coordination meeting tomorrow, 12/14. Hope to receive signature from Quail Run Golf Club easement by Fri, 12/15. Resident notification letter tentatively scheduled to be mailed by 12/15. PHASE 2: • Phase II construction drawings are finished with the exception of a few on going minor adjustments as directed by staff for easement acquisitions. • Staff reviewed the proposed parking lots with Woodshire Villas and they liked the lot at the pool, but were not satisfied with the two parallel parking spaces feeling they needed five spaces and not parallel spaces. We have prepared the attached plan of another new parking lot north of the Woodshire Villas pool to address their concerns. We and our sub consultants have currently expended our revision time as authorized in the most recent change order to address phase II revisions and parking related design. If we are to incorporate these changes into our plans, it will require another change order. We request a committee decision on how to proceed. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.0, Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scottCCC,,wiridliaunstudio.corri www.windharnstudiacom a� N __. Go wl"Rbl, WOO DS H I RE LANE STA 10 +75 — STA 16 +55 a �x2a, po box 1239 honita springs, Oo6da 34133 phone: 239.390.1936 SCALE: 1"=30' fax 239.390.1931 scoff @ nindhamstodio.com 1612 All MEETING MINUTES To: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Rick Featherstone, 3 -Rs Equipment, Inc. Bret Groos, Community Electric Dale Hannula, Hannula Landscaping Jim Carr, ABB Pam Lulich, Collier County ATM James Abney, Abney and Associates Reid Fellows, TR Transportation From: Scott Windham Date: December 14, 2011 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk Preconstruction Mtg Minutes, 12/8/11. Team: The following are the minutes from the weekly construction meeting at the Collier DOT office on the above date: • The county issued the materials Notice to Proceed on 11/9 and the construction commencement will be on 1/9/12. • The first weekly construction site meeting will be on Thurs, 1/12/12 at 8:30 AM at the maintenance area west of the Quail Run Clubhouse. This will be the day, time and location for the weekly construction meetings throughout the duration of the project unless otherwise directed. • WSI to contact Abney for final irrigation controller and weather station submittals sign off. • No R.O.W. permit is needed due to the roads being private and so no MOT officially required as well. However, 3 -R's and all subcontractors will use standard MOT techniques and special conditions at the entry for maximum safety. A meeting is scheduled for Thurs, 12/15 to with Hannula, county staff (Eugene Calvert), WSI, 3 -R's, Bob's Barricades and FPL to review MOT and safety strategy for main entrance area. Hannula will contact FPL to see if can de -power the overhead line in the area of the entry medians during demolition. • 3 -R's is to get copy of MOT plan to Hannula. • Hannula stressed importance of adequate grounding as essential to proper function of 2 wire irrigation system. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 - 1.937 Email: scoff cr windliamstuclio.com. www.windliarnstudio.corn 90 13 161,2 • Hannula to call in locates on Mon 12/12 to be able to begin white lining bores prior to official start. Hannula hopes to begin demolition of entry islands on 1/9/12. • Hannula to begin submitting plant materials as soon as possible to WSI to avoid delays later. • Staff hopes to have easement signature from Quail Run Golf Club by Fri, 12/16. • Staff tentatively will mail out resident construction start notification by Fri, 12/16. Will try to have a DRAFT letter at MSTU Mtg on 12/14 for committee review. • General construction staging strategy discussion by 3 -R's included: ■ Label station points along eop ■ Layout sidewalk ■ Flag all light pole locations then field review and adjust as needed before pouring footers ■ Evaluate tree layout at this time as well to make any field adjustments necessary Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windhann Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1.937 Email.: scottC>wi.nclhanBtu( io.com www.windlnamstudio.com 2 10 . Total 3.2760 577,900 4.0000 532,200 - 45,700 Amended Budget Commitments Actual Ex enditures Available Total Vender Name FOREST LAKES MSTU FUND 159 Decemberr 14, 2011 Open P.O.s PO# Item FY 10 Amt. Remainin2 Actual Paid 1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (151,600.00) $ - $ (118,687.92) $ (32,912.08) 2 FIFTH THIRD 0/N INTEREST $ - $ $ (278.08) $ 278.08 3 DEL AD VALOREM $ - $ - Aquagenix 4500130369 3 Fountains Modification $ 2,475.00 $ 225.00 a INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (5,000.00) $ $ (3,272.49) $ (1,727.51) Commercial Land Maint 4500130298 Main Enter & Woodshire $ 17,660.00 $ 1,540.00 5 INTEREST TAX COLLECTOF $ - $ $ - $ - Commercial Land 4500130299 Swale Mowing $ 28,827.80 $ 3,203.20 6 REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (156,600.00) $ $ (122,238.49) $ (34,361151 First Title Abstract 4500131667 O& E Reports $ 825.00 $ 175.00 7 TRANSFER FROM APPRA $ $ $ (245.61) $ 245.61 Florida Power Light 4700000779 Electricity $ 4,559.84 $ 990.16 a TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ (356.10) $ 356.10 Florida Irrigation 4500130336 Sprinkler and Irrigation Supplies $ 500.00 $ - 9 CARRY FORWARD GENERA $ (3,772,700.00) 9. $ $ $ (3,772,700.00) Florikan 4500130432 Fertilizer $ 6.08 $ 293.92 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $ (42,728.44) $ $ $ (42,728.44) Indirect Reimbursement Direct Collier County $ - $ 7,500.00 1 NEG 5 % EST REV $ 7,900.00 $ - $ - $ 7,900.00 Insurance General Direct Insurance $ $ 2 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $ (3,807,528.44) $ $ (601.71) $ (3,806,926.73) Juristaff, Inc. 4500130360 Secretarial Services $ 4,295.97 $ 204.03 3 TOTAL REVENUES $ (3,964,128.44) $ $ (122,840.20) $ (3 841 288.24) Postage & Freight UPS Direct Postage $ - $ 4 ENG FEES r�T-441 $ 32,498.61 $ 10,562.11 $ 1,936.50 $ 20,000.00 Naples Daily News 0 Legal Advertising $ $ 5 SURVEYING FEES $ 8,500.00 $ - $ - $ 8,500.00 3RS Equipment 4500132975 -C PH I Sidewalks, Lighting, Planting $ 841,492.40 $ ABSTRACT FEES $ 3,000.00 $ 825.00 $ 175.00 $ 2,000.00 RWA Inc 4500126714 Prepare Sidewalks $ 8,500.00 $ - 7 EMER MAINT AND REP $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 RWA Inc 4500127559 Add Surveying Svs Sec 14 $ 474.65 $ 1,936.50 a INDIRECT COST REIMB $ 15,000.00 $ $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 Visa Credit Card Direct Yousenit On line Svs $ $ 14,99 9 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTALS $ - $ - $ - $ - Staples 4500130396 Office Supplies $ 300.00 $ - o OTHER CONTRACTUAL SEF $ 150,000.00 $ 48,962.80 $ 4,968.20 $ 96,069.00 Windham Studio 4500117575 -C Sidewalk. Lighting Improv. F -58 $ 44,265.33 $ 818.50 POST FREIGHT UPS $ - $ - $ - $ - Windham Studio 4500124888 Maint Consulting Svs Proj F -58 $ 1,587.46 $ - 22 ELECTRICITY $ 6,000.00 $ 4,559.84 $ 990.16 $ 450.00 23 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 900.00 $ - $ - $ 900.00 Lines 34 +37 = $ 955,769.53 $ 16,901.30 24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINT $ 3,500.00 $ 500.00 $ $ 3,000.00 25 RESURFACING $ 5,000.00 $ _ $ $ 5,000.00 26 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 2,500.00 $ $ $ 2,500.00 27 PRINTING / BINDING $ - $ $ $ _ 28 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 400.00 $ $ $ 400.00 211,647,248 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 29 OTHER MISC. $ 10,000.00 $ 4,295.97 $ 219.02 $ 5,485.01 176,394,909 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 3o FERT HERB CHEM $ 1,000.00 $ 6.08 $ 293.92 $ 700.00 145,888,273 FY 11 Final Taxable Value 31 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ - $ 300.00 $ - $ (300.00) 133,055,175 FY 12 July 1st Taxable Value 32 BOOKS PUB $ - $ - $ $ - Property Tax Limitation Impact -8.80% Adj. 11 to 12 33 OTHER OPERATING $ 300.00 $ - $ $ 300.00 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 240,598.61 $ 70,011.80 $ 16,082.80 $ 154,504.01 FY 12 Gross Taxable Value 133,055,175 FY 12 FY 11 Dobt Service Operations 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ 1,719,029.83 $ 885,757.73 $ 818.50 $ 832,453.60 Minus: New Const. Annex. 78,038 Millage 1.1395 0.2606 2.7532 0.5228 Plus: Amendment #1 TV 36 TRAFFIC DEVICE IMPRO $ - $ - $ - $ - Component 0 Extension 151,616 38,018 485,700 92,200 37 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 1,719,029.83 $ 885,757.73 $ 818.50 $ 832,45160 Adj. Taxable Value 132,977,137 38 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR $ 29,200.00 $ - $ - $ 29,200.00 11 Levy 38,018 2.8605 1.1395 Rolled Back Rate (less 39 TRANS TO 259 BOND $ 500,000.00 $ $ $ 500,000.00 Amend. One) 0.2859 380,600 151,600 ao TRANSFERS $ 529,200.00 $ $ $ 5299200.00 91% of Rolled Back Rate 0.2602 41 BUDGET TRANS APPR $ 3,200.00 $ $ 80.67 $ 3,119.33 Variance 59,400 42 BUDGET TRANS TC COL $ 3,800.00 $ $ 2,943.51 $ 856.49 91% cf TRANSFER CONT. $ 7,000.00 $ $ 3,024.18 $ 3,975.82 1.246F� 1.0369 RESERVE FOR CONTINGE $ 1,468,300.00 $ $ - $ 1,468,300.00 RESERVES $ 1,468,300.00 $ $ - $ 1.468.300.00 Total 3.2760 577,900 4.0000 532,200 - 45,700 FOREST LAKES I. Call to Order 161 2.i 1.5 ROADWAV AND DRAINAGE - I.S.T. €i. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 January 11, 2012 Agenda 11. Attendance Ill. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — December 14, 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio V11. Old Business A. Sidewalk Project (F58 —F60) Cul -de -sac Project VIII. New Business IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment February Next meeting is 1 10:00 Growth - Division — Construction 2885 • • - Drive South Naples, FL } I JAni 3 0 o 1, 2 . : ........ . ams. a.r�aa�cs• Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle _ Ccletta G. Misc. Cares: lien t t U -1: 2. )413 Copies to: 14 6 October 3, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, October 3, 2011; I 1 2012 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "D" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, w' h the Fiala following members present: Hiller Henning, Coyle -7- Coyle Coietta CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager 1sc. Corns: Vickie Wilson, Community Center upervisor Shari Ferguson, Regional ManagerDate: 31�31iz Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Item Copies to: 1 A.,�14 October 3 2011 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM by Chairman, James Klug III. II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Move: VI. H. to VI. A. Add: VII. B. Shading of Playground Bill Arthur moved to approve the October 3, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of August 29, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the August 29, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by James Mug. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business A. Media Update Shari Ferguson and Peg Ruby provided CMA# 1200 — Coordination of Media and Public Relations Coordination and the Parks and Recreation Department Marketing Plan. The Advisory Board asked questions on what they are allowed to do as an Advisory Board. ➢ Advisory Board can setup and maintain a Facebook page. ➢ County does not allow comments back. ➢ Suggestion made to add Shari Ferguson and Peg Ruby as administrators. ➢ You can write a press release and forward to Peg Ruby to format prior to Staff submission to John Torres for final approval. Please submit 24 hours; the earlier the better. ➢ Events can be posted to public calendars and calendar websites. ➢ Pictures are allowed if they are from a public event. ➢ Before publishing pictures check the Community Centers' list of people who do not want their photo used. ➢ Advertise Facebook website through email. Staff will work on getting clearance for a Staff person to add events and update the Advisory Boards' Facebook page. It was suggested Staff advertise the Advisory Boards' Facebook Page (once completed) on the Community Centers sign. The Advisory Board was directed to send ideas to Shari Ferguson and Peg Ruby. 2 1612A -14 October 3, 2011 B. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported the following on the Community Center: • Center carpet has been replaced with vinyl flooring. • Staff in process of holding interviews for Park Assistant and Program Leader positions. • Wheels facility has been painted. • Pro Shop windows have been tinted. • Motion detectors have been installed in Center rooms to control lights. • Trees have been trimmed and cleaned up. Tropical Fest has been scheduled for October 21 -23. Volunteers are needed to man front desk to answer phones on both Friday and Saturday night from 6 — 9 pm. Staff will work on the grounds. Vickie Wilson reported the GGCC has been selected to host the BMX State Qualifier in January: • Volunteers will be needed. • Estimated 400 -600 riders will attend. • Staff will attend a state qualifier at Jacksonville in November to observe for ideas and note how they host the event. • The lighted field will be used for dry camping. • Field will be marked with flags to protect grounds. • RV parking fee per night will be $30.00 • Parking lot will be used only for parking. • Staff will look into additional parking. • SSA/BMX Agreement will be provided at the next meeting. C. Playground Update Vickie Wilson reported surfacing materials are in and have been paid for. Staff will issue a PO to have the surfacing installed and estimate it will be completed in by December. D. MSTU 60/40 Split - None E. Wheels Funding -None F. Indirect Costs Staff reported receiving documents on Indirect Costs that require further clarification. Facilities Management recommended waiting for Cheryl Pryor to return. Staff will review their concerns with Cheryl Pryor and report to the Advisory Board at the next meeting. G. Removal Oak Tree Bill Arthur reported the sewer lines were repaired. The oak tree is no longer an issue. 3 1612 A 14 October 3, 2011 H. Vacant Positions Update Candidates for Park Assistant are in the background check process in Human Resources. VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget Annie Alvarez provided and reviewed the 130 Monthly Budget Report - 2011. (See attached) She reported after the end of September they are locked out of the system to enable end of year closing and opening new fiscal year. She was able to do the roll -over for the playground funds. Vickie Wilson reported she will provide future monthly reports "Revenue vs. Staff." Staff will also provide both the End of Year 2011 and the Monthly Budget reports at the next meeting. B. Shading for Playground Chairman James Klug requested Staff to research costs and their experience with the kite shading at Fleishman Park for future consideration. VIII. Member Comments Kaydee Tuff volunteered to set up the Facebook page with staff person as the administrator. Chairman James Klug directed Staff to coordinate with Kaydee Tuff to create a Fan page on Facebook. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes were approved by the Committee/Board on 11-7-// , as presented V or as amended 11 A b 1.2 kok4ber 7 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD p 3 0 3 9 W13 Naples, Florida, November 7, 2011 JAN . ,i l I BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Rooms "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala Hiller Henning J.- _ Coyle Coletta 3<�--- CHAIRMAN: James Klug III VICE CHAIR: Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris Misc. Corres: Date:_ I 12i Item #: 1 U X ;1, P " L/ Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor 1 1 6 ' 2Nove' mber 7, 21'011 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chairman, James Mug M. H. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. M. Approval of Agenda Peggy Harris moved to approve the November 7, 2011 Agenda as submitted Second by Bill Arthur. Add: VII. D. Tropical Fest VII. E Vacant Positions VII E Facebook Update Bill Arthur moved to approve the November 7, 2011 Agenda as amended Second by Jim Klug. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of October 3, 2011 Minutes Darrin Brooks moved to approve the October 3, 2011 Minutes as submitted Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business A. Playground Update Vickie Wilson reported all the purchase orders have been received. Staff is waiting on schedule for completion. B. Shading for Playground Vickie Wilson distributed and reviewed the shade structure quotes submitted by Creative Shade Solutions and Sun Shade. (See attached) • Creative Shade Solution/Quote 1 - $26,900 included shade structures for the main play area and the play set area. • Creative Shade Solution/Quote 2 - $30,750 — included shade structures for the main play area, the play set area and for the baby swing area. • Sun Shade Quote - $27,245 included shade structures for the main play area and the play set area. Discussion was ensued on life of the shades, the hassles of taking structure down and when 150 mile winds are expected (during hurricane season) and putting back up, funding the project and future Grant application(s). 2 1 1612 A 14 November 7, 2011 It was suggested the Staff research Fleischman Parks' experience and maintenance on the shade structures. Kaydee Tuff stated St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School had installed shade structures and volunteered to do additional research. The Advisory Board formed a consensus to keep the item on the agenda and consider placement on 5 -year Plan. C. Indirect Costs Jim Klug reported attending a meeting with a County Finance representative and Staff on Indirect Costs. He stated the system was complicated due to the indirect cost percentage charges to each department and he understood the concept. Vickie Wilson noted due to Jim Klug's delving into costs error detection was made and the GGCCAB Budget was lowered $15,000. D. Tropical Fest Vickie Wilson reported the Tropical Fest Event accounting will be provided at the next meeting. She noted rain and the economy had an effect on revenues. E. Vacant Position Vickie Wilson reported Zack Henry was hired to fill the Park Assistant position. The Program Leader as been selected and position will be offered to that candidate. It was recommended Staff encourage the Program Leader attend Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board monthly meetings. It was noted Annie Alvarez was unable to attend meeting due to minor surgery and that Shari Ferguson has resigned her position at Collier County. F. Facebook Update None. VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget Staff provided the 130 Monthly Budget Report — November 1, 2011. (See attached) Vickie Wilson reported she will provide future monthly reports "Revenue vs. Staff." Staff will also provide both the End of Year 2011 and the Monthly Budget reports at the next meeting. B. Expiration of 3 Board Members Terms Jim Klug reported receiving notifications from Ian Mitchell regarding the expiration of 3 Board Member Terms. He expressed concern the 3 terms expired at the same time and thought the Advisory Board had previously made an amendment to the Bi -Laws or the Ordinance to correct this issue. He 1... 1612 14 November 7, 2011 planned to contact Ian Mitchell regarding the terms and whether the revision was made and approved by BCC. VIII. Member Comments Kaydee Tuff recommended the Walk of Trees Event be held this year. Staff requested trees be prepaid prior to placement of order. The Advisory Board formed a consensus to hold the Walk of Trees Event. Kaydee Tuff reported an issue with a conflict between the Women's Club and the Quilting Ladies over scheduling of the room utilized by both parties. Staff planned to review the Rental Fee Policy for GGCC Community Outreach Programs and Non - Outreach activities and suggested the Advisory Board table until January. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Jan s Klug III, Chairman These Minutes we approved by the Committee/Board on as presented ` or as amended 0 YBCS BUD TO ACTUAL Fiscal Year 2012 Period 0 to Fund 130 Fund Center 157710 Commitment Item SUMMARY Grants 43,749.96 Funded Program 38 Collier County, Florida Date 11/01/2011 Budget to Actual Comparison BCS Drilldown Report Time 12:27:47 Client 300 13 Statistical Indicator: GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT to GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Revenue and Expense Sub - Totals to to Fund Ctr / Comm Item. jAdopted Budget ! A_mended Budget ii Commitment f" � Actual I Available Enc/ * *�* Grand Total -FC /CI 531,200.00 544,879.86 167,916.00 43,749.96 333,213.90 38 ** 157710 G GATE COMM CENT 531,200.00 544,879.86 167,916.00 43,749..96 333,_213.90 38 ** REVENUE Sub Total 538,800•.00- 538;800.00- 10,402.07- 528,397.93- 1 * REVENUE - OPERATING Su 538,800.00- 538,800.00- 10,402.07- 528,397.93- 1 311100 CUR AD VALORE' 2791000.00- 279,000.00- 2,112.74- 276,887.26- 0 341446 XEROX COPY TA, 4.06- 4.06 347230 PERMIT MEMBER 8,300.00- 8,300.00- 348.43- 7,951.57- 4 347270 ATHLETIC PROG 20,400.00- 20,400.00- 20,400.00- 347290 RECREATION CA 9,800.00- 9,800.00- 9,800.00- 347400 SPECIAL EVENT 24,500.00- 24,500.00- 1,455.00- 23,045.00- 5 347903 MERCHANDISE 12,000.00- 12,000.00- 338.77- 11,661.23- 2 347905 ADMISSION 2,000.00- 2,000.00- 80.00- 1,920.00- 4 347908 TAXABLE CONCE! 4,000.00- 4,000.00- 259.06- 3,740.94- 6 347940 FACILITY RENT 27,200.00- 27,200.00- 1,085.00- 26,115.00- 4 347990 INSTRUCTIONAL 146,600.00- 146,600.00- 3,811.69- 142,788.31- 2 366900 CONTRIBUTIONS 5,000.00- 5,000.00- 500.00- 4,500.00- 10 369300 REIMS FOR PYj 417.32- 417.32 _._369700 CASH-OVER UND 10.00 10.00- ** EXPENSE Sub Total 1,070,000.00 1,083,679.86 167,916.00 54,152.03 861,611.83 20 * PERSONAL SERVICE 528,600.00 528,600.00 20,407.99 508,192.01 3 512100 REGULAR SALAR 287,764.00 287,764.00 14,262.24 273,501.76 5 512600 ER 457 j 1,000.00 1,000.00 30.00 970.00 3 512800 TXBL DEP 2'_23� 498.33 498.33- 513100 OTHER SALARI" 74,700.00 74,700.00 3,908.60 70,791.40 5 519100 RESERVE FOR S! 10,368.00 10,368.00 10,368.00 521100 SOCIAL SECURI 28,737.00 28,737.00 1,347.83 27,389.17 4 522100 RETIREMENT g14 20,087.00 20,087.00 859.32 19,227.68 4 522800 ALLOW TXBL DE! 498.33- 498.33 523150 HEALTH INSURA 101,968.00 101,968.00 101,968.00 523160 LIFE INSURANC 776.00 776.00 776.00 524100_ -WO RKERS COMPE 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 * OPERATING EXPENSE 489,900.00 489,900.00 141,224.74 20,064.18 328,611.08 32 634207 IT CAP ALLOCA; 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 634210 OFFICE AUTOMP 21,100.00 21,100.00 21,100.00 634211 IT BILLING HO 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 634970 INDIRECT COST, 113,100.00 113,100.00 113,100.00 634999 OTHER CONTRAC 49,000.00 49,000.00 38,735.43 3,124.57 7,140.00 jmw16 85 639965 LOCKSMITHS SE 500.00 500.00 500.00 640200 MILEAGE REIMS 1,000.00 1,000.00 79.17 920.83 A AA 7 640300 TRAVEL PROF D 2, 40a: -66- 2,400. - 2.4 400.00 640410 MOTOR POOL RE 400.00 400.00 641230 TELEPHONE ACC 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 641700 CELLULAR TELE 700.00 700.00 700.00 641900 TELEPHONE SYS 5,800.00 5,800.00 3,968.40 340.01 1,491.59 r)14 641951 POSTAGE 200.00 200.00 200.00 643100 ELECTRICITY 68,800.00 68,800.00 55,457.94 11,642.06 1,700.00 X97 643300 TRASH AND GA 6,500.00 6,500.00 5,256.09 523.91 720.00 88 643400 WATER AND SEW 15,000.00 15,000.00 11,999.56 700.44 2,300.00 84 644170 RENT TEMP STO. 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 t"20 644600 RENT EOUIPMEN 13,500.00 13,500.00 2,820.00 10,680.00 644620 LEASE EOUIPME' 2,400.00 2,400.00 1,816.91 165.09 418.00 .,t_-82 645100 INSURANCE GEN 5,400.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 645200 PROPERTY INSU 21,800.00 21,800.00 21,800.00 646110 BUILDING RM O 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646180 BUILDING RM I 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646311 SPRINKLER SYS 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 646315 ATHLETIC COUR 41700.00 4,700.00 4,700.00 646316 MAINT BLEACHE 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 646317 FENCING MAINT 21000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 646318 MULCH 6,000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 646319 TREE TRIMMING 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646320 LANDSCAPE MAT 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 646430 FLEET MAINT I 3,100.00 3,100.00 3,100.00 646440 FLEET MAINT P 2,800.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 646452 PLAYGROUND EO 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 646510 MACHINE TOOLS', 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 646710 OFFICE EOUIPM 500.00 500.00 200.00 300.00 646910 DATA PROCESS I', 800.00 800.00 800.00 646970 OTHER EOUIP Ri 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 647110 PRINTING AND 8,200.00 8,200.00 3,700.00 4,500.00 648160 OTHER ADS 200.00 200.00 200.00 648170 MARKETING AND 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 649010 LICENSES AND 1,200.00 1,200.00 825.00 375.00 649035 JUDGEMENTS FI' 200.00 200.00 200.00 649930 CREDIT CARD F 3,500.00 3,500.00 64.74 3,435.26 649990 OTHER MISCELL 7,000.00 7,000.00 1,800.00 5,200.00 651110 OFFICE SUPPLI!. 5,200.00 5,200.00 3,500.00 1,700.00 651210 COPYING CHARG 3,600.00 3,600.00 240.00 460.00 2,900.00 651910 MINOR OFFICE, 500.00 500.00 500.00 652110 CLOTHING AND 2,200.00 2,200.00 477.60 82.20 1,640.20 652130 CLOTHING RENT 400.00 400.00 400.00 652140 PERSONAL SAFE 500.00 500.00 154.02 220.98 125.00 652210 FOOD OPERATIN 4,100.00 4,100.00 126.15 3,973.85 652310 FERT HERB CHE 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 652490 FUEL AND LUB' 5,400.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 652510 HOUSE AND INS 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 652720 MEDICAL SUPPL 1,500.00 1,500.00 521.75 478.25 500.00 652910 MINOR OPERATT 10,000.00 10,000.00 142.40 9,857.60 652940 MERCHANDISE R 10,000.00 10,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 652990 OTHER OPERATI' 11,700.00 11,700.00 4,577.04 539.21 6,583.75 652991 ELECTRICAL SU 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 652992 ELECTRICAL CO 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 652999 PAINTING SUPP 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 654110 BOOKS PUB SUB 400.00 400.00 400.00 654210 DUES AND MEMB 600.00 600.00 600.00 654360 OTHER TRAININ 1,700.00 1,700.00 550.00 1,150.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY 51,500.00 65,179.86 26,691.26 13,679.86 24,808.74 763100 IMPROVEMENTS, 51,500.00 65,179.86 26,691.26 13,679.86 24,808.74 40 45 1 25 67 19 25 75 3 66 1 60 43 32 61 61 V N Siff) Shade, ' Industrial 1, / 1975 NW 18 th street Pompano Beach, FL 33069 Name / Address 954 977 -7373 Fax 954 977 -7315 Ship To 1612 A,14 Date Estimate # 11 /1 /2011 103785 -A Colier County Parks & Rec 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Naples, FL 34116 Contact Person Tel Fax Rep E Mail Gregory Torres 239 - 252 -4185 239 -455 -9556 CJ gregoryTorres @colliergov.net Qty Item Description Total. 1 CUSTOM 34'x 30'x 12 entry H GALVANIZED STEEL SHADEPORT STRUCTURE (4 POLE LAYOUT) 7,650.00 1 CUSTOM 55' X 20' (6 POLE LAYOUT WITH ENTRY 12' TO CLEAR 15' PLAY EQUIPMENT 8,250.00 GALVANIZED STEEL SHADEPORT STRUCTURE SUB TOTAL 15,900.00 5" COLUMNS 5" GALVANIZED STEEL COLUMNS AS PER ENGINEERING 0.00 COVER REMOVABLE, HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE UV STABILIZED WOVEN SHADECLOTH 0.00 FABRIC. COLOR CHOICE - HOOPS - GALVANIZED STEEL HOOPS AS PER ENGINEERING SPECS 0.00 POWDERCOATI... OPTIONAL - POWDER COATING IS AN ADVANCED METHOD OF APPLYING A PROTECTIVE 1,500.00 FINISH TO THE STEEL. ENGINEERING ENGINEERING DRAWINGS (4 SEALED COPIES) FOR PERMITTING IF CALCULATIONS ARE 750.00 NEEDED BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT * ** ADD $ 250.00 *** PERMIT PERMIT REGISTRATION ** *(MUNICIPAL FEES NOT INCLUDED * ** 295.00 FURN. & INSTAL... INSTALL SHADEPORT STRUCTURE AS PER ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS - NO 6,300.00 ALLOWANCE FOR ROCK REMOVAL, DEWATERING, DUMPSTER RENTAL AND UNFORESEEN GROUND CONDITIONS INCLUDING TREE ROOTS, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND UNDERGROUND PIPING - AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF $125.00 PER HOUR MAY BE CHARGED IN ADDITION TO THE RENTAL FEE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO BREAK THROUGH CORAUROCK. IF SOIL TESTING REQUIRED THIS IS TO BE DONE BY OTHERS 12 CONCRETE CONCRETE COST @ $150.00 PER CU/YD INCLUDING REBAR 1,800.00 1 DUMPSTER DUMPSTER FOR DIRT REMOVAL 450.00 S/H SHIPPING AND HANDLING CHARGE 250.00 DELIVERY 4-6 WEEKS UPON PLACEMENT OF ORDER AND RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT DUE AND /OR 0.00 PERMIT APPROVAL Terms AS PER AGREEMENT r ACCEPTANCE OF ESTIMATE - The above prices, conditions and specifications are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be as outlined above. Any past due invoices are subject to a 1.5% monthly finance charge. Any invoices turned over to a third party for collection are subject to a 33% collection fee and other applicable fees. Unit(s) shall remain the property of Sunshade Inc, DBA as Industrial Shadeports, until order is paid in full. Proposal valid for 30 days. ALL SALES ARE FINAL. Please note: Fabric must be removed if and when a huricane or snow warning is predicted or posted in the area Signature / Date * SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS SINCE 1992 www.shadeports.com Subtotal $27,245.00 Sales Tax (6.0 %) $0.00 Total $27,245.00 R E A T I V E SHADE SOLUTIONS, INC. Shade a luxury everyone can afford 1612 Z INVOICE NO. 2011 -00173 all DATE November 3, 2011 CUSTOMER ID Torres TO Greg Torres Quote from : Creative Shade Solutions Inc. Collier Cnty Park and Rec 651 Kenneth Way Tarpon Springs, FL, 324689 (239) 252 4185 (727) 947 3067 SHIPPING I SHIPPING DELIVERY PAYMENT SALESPERSON JOB DUE DATE METHOD TERMS DATE TERMS Werner j j Due on receipt QTY j ITEM # I DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT LINE TOTAL Shade Structure # 1 - main play 1 16 posts 60x28 - 6 post 12' shade structure $ 11,125.00 $ 11,125.00 5 " OD 7 ga steel post - galy posts 3.5" 11 ga steel gaN frame II' i (1) piece cloth full coverage quick release cable Color - TBD 1 1 install installation / materials / concrete $ 4,875.00 _._ 1�_ - _. 1 powder powder coating - If needed $ 675.00 Color - TBD $ 675.00 1 !install installation / materials concrete $ 1,000.00 by client Shade Structure # 3 1 4 posts 18x19 - 4 post 10' shade structure $ 2,500.00 2,500.00 4 OD 7 ga steel post gals posts 1 iDowder powder coatine - If needed S vin on w c Irn nn quick release cable Color - TBD 750.00 'Permitting / permit application 1 !install installation / materials concrete $ 1,000.00 1 iDowder powder coatine - If needed S vin on w c Irn nn SUBTOTAL: $ 30,750.00 SALES TAX TOTAL $ 30,750.00 Quote by : Werner Furstenberg (Client to provide site plan. Client will do the locating services. No site work included, client will fix any damaged underground pipe or wires. Client will provide water and electricity. Dirt will be moved 50' away at no costs. Client will provide easy access to the work area, buy removing fences etc. Warranties : limited 10 years on shade cloth limited 20 years on steel frame Engineered drawings 750.00 'Permitting / permit application j 1 $ 750.00 'County City Permitting Fees by client Delivery FOB Dest - Naples area $ 575.00 TOTAL DISCOUNT SUBTOTAL: $ 30,750.00 SALES TAX TOTAL $ 30,750.00 Quote by : Werner Furstenberg (Client to provide site plan. Client will do the locating services. No site work included, client will fix any damaged underground pipe or wires. Client will provide water and electricity. Dirt will be moved 50' away at no costs. Client will provide easy access to the work area, buy removing fences etc. Warranties : limited 10 years on shade cloth limited 20 years on steel frame 1612 A-4 4 SHAr>E SOLUTIONS, INC. I Shade a luxury everyone can afford INVOICE NO. 2011 -00173 all DATE November 3, 2011 CUSTOMER ID Torres TO Greg Torres Quote from : Creative Shade Solutions Inc. Collier Cnty Park and Rec 651 Kenneth Way Tarpon Springs, FL, 324689 (239) 252 4185 (727) 947 3067 r{ SHIPPING SHIPPING DELIVERY PAYMENT SALESPERSON JOB I ' i METHOD TERMS ; DATE TERMS DUE DATE Werner IDue on receipt QTY ; ITEM # ; DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE DISCOUNT LINE TOTAL ;Shade Structure # 1 -main play i 1 !6 posts '60x28 - 6 post 12' shade structure $ 11,125.00 i i $ 11,125.00 5 " OD 7 ga steel post - galy posts j j! j 3.5" 11 ga steel galv frame (1) piece cloth full coverage - false Ehiproof - quick release cable Color - TBD 1 install .installation / materials / concrete $ 4,875.00 1 powder powder coating - If needed $ 1,175.00 $ 1,175.00 i Quote by : Wemer Furstenberg powder coating - If needed Engineered drawings 675.00 675.00 Permitting / permit application County / City Permitting Fees Delivery / FOB Dest - Naples area TOTAL DISCOUNT 750.00 750.00 by client $ 575.00 SUBTOTALS $ 26,900.00 SALES TAXI i TOTAL: i $ 26,900.00 YBCS BUD TO ACTUAL Fiscal Year 2012 Period 0 to Fund 130 Fund Center 157710 Commitment Item SUMMARY Grants 43,749.96 Funded Program 38 Fund Ctr Graz * ** 15'. * * RE * F * * E) * C Collier County, Florida Date 11/01/2011 Budget to Actual Comparison BCS Drilldown Report Time 12:27:47 Client 300 13 Statistical Indicator: GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT to GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT GOLDEN GATE COMM CNT -1 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Revenue and Expense Sub - Totals to to / Comm Item, __J i A, dopted Budget Amended Budget Commitment �'; ,victual "�j I Available EncA d Total -FC /CI 531,200.00 544,879.86 167,916.00 43,749.96 333,213.90 38 710 G GATE COMM CENT 531,200.00 544,879.86 167,916.00 43,_749.96 333,213.90 38 VENUE Sub Total 538,800.00- 538,800.00- 10,402.07- 528,397.93- 1 EVENUE - OPERATING Su 538,800.00- 538,800.00- 10,402.07- 528,397.93- 1 311100 CUR AD VALORE! 279,000.00- 279,000.00- 2,112.74- 276,887.26- 0 341446 XEROX COPY TA 4.06- 4.06 347230 PERMIT MEMBER 8,300.00- 8,300.00- 348.43- 7,951.57- 4 347270 ATHLETIC PROD 20,400.00- 20,400.00- 20,400.00- 347290 RECREATION CA( 9,800.00- 9,800.00- 9,800.00- 347400 SPECIAL EVENT 24,500.00- 24,500.00- 1,455.00- 23,045.00- 5 347903 MERCHANDISE 12,000.00- 12,000.00- 338.77- 11,661.23- 2 347905 ADMISSION 2,000.00- 2,000.00- 80.00- 1,920.00- 4 347908 TAXABLE CONCFJ 4,000.00- 4,000.00- 259.06- 3,740.94- 6 347940 FACILITY RENT 27,200.00- 27,200.00- 1,085.00- 26,115.00- 4 347990 INSTRUCTIONAL 146,600.00- 146,600.00- 3,811.69- 142,788.31- 2 366900 CONTRIBUTIONS 5,000.00- 5,000.00- 500.00- 4,500.00- 10 369300 REIMB FOR PY; 417.32- 417.32 369700 CASH..OVER_UND 10.00 10.00 - PENSE Sub Total 1,070,000.00 1,083,679.86 167,916.00 54,152.03 861,611.83 20 ERSONAL SERVICE 528,600.00 528,600.00 20,407.99 508,192.01 3 512100 REGULAR SALAt 287,764.00 287,764.00 14,262.24 273,501.76 5 512600 ER 457 1 1,000.00 1,000.00 30.00 970.00 3 512800 TXBL DEP 25 -� 498.33 498.33- 513100 OTHER SALARIZ 74,700.00 74,700.00 3,908.60 70,791.40 5 519100 RESERVE FOR Si 10,368.00 10,368.00 10,368.00 521100 SOCIAL SECUR2� 28,737.00 28,737.00 1,347.83 27,389.17 4 522100 RETIREMENT Rj 20,087.00 20,087.00 859.32 19,227.68 4 522800 ALLOW TXBL DES 498.33- 498.33 523150 HEALTH INSUR, 101,968.00 101,968.00 101,968.00 523160 LIFE INSURANC 776.00 776.00 776.00 524100 WORKERS COMPS 3,200.00 3,200.00 3,200.00 PERATING EXPENSE 489,900.00 489,900.00 141,224.74 20,064.18 328,611.08 32 634207 IT CAP ALLOCP1 1,800.00 1,800.00 1,800.00 634210 OFFICE AUTOMA 21,100.00 21,100.00 21,100.00 634211 IT BILLING HO 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 634970 INDIRECT COST, 113,100.00 113,100.00 113,100.00 634999 OTHER CONTRAC, 49,000.00 49,000.00 38,735.43 3,124.57 7,140.00 85 639965 LOCKSMITHS SEI 500.00 500.00 500.00 640200 MILEAGE REIMS 1,000.00 1,000.00 79.17 920.83 7 640300 TRAVEL PROF D -- 2,400.00 2, - , 400.00 640410 MOTOR POOL RE 400.00 400.00 641230 TELEPHONE ACC 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 641700 CELLULAR TELEI 700.00 700.00 700.00 641900 TELEPHONE SYS!; 5,800.00 5,800.00 3,968.40 340:01 1,491.59 .74 641951 POSTAGE 200.00 200.00 200.00 643100 ELECTRICITY 68,800.00 68,800.00 55,457.94 11,642.06 1,700.00 97 643300 TRASH AND GA 6,500.00 6,500.00 5,256.09 523.91 720.00 88 643400 WATER AND SEW 15,000.00 15,000.00 11,999.56 700.44 2,300.00 84 644170 RENT TEMP STO. 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 644600 RENT EOUIPMEN 13,500.00 13,500.00 2,820.00 10,680.00 20 644620 LEASE EOUIPME! 2,400.00 2,400.00 1,816.91 165.09 418.00 82 645100 INSURANCE GEN 5,400.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 645200 PROPERTY INSU 21,800.00 21,800.00 21,800.00 646110 BUILDING RM O 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646180 BUILDING RM I 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646311 SPRINKLER SYS 11000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 646315 ATHLETIC COUR 4,700.00 4,700.00 4,700.00 646316 MAINT BLEACHE 31000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 646317 FENCING MAINT 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 646318 MULCH 61000.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 646319 TREE TRIMMING 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 646320 LANDSCAPE MAT 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 646430 FLEET MAINT I! 31100.00 3,100.00 3,100.00 646440 FLEET MAINT P 2,800.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 646452 PLAYGROUND EO 21000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 646510 MACHINE TOOLS 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 646710 OFFICE EOUIPM 500.00 500.00 200.00 300.00 646910 DATA PROCESSI', 800.00 800.00 800.00 646970 OTHER EOUIP R 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 647110 PRINTING AND1 8,200.00 8,200.00 3,700.00 4,500.00 648160 OTHER ADS 200.00 200.00 200.00 648170 MARKETING AND 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 649010 LICENSES AND 1 1,200.00 1,200.00 825.00 375.00 649035 JUDGEMENTS FI' 200.00 200.00 200.00 649930 CREDIT CARD F 3,500.00 3,500.00 64.74 3,435.26 649990 OTHER MISCELL 7,000.00 7,000.00 1,800.00 5,200.00 651110 OFFICE SUPPLI 5,200.00 5,200.00 3,500.00 1,700.00 651210 COPYING CHARG 3,600.00 3,600.00 240.00 460.00 2,900.00 651910 MINOR OFFICE 500.00 500.00 500.00 652110 CLOTHING AND 2,200.00 2,200.00 477.60 82.20 1,640.20 652130 CLOTHING RENT 400.00 400.00 400.00 652140 PERSONAL SAFE 500.00 500.00 154.02 220.98 125.00 652210 FOOD OPERATIN 4,100.00 4,100.00 126.15 3,973.85 652310 FERT HERB CHE 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 652490 FUEL AND LUB ! 5,400.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 652510 HOUSE AND INS 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 652720 MEDICAL SUPPL 1,500.00 1,500.00 521.75 478.25 500.00 652910 MINOR OPERATT 10,000.00 10,000.00 142.40 9,857.60 652940 MERCHANDISE R 10,000.00 10,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 652990 OTHER OPERATI 11,700.00 11,700.00 4,577.04 539.21 6,583.75 652991 ELECTRICAL SU 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 652992 ELECTRICAL CO 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 652999 PAINTING SUPP 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 654110 BOOKS PUB SUB 400.00 400.00 400.00 654210 DUES AND MEMB 600.00 600.00 600.00 654360 OTHER_TRAININ 1,700.00 1,700.00 550.00 1,150.00 CAPITAL OUTLAY 51,500.00 65,179.86 26,691.26 13,679.86 24,808.74 763100 IMPROVEMENTS 51,500.00 65,179.86 26,691.26 13,679.86 24,808.74 �1 F 40 45 68 1 25 67 19 25 75 3 66 1 60 43 32 61 61 16112 A*11 October 1 , 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, October 19, 2011 0 30THW31 DE(: 0 h 201! BY........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 AM in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation, Conference Room 610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following Fiala ✓ members present: Hiller Henning S1,L Coyle ✓�—' Coletta(�— ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Cares: DO: al13_ item t fit; aSZ. f:V15 to: CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward Matthew Betz William Dempsey (excused) Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner, Staff Liaison Jim Seabasty, Code Enforcement Azure Botts, Code Enforcement Marya Repko, re: Bula Mission Attorney Michael Volpe, re: Hart Cottage Brian Shiffer, AIA, re: Hart Cottage 1612A454 October 19, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:21 A. M. Attendance was taken and a quorum established. Chairman Woodward welcomed new Board Member, Matthew Betz, to his first meeting of the Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board. II. Addenda to the Agenda - NONE III. Approval of Agenda Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Patricia Huff Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — August 17, 2011 Correction: Page 31tem B. line 2 Sentence beginning with "He ", attributed to Ray Bellows was spoken by Craig Woodward. Sharon Kenny moved to approve the minutes of August 17, 2011, as amended. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 5-0. Note: Fred Reischl stated Joe Ervin has since replaced BryanMilk. V. Old Business. A. Bula Mission Update Ray Bellows spoke about the hearing before Judge Garrison. He introduced Jim Seabasty from Code Enforcement, who provided an update on the hearing and the situation with the Bula Mission building and Foundation. Jim Seabasty spoke about: • The deteriorated and dangerous condition of the building • The Judge had given a 30 day extension for the structure to be taken down. • The County's case had held off for over a year while efforts to raise funds to restore it were in progress • The County was not in favor of liening the property • A lot mowing citation was also involved Marya Repko, Director of the Frances Hodge Community Foundation, owners of the Bula Mission building, stated: • Volunteers were available to bulldoze the structure at no charge. • The Ochopee Fire Dept. was willing to do a controlled burn as a small house was nearby. (First the building must be moved) ■ A demolition permit was needed. ■ Unmarked graves were also there. ■ Florida Public Archaeology was willing to scan the grounds for the graves. N 161 2A 15 October 19, 2011 • The Foundation's plan was to create a memorial garden with a fence around the gravesite area and a small pavilion within the footprint of the original Church. • A possible handing over of responsibility through a 99 year lease - option with Copeland Civic Assoc. • The Foundation would like the site designated as historic. Ray Bellows provided information on submitting a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert the present designation from the building to the site itself, along with all particulars, for HAPB's recommendations, noting the Judge's direction. Discussion followed which resulted in the decision to recommend immediate approval of the demolition of the Bula Mission structure, given the Judge's direction; and, require the Foundation to submit a Certificate of Appropriateness, with all planned conditions, to the HAPB as soon as possible. Patricia Huff noted some interest remained for salvaging some pecky cypress. Rich Taylor arrived at 9:35 Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the demolition of the building, subject to the Foundation's submission to HAPB of a Certificate of Appropriateness, with all planned conditions included, as soon as possible. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. B. Chokoloski Island Update Ray Bellows noted the property owner had re- opened access to the road to Smallwood store, though it may be in poor condition. Litigation was ongoing. Jim Seabasty offered further information: • Access to the museum was possible; the road may not be in good condition. He planned to check it after the meeting. • The fence was to be replaced; but, no permit was issued due to the ongoing litigation. • There was also an outstanding weed citation. • A "no trespassing private property" sign had been erected. A County sign, directing the public to the opened store, was being proposed. • A Court hearing was scheduled for Monday. • Many other issues were involved. Patricia Huff recalled, from a court hearing, the developer was to put the access back to a 2 -lane paved road. Tourists were still coming, walking over the rutted road, in spite of the no trespassing sign. C. Hart Cottage — Certificate of Appropriateness Attorney Michael Volpe, represented Mr. and Mrs. Fascher, owners of Hart Cottage which was designated historic in 2007. He presented pictures and background information regarding their Certificate of Appropriateness request. • The owner's intent was to restore the property • Due to economic and poor weather conditions, funding was an issue. 161 2A 15 October 19, 2011 • Code Enforcement had declared the structure unsafe. • The Judge withheld ruling until the Certificate was obtained. Three proposed options for HAPB's recommendation were: 1. Spending no funds and demolishing the structure 2. Remove the weakened cantilevers; enclose structure openings; place a security door on the lower level to stabilize for future renovation. 3. Remove weakened cantilevers; enclose the structures openings with windows and create a small habitable cottage. Brad Schiffer, AIA, produced drawings and plans, explaining outcomes for each of the proposals, citing cost estimates involved which the owners were prepared to pay. He reported the structure had been posted and fencing safety measures had been put in place. Azure Botts, Code Enforcement, provided additional pictures, stating their position was - correct the unsafe condition or destroy the building. The Code case would not be closed until the certificate of completion was issued. The Special Magistrate will rule in November on compliance measures. Active discussion followed on the integrity of the structure, the ability to restore it, what exactly would be involved and the original intent of the owners when historical designation was sought. Administrative variances for historic structures, building code treatment of historic buildings and procedures to initiate moving forward towards preservation were also discussed. The Board's consensus was to save as much of the structure as possible to its original appearance, encouraging further renovations. To that end, Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to recommend approval of option #3 and of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition of adding sliding glass doors, keeping the front porch, leaving part of the cantilevers as an element of the original; and, retaining the bay side of the structure. Additionally, the Board recommended encouraging leniency by the Special Magistrate in the Code Enforcement case, as long as the owners of Hart Cottage were continuing with its historic qualities. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. VI. New Business A. Historic Mobile Workshop for the 2012 APA -FL Conference Fred Reischl announced the Promised Lands section of the Florida Chapter of the American Planners Association, which included Charlotte, Lee, Collier and Hendry Counties, would be meeting at the Naples Grande in September of 2012. He is on the Conference Committee. Planners from all over the State, as well as representatives from Transportation, Environmental, Historic, Pathways and Development industries were expected to attend. Attendance expected was about 650. Mobil Workshops and Tours of various sites, some of historic nature were mentioned. Segway Tours in Naples were planned. Exhibitors from many jurisdictions will set up booths. He asked for input and suggestions from the Board Members with finalization due by March. 15 16 V �ctol b er 19 2011 Patricia Huff asked that Everglades City be included for a workshop, walking tour or talk. She also noted the River of Grass walkway and a Swamp Walk. Sharon Kenny spoke about including Naples walkway, a Pub Walk and a Restaurant Tour. VII. Public Comments - None VIII. Board Member Announcements Elizabeth Perdichizzi told of her acting experiences in a new organization on Marco Island, Island Players, whose recent performances of 8 plays drew 500 people. It was reported that the acoustics at the Museum Lecture hall required no microphones. The group plays at various venues. She also performs with the Historic Players, who re -enact the Pioneers in an ongoing agenda. She mentioned performances were planned for November and February. Matthew Betz had a scheduled talk about Early Pioneers at 7:30 pm at Rookery Bay the evening of the Board meeting. Several Members planned to attend. Patricia Huff noted the booklet on walking tours contained several properties being lost to demolition. She mentioned losing the Bula Mission, the demolished Glen Tucker former home- the site where Everglades Lodge sat and other historic figures lived. The Deaconess House was up for sale. She will approach the Mayor to encourage historic designations to stop further demolitions. Chairman Craig Woodward suggested moving ahead on the Ordinance with Marco Island along with the Interlocal Agreement program would help with the Everglades City situation as well as the other municipalities. He was asked to speak to the State Surveyors Convention on October 25. He will speak on Surveying Issues in 10, 000 Islands. He recently wrote a column in the Coastal Breeze on the Weeks family and received a huge response from many Weeks Family members. Sharon Kenny spoke about the old Fantozzi building in Old Naples, empty for many years, now being stabilized, with new roofing and changed windows; reviving hope that the building will be saved though the Plaza behind may be torn down. City Fest will take place on the coming weekend and Stone Crab Festival the last weekend of October all around Tin City. Patricia Huff added the Bank of the Everglades building, leased by the owners of the Rod and Gun Club, will open as a 7 guest room bed and breakfast, with a spa, gift shop, antiques and breakfast area in the old vault. Open House will be on October 28 and official opening on November 1. It will be called Historic Bed and Breakfast. She asked to put Brochure /Corkscrew Settlement on the next agenda. The next scheduled meeting will be November 16, 2011, at 9:15 A.M. 1612 'A 15 October 19, 2011 IX. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:45 A.M. Historical /Archaeological�servation Board Chairman Craig Woodward These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on - 16 -1) as presented or as amended x 0 16'2embA6A51 D IECINEW3 FEB 20112 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLL R•4C-Gt- NTY- HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, November 16, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation, Conference Room 610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward / Matthew Betz (excused) Hille r William Dempsey (excused) Henning Patricia Huff Coyle v Sharon Kenny Coletta Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Fred Reischl, Liaison, Senior Planner, Zoning Services Misc. Corres: Da6e :_a[ 13! 12 Rem S I (._oz 2 A l S Copies to: 161 Z A15 November 16, 2011 I. Roll Call/Attendance: Chairman Craig Woodward called the meeting to order at 9:15 AM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda: Add: Item V. Old Business -- D. Bula Mission Update III. Approval of the Agenda: Sharon Kenny moved to approve the Agenda, including the addenda item. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 19, 2011 Correction: Page 3, item B correct spelling- Chokoloskee Change: Page 5, line 3- Article VI- New Business A.— Change Naples walkway to Naples walking tour Sharon Kenny moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 2011, as amended. Second by Elizabeth Perdichizzi. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. Old Business: A. Chokoloskee Island Update Assistant County Attorney, Steve Williams summarized what had transpired regarding the Chokoloskee Island situation since the last meeting. • Three different Judges had been involved with the case: two had recused themselves. • Judge Hayes recused himself at the request of the developer who cited his tie to the County was a conflict. Judge Hayes appointed Judge Cynthia Pivacek who also recused herself - no reason given. She, in turn appointed Judge Lauren Brodie, who was now the current Judge hearing the case. • While on the case, Judge Hayes had issued an injunction ordering placement of access back to Ted Smallwood Store. Florida Grove, the developer, moved the fence enough to make the road passable; then heavy rains washed the fill away. Ted Smallwood Store owners have filed a motion for Contempt. • A Status Conference was slated for November 30 at 2 pm to bring Judge Brodie up to speed. No known motions were on the table except the one to restore /improve the road access. • The entire matter was on Appeal, by the Developer, to the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The injunction and Bond order being the only known merit to the appeal. Developer contended the $10,000 Bond was inadequate. • The County is a partner in the lawsuit; many legal options were available. The case will be going on for some time. 2 1612 A15 November 16 2011 It was reported by residents that Bulldozers were now on the property and the road had been made somewhat better. Patricia Huff added she had spoken with a Corps of Engineers representative, who stated Florida Grove was allowed to fill in the trench. No archaeologist was on site as required for historically declared lands. Some of the road was filled in, but it was still only one lane and not paved. Residents reported to her that truckloads of fill (dirt and shells) had been taken out of the lands and girders delivered to shore up around the boat basin. Ray Bellows stated no new permits had been applied for. • The tear -down (demolition) permit had been marked as- Completed in the County records. • Seawall construction would be under the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. • Developer's permit was only for demolition and site excavation for a Single Family residence • Any new excavation or construction permit would be flagged to require HAPB approval and an archaeologist to be present. B. Hart Cottage — Certificate of Appropriateness Ray Bellows reviewed the alternate plans submitted with the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, explaining the Certificate needed HAPB approval before being signed by the Chairman. Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to recommend acceptance and signing of the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the provisions stated on the Certificate. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5-0. C. Revisions to the Historic Guide Patricia Huff commented on the latest Historical Guide revisions: • Updating the Map to include additions and deletions • Having the Map and entries placed in the order visitors could drive from one to the other • Replacing some of the photos with better renditions • Aim for completion prior to the tourist season. Chairman Craig Woodward suggested approaching the United Arts Council as a source of funding for reprinting the Guide. The Board Members discussed and commented on the Guide's improvement and will submit their ideas and photos to Patricia Huff. D. Addenda item -- Bula Mission Update Patricia Huff reported the demolition was scheduled for November 21. The permit was paid for by John Bruce, who also found someone to bulldoze for $3,000 (offer to bulldoze free did not transpire). The County's fee was $5 000. Chairman Craig Woodward stated he had seen the artist's rendering of the Memorial Garden planned for the site and suggested utilizing the Boy A 15 November 16, 2011 Scouts to take it on as part of their Eagle Scout Badge requirements to participate in community projects. Follow up to be explored. Ray Bellows provided the Certificate of Appropriateness Application submitted by Marya Repko, representing the Frances Hodge Community Center, Inc. The HAPB reviewed the application noting that the "Type of Work Proposed" included "New Construction." After a brief discussion it was decided to delete the words New Construction because no actual new construction was delineated on the application. Sharon Kenny moved to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriate, subject to deletion of New Construction from "A. Type of Work Proposed." Second by Rich Taylor. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. VI. New Business: None VII. Public Comment: None VIII. Board Member Announcements Patty Huff spoke about Marya Repko and the Everglades Historic Preservation Society's efforts to obtain the Mayor's approval to place uniform historic signs to mark the original historic buildings and sites, similar to ones already on several of the buildings. She displayed sketches of sample sign designs by Marya Repko. Signs would be of a non deteriorating metal and paid for by the Historic Society. She also inquired about the progress being made on the Historic Mobile Workshop APA Conference planned for March. Fred Reischl responded suggestions from the HAPB members had been forwarded to the committee handling the tours and activities. Positive responses had been received, according to his latest conference calls. Elizabeth Perdichizzi stated the signage for historic buildings and sites was also a good prototype for the group interested in marking Goodland's Historic District. She noted two upcoming events on Marco Island in December: 1. Throughout the month: "Put Christ back in Christmas" with Old Fashion Christmas themed events focusing on the Founders of the area with reenactments, caroling, hand bell ringing, decorating of graves and churches. 2. The week of December 5th the Traveling Vietnam Wall exhibit will be at Veteran's Park. Chairman Craig Woodward reported on: • An Historic Book on a walking tour of Everglades City was available. • The interesting and informative presentation given by Matthew Betz at Rookery Bay following the last HAPB meeting. • Florida Humanities Council field trips March 9 to 11 will include a tour of Everglades City, a swamp walk, Clyde Butcher's studio, Ted Smallwood store, Everglades Park and Museum. They will also be 4 1612 A15 November 16, 2011 offering a tour of Cedar Key in April. He offered to send out a link to their site to sign up and join their membership for anyone interested. • 2013 will be the 500 year anniversary of Ponce Deleon's discoveries. Ron Jamro, Collier County Museum Director, had indicated there would be a big State -wide emphasis on the event and mentioned Collier's best venue may be the Marco Museum. Rich Taylor stated the First Baptist church, next door to Naples City Hall and across from Cambier Park was purchased and being converted into a restaurant. Due to the close proximity to Christmas Day, the HAPB decided not to meet in December. Rich Taylor moved to forgo the December meeting and convene again in January. Second by Sharon Kenny. Carried unanimously, 5 -0. The next meeting will be held on January 18, 2011 at 9:15 AM. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 10:15 AM. Historical/Archaeolooval Preservation Board Chairman, Craig Woodward These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on - ► - z as presented or as amended`.! 5 161 A' 16 oM939W3 r }0 ;l�j�( g1 ,, L�J � t- BY........................ ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 109 2011 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Joe Langkawel, Chairman Kirk Colvin, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 8:35 a.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. Fiala Hiller HenningJ- Coyle .� Coletta B. April 2011 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve April 2011 Minutes by Jim Gault. a. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. ICFD Boat Dock. 1. Engineering drawings for boat lifts need to be updated. 2. Drawings were made for a 7 foot beamed boat; our boat is 8 feet. 3. In process of reordering parts for the boat lifts. 4. Both new boat lifts will now accommodate a boat with a 9 foot beam. 5. Construction is expected to continue next week. 6. Members will be emailed the date of the next dock progress meeting. D. Update to the ICFD FY12 Budget. Misc. Cones: 1. 06/01/11 ICFD property values show an 8.2% decline. Z. ICFD FRS contribution will decline from 24.76% to 15.47 %. Date: 3� 131 �2 3. ICFD will save $65,000 in retirement contributions for FY12. Item #: Copies to: 1612A16 III. NEW BUSINESS A. Possible reallocations of District 1 fire tax ad valorem revenues. 1. County Manager Ochs directed ICFD, Ochopee & OMB to study Dist. 1. 2. Currently, ICFD, Ochopee, ENFD & GGFD receive portions of revenue. 3. Marco Fire receives fire taxes from Goodland. a. Marco Fire has not signed a current contract for Goodland. b. There is an existing unused fire station on Goodland. c. If needed, ICFD and/or Ochopee could service Goodland. 4. Best proposal would be a reallocation of revenues to the four fire depts. a. ICFD would incorporate Keewaydin Island & Little Marco Island. b. Ochopee would incorporate areas to which only that dept. services. c. Divide the remainder of District 1 evenly between the 4 districts. d.ICFD would increase their annual revenues by approx. $50,000. e. District 1 Contract is on the 06/28/11 BCC Agenda for approval. B. Proposed employee salary adjustment. 1. Employees received last cost of living adjustment on 10/01/08. 2. Employees received last merit raise on 10/01/07. 3. FRS reform legislation has resulted in savings. a. ICFD will save $65,000 in FY12 b.ICFD will save $16,000 for last three months of FYI 1. 4. Dept. has instituted many cost savings measures. a. Firefighters opt for comp time instead of OT pay for most OT hours. b. Active volunteer firefighter program. 5. According to Naples Daily News, ICFD pay is lower than other local depts. 6. Board would like to study the federal social security increases for past 5 yrs. 7. Three members would like input from the two absent Board members. 8. The Board will draft a letter recommending a cost of living increase. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Jim Gault at 9:55 a.m. 1. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Ze , -ems / Date: 1612 A 16�M39d�1 JpN n 5 2C12 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ....... " ".` ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCT. 249 2011 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Emilio Rodriguez, Fire Chief Joe Langkawel, Chairman Kirk Colvin, Advisory Board Member Jim Gault, Advisory Board Member Ted Decker, Advisory Board Member Walter Kopka, Interim EMS Chief Dan Bowman, EMS Division Chief Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 10:05 a.m. 11. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. Fiala -P.,/ Hiller Henning — _ Coyle _ Coletta- B. June 2011 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve June 2011 Minutes by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. ICFD Boat Dock. 1. Fully operational. 2. The dept. added a safety ladder for the end of the dock. 3. Chief plans on 2 "Walk the Dock" Days for the residents. a. One to be scheduled shortly, one scheduled for January. b. Days to be scheduled on Sundays. Misc. Corres: 4. Light issue corrected; proper low lighting displayed at night. 5. Chairman Langkawel has suggested a dock ribbon cutting ceremony. Date:_�112, a. Target date of January 2012. Item 1 Ce-r.Zf}14 b. Coordinate with EMS for Medflight to be on helicopter pad. Copies to: 161,2 A 16 D. Update to the ICFD FYI Budget. 1. ICFD FYI budget received final BCC approval in September. 2. ICFD has saved $110,000 in FYI I to be carried over to FY 13. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Changes in EMS service to the ICFD District. 1. Chief Kopka reviewed the statistics of Medic Rescue 90 for FYI 1. a. MR90 ran 411 calls for FYI 1. b. MR90 had 100 responses to the Isles of Capri District. c. MR90 had 300 responses to Marco Island. 2. Chief Kopka's new proposal moves MR90 to Marco Island. a. EMS would provide one paramedic to Station 90 full time. b. All ICFD personnel & 1 EMS FireMedic would staff Engine 90. c. Station 90 would maintain ALS coverage. d. The new proposal has a target date of January 2012. 3. Chief Rodriguez endorses Chief Kopka's new proposal. a. Manpower would increase by one firefighter on Engine 90. b. Approximately $30,000 in savings would be achieved each year. 1. ICFD would no longer supply a Firefighter/EMT to MR90. 2. Job bank expense reduction during low season. c. ALS response is not comprised to the district residents. 4. Chairman Langkawel requested a 3 month review of the new policy. 5. ALS Engine does not carry the same medications as MR90. a. Chief Kopka will review the status of medications on Engine 90. b. Medical Director will also review the medication status of Engine 90. 6. ICFD Advisory Board supports Chief Kopka's proposal. a. A letter of support will be drafted and reviewed by the ICFD Board. b. The letter of support will be sent to Commissioner Fiala. c. Letter copies to be sent to Mr. Ochs, Mr. Summers, Chief Kopka. d. The proposal must be approved by Marco Island City Council. e. The proposal will be on the Dec. 13, 2011 BCC Agenda for approval. B. Steering Committee Report from Chairman Langkawel. 1. Identifying Committee Members, still under discussion. 2. Identifying Voting Members, still under discussion. 3. No actual business conducted at the last meeting. C. Two ICFD Advisory Board Member Vacancies to be filled December 2011. 1. Collier County has advertised these vacancies. 2. Kirk Colvin will be retiring from the ICFD Board. 3. Applicants need to apply online on the CollierGov website. D. The November ICFD Advisory Board Meeting will be on 11/22 at 6:30 p.m. 1612,- A 16 IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 10:45 a.m. 1. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: 1,2 AA616 JAN 0 b rn 0 BY: ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOV. 229 2011 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Donna Fiala, County Commissioner Dan Summers, BES Director Joe Langkawel, Chairman Kirk Colvin, Advisory Committee Member Jim Gault, Advisory Committee Member Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Committee Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:33 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. 1. Motion to approve Chief's Report by Kevin Walsh. 2. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin 3. Motion carried unanimously. Fiala �y Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta —r�- T B. October 2011 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve October 2011 Minutes by Kevin Walsh. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. Misc. Corres: C. ICFD boat dock ribbon cutting ceremony. 1. Members suggest a January 2012 ceremony date. Date: 2. Members agree to set a date at the Dec. 2011 Advisory Committee Meeting. Item 0. 1 LA -j—' 2. A I V Copies to: 161.2 A'16 D. Changes in EMS service to ICFD District. 1. Review of prior discussion of moving MR90 ambulance to Marco Island. 2. Marco Island Fire Dept. has tabled this issue. 3. No need to discuss change of ALS Engine medications. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Votes to fill two Advisory Committee Member vacancies. 1. Member Jim Gault's two year term expires 12/31/11. a. Motion to recommend Jim Gault, additional term, by Ted Decker. b. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. c. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Member Kirk Colvin's two year term expires 12/31/11. a. Kirk Colvin is not reapplying for an additional term. b. Five applicants applied for this position. c. Applicant Jim Hughes was present and gave a brief biography. d. Applicant Bill Schmidt was present and gave a brief biography. e. Motion to recommend Jim Hughes by Kevin Walsh. f. Motion seconded by Kirk Colvin. g. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Discussion to recommend an alternate member to the committee. a. Motion to recommend James Crain as an alternate member. b. Motion seconded by Jim Gault. c. Motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion of the termination of Chief Rodriguez by committee members. 1. Mr. Summers provided a package of documents to the 5 Members. a. Package consists of a "Public Records" file of the termination. b. Committee members have already reviewed their own package. 2. Questions, comments and concerns by Chairman Joe Langkawel. a. A letter is to be sent to the BCC requesting an inquiry. 1. We would like an inquiry on this termination. 2. The draft letter was read out loud. 3. No changes or additions by the other members. b. Are there any other documents in the HR Emilio Rodriguez file? c. Is this all being done for clandestine reasons? d. Are there any plans by the County to consolidate fire districts? e. Dan Summers has told me that ICFD will be insolvent next year. f. The ICFD district is solvent for at least 5 yrs according to my data. g. When will the County hire a new ICFD Fire Chief? h. I am happy to have Chief McLaughlin helping out here. i. I am concerned that no one person is in charge of ICFD. j. Question to Commissioner Fiala, "Who do we report to ?" 3. Questions, comments and concerns by Kevin Walsh. a. The financial irregularities are nonsense. b. The news media was informed prior to the Rodriguez termination. c. A meeting of 3 disgruntled employees & Dan Summers was pivotal. 161.2 A 16 1. There are allusions to a toxic workplace. 2. Why not involve the HR Dept.? 3. Not enough details provided of this meeting. d. The HR Dept should be embarrassed by this termination packet. 4. Questions, comments and concerns by Jim Gault. a. Rodriguez's July 2010 performance improvement plan. 1. Discussed at November 2010 meeting with Dan Summers. 2. Mr. Summers agreed to remove this from the Chief's file. 3. Was the Chief s disciplinary action removed from his file? 5. Questions, comments and concerns by Kirk Colvin. a. Is our termination package of documents complete? b. I do not believe that this is enough to terminate. c. Why were we notified after the termination? d. Did the HR Dept. make the termination decision? e. There is no documentation of the N. Naples employee meeting. f. Was the termination a result of the N. Naples employee meeting? g. Has there been an HR exit interview with Chief Rodriguez? h. Is Chief Rodriguez covered by the Firefighter Bill of Rights? i. Was progressive disciplinary action applied to Chief Rodriguez? j. Has an ICFD employee ever been reinstated after termination? k. Who rights a wrong? 1. Chief Rodriguez served the community. m. This was totally unexpected; it came out of left field. n. How long ago was the termination process started? o. Can you give us a timeline? p. Would another employee be given the same treatment? 6. Questions, comments and concerns by Ted Decker. a. Is there a remediation plan for Chief Rodriguez? b. I believe issues should be addressed, but this was harsh. 7. Comments and responses from BES Director Dan Summers. a. We have had no direct media communication. b. The media often makes routine public record inquiries. c. Chief McLaughlin & Capt. Purcell are firmly in place at ICFD. d. There is no loss of service to the Isles of Capri Fire District. e. This is a single personnel issue. £ Directors are "at will" employees of the County Manager. g. I will not speculate on files, investigations or records. h. I will continue to work with the ICFD team. i. I did not remove disciplinary action from Chief Rodriguez's file. j. The packet you received is the determination for the termination. k. Every termination is reviewed by HR, CM Office, and CA Office. m. Chief Rodriguez will be paid out all balances owed on 11/23/11. n. Risk Mgt. Dept. will mail him COBRA documents next week. o. Chief Rodriguez is not covered under the Firefighter Bill of Rights. p. Chief Rodriguez, as a Director, has no right of appeal. q. Employees have been reinstated at the "line level." r. This situation is serious. s. I have a responsibility to the operations of this department. 1612A16 t. I am responsible for the health, safety & welfare of the employees. u. There are no other "records of conversation" with Chief Rodriguez. v. At one time, the July 2010 disciplinary actions were resolved. w. Subsequently, these disciplinary issues again became a concern. x. This is not an appropriate venue to drill into these issues. y. I welcome you to inspect our files. z. I will respond to any written questions you may have. aa. The ICFD firefighters show concern as to how residents view them. bb. My guidance on consolidation comes from the BCC & CM Office. cc. My budgetary concerns result from global declining property values. dd. Let me be clear, Chief McLaughlin is the supervising chief here. 8. Comments and responses by Commissioner Fiala. a. I am glad to have the opportunity to hear your voices. b. 1 cannot legally comment on any employee matters. c. Your advisory committee will continue to report directly to the BCC. d. Chief McLaughlin is now your staff liaison. 9. Comments and responses by Chief McLaughlin. a. Status of ICFD and Ochopee fire districts. 1. These districts are not independent fire districts. 2. These districts are dependent fire districts of Collier County. 3. The districts can be dissolved by a stroke of a pen. b. Reassurance to the residents of the Isles of Capri Fire District. 1. I was hired by Emilio Rodriguez in 2002. 2. I was the Assistant Chief here for a number of years. 3. I left here when I was promoted to Fire Chief of Ochopee. 4. I have 35 years of experience in this profession. C. Discussion of the termination of Chief Rodriguez by the Public. 1. Questions, comments and concerns of the residents. a. Are you aware of any other current investigations? b. Why weren't standard operating procedures followed? c. First 17 pages of the disciplinary packet are post termination related. d. Are we spinning our wheels? e. Is it possible for Chief Rodriguez to come back? f. If unjustly terminated, can Chief Rodriguez be reinstated? g. I believe the Chief is protected under the Firefighter Bill of Rights. h. Chief Rodriguez contacted HR in fear of his reinstated employee. i. HR did nothing in response to Chief Rodriguez's concerns. j. We don't need you, Mr. Summers. k. Is the Advisory Board responsible to hire the next Chief? 1. Is the Chief eligible for a pension? m. The Rodriguez family does not know if they have health insurance. n. Is Mr. Summers investigating the Advisory Board? o. Did you tell Chairman Langkawel to "back off this issue ?" p. Can someone other than the County manage us? q. It is rumored that ICFD had a missed or delayed call recently. r. At which coffee house will we be notified of who are new Chief is? s. What was in the July 2010 disciplinary action? 161,.2 A 16 t. I understand there was a private investigator hired by HR in July 2010. 1. The July 2010 Rodriguez disciplinary action was investigated. 2. Is the report available? u. After the N. Naples meeting occurred, why was there a delay? 2. Responses by BES Director Dan Summers. a. I am not aware of any other current investigations. b. Chief Rodriguez is an "at will" employee. c. I am responsible for the health, safety & welfare of employees. d. As new information comes forth, I must follow county policy. 1. I must report information up the chain of command. 2. I cannot get into details here. e. I know of no process for Chief Rodriguez to be reinstated. f. The termination has no impact on Chief Rodriguez's pension. g. I have attempted to communicate the gravity of this termination. h. I would never challenge any citizen's right to speak out. i. "At will" employees are not covered under Firefighter Bill of Rights. j. The July 2010 private investigator report is available at the HR Dept. 3. Responses by Commissioner Fiala. a. I am not aware of any other investigations. 4. Responses by Chairman Langkawel. a. The Advisory Committee is not responsible to a hire a Fire Chief. b. Mr. Summers told me to "back off this issue." c. I cannot control the district's citizens. d. The July 2010 disciplinary action for Emilio Rodriguez. 1. An EMS paramedic missed a fire call. 2. The EMS paramedic threw a boot at an ICFD firefighter. 3. The firefighter pushed the paramedic. 4. 15 tasks were to be completed by Emilio Rodriguez. 5. Responses by Chief McLaughlin. a. I believe it would cost an extra $250,000 to be an independent district. b. Governor Scott's current movement is to dissolve special districts. c. I am not aware of any recent missed or delayed ICFD calls. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kevin Walsh at 8:30 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: % S t C Z o L/ 16 12 A �'6 ECEIVED JAN 2 6 2012 Board of County Commissioners ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DEC. 159 2011 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief Joe Langkawel, Chairman Kirk Colvin, Advisory Committee Member Jim Gault, Advisory Committee Member Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Committee Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer Fiala Hiller I. CALL TO ORDER Henning -r- �---- Coyle Coletta L Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:33 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chief's Report. B. November 2011 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve November 2011 Minutes by Kirk Colvin. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. ICFD boat dock ribbon cutting ceremony. Misc. Comes: 1. Ceremony to be held on Sunday, Jan. 15 at 2 p.m.. Date: 'b l 13 ) 12 2. Backup date is Sunday, Jan. 22. 3. Request Medflight to be on site. Item # :1 V= �,-4 -11, 4. Chief McLaughlin to check on refreshments budget. Copies to: D. "Alternate" Member of the Isles of Capri Advisory Committee. 1. Review of procedure to change the ordinance to add an alternate. a. Change of ordinance must be advertised. 1612 b. Vacancy for this position must be readvertised. A'16 c. Applications for this position must be recollected. d. A new vote for this position would need to be taken. 2. Motion to withdraw request for an "alternate" by Kevin Walsh. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. E. Update on 12/13/11 BCC Meeting. 1. BCC voted unanimously to investigate HR termination procedures. 2. Jan. 2012 Chief Rodriguez's "name clearing hearing" to be held. F. Update on the termination of Chief Rodriguez. 1. Comments by John Rogers. a. "The County Manger has provided an additional 73 pages." b. "ICFD Committee Members have not seen these new pages." c. "I believe we have legal problems here." d. "We are on the side of the firefighters." 2. Comments by Jeri Neuhaus on changing the ICFD management. a. "Becoming independent needs to be studied again." b. "We must obtain offers from other fire districts to manage ICFD." c. "IOC citizens must investigate all other management options." d. "The County has advertised the ICFD Chief's position." e. "We need to fire Collier County." f. "I support County Consolidation." g. "I do not support the consolidation of the 2 dependent districts." h. "Let's get real, Collier County will not reinstate Chief Rod." 3. General citizen comments, concerns and questions. a. "This is a farce." b. "Is there a "gag order" on the ICFD employees? c. "We would like to hear the opionions of the firefighters." d. "What is the status of the ambulance ?" 4. Responses to the citizens expressed by Chairman Langkawel. a. There is no change in the status of the district's ambulance. b. Marco Island Fire declined the relocation of MR90 to Marco. c. ICFD Advisory Committee cannot study management options. 1. ICFD Advisory Committee works for the BCC. 2. ICFD Advisory Committee would require permission. 3. ICFD Advisory Committee has no authority on this issue. 4. ICFD Advisory Committee must follow its charter. 5. The concerns of the Committee are strictly budgetary. d. ICFD Advisory Committee will listen to the findings of citizens. 1. Special Meeting to be held 12/22/11 at 6:30 p.m. 2. Chief McLaughlin and Barbara Shea are unable to attend. 5. Responses to the citizens expressed by Chief McLaughlin. a. There is no gag order on the ICFD employees while off duty. b. Employees cannot discuss the termination while on duty. c. IOC residents have screamed remarks at firefighters from vehicles. d. All new firefighter statements are passed up chain of command. 161.2 A'16 e. Chief McLaughlin is not personally conducting any investigations. f. Chief suggests citizens look at the ENFD contract offered years ago. g. ICFD and Ochopee cannot be easily combined; millage rates differ. 6. Comments by ICFD Lt. Keith Perry. a. Naples Daily News recently interviewed ICFD personnel. b. "We will provide the same service as always." c. "We are county employees 24/7." III. NEW BUSINESS A. Sunshine Law DVD distributed to the Advisory Committee Members. 1. Jim Hughes, new member as of 12/31/11 also received a DVD. 2. Each member acknowledged receipt of DVD on DVD roster sheet. B. Status of the FY12 ICFD budget discussed by Chief McLaughlin. 1. Without carryforward, the true dept. annual shortfall is $282,200. a. In FYI 3, our carryforward will hopefully cover most of shortfall. b. An additional loss of ad valorem cannot be covered by carryforward. c. In FY14, ICFD will have zero carryforward and zero reserves. d. Ways to cover the FYI shortfall need to be looked at soon. 2. Holiday Pay was paid incorrectly prior to 1 1/04/11. a. Chief McLaughlin was informed of this by Barbara Shea. b. Chief McLaughlin was informed when he became payroll approver. c. Estimate of $20,000 additional cost to the FYI 2 budget. d. Chief McLaughlin is meeting with HR on 12/16/11. 1. HR is studying exact hours to be paid for Christmas holidays. 2. HR is investigating number of years for back pay owed. e. Citizens question the liability of Clerk of Courts & HR on this issue. f. Chairman Langkawel to discuss the issue with Clerk of Courts & HR. 3. Change of firefighter pay from pay averaging to actual hours worked pay. a. No additional cost to the department. b. Change goes into effect in January 2012. 4. Year -to -date FY12 ICFD budget to be emailed to the members. 5. Kirk Colvin recommends raising ICFD millage cap to 3 or 3.5. C. A Special Meeting will be held at Station 90 on 12/22/11 at 6:30 p.m. 1. Management alternatives for ICFD will be heard from IOC citizens. 2. Citizens will bring information on going independent. 3. Citizens will bring information on alternative management options. D. The January ICFD Advisory Committee Meeting will be on 1/19 at 6:30 p.m. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Kirk Colvin at 8:23 p.m. 161.,2 A 16 1. Motion seconded by Jim Gault. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: Z/ j Z 2 0/� 161.2 Isles of Capri Fire /Rescue Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Dec. 22, 2011 Isles of Capri Fire Station ATTENDEES: Joseph Langkawel, Chairman Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Kevin Walsh, Advisory Committee Member Jim Gault, Advisory Committee Member (by Phoneliala Hiller A16 RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2012 Board of County Commissioners I. CALL TO ORDER Henning -- Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:30 PM Coyle Coletta 11. OLD BUSINESS None III. NEW BUSINESS a. Presentation from the Isles of Capri Citizens Budgetary & Operational Investigation Committee. b. The committees statement was read. c. A group of citizens from the Isles of Capri Fire District has formed a committee to do a comparative study of the budgetary and operational advantages of various administrative alternatives for the Fire Department. Specifically, the comparison shall include but not be limited to these scenarios: 1) Maintaining the Fire Department's current administrative relationship with Collier County 2) Changing the administrative organization from Collier County to another Collier Fire Department 3) Merging the Isles of Capri Fire District with a neighboring Fire District d. The committee requested 4 actions from the Advisory Committee. Item I a. Requested that Fire Advisory Board to write a letter to the Board of County Commissioners informing them of this new committee, acknowledging the effort, and informing them that the Fire Advisory Board has agreed to receive and evaluate the completed study. b. Motion to send a letter made by Ted Decker. c. Motion Seconded by Kevin Walsh. d. Motion carried unanimously. e. Joe Langkawel Produced a Draft letter which he read to the board. f. Motion to approve the draft letter made by Ted Decker. g. Motion Seconded by Kevin Walsh. Misc. Comes: h. Motion carried unanimously. Date: Item #: i U --1 Z N1 La. Copies to: 1612 A 16 Item 2 a. Fire Advisory Board to clear up a misconception about any ambulance relocation discussion and a letter be sent to the County rescinding the prior approval of the Medic 90 Unit to Marco Island. b. Motion to send a letter to rescind the letter of 28 Oct. 2011 support the relocating of Medic 90 to Marco Island made by Ted Decker. c. Motion Seconded by Kevin Walsh. d. Motion carried unanimously. Item 3 a. Requested that the Fire Advisory Board immediately send a letter to Collier County asking for an Official written explanation of the budget crisis, the cause, and the exact dollar shortfall, by an appropriate County official. b. Joe Langkawel suggested that we send an Advisory Committee Member to sit down with HR and resolve this issue. c. Kevin Walsh volunteered to do this. Item 4 a. Requested that the Fire Advisory Board immediately send a letter to Collier County asking for a temporary hiring freeze to give the Fire Advisory Board a chance to evaluate the budget problem and to give our committee a chance to submit its findings before committing to any new long term employment relationships. b. Joe Langkawel stated that he felt that we needed to fill the Chiefs Position for the Health and Safety of the Department. c. Kevin Walsh thought a freeze may be needed in the future for other positions. d. Joe Langkawel stated that a meeting was scheduled with Leo Ochs and it would be best to not act on this until after such meeting. e. All Committee members agreed. IV. ADJOURNMENT a. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 made by Ted Decker. b. Motion Seconded by Kevin Walsh. c. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: �/ % /Z CJ/ Z. 1612 A'16 Statement from the Isles of Capri Citizens Budgetary & Operational Investigation Committee To be presented to the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Board at the December 22, 2011 special meeting Item I A group of citizens from the Isles of Capri Fire District has formed a committee to do a comparative study of the budgetary and operational advantages of various administrative alternatives for the Fire Department. Specifically, the comparison shall include but not be limited to these scenarios: 1. Maintaining the Fire Department's current administrative relationship with Collier County 2. Changing the administrative organization from Collier County to another Collier Fire Department 3. Merging the Isles of Capri Fire District with a neighboring Fire District Item 1 Action: In order for our study to be received and evaluated by the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Board, we need the Fire Advisory Board to write a letter to the Board of County Commissioners informing them of this new committee, acknowledging the effort, and informing them that the Fire Advisory Board has agreed to receive and evaluate the completed study. According to our research into citizens' committee past practices, the letter is necessary to provide the foundation for us to present our completed report to the Fire Advisory Board, and for the Board to subsequently take a recommendation to the BCC. We would also like to invite a Fire Advisory Board member to sit on our committee as a liaison to the Fire Advisory Board. Item 2 Additionally, we need the Fire Advisory Board to clear up a misconception about the recent ambulance relocation discussion. In the previous Fire Advisory Board meeting, the Chairman stated that the discussion about moving the IOC - stationed ambulance out of District had been effectively tabled, and that the Fire Advisory Board does not need to send a letter to the County rescinding their approval of the move. In fact, the County considers such an approval letter as the standing opinion of this Fire Board. It is imperative that the Board send a letter to the BCC as quickly as possible rescinding the approval and indicating the need to re- evaluate the ambulance move if it should come up again. This is an important point of County procedure and protocol. The approval letter will remain as the Fire Advisory Board's standing opinion and can apply to a future situation, without re- evaluation, unless a rescission letter is sent. That's the way the County handles Board position statements. Betty Moenkhaus has attempted to point this out at the last two Fire Board meetings with little success. In fact, she is completely correct in this matter. Item 2 Action: We ask the Fire Advisory Board to immediately send a letter to the County rescinding the prior approval of the ambulance move, to prevent the possibility that the approval will be viewed as the Board's standing position. The Board should indicate its willingness to listen to future appeals to move the ambulance on a case -by -case basis, but without this ongoing assumption of approval. Without a rescission letter, we could lose our ambulance tomorrow with no advance warning. Items 3 & 4 And finally, we have heard conflicting stories as to the exact nature of the Fire Department's newly discovered budget emergency. It is imperative that this Board immediately send a letter to the County asking for an official 1 of 2 1612 A 16 written assessment of the situation by someone in the payroll or other appropriate department so we know what we are facing. Inaction on this issue is troubling. We also ask to Board to reconsider the idea of a temporary hiring freeze proposed by Board member Kevin Walsh. We believe the idea should be discussed and adopted. In light of our budget emergency and a pending report by this committee, we ask the Fire Advisory Board to move on these two issues immediately. Item 3 Action: We ask that the Fire Advisory Board immediately send a letter to Collier County asking for an official written explanation of the budget crisis, the cause, and the exact dollar shortfall, by an appropriate County official. Item 4 Action: We ask that the Fire Advisory Board immediately send a letter to Collier County asking for a temporary hiring freeze to give the Fire Advisory Board a chance to evaluate the budget problem and to give our committee a chance to submit its findings before committing to any new long term employment relationships. The Isles of Capri Citizens Budgetary & Operational Investigation Committee 2 of 2 k1 e4 1612 Al 17 [' Q October 10, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala Naples, Florida, October 10, 2011 Hiller Henning Coyle .� LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land C�ietta L Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F ", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: k1m Corres: Date: 3I ► 3) 12- Item #: ► L..QT2 ^ies to: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHARUV AN: Annisa Karim Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Clarence Tears (Excused) Lauren Gibson (Excused) Tracy Dewrell Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation 1 1612 p 17 October 10, 2011 develop regulations /policies establishing a Program for the naming of park amenities (benches, rain shelters, etc.) in honorarium. Mr. Pires moved to appoint Jeff Curl as Conservation Collier liaison to the "Gordon River Green way Sign Team." Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. C. Pepper Ranch Cattle Lease Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist presented the "Lease Agreement" between Lake Trafford Ranch, LLP and Collier County for cattle grazing on Pepper Ranch. The Board of County Commissioners has directed Staff to research the lease rate of one dollar per acre to ensure it is in accordance with industry standards. The lease is up for annual renewal with a rebid scheduled for 2014. Upon discussions with representatives of the USDA and SFWMD, Staff is recommending the terms of the lease remain "as is" until it is rebid. Mr. Pires moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners keep the terms as they currently exist in the lease. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 6— 0. D. Budget update Melissa Hennig submitted the document "Conservation Collier Carryforward Analysis Fund 172 — FYll — FY13 with 2008 Debt Series Paid in FY 11 " for information purposes. VI. New Business A. Committee Applications Alex Sulecki submitted membership applications for the Committee from Mr. Jacob Winge, Todd Allen and Bruce Barone, Jr. She requested the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners be formulated establishing the preference of applicants for appointment to the Committee. Speaker Todd Allen noted he is an attorney looking to provide service to the community. Ms. Karim moved to recommend the appointment of the applicants in the following order of preference —1. Mr. Bruce Barone, Jr., 2. Mr. Todd Allen, 3. Mr. Jacob Winge. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. Ms. Karim noted the rationale for the ranking was due to Mr. Barone's expertise in architecture which will be beneficial to decisions the Committee will be snaking on proposed improvements within the individual preserves. B. Triplett Property Donation — Mcllvane Marsh 3difiR 4 3 1612 October 10, 2011 Committee discussion occurred on a developing a short term mechanism to allow the event. Subsequently, the Committee should develop a permanent fee schedule. The Committee determined Staff should develop the necessary criteria (within the confines of the existing County system) for holding such an event. 2. BCC Agenda Items 9 -13 -11 Alex Sulecki reported the Board of County Commissioners: • Approved the re- naming of Limpkin March to Redroot Preserve. • Approved the appointment of Mr. Dewrell to the Committee. • Approved advertisement of the Preserve Use Ordinance to be heard on October 11, 2011. • Approved inter -local agreements with CREW and other Agencies for hunting at Caracara Prairie Reserve. • Approved Antlerless Deer Permits for Pepper Ranch. 3. Major Issues Report a. Lost Groves Mine and regional mines Alex Sulecki reported the Environmental Advisory Committee recommended the Conditional Use applications be approved subject to conditions. It was determined potential negative impacts on Caracara Prairie Preserve were not considered by Staff or Boards during the hearing process. Ms. Sulecki contacted County Staff and the project consultants and the concerns on potential negative impacts to the Preserve were alleviated. The Committee directed Staff to determine if the proposed mine will have a negative impact on the Programs ability to utilize the Preserve for mitigation credits. b. ATV park discussions Alex Sulecki reported there have been discussions regarding the County's intent to provide a public ATV park with references being made to utilizing Pepper Ranch for the activity. Committee discussion occurred noting the use of public ATV's are not in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance governing Conservation Collier and Preserve Management Plans. In addition, these types of vehicles have a tendency to cross contaminate sites with exotic vegetation due to unintentional transfers of plant seeds. Mr. Pires moved to authorize Chairman Poteet, in coordination with Staff to submit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners expressing the Committees objection to utilizing Conservation Collier properties for public ATV use. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 6— 0. 0 1612 A17 October 10, 2011 Bill Poteet, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented— i,/ or as amended . M, 7 1# W December 12, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTE �C�IIM� Naples, Florida, December 12, 2011 I 1 JAN (0 X03) LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory"""'"""" ✓' Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: Fiala CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet Hiller VICE CHAIRMAN: Annisa Karim i- lenning Tony Pires ('`'Yie Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk (Excused) Clarence Tears Lauren Gibson Tracy Dewrell Bruce Barone, Jr. (Excused)? ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Misc. Coins: I. Roll Call DaW: 3 (i 311 z ate,#: 1 U =2 I r n;oS to December 12, 2011 Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Approval of Agenda Ms. Karim moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Ms. Gibson. Carried unanimously S — 0. III. Approval of October 10, 2011 minutes Ms. Karim moved to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2011 meeting. Second by Ms. Gibson. Carried unanimously S — 0. Mr. Pires arrived at 9: 02am IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update None B. Gordon River Greenway Project update Alex Sulecki Conservation Coordinator provided the following documents for information purposes: • "Site Development Plan for Gordon River Greenway Park, Nov. 2011 " (60 percent complete) prepared by Kimley -Horn and Assoc., Inc. • Summary Notes — "Gordon River Greenway Park Stakeholders Meeting, November 4, 2011. " • Naplesnews.com article titled "A walk on the wild side: Greenway another step closer to fruition " dated November 12, 2011. She noted: • The Environmental Advisory Council approved the Special Treatment Area application on December 7, 2011 with conditions (hour of operation dawn to dusk, no exterior lighting and elimination of the north parking node with emphasis on the County providing a pedestrian linkage from the project to Freedom Park). • The Outreach Subcommittee is working on the project's "Donor Recognition Program. " • Stakeholders and some Advisory Boards have recommended consideration be given to narrowing the width of the proposed paths (utilizing 8 for wide paths in some areas as opposed to 10 feet wide paths). Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Department: • The Special Treatment Area rezone has been recommended for approval by the EAC with conditions as outlined by Ms. Sulecki. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the application in January of 2012. • The Board of County Commissioners approved the Site Development Plan application with 10 foot wide boardwalks. • Impacts of the exterior lighting are being reviewed by Staff and Stakeholders have not expressed concerns on the lighting concept. Staff is seeking technical assistance on the aspects 4the lighting. 2 V. 161 cA 1/ December 12, 2011 • There is no lighting proposed in the vicinity of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida property. Mr. Pires recommended: • The Committee considers directing a letter to the Board of County Commissioners on their support for the north parking node. • The lighting specified on the Site Development Plan references proprietary fixtures as opposed to performance specifications. This may restrict the options available for vendors providing bids to the lighting aspects of the project. Mr. Curl arrived at 9 :16am Barry Williams reported he will contact the consultants on the concern over the lighting specifications. Mr. Pires moved for the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee to authorize the Chairman to submit a letter to the Board of County Commissioners expressing supportfor the proposed north parking node for the Gordon River Green way project. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. Mr. Pires moved the Site Development Plan be amended to propose lighting fixtures by performance specifications (as opposed to proprietary fixtures). Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. Speaker Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust addressed the Committee reporting the City of Naples has accepted the concept of constructing a Park. Documents will need to be developed addressing the provision/sources of funding. The donors of funds have agreed the funds may be used for the permitting and design phases of a project. Barry Williams reported an issue has arisen with the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) related to their Grant to the County. The issue is related to the County's "land swap" with the Naples Zoo and FCT funding requirements have limitations /restrictions regarding zoo activities. Staff will provide an update and recommended action plan at the next meeting. Alex Sulecki requested Committee input on the proposed width of the pathways and on hours of operation/lighting. The Committee reached consensus on endorsing the proposed plan as it is currently envisioned by the Parks and Recreation Dept. It was noted the project will be have multi use, interconnected pathways and the 8 foot wide paths may be too narrow for the uses anticipated. New Business A. Triplet/Kania parcel donation ICSR presentation 3 R A7 161 Zeeher r 1 2, 2011 Alex Sulecki presented" Conservation Collier: Mcllvane Marsh Project - Triplett parcel Initial Criteria Screening Report" (ICSR) for review. A Slideshow was presented on the ICSR highlighting: • The parcel is proposed for donation to the Program and would not be subject to the ranking process. • Staff investigated "acquisition partnerships" with other public agencies with no others being interested. • It is 10 acres in size and located in Mclivane Marsh surrounded by Conservation Collier property. • The property is valued at $25,000. • The applicant seeks re- imbursement for probate and title work in the amount of $2,000. • It is identified as wetlands in the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). • It has a Florida Natural Areas Inventory priority 5 ranking. • It has a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking of 5 out of 10- • It has a total ICSR score of 154 out of 400. Ms. Karim moved to accept the property for donation to the Program subject to successful conclusion of probate matters. The applicant reimbursed for funds in an amount not to exceed $2000 for the purposes of resolving any probate issues. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7— 0. B. Cohen parcel donation — Application and Initial Criteria Review Mr. Pires stated he had a conflict of interest on the item and would be filing the necessary forms with Staff. Alex Sulecki presented" Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program Application Form — Jean Cohen, Trustee for Jean Cohen Revocable Trust" for consideration. She noted: • Five members of the Committee must vote in favor pursuing acquisition of the parcel. • Upon a favorable vote, the application would be moved to the ICSR phase of acquisition. • The parcel meets 4 of 6 of the Initial Screening Criteria. • The parcel is adjacent to Red Maple Swamp, but is not within the multi parcel project boundary. • The property is identified as wetlands in the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). • The parcel is identified as Primary Panther Habitat. Ms. Karim moved for the Committee to accept the application as a qualified proposal for acquisition and move the property forward to the ICSR phase. Second by Ms. Gibson. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. Mr. Pires abstained. C. Cohen ICSR presentation (if application accepted) Alex Sulecki presented" Conservation Collier ICSR for the Jean Cohen Revocable Trust and associated Slideshow highlighting: 4 A.... a # IL .1 1612 A 17 t4" December 12, 2011 • The parcel is located adjacent to Red Maple Swamp and is 5 acres in size. • It is proposed for donation to the Program. • Collier County Public Utilities is interested in partnering in the acquisition for the purposes of drilling a deep water, brackish well on the site (without altering the groundwater conditions on site). • The property is identified as wetlands in the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). • It has a Florida Natural Areas Inventory priority 1 ranking. • It has a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission — Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking of 7 -9 out of 10. • It has a total ICSR score of 184 out of 400. Ms. Karim moved, given the subject property is outside the boundaries of Red Maple Swamp, abutted by two roads and infested with exotics, not to acquire the parcel and refer it to the Collier County Public Utilities Department for consideration. Second by Ms. Gibson. Carried unanimously 6 — 0. Mr. Pires abstained. D. Coordinator Communications 1. General Alex Sulecki: • Provided updates on the Collier County Master Mobility Plan and Collier County Watershed Management Plan noting Staff will continue to the monitor the Plans and report back to the Committee on any issues that may affect Conservation Collier. • The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Amendments for the Growth Management Plan were heard by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) on December 7, 2011. • During the review, the EAC formally recommended the Growth Management Plan be amended to provide a policy for the County to make applications for wildlife mitigation banks on Conservation Collier properties. The intent would be to use the banks for projects developed by public entities within Collier County (not Federal or State). Committee discussion occurred on the ramifications of an Advisory Board proposing a policy recommendation affecting another Advisory Board without advance consultation with the affected Committee /Board. Mr. Pires moved to authorize the Chairman of the CLAAC to direct correspondence to the Board of County Commissioners and Collier County Planning Commission objecting to the proposed language in the draft EAR proposed by the EAC. Second by Ms. Karim. Carried unanimously 7— 0. The updates continued and Staff: • Provided a copy of the Preserve Use Ordinance reporting it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. • Reported they continue to monitor the proposed Riverstone Development for any potential impacts on Conservation Collier lands. t� A17 161 2 12, 2011 • Reported the Immokalee Area Master Plan is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. There are no conflicts with the Pepper Ranch property. • Provided a copy of the "Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Membership List as of September 13, 2011 " for information purposes. 2. Major Issues Report a. Lost Groves Mine Staff continues to monitor the application, however at this point it appears there are no negative impacts on Conservation Collier properties including the proposed Panther Mitigation Units on Caracara Preserve. VI. Sub - Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair The Subcommittee met and discussed the Social Networking Policy, a proposed intern program and the "Donor Recognition Program. " B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Jeremy Sterk, Chair None C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair The Subcommittee met on December 5, 2011 where the Preserve Fee Schedule for Conservation Collier Preserves was discussed. VII. Chair Committee Member Comments Mr. Curl recommended Ms. Sulecki meet with the Staff liaison for the EAC for the purposes of developing a process for coordinating future policies considerations which may affect both Advisory Boards. Mr. Poteet reported he will make a presentation to the Marco Island Rotary on the aspects of the Conservation Collier Program. VIII. Public General Comments None IX. Staff Comments Melissa Henning reported there was a deer/hog youth hunt held on Pepper Ranch on November 19, 2011 with the next youth hunt event scheduled for January 6 — 7, 2012. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:16A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 2 161 2p ll December 12, 2011 Bill Poteet, Chairm n These minutes approved by the Board/Comm i e on as presented or as amended fd 1612 pi Ia.', Ittf GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 Fiala November 17, 2011 Hiller - AGENDA Henning - -- Coyle Coletta I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: October 20, 2011 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Bridge Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports D X. Old Business XI. New Business A. Future Projects for 2012 and 2013 �' ° YY YYYYYYYpy.V XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is December 15, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Mainten W. : 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Date: t 12 Item #:(U-_Q7-441 g C ^,! s to: 6 161 a AI 18 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 November 17, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff 111. Approval of Agenda Add: Xl. B. Storm Water Abatement on Forest Hills X. C. Meeting Time X. A. Lighting Issues X. B. Sign Refurbishment Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: October 20, 2011 Robert Slebodnik moved to approve the October 20, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera Darryl Richard reviewed the Budget Report: (See attached) • Current Ad Valorem Tax $191,400.00 • Carry Forward $325,600.00 • Capital Outlay Commitments $99,972.42 (encumbered for the active Doral Circle Project and Light Poles) - Noted the Light Poles arrived from Lumec for the Doral Bridge Project 1 161 F A 18 VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Robert Kindelan reported: • Mulching will be conducted after Thanksgiving due to a production delay on the materials • Median Number painting will be conducted during the first week of December Robert Slebodnik noted: o Curb repainting (yellow) is needed on Median (14) (in the Construction area of Pebble Beach) - Touch up may be required on the opposite tip of Median (14) as during Construction equipment was driven over the curbs VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reported: (See attached) • Tip pruning was performed on the Bougainvillea to retain the foliage and color • Proposals are pending for minor renovations in Median (1) • Doral Turf was dry due to a controller issue (dead battery) • The Alamanda did not recover from cutback and requires replacement(s) (parking lot areas at the entry) Discussion ensued on the aesthetics of the Lantana installed at the Entrance(s). It was suggested to install Poinsettias as a backdrop for the Lantana. After discussion the following was concluded: • Mike McGee will provide an estimate to install Poinsettias • Staff will distribute the Proposal and poll the Committee (via email) on the Poinsettia estimate (Staff Action Item) B. Doral Bridge Project - Mike McGee gave a Status Report: • Major Concrete work is complete • Stone application is underway on the Bridge wall • Problems were encountered during boring for the Electrical Conduit - Cap rock was struck at approximately 4 % ft. - A gravity sewer feed is located 32 inches below the asphalt (at the driveway) - 32 inches is the normal depth for boring - Deeper boring was required as the Code requirement is 18 inch separation - Alternative means were used and the Electrical Conduit was installed 7 ft. below the cap rock - The cap rock will be chipped away to locate the Pipe - A sweep will be conducted to connect the pipe ends W, 161 Q A 18 Darryl Richard stated: • The final option is more cost effective than conducting a shallow dig Shallow dig is an additional $5, 000.00 to the Contract amount • The Contractor Proposal is pending - Anticipates the quote maybe under $2,500.00 • A Change Order will be emailed to the Committee for review - Staff will contact the Committee to confirm approval on the Change Order (Staff Action Item) VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report - (See attached) (L -49) Pebble Beach Li_ghtin_g Project • Proposal for Final Design and Administration Services by McGee and Associates was presented (See attached) • Total Cost - $12,770.00 Mike McGee noted the McGee and Associates original Proposal for the Lighting Project was $12,752.00. He confirmed the Project cost $108,000.00 is in addition to the Design Fees ($12,770.00.) Jennifer Tanner moved to accept McGee & Associates total Fees for the Pebble Beach Lighting Project in the amount of $12,770.00. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 B. Review of the To Do List - Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) Item No. 4 - Orange Markers at Intersections • Gene Calvert advised Staff that additional improvements are not needed as the crosswalks meet current MUTCD standards (Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices) • The process to install inlaid Lighting is under review by FDOT Tony Branco posed using reflectors in lieu of inlaid Lighting for intersection traffic calming (along St. Andrews.) Darryl Richard suggested conducting a Crosswalk Study. Jennifer Tanner reported a teacher was hit by a car on St. Andrews. Pam Lulich stated Pelican Bay installed brick crosswalks with ADA ramps. Robert Slebodnik suggested adding the item under Future Projects 2012 -2013 (for consideration by the Committee.) Staff will request Alison Bradford of the Pathways Division attend the December meeting. (Staff Action Item) 161 ie a 18 Discussion took place on the (County) improvements at the Front Entrance of US41 and St. Andrews (Brick work, Crosswalks, and Curbing for ADA Compliance.) Staff was unsure of the status but noted that Design Plans are under review. Tony Branco suggested incorporating Brick Crosswalks into the (County) ADA Curbing and Crosswalk Improvements Project. Item No. 5 — Obtain quote for Christmas Decorations o Whited Holiday Decor Quote was reviewed (See attached) Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the total of $1,330.00 to Whited Holiday Decor for the Christmas Decorations at both Front Entrances. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IX. Committee Reports — None X. Old Business A. Lighting Issues Tony Branco reported several Light outages in the Community: o On the West side of St. Andrews o (7) FPL Poles along St. Andrews and Forest Hill Blvd. o The Lumec Poles at the Front Main Entrance are oxidized and have paint issues on the access panels Mike McGee stated Lumec was advised of the paint issues on the Light Poles. • Solar Light on the new Sign is inoperable • Flag Pole Lights are out Staff will request the Electrician provide photographs of the FPL Pole outages to submit to Kate Donofrio, FPL. Tony Branco questioned if the meter for the Pebble Beach Lighting Project may be funded by the County Lighting District. Michelle Arnold responded: • Lighting District Funds are granted based on Safety needs • Routinely the Lighting District provides power to Lights in select areas versus the entire road • Staff will inquire if electricity for the Pebble Beach Lighting Project may be Funded by the County Lighting District Tony Branco suggested replacing the standard Poles (by the Church) with the Decorative Poles for consistency in the Community. 4 161 a W 18 After discussion it was determined: • Staff and Jennifer Tanner will request a quote from Lykins to present at the next meeting (Staff Action Item) • Jennifer Tanner will confirm if cost sharing is possible with the HOA for the Decorative Poles B. Sign Refurbishment Robert Slebodnik thanked Michelle Arnold, Tony Branco, Darryl Richard, and David Larson for their efforts on the Sign Refurbishment. XI. New Business A. Future Projects for 2012 Robert Slebodnik noted Pebble Beach Lighting status is active. B. Storm Water Abatement Robert Slebodnik reported on the Golf Cart Crossover Path: • Meeting was held with (3) Golf Course Representatives • Noted the area is a Safety Hazard • A joint venture with the Golf Course is likely and was outlined as - The Golf Course will repair issues on the Golf Course Property - The MSTU will correct problems in the ROW Darryl Richard presented photographs of the area: (See attached) • Cracked Sidewalk (photo 13) • Asphalt Pathway is deteriorating (photo 11) - MSTU will Partner with the Golf Course on corrections • Cart Path is not ADA Compliant (photo 12) - The Golf Course prefers to remove the cart path - Staff recommends preserving the cart path and creating a connection between the sidewalk and pathway Mike McGee reviewed a Proposal by Bonness with (2) options to address Cart Path issues: (See attached) Asphalt Overlay • Total estimate - $8,171.08 • Estimate without the 4" Concrete Sidewalk and Handicap Ramp installation - $6,727.13 Asphalt Path Removal o Total estimate of $11,172.51 includes installing (2) items to connect the pathway and sidewalk: - 4" Concrete Sidewalk - $801.55 - Handicap Ramp - $642.40 5 161e2 Ai18 Robert Slebodnik questioned what portion of the modifications will be the responsibility of the Golf Course. Mike McGee responded the Golf Course commitment was: • To replace the shell pathway (leading to the tee box) with concrete and install a curb to stop the erosion (photo 13) • Connect the newly installed concrete pathway to the existing concrete path Darryl Richard suggested tabling the item until the Golf Course obligations and Landscaping requirements are identified. Additionally Cost factors will be presented at the next meeting (December.) (Staff Action Item) Robert Slebodnik moved to table this item so that it can be brought back to the next meeting (December.) Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. Meeting Time Staff requested to change the meeting time to 11:00 a.m. or 2:00 p.m. After discussion the Committee agreed to meet at 2:00 p.m. XII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:44 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes ap roved by the Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is December 15, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 on 1612 A18 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 October 20, 2011 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson (Excused), Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Vlll. C. Christmas Decorations X. A. Crosswalk Markers Xl. A. Future Projects for 2012 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: September 15, 2011 Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the September 15, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following Reports: (See attached) October 20, 2011 Budget Report • Operating Expense Open Purchase Orders $113,744.10 • Capital Outlay Commitments $99,792.42 (rolled from FY11) September 30, 2011 SAP Fiscal Year End Report • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $201,331.89 • Water and Sewer Line Item $17,833.81 (amount paid to date) 1612 � 18 Robert Slebodnik inquired on the total amount of MSTU Funds that are available for 2012 Projects. Gloria Herrera responded the available Funds for FY12 consist of: • Capital Outlay encumbered monies - $99,792.42 • $114,900.00 Darryl Richard noted $215,100.00 monies are available in Reserves (Insurance Claim.) VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Robert Kindelan reported: o September Fertilization is complete (Palms) o Plant Fertilization is schedule for next week • Fall Plant Material cutback is underway • Pest problems are under control - Chinch bugs in the Turf - Scale on the Fire Bush • Bougainvillea may require significant cutback to remove torpedo grass (Forest Hills) • Median Number painting will be complete before the November meeting • Grass areas damaged by Chinch Bugs will be replaced at CLM expense Discussion ensued on the Median number painting and it was concluded: • The numbers will be painted on the topside of the curb (in the yellow portion) • Both ends of the Median tips will be painted VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reported: (See attached) o Grates at Forest Hills Golf Cart Crossing are clogged and require cleaning Pam Lulich requested contact information for the Golf Course Representative. Jennifer Tanner responded Alan Cooper. Mike McGee noted Baltusrol has the same issue (clogged Grate) that resulted from dirt washing down the Valley Gutter from the Golf Course Planting Bed. Tony Branco questioned if the size of the Grate(s) are adequate for their intended purpose. After discussion it was deemed that the Grates are the responsibility of the Golf Course. N 1612 A18 Mike McGee continued: • Reuse Mixing Chamber (See attached) - September 2011 Total Potable Water usage 100 gallons • Suggested replacing the Holly with Crape Myrtle (Median No. 9) (See attached) The Committee concurred with replacing the Holly with Crape Myrtle. Discussion took place on the aesthetics of the Sunshine Mimosa. The following was concluded: • The Mimosa needs sufficient time to fill in (1 -2 months) • CLM will monitor the area and mow the Mimosa when it has thickened B. Doral Bridge Project - Mike McGee gave an update on the Project: • Samples of Cap stone material was requested • Project meetings will be held daily • Bonness called in Utility locates Darryl Richard stated Lumec Poles are scheduled to arrive mid November. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report - (See attached) (L -48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge o Bonness NTP was issued October 17tn o Staff will notify the Committee of the expedited Project Schedule B. Review of the To Do List - Darryl Richard reported: (See attached) Item No. 4 - SignCraft Refurbishment o Sign was re- painted and inspected Tony Branco expressed satisfaction with the finish and noted the marble veining is realistic. Discussion took place on receiving David Larson's approval prior to installing the Sign. The Committee requested Staff convey the following to Mr. Larson: • Email a picture of the Sign • Comments on the finish and approval by Mr. Branco • Committee preference to move forward with installing the Sign (prior to Christmas Decorations) 3 161,2 p +18 Item 15 — Provide to Risk for Reimbursement Pam Lulich stated an insurance claim may be filed if an Accident Report is not available (during October 1, 2010 - October 1, 2011.) Staff noted a meeting will be scheduled next week with Alan Cooper, Mike McGee, and Robert Slebodnik to discuss the issue on Forest Hills and Baltusrol. C. Christmas Decorations Darryl Richard reviewed a Proposal by Trimmers Holiday Decor in the amount of $2,800.00. (See attached) Kathleen Dammert stated the following regarding the Quote: • Trimmers Holiday Decor was on the list provided to Staff of the 3 top Vendors in Naples • Over the past two years Trimmers product quality and Service has declined • Perceived the $2,800.00 Quote was high • Suggested obtaining a quote from Whited Holiday Decor in Fort Myers Jennifer Tanner moved to approve a not to exceed amount of $2,500.00 for Christmas Decorations (for all entrances.) Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IX. Committee Reports — None X. Old Business A. Crosswalk markers Tony Branco requested an update on the To Do List Item 18 Reflector Strips at crosswalks for traffic calming. Darryl Richard responded that Gene Calvert (Traffic Engineering) is reviewing all existing Traffic Control devices for a recommendation on Safety Improvements. Discussion took place on FDOT approved in- ground Flashing Lights. Robert Slebodnik suggested adding the item to 2012 Future Projects. The Committee requested Staff confer with Gene Calvert on the available options. (Staff Action Item) Staff will request an update from Traffic Engineering. (Staff Action Item) XI. New Business A. Future Projects for 2012 Robert Slebodnik noted the preliminary work is complete for the Lighting Project on Pebble Beach Blvd. He inquired on the Committees position concerning the Project. 4 161'2. A48 Mike McGee stated the following: • Cost Estimate was $108,000.00 • Currently directional bore pricing is low therefore the estimate may be reduced • Design and Sub Consultant Fees $12,752.00 are in addition to the $108,000.00 Cost Estimate Tony Branco questioned if Grant Funds are available for Safety Improvements. Staff will inquire if Grant monies are available for the Lighting Project. (Staff Action Item) After discussion it was concluded that the territory for the Lighting Project may be expanded as it can be completed in Phases over an extended period of time. Robert Slebodnik moved to establish the Lighting Project is a Future Project for 2012. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 40. XII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:11 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee �a &7 Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is November 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 LELY MSTU FUND 152 co November 17, 2011 T--q Amended Actual Available Budget Commitments Expenditures Total 1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (191,400.00) $ $ (2,029.82) $ (189,370.18) 4500130416 Forestry Resources (New P.O.) Open P.O.s FY 10 Amt. $ - Actual 2 v DEL AD VALOREM TAX $ 57. $ $ - $ - Vender Name PO# Item Remaining 14 TOTAL REVENUE Paid FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST $ $ $ (16.00) $ 16.00 ., $ - $ 5,300.00 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 18.430.17 1,751.94 ,A4 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (1,000.00) $ $ (224.93) $ (775.07) Ag- tronix 4500133075 Troubleshoot Pump Station $ 479.00 $ $ 2,000.00 '` Juristaff, Inc. -==Go INTEREST TAX COLLECTOR $ 4,767.50 $ $ 17 INDIRECT COST REIMBURSE $ Bentley Electric 4500130383 Lighting and Maintenance $ 2,000.00 $ Light Poles for Doral Circle $ INSURANCE CO REFUNDS $ 18 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ $ $ 14,155.00 $ Bonness 4500129815 C Doral Circle Sidewalk $ 90,524.42 $ 1,228.69 $ 1,472.48 REVENUE Sub Total $ 67,356.00 ,4 $ 3,060.00 $ 11,000.00 Collier County ROW Permittil IGC ROW Permit $ - $ 20 ELECTRICITY $ 4,000.00 TRANSFER FROM APPRAISER $ 295.48 $ $ (288.83) 288.83 Collier County Util. 4700000834 Water & Sewer $ 19,283.88 $ 21G.12 U FROM TAX COLLECTOF $ - $ $ (2,068.39) $ 2,068.39 Commercial Land 4500130492 Road Way Grounds Maintenance $ 65,095.00 $ 3,905.00 1TRANSFER CARRY FORWARD GENERAL $ (325,600.00) _ $ $ $ $ (325,600.00) Florida Irrigation 4500130312 Irrigation Parts & Related items $ 1,898.75 $ 201.25 11 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB BY $ (105,578.59) $ $ - $ (105,578.59) Florikan 4500130428 Fertilizer $ 3122.90 $ - 12 NEG 5% EST REV $ 9,600.00 $ $ - $ 9,600.00 Forestry Resources 4500130416 Forestry Resources (New P.O.) $ 5,998.30 $ - 13 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB (421,578.59) 57. FPL 4500122831 Electricity $ 2,104.52 $ 295.48 14 TOTAL REVENUE Indirect Cost Reimbursement IGC County Services $ - $ 5,300.00 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 18.430.17 1,751.94 1,678.23 15,00. Insurance General IGC Insurance $ - $ - 16 SURVEYING FEES $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 '` Juristaff, Inc. 4500130352 Secretarial Services $ 4,767.50 $ 232.50 17 INDIRECT COST REIMBURSE $ 10,600.00 $ - $ 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 Lumec 4500129622 C Light Poles for Doral Circle $ 9,268.00 $ - 18 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ 10,000.00 $ 14,155.00 $ 845.00 $ (5,000.00) McGee & Assoc 4500126021 L/A Services Maintenance Services $ 1,228.69 $ 1,472.48 19 OTHER CONTRACTUAL $ 67,356.00 $ 53,296.00 $ 3,060.00 $ 11,000.00 McGee & Assoc 4500118216 L/A Services Maintenance Services $ 523.25 $ 205.75 20 ELECTRICITY $ 4,000.00 $ 2,104.52 $ 295.48 $ 1,600.00 Signcraft 4500125614 Small signs for Doral Cir. $ 2,356.00 $ - 21 WATER AND SEWER $ 8,000.00 $ 19,283.88 $ 216.12 $ (11,500.00) Staples 4500130392 Office Supplies $ 200.00 $ - 22 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 500.00 $ - $ - $ 500.00 Visa Card IGC Sprinkler Supplies $ - $ 201.14 23 Building RM $ - $ - $ - $ - Winfield 0 Fertilizer $ - $ - 24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINTENANC $ 4,500.00 $ 2,377.75 $ 402.39 $ 1,719.86 25 MULCH $ 10,000.00 $ 5,998.30 $ - $ 4,001.70 Total (lines 34 + 36) 5 .7 26 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ $ - - 27 PRINTING AND OR BINDING $ - $ - $ $ - 142,999,456 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 28 LICENSES & PERMITS $ 3,000.00 $ $ $ 3,000.00 119,917,030 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 29 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ $ $ - 104,325,032 FY 11 Final Taxable Value 30 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,000.00 $ 4,767.50 $ 232.50 $ 95,698,897 FY 12 July Taxable Value 31 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ - $ - -8.27% /,dj 11 to 12 32 FERTILIZER HERBICIDE CHEMICAL $ 5,000.00 $ 3,122.90 $ $ 1,877.10 FY 12 FY 11 2mill cap 33 OTHER OPERATING $ 2,000.00 $ - $ $ 2,000.00 Millage 2.0000 2.0000 34 OPERATING EXPENSE 5 .7 .7 Extension 191,398 208,650 35 IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL 214,692.42 99,792.42 114,900.00 Property Tax Limitation Impact 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY 214,692.42 ,7 .4 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCORPORATED 24,800.00 $ - $ - $ 24,800.00 Value 95,698,897 38 TRANSFERS 4, Annex. 294,369 39 BUDGET TRANS APPRAISER $ 2,000.00 $ $ 442.94 $ 1,557.06 TV Component 0 40 BUDGET TRANS TC COLLECTOR $ 4,800.00 $ $ 60.89 $ 4,739.11 Adj, Taxable Value 95,404,528 41 TRANSFER CONST $ 6,800.00 $ $ 5 11 Levy 208,650 42 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY $ - $ $ - $ - Kona DaCK Kale Hess Amend one) 2.1870 43 RESERVE FOR INSURANCE CLAIM: $ 215,100.00 $ $ $ 215,100.00 91% of Rolled Back Rate 1.9902 44 RESERVES $ 215,100.00 $ $ $ 215,100.00 TOTAL BUDGET $ 613,978.59 $ 208,850.21 $ 12,533.55 $ 392,594.83 T f i Landscape Architecture Project: LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION, M.S.T.U. Landscape Observation Report: November - December 2011 Location: MSTU DISTRICIT ROADWAYS j Project Manager: Pamela J. Lulich, ASLA, Darryl Richards, r.l.a., C.C.T.D. — A.T.M. Dept. Consultant: McGee & Associates Consultant's Representative: Michael A. McGee, rla, isa h ' Contractor: Commercial Land Maintenance Contractor's Representative: Robert Kindelan C\ Report Date: 11/16/11 Observation Date: 11/15 -16/11 40"m Contractor is requested to address items as soon as possible and indicate in RESPONSE /COMMENTS column when and which items are corrected. Please return electronic copy to our office prior to next month's MSTU site review and meeting. Note: Copy picture out of comment boxes and then paste to additional sheet if picture is desired in larger size. LOCATION /WORK AREA OBSERVATION &RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSE or COMMENTS St. Andrews Blvd. & US 41 East R/W Top dress mulch of all beds needed. Top dress mulch along roadside beds where resurfacing debris is in beds. Re -mulch bare areas and around repaired irrigation valve boxes Replace removed dead Tabebuia tree located on the north end of the shopping center parking area. Light pole located at sign is missing base bolt cover.( hoto (9) Alamanda shrubs are missing, dead or did not survive pruning. Replacements needed. West R/W Top dress mulch of all beds needed. Remove triangle shaped dead turf areas between Bougainvillea shrubs beds along roadway and add mulch. Areas now full of Bermuda grass and sedge. Remove 25' x 3' area of grass invested with Bermuda grass. Previous area where it a aprears turf may have been burned or sprayed with herbicide that killed the St. Augustine and Bermuda grass.( hoto 14 Alamanda shrubs are missing, dead or did not survive pruning. Replacements needed. St. Andrews Blvd. Median #1 Median numbers have been painted over by the recent yellow curb painting. Prune off flaciaed branches on the Tibouchina (Glory Bush tree. Remove this area of Liriope north of Sabal palms and replant with Bougainvillea Silhouette 10 -12 3 al., hoto Review and treat turf areas for fungus activities. On the west side remove and replace a 20' x 3' area of turf that has declined and become infested with weeds (photo) Review and treat turf areas for fungus activities. On the east side remove and replace a 40' x 4' area of turf that has declined and become infested with weeds hot Top dress mulch of bed needed. Median #2 Repaint numbers on median. _ Re -mulch around repaired Irrigation valve boxes. Remove concrete debris from within dwarf Schefflera shrubs. Remove dead foliage out of Liriope plants and treat plants for crown rot fun us. Remove dead Ixora and Liriope plants. Install 5 — dwarf Schefflera shrubs, 3 gal. ( hoto Top dress mulch of bed needed. Median #3 Tip prune crown of thorn on north & south ends. Repaint numbers on median. Top dress mulch of all beds needed. Median #4 Re paint numbers on median. Median #5 Repaint numbers on median Prune off Queen's Crape myrtle tree branches that are being damaged by vehicles. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707' Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 ' FL 1023A I` Comment fmamll: Comment rmam2l: Comment rmam3l: �V Comment rmam4l. .4' Comment fmam5l: x R i Comment rmam6l: 014C _%O 7 57ze &e J 4"aCi2 " Landscape Architecture LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION, M.S.T.U. Resort Date 11/16/11 Observation Date- 11/15-1R/11 LOCATION /WORK AREA OBSERVATION & RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSE or COMMENTS Queen's Crape Myrtle defoliated from being dry. Bubbler installed. Continue to watch. ( hoto Median #6 Repaint numbers on median. South end Plumba o shrubs partially defoliated due to Chili Thri s. Treat as needed. Median #7 Repaint numbers on median. Prune away damaged Juniper and replace (1 -3 gal.) ( hot Median #8 Repaint numbers on median. Top dress mulch needed. Median #8A Repaint numbers on median. Top dress mulch needed. Median #9 Repaint numbers on median. Install new multi -stem Crape myrtle 'Musko ee' 45 -65 gal. Median #10 Repaint numbers on median. Top dress mulch needed. Forrest Hills Blvd Median #11 Top dress mulch needed. Median #12 When replacing missing Tabebuia chrysantha 'Yellow Trumpet' trees remove existing soil containing limestone and replace with clean native topsoil. Replace 2 trees one each side of the street light pole. White T's painted on curb showing locations. Prune dead foliage out of Juniper on north end. Review for replacements. Forrest Hills Cart Crossing & Lake Continue to treat all Xanadu per A &L report recommendations, North side soil /cart path shell erosion issue: On site meeting occurred to discuss solutions. hotos Top dress mulch of all beds needed. Valley Stream Cr. Median #13 Refresh median numbers on curbing. Pebble Beach Blvd. Median #14 Repaint numbers on south end of median. Top dress mulch needed. Median #15 Top dress mulch needed. Median #16 Top dress mulch needed. Median #17 Continue to treat Plumba o for insects. Top dress mulch needed. Median #18 Top dress mulch needed. Median #19 Top dress mulch needed. Golf Cart Crossing Continue to review and treat Plumbago and Crown of thorns in southeast bed for fungus and /or insects. Add liquid fertilizer into spray applications Thorncrest Ln. cul -de -sac #20 Refresh median numbers on curb. Top dress mulch needed. Briarcliff Ln. Cu -de -sac #21 Refresh median numbers on curb. Top dress mulch needed. Heather Grove Ln. Cul -de -sac #22 Refresh median numbers on curb. Top dress mulch needed. Baltusrol Signs Valley gutter blocked (photo) Top dress mulch needed. Doral Cr. East R/W Top dress mulch needed. West R/W To dress mulch needed. Top dress Podocar us hedge mulch along sidewalk. Prune adjacent property Ficus hedge that is hanging over Podocarpus hedge back to the Fence. Turf area in decline and dry. Battery operated controller not working. Maintenance staff notified on site during observation. Median #23 Top dress mulch needed. 12 -13 of the previously replaced Ixora shrubs behind the sign have died and need to be replaced b the contractor. Re -mulch after replacement. Apply an application of iron and manganese. Prune off lowest 2 inch cal. branch that is hitting the light pole. Yellow flag tied to branch. ( hot Reuse Pump Station- Warren St. Pump station water use and system scheduling still being reviewed by consultant and County Irrigation Project Manager. October 2011: potable water use 3,900 gallons, Reuse water 31,865 gallons. Meter readings: 11 \01 \11, potable 2697.9, reuse 138,313.10. Reuse source pressure at filter:8 psi Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 * FL 1023A Page 2 of 2 Updated: November 17, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status 1612 A 18 (L-48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 10- 17 -11: Notice To Proceed Issued to Bonness Inc. for Doral Bridge Project. Pre - Construction meeting scheduled for October 26, 2011. Based on 140 day project final completion would be March 5, 2012; however, staff is coordinating with contractor to confirm `expedited project schedule' in advance of contract completion date. 11- 17 -11: Project is progressing with installation of wall(s) and brick material. Electrical conduit installation almost completed. Issue was found with the crossing at Hibiscus property entrance. Potential change order under review with contractor to address this situation. (L-49) ACTIVE — Pebble Beach Lighting Project 10- 17 -11: Committee to review proposal from McGee & Associates for design services. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) 10- 20 -11: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L-45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 10- 20 -11: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. G 161 2 Q 1$ Landscape Architecture November 17, 2011 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Lely Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal of Final Design and Contract Administration Professional Services for Lely Golf Estates MSTU Beautification District Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements. M & A #(2011 -020P) Project Name: Pebble Beach Blvd. Accent Street Lighting Project Dear Mr. Richard: McGee & Associates is presenting the following proposal of services for your review and approval McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services" related to the final design and contract administration services for the above listed project. The project area will generally be described as the road right -of -way and easement areas of Pebble Beach Blvd. from St. Andrews Blvd. to Big Springs Dr. North. See attached "Project Task and Fee Schedule" Sheet for design service hours and costs. Scope of Services 1.1 Planning Research and review applicable Collier County and F.D.O.T. ordinances, codes, standards, indexes and or regulations related to subdivision street lighting within roadway right -of -way areas. Design will generally comply with the latest edition of Collier County Construction in Public Right - of -way Ordinance 93-64 Construction Standards Handbook. 1.1.1 Coordinate with Collier County Departments and Staff to establish compliance appropriate design parameters. Coordinate and respond to staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. 2.1 Final Design Construction documents to be prepared per F.D.O.T. "Design Standards" indexes and the "Plans Preparation Manual" Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance 93-64 current edition. Attend necessary public, staff, and /or project on -site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications, or presentations for the project development. 2.1.1 Prepare final construction drawings, details, and specifications for the bidding and installation of median and right -of -way accent street lighting along Pebble Beach Blvd. Final design to be based upon the Lely Golf Estates MSTU Advisory Committee recommendations and the "Accent Street Lighting Evaluation" 12/2010 final report. Final lighting design to minimally include items as follows: a. Subdivision Code Compliant Accent Street Lighting Plan b. Lighting & Landscape Material Schedules and Tabulation of Quantities C. Installation details and reference to applicable County lighting standards and FDOT Design Standard Indexes Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 * FL 1023A Page 2, 11/17/2011 y Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. 11 Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements 2011 -020P i I 18 d. Provide plans and /or specifications for renovation and replacement of existing landscape and irrigation disturbed during the proposed lighting installation. 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 2.1.2 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Document. 2.1.3 Develop opinion of cost related to the approved final construction drawings to determine if project is within proposed budget. 2.1.4 Coordinate and respond to Staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. Permitting 3.1.1 Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for approvals. 3.1.2 Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the project permitting. 3.1.3 Coordinate and respond to Staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. Contract Administration 4.1.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and installation purposes. 4.1.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation for award of contract. 4.1.3 Provide on -site observations for services during construction to determine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications. Sub Consultants 5.1.1 Provide professional electrical Engineering services for design, permitting, and services during construction services. Reimbursable Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08 -5060. Estimated Design Services Schedule 7.1.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. During the course of the Project, anticipated and unanticipated events may impact any Project schedule. Days listed are working days, excluding weekends, and official holidays. Task Description 1.1 throuah 2.1 Design Start: 60% Plans Submittal: 90% Plans Submittal: Final Plan Submittal: Task Description 4.1 Services During Construction: 21 days from Notice to Proceed 7.days from review comments 7 days from review comments 90 days Page 3, 11/17/2011 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. 1612 n A 1 1 o Q Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Improvements 2011 -0200 7.1.2 Proposed project budget is $ 108.000 ( + / -). County agrees to promptly notify M & A, if schedule or budget changes. County acknowledges that significant changes to the Project schedule, budget, or the Project's scope may require Additional Services of M & A. Any Additional Services beyond the "Scope of Services" will require an additional fee, to be mutually agreed on in writing by both parties. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following items: • Environmental Services • Geotechnical Engineering Services • Hydro geological Services • Land Surveying Services • Public Hearing Attendance • Full Time Construction Observation Services ichael A. McGe l.a. ' President, Mc e & Associates. LC 098 161 2 A 18 c m N a D a m m U) 2i N J O N m 00 .0 C, sSoo S$s000 d n� aD O r- V F_tnm o < to mcn N 10 M oin h O Froo OD IA !. y WM N C b N 8 N N MM V 0 N lV J W Mf N N t9 N N QLL o O D to to 0 $ o °op, SS °o °op gpO $ 0 00 co # O p pp pp°o IA p 1!) 4m 00 tn N E Z 1AA a O O N N W W V% F J Y► N co N N N w R Q Z J Q C E V) U J U Z U to U d J co w y LL W w M M M 1A N t9 to N 1 N 1 N N N N So SSSo S Soo SS SO n O co ? O O W n Cl) t0 b w M U') V if) V N O tV CD o N N N N cl; �� H 4o W a � N N 1S + Q n f N N 69 N N �jl r W N r W LL N N N V M N O v � � N N cm P �y V ~ U W r W q O F F j >O 0 w S CL > J 00 00 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0=0 o S 0 O 0 O 0 O R q V to V) b 10 to ICI N tt) N N 0 tp N N N N O r O M W) N U) N O N O co 0 t0 W W— O W 69 N N N N N N Vf N N N > W W LL J m > efi F V r r- r r 0) r N O r• Iq t0 N WN� w a = J 4 N m 0 0 8 0 88 a O 0 O O O 0 O 0 m W CL W O W N V N tV N O N m N N O N O V N ONR p O N Z < o LL n M M co N M N M M 611 N + to a .. to _ J LL F J C Z V O O N N N Q O N J W Z 2 ` W o w Q = W o F- � O � F U 8 00 S o0 8 00 S o 0o 88 S 00 a W v u 2 r O W cu tD C-1 co ad N od M N co D O co N Cd co g 0 0J � W N fn 0 LL o N W tV M N 14 C4 N AD Q O W N b9 N N N N W Q y W r IL Q a a q q w (0,— r N N >- t0 c O v p (n ~ d V r U to C7 O Z O= U °i ai CL Z = LLO 0 Z a W Uj ";Pa W _j U_ a w >- to w y < a t w O Zpju O o Z J > o 'm O Yz _ ~v 1_Q0 U Z U w U c a ��Q U J = N N c C D 0 i W O 0 W �n 3 o U m N o -� U 0 J p oo p A `o .. m y .. Z to m .. to Q> O Z w c r° E c v o H c w m 3 �'- m U Q C 0 2 o u .o- o c s a w 0 m w a = (7 j o a 0 0 r Q = a V U 2 0 zW Q UjW ZJ 2tow ina70Ur � -- c8 v�_� W O m 2.-a ., m 0to X910 m -7m zmvZ a m Q QUmu JCL �Zcamm 0 U w 22 0 0 -i 2 W O W Q m Z (� O U m o Y U c N w o e- .- m e- .-• N M .- a ry cr O W p Q w N N N 0I 6 m Q R C e Q Li a wa0a aQ .- C-i ov to 161 2 A 18 c m N a D a m m U) 2i N J O N m N J t- O D O 1612 a la 'a O V u E > E T, 0 E v G LL N p V p v N N m N c CL ° E L a = N N m 3 a Y 0 u N E >3 v c O N N C w> O> d m Y E o ry to H 3 0 0 O p n d o T M E a' a CL E m _d u y r+ O 1O N H d O m G u O y C x V .+ C V y N C o rtk i d F c ai m d a a1 J C C o m p LL V O N p N O C L A E w '^ v m z a d c v w v E 1O 0 e E d c c +, m E r o d d c w ?.m to m y o Q V c d d O. m W .0 N Q O i v a `L C u O C d a' CL L Y m Y cc cc cc at I O O D a d 0 E z z zp z o 06 N LA m N u° d _N d C al DO C G E � m ar v a, � u d N W m C N N "E c O O m ; W al u x m H E J m m C m m m N Y v C m C O y O � O c Y _ O O N O m N O s y V Qf d E at m W O d u V O N m E ar m °'" m E a O N U O N N 0 1 E o N m r Q d ` m O a o E E v aL+ 4, C C o °u m 3 0 CL 0 O a �— a E C m c c G u z E uu c v c u n o y a ei N !'n1 I Q Ln w P 1612 a la 1612 A 18 Whited Holiday Decor 11000 S. Cleveland Ave. Fort Myers, FL 33907 Phone (239) 939 -1430 Fax (239) 939 -7633 chris @whitedholidaydecor. coin October 27, 2011 Lely Golf Estates Darryl Richard Dear Richard, WHITED HOLIDAY DECOR, INC. is Family Owned and Operated. We Specialize in Commercial Design and Decoration and Retail and Wholesale Christmas Trees. We Agree to Provide all New Materials and Installation for Lely Golf Estates Christmas Lighting and Decor for 2011 as Indicated by the Following: FRONT ENTRANCE Install 18" Premium Lighted Garland with Bows on (2) Entry Monuments. Install (2) 60" Premium Lighted Wreaths with Large Bow on Each Sign. $ 890.00 Install Garland and Bow on (4) Lampposts. $300.00 DORAL CIRCLE Install (4) Small Lighted Wreaths with Bows on Doral Signs. $140.00 i f 16 12 A 118 i FOREST HILLS BLVD @ AUGUSTA BLVD - STORMWATER & PATHWAYS ISSUES 10 A18 FOREST HILLS BLVD AUGUSTA BLVD - STORMWATER & PATHWA1612 S ISSUES 11 161 FOREST HILLS BLVD @ AUGUSTA BLVD - STORMWATER & PATHWAYS ISSUES 12 11 161:2 A +18 FOREST HILLS BLVD @ AUGUSTA BLVD - STORMWATER & PATHWAYS ISSUES 13 I� Proposal 11/17/2011 Submitted To: McGee & Associates Address: 5079 Tamiami Trl E 02 Naples, FL 34113 Contact: Michael McGee Phone: (239) 417 -0707 Fax: 1612 x'18 BONNESS INC. N%Ing and Gtttirtxlt Qmtractms t990 Seward Avenue Naples. Florida 34109 (239) 597 -6221 • (239) 597 -7416 Fax www.bonnessinc.com Estimate Number: 102582011 Bid Title: Forest Hills Blvd & Augusta Blvd A/C Path Project Location: Forest Hills Blvd & Augusta Blvd Project City, State: Naples, FL Engineer /Architect: N/A Item # Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price ASPHALT OVERLAY OPTION 01 Mobilization 1.00 LS $1,479.23 $1,479.23 02 Maintenance Of Traffic 1.00 LS $532.70 $532.70 03 1" Asphalt Overlay 224.00 SY $18.55 $4,155.20 04 4" Concrete Sidewalk 115.00 SF $6.97 $801.55 05 Handicap Ramp 2.00 EACH $321.20 $642.40 06 Sod (Bahia) (Unit Priced Item) 280.00 SY $2.00 $560.00 Total Price for above ASPHALT OVERLAY OPTION Items: $8,171.08 ASPHALT PATH REMOVAL OPTION 07 Mobilization 1.00 LS $1,479.23 $1,479.23 08 Maintenance Of Traffic 1.00 LS $532.70 $532.70 09 Removal Of Existing Limerock And Asphalt 1.00 LS $2,831.96 $2,831.96 10 Import Fill 50.00 CY $31.80 $1,590.00 11 Final Grade 1.00 LS $1,411.17 $1,411.17 12 Sod (Bahia) (Unit Priced Item) 455.00 SY $2.00 $910.00 13 Sod (Tifway Bermuda) (Unit Priced Item) 150.00 SY $6.49 $973.50 Total Price for above ASPHALT PATH REMOVAL OPTION Items: $9,728.56 Notes: • Subject to prompt acceptance within 30 days and to all conditions stipulated on the reverse side, we agree to furnish materials and labor at the price(s) set forth above. • Bonness Inc. is not responsible for asphalt damages caused by others. • Proposal based on the on site meeting with Mike McGee on 11/17/11. • DUE TO THE CRITICAL NATURE OF ESCALATING MATERIAL COSTS, IMPORT FILL, BASEROCK, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. BONNESS INC WILL PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION OF MATERIAL INCREASES SHOULD THIS SITUATION ARISE. • Permits, fees, layout, survey, asbuilts and testing by others. 11/17/2011 9:21:29 AM Page 1 of 2 1612 18 J i Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 December 15, 2011 fl 3 0 3 E V IN AGENDA JAN 0 20'Z I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: November 17, 2011 Fiala Hiller V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Henning Coyle VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Ccletta Sc VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Bridge Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports X. Old Business XI. New Business A. Future Projects for 2012 and 2013 XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Dote. ' ( "5) 12., Item *: 1 Uz24.1"8 Copies to: The next meeting is January 19, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 LELY MSTU FUND 152 December 15, 2011 Amended Budget Commitments Actual Expenditures Available Total FY12 1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (191,400.00) $ $ (133,609.83) $ (57,790.17) Open P.O.s FY 10 Amt. Actual 2 DEL AD VALOREM TAX $ $ $ - $ - Vender Name PO# Item Remaining Paid 3 FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST $ $ $ (31.26) $ 31.26 4 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (1,000.00) $ $ (370.31) $ (629.69)1 Ag- tronix 4500133075 Troubleshoot Pump Station $ 39.00 $ 440.00 5 INTEREST TAX COLLECTOR $ $ $ $ Bentley Electric 4500130383 Lighting and Maintenance $ 2,000.00 $ - 6 INSURANCE CO REFUNDS $ $ $ $ Bonness 4500129815 C Doral Circle Sidewalk $ 27,534.08 $ 62,990.34 7 REVENUE Sub Total ,4 .4 Collier County ROW Permittil IGC ROW Permit $ - $ - 8 TRANSFER FROM APPRAISER $ - $ $ (288.83) $ 288.83 Collier County Util. 4700000834 Water & Sewer $ 19,064.97 $ 435.03 9 TRANSFER FROM TAX COLLECTOF $ - $ $ (2,068.39) $ 2,068.39 . Commercial Land 4500130492 Road Way Grounds Maintenance $ 64,575.00 $ 4,425.00 10 CARRY FORWARD GENERAL $ (325,600.00) $ $ $ (325,600.00), Florida Irrigation 4500130312 Irrigation Parts & Related items $ 1,656.51 $ 443.49 11 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUMB BY $ (105,578.59) $ $ $ (105,578.59); Florikan 4500130428 Fertilizer $ 2,351.36 $ 771.54 12 NEG 5% EST REV $ 9,600.00 $ $ $ 9,600.00 Forestry Resources 4500130416 Forestry Resources (New P.O.) $ 5,998.30 $ - 13 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB (421,578.59) 7. (419,221.37) FPL 4500122831 Electricity $ 2,040.35 $ 359.65 14 TOTAL REVENUE Indirect Cost Reimbursemen, IGC County Services $ - $ 5,300.00 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 18,430.17 69944 2730.73 1G..00 Insurance General IGC Insurance $ - $ - 16 SURVEYING FEES $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 Juristaff, Inc. 4500130352 Secretarial Services $ 4,438.47 $ 561.53 17 INDIRECT COST REIMBURSE $ 10,600.00 $ - $ 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 Lumec Close 4500129622 C Light Poles for Doral Circle $ - $ 9,268.00 18 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ 10,000.00 $ 13,895.00 $ 1,105.00 $ (5,000.00) McGee & Assoc 4500126021 L/A Services Maintenance Services $ 176.19 $ 2,524.98 19 OTHER CONTRACTUAL $ 67,356.00 $ 52,010.00 $ 5,676.00 $ 9,670.00 McGee & Assoc 4500118216 L/A Services Maintenance Services $ 523.25 $ 205.75 20 ELECTRICITY $ 4,000.00 $ 2,040.35 $ 359.65 $ 1,600.00 Signcraft Close 4500125614 Small signs for Doral Cir. $ - $ 2,356.00 21 WATER AND SEWER $ 8,000.00 $ 19,064.97 $ 435.03 $ (11,500.00) Staples 4500130392 Office Supplies $ 200.00 $ - 22 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 500.00 $ $ - $ 500.00 Visa Card IGC Sprinkler Supplies $ - $ 201.14 23 Building RM $ - $ - $ - $ - Whited Hoilday 4500133245 Holiday Decorations $ 1,330.00 $ - 24 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAINTENANC $ 4,500.00 $ 1,695.51 $ 1,084.63 $ 1,719.86 Winfield 0 Fertilizer $ - $ 25 MULCH $ 10,000.00 $ 5,998.30 $ - $ 4,001.70 26 LIGHTING MAINTENANCE $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ $ - Total (lines 34 + 36) $ 131,927.48 27 PRINTING AND OR BINDING $ - $ - $ $ - 28 LICENSES & PERMITS $ 3,000.00 $ $ $ 3,000.00 142,999,456 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 29 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ $ $ - 119,917,030 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 30 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,000.00 $ 4,438.47 $ 561.53 $ 104,325,032 FY 11 Final Taxable Value 31 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ - $ - 95,698,897 FY 12 July Taxable Value 32 FERTILIZER HERBICIDE CHEMICAL $ 5,000.00 $ 2,351.36 $ 771.54 $ 1,877.10 -8.27% Adj. 11 to 12 33 OTHER OPERATING $ 2,000.00 $ - $ - $ 2,000.00 FY 12 FY 11 2 mill cap 34 OPERATING EXPENSE 152,586.17 104,393.40 4. Millage 2.0000 2.0000 35 IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL $ 214,692.42 27,534.08 72,258.34 $ 114,900.00 Extension 191,398 208,650 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 214,692.42 $ 27,534.08 4, Property Tax Limitation Impact 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCORPORATED-f'- 24,800.00 $ - $ 24,800.00 38 TRANSFERS 4, 4, Value 95,698,897 39 BUDGET TRANS APPRAISER $ 2,000.00 $ $ 442.94 1,557.06 Annex. 294,369 �..� 40 BUDGET TRANS TC COLLECTOR $ 4,800.00 $ $ 3,672.19 $ 1,127.81 TV Component 0 41 TRANSFER CONST $ 6,800.00 $ $ 4,115.13 Adj. Taxable Value 95,404,528 42 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCY $ - $ $ - $ - 11 Levy 208,650 V _ 43 RESERVE FOR INSURANCE CLAIM: $ 215,100.00 $ $ $ 215,100.00 Konea UacK Kate (less Amend one) 2.1670 44 RESERVES $ 215,100.00 $ $ $ 215,100.00 91% of Rolled Back Rate 1.9902 TOTAL BUDGET $ 613,978.59 $ 131,927.48 $ 94,397.58 #VALUE! ^, Updated: December 15, 2011 Lely MSTU Project Status 161 2► iA 18 (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge 10- 17 -11: Notice To Proceed Issued to Bonness Inc. for Doral Bridge Project. Pre - Construction meeting scheduled for October 26, 2011. Based on 140 day project final completion would be March 5, 2012; however, staff is coordinating with contractor to confirm `expedited project schedule' in advance of contract completion date. 11- 17 -11: Project is progressing with installation of wall(s) and brick material. Electrical conduit installation almost completed. Issue was found with the crossing at Hibiscus property entrance. Potential change order under review with contractor to address this situation. 12- 15 -11: Contractor has connected to conduit per Work Directive based on 11 -30 -11 Bonness proposal for $8,094.85. Final review of change order is in process. (L -49) ACTIVE — Pebble Beach Lighting Project 10- 17 -11: Committee to review proposal from McGee & Associates for design services. 12- 15 -11: Work Order has been submitted for signature. PO Issue is pending. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service (ref: notification originally sent on 6 -30 -09 to CLM via email) 10- 20 -11: Ongoing Maintenance is by Commercial Land Maintenance (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 10- 20 -11: McGee & Associates under ongoing contract. 12- 15 -11: Work Order for continued services has been submitted for signature. PO Issue is pending. 161 Z A1a ;Y t a c O U p " 00 vi C y a v x, = 0 � m E m ° o 0 to E a =_ lu c aO1 3 o ? Q y E `m v C a 0 m> E N N L= p a (6 L C O t E Ln W w LA 0,1 m 12 N N 6 L Loo 0 a o me 'N N T3 a.N nr �� '^ c m 0 1 L E C O a `� a c- ` Y 3 aW Q 171 C �'' > p> '- O) O L a 1a C C S! E N 0 p >° OYi c a o 0 o � a3 a' w n n c E �o o E a m v v 3 N taLO O 16 C _ N m C 7'`1 w 0 r N �o N co m CL r p N N = N O .3 NN L .p E CL r- Ol O 7 O = C a H O) - a, E O O U= 'C 'Ili rl " C v.0 am+ .G a N 0 J¢ v C 01 m' U (U6 U Q N > L C o C a p o p m 11 0 .� c E v o a O N O N O a C L A £ Y a-i ^ p H C 0) G1 d t Z N 0 a w y `� s O C. _ N C .O 'a+ OJ O N w Y O r0+ O CO 0) a o c.1 5 m 0 E z o- °° c Y o .1 0) Z p a 3 Cr s Q c p �' 'O •N E p v Y i/ 0 -p = w OJ a Y M N Y C 1n OJ fl. U O N O) '> U O) N L c. w v ¢ O v a c '� ai c x O v p m d Y C C K 0= 0C J J J Q Q Q Q Q a a Q a Q Q Q d 0 0 > > 0/ O O1 a) U E2 2 Z Z O Q Z Q Q p p 1!1 � 1� V1 00 N 1n r-I 00 N 1!1 �••1 V e-I U .•-I r-1 ei 0) O .0 70 O C- O Y y L I4 h E Q O N OA L > M v c a 0) 3 a1 M E V E U p a WD a�i � C) 3 _ y v a C7 O v #'e N y O C' w 00 L N ` O C O O1 W N O Q O 1p v°- U O O y E m @ OJ C to C 0 J C (0 00 _ 'N C Y O Y N U O1 "O O w O 0 ,C 0 i0 v p v a 0= txo 1 o m (0 7 11 O ' 0 (6 C O c m 0 U O Ol' L C ~O U N L O. N E ..fl 7a 4. O _U E 0 y t0 Ol O O1 Y C C p J E d v C SO N M y ..0. p O E N O1 ar N p E a N U O N 0 0 U CL H m U s a0 O- E m E v t0 C U C C C ON = 0 E U w a O O Y c`o °¢ N 0 Q 0 � O ° O o p v p a E E p Y a O C `� p p 0 00 C Y O Y •3 O C 7 O L 7 >> a 'a (0 a Q v E m r aCO c E v v y. u c Ya c C cc u U O > C- O u a D o r+ w m a 1n io n aO cn N 161 Z A1a ;Y t f 161�Z AiI8 Transportation Department WORK DIRECTIVE CHANGE PROJECT NAME: Lely MSTU Doral Circle Roadway Sidewalk Improvements (at Bridge) CHANGE # 01: Dated: December 1, 2011 DATE OF ISSUANCE: 12 -01 -11 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 -01 -11 OWNER: Collier County Board of Commissioners PROJECT #:4500129815; dated 09/13/2011 Contract: 11 -56048 CONTRACTOR: Bonness Inc. CONSULTANT: McGee & Associates You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s): Description: Item #Qty Description Spec Unit Cost Total 01 Mobilization 1.00 LS $950.29 $950.29 02 Excavate Bore Pit - Includes Rock Hammering, 1.00 $4,253.36 $4,253.36 Removal, #57 Stone And Backfill 03 Dewatering 1.00 LS $766.07 $766.07 04 Trench Shield Or Shoring 1.00 LS $814.91 $814.91 05 install Quazite DOT Pull Boxes 2.00 EACH $655.11 $1,310.22 12/01/11 9:35 AM 161 Z ",18 Purpose of Work Directive Change: To adjust work and contract documents for changes in plant material specifications in quantity and species. Attachments: (1) Bonness Inc. Estimate # 102942011 If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Times any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more of the following methods of determining the effect of the changes(s). Method of determining change in Contract Price: Method of determining change in Contract Times: ® Unit Prices ❑ Contractor's records ® Lump Sum ❑ Engineer's record ❑ Other ❑ Other Estimated increase (decrease) in Contract Price Estimated change in Contract Time: $8,094.85 Increase or decrease by 0 zero calendar days. RECOMMENDED: ,� •'?` r1 ,,� •''.� ter,_ McGee & Associates Landscape Architect AuniORIZED: 4i � 1��� •fi By: Darryl RichaM,,T oject Mager Owner's Representative 12/01/11 I:35 AM 10* i.)ato Seward Avenue ` aplc,s, Fl(mda _i�s 10t1 (239) 597 -6221 • (239) 597 -7116 Fax ti'tC VLhUntl t!S�t11 C'.ialnl Proposal 11/30/2011 Submitted To: Collier County Administrative Services Division Address: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W Naples, FL 34112 161 b A 18 Estimate Number: 102942011 Bid Title: Lely MSTU Doral Circle Rd /SW - Directional Bore Pit CO Notes: • This change order will add 2 days to the project duration. • Bonness Inc. is not responsible for unknown utility conflicts. • Above proposal for items quoted only. Payment Terms: Payment due within 30 days of date of invoice, regardless of when payment is made by Owner ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. Buyer Signature: Date of Acceptance: 11/30/2011 7:17:09 AM CONFIRMED: Bonness Inc. Authorized Signature: Estimator: Craig Miles Page I of I Project Location. Dora[ Circle Contact: Darryl Richard Project City, State: Naples, FL Phone: (239) 774 -8380 Fax: (239) 732 -2718 Engineer /Architect: McGee & Associates Item # Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price 01 Mobilization 1.00 LS $950.29 $950.29 02 Excavate Bore Pit - Includes Rock Hammering, 1.00 LS $4,253.36 $4,253.36 Removal, #57 Stone And Backfill 03 Dewatering 1.00 LS $766.07 $766.07 04 Trench Shield Or Shoring 1.00 LS $814.91 $814.91 05 Install Quazite DOT Pull Boxes 2.00 EACH $655.11 $1,310.22 Total Bid Price: $8,094.85 Notes: • This change order will add 2 days to the project duration. • Bonness Inc. is not responsible for unknown utility conflicts. • Above proposal for items quoted only. Payment Terms: Payment due within 30 days of date of invoice, regardless of when payment is made by Owner ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. Buyer Signature: Date of Acceptance: 11/30/2011 7:17:09 AM CONFIRMED: Bonness Inc. Authorized Signature: Estimator: Craig Miles Page I of I Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Ave. - Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643 -6205 - Fax: (239) 643.5012 E -mail: commland@aol.com BILL TO: Collier County Board of County Cornrnission Clerk's Finance Deparbnent 3299 Tarniarni Trail East Suite 700 Napets, FL 34112 -6749 161 2f� ' A 18 ESTIMA M. E1003939 CUSTOMER NO. 12/13/2011 4500130492 Net 30 162541 - 634959 DESCRIPTION RATE • Lehr MSTU - Forest Hilts G04 Cart Crossing as per Mike Mc&&s recommendations. includes irrigation review to assure proper coverage for new turf. 6 Irrigation Technician Supervisor (Supervisor labor) 65.00 350.00 12 Regular labor to assist. 66.00 660.00 1 Irrigation Technician Supervisor Labor to review irrigation to 65.00 65.00 assure proper coverage. Test system. i 1 Irrigation Technician Labor to assist. 65.00 65.00 1 Reimbursement for turf materials purchased (cost + 25 %) 150.00 150.00 1 Estimates{ County dumping Fees for materials removed from 50.00 50.00 site. actual amount will be billed. i TOTAL THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID $1 ,380.00 I 1612A18 Item Item Description Estimated Quantity n n Price Total nce ASPHALT OVERLAY OPTION BONNESS INC. Mobilization 02 Pin iv and Slu -mwk Q m kim 03 1" Asphalt Overlay 1990 Seward Avenue 4" Concrete Sidewalk 05 Naples. Florida 34109 06 Sod (Bahia) (Unit Priced Item) (239) 597 -6441 • (239) 597 -7416 Fak www.bonnesslnc.com Proposal 11/17/2011 Submitted To: McGee & Associates Estimate Number: 102582011 Address: 5079 Tamiami Till E Bid Title: Forest Hills Blvd &Augusta Blvd A/C Path Naples, FL 34113 Project Location: Forest Hills Blvd & Augusta Blvd Contact: Michael McGee Project City, State: Naples, FL Phone: (239)417 -0707 Fax: Engineer /Architect: N/A Item Item Description Estimated Quantity n n Price Total nce ASPHALT OVERLAY OPTION 01 Mobilization 02 Maintenance Of Traffic 03 1" Asphalt Overlay 04 4" Concrete Sidewalk 05 Handicap Ramp 06 Sod (Bahia) (Unit Priced Item) 1.00 LS $1,479.23 .1.00 LS $532.70 224.00 SY $18.55 .115.00 SF $6.97 2.00 EACH $321.20 280.00 SY $2.00 Total Price for above ASPHALT OVERLAY OPTION Items: ASPHALT 07 PATH REMOVAL OPTION Mobilization 08 Maintenance Of Traffic 09 Removal Of Existing Limerock And Asphalt 10 Import Fill 11 Final Grade 12 Sod (Bahia) (Unit Priced Item) 13 Sod Ulfway Bermuda) (Unit Priced Item) 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 50.00 CY 1.00 LS 455.00 SY 150.00 SY $1,479.23 $532.70 $2,831.96 $31.80 $1,411.17 $2.00 $6.49 Total Price for above ASPHALT PATH REMOVAL OPTION Items: $1,479.23 $532.70 $4,155.20 $801.55 $642.40 $560.00 $8,171.08 $1,479.23 $532.70 $2,831.96 $1,590.00 $1,411.17 $910.00 $973.50 $9,728.56 Notes: ..Subject to prompt acceptance within 30 days and to all conditions stipulated on the reverse side, we agree to fumish materials and labor at the price(s) set forth above. • Bonness Inc. is not responsible for asphalt damages caused by others. • Proposal based on the on site meeting with Mike McGee on 11/17/11. . DUE TO THE CRITICAL NATURE OF ESCALATING MATERIAL COSTS, IMPORT FILL, BASEROCK, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. BONNESS INC WILL PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION OF MATERIAL INCREASES SHOULD THIS SITUATION ARISE. • Permits, fees, layout, survey, asbuiits and besting by others. 11117120119:21:29 AM Page 1 of 2 120,000.00 100,000.00 80,000.00 60,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 A Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Reuse Mixing Chamber Annual Water Use 117,965.00 ina i;F? nn aC FY11 12/15/2011 Oct -11 2EUSE !TABLE 2,800.00 Nov -11 °i POTABLE ■ REUSE I..%. r CV J IN 1612 A 19,_. -� s,;�rers Naples, Florida, September 21, 2011 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular session at 10:00 a.m. in the Headquarters Library with the following members present: CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray Carla Grieve Rochelle Lieb Fiala Hiller ABSENT: Connie Bettinger- Hennink Henning Coyle .� ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director Coletta G Judith Krayeik, Administrative Assistant Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Lewis asked for additions or corrections to the minutes of August 17, 2011. A few minor corrections were noted. Mrs. Lieb moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mrs. Grieve and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved as corrected. LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT Mrs. Reiss reported on the following items: • As it is September, the conversation club has resumed and there are new participants who have been referred by the Literacy Volunteers of Collier County. • Participants are made aware of the various programs offered by the library. • Many participants have been requesting information on programs they learned about at the classes. • Currently there is only one class but it is anticipated that there will again be two classes as the seasonal residents arrive. • - She is exploring the possibility of creating training for English language learners on how to use the computer to access egovernment. o It has been observed that many patrons are struggling with this on -line resource o The training would provide instruction on how to use a computer and a mouse. o Silvia Puente of the Immokalee Branch will be attending a class on egovernment to find out exactly what the government is requesting people do on -line. o This has become a problem at most of the branches o Other agencies have been contacted to see if any of them will be providing this service and it was learned that they will not. o There are materials available to assist in this effort. o It was asked whether funds will be needed to go forward with this project and Mrs. Reiss responded they have not yet reached that point in the project planning. o Mrs. Matthes stated that David Chalick, manager at the Golden Gate Branch, is taking a course in grant writing and is considering his focus to be egovernment services. o Mrs. Matthes also stated that the staff training work group has reconvened. The goal is Misc. Corres: to offer training to Public Services staff and possibly patrons as well. It was discussed offering something for the beginning computer user. un Copies 1W 161 2 q ly REPORT OF OFFICERS - None COMMUNICATIONS Mrs. Grieve stated that the articles she has been writing for the Naples Daily News were supposed to appear every two weeks and it appears this may not be the case. She said she will inquire to find out what the print schedule will be. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Employee of the Month — September Mrs. Lieb nominated Becky Wilder for Employee of the Month for September. Mrs. Grieve seconded the motion and all in favor. Mrs. Lieb asked how long the current form has been in use. Mrs. Matthes responded that it has been a few years. Mrs. Lieb suggested that it may be time to update the form and ask for more specific information. Library interactions with schools and students Mrs. Matthes provided the members with information taken from the Library Policies FY2011. In addition, on the back of the sheet, she included the original request from the Marco Island Academy. She pointed out that a section on the back side has been crossed out because the library will not be doing that. The front side of the sheet shows what the library will do for the Academy and any other groups or patrons wishing to use library facilities according to our policies. Mrs. Grieve stated that obtaining a SWFLN sticker provides access to more libraries. As the request from the Academy noted research topics that students would be assigned, Mrs. Matthes stated that the library does not usually purchase textbooks. Mrs. Matthes stated that the staff from the Academy was agreeable to the services that the library is willing to provide. The question was asked whether the Academy could use Rose Hall without a fee and would that be the case with any school. Mrs. Matthes stated that the library policies state that we do not charge other government entities and Rose Hall is set up that those non -profit organizations that benefit Marco Island may use the facility free of charge. NEW BUSINESS Upgrade to library automation system - Sierra • Mrs. Matthes stated this is an upgrade to our system at a greatly reduced price. • It requires that it be paid in advance which is a problem as the normal procedure for payment requires that the item or service be delivered prior to payment. • The purchasing department is assisting with the terms of this purchase in order to save considerable money in the future. Possibly as much at $100,000. • The item will need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners which should be on the agenda for October 11. 2 1612 All • It was asked whether the upgrade was hardware or software. Mrs. Matthes stated it is primarily software with the possible addition of a few servers. Circulation policy changes Mrs. Matthes stated that during this time of the year, thoughts turn to planning for the future and examining our current policies to see if there is anything that needs to be updated or changed. Some of the considerations are based on complaints and comments received on our website. At this point, she is just asking the members to give some thought to possible changes. Currently when a library card expires, we ask that the patron come to the library to renew the card. However, this policy has caused some problems for seasonal residents because after the card expires they cannot use our on -line capabilities. Currently this has been handled on a case by case basis. In some cases, a new card is mailed to the resident at their Naples address which in turn gets forwarded to their northern address. There is a $1 charge for this service. Another way it is being handled is to extend the expiration date on the card to a date when the resident will be back in Naples and then can come into the library to renew. Mrs. Matthes asked the members if these practices seem reasonable or should we require less personal contact to renew a card? A member asked the reason we require personal contact. Mrs. Matthes stated it is to verify that the information in our system is still current. Mrs. Matthes asked if we should implement some type of on -line renewal process. The question was asked whether some type of notification could be sent to patrons letting them know their card is about to expire. Mrs. Matthes stated that currently that is not possible. Our current system has many options that can be selected but that is not one of them. It may be at some point in the future, but right now it is not available. This would be a software change for the company. Currently a great deal of work would be required by staff to notify patrons of the upcoming expiration of their card. The Board members agreed that the way this is currently being handled should continue. Another issue is renewal timeframes. Currently DVD's are only allowed to be checked out for one week and there are no renewals allowed. Some of our staff has suggested that renewal policies should be the same for all materials. The reason that renewals are not allowed for DVD's is to keep them moving faster. In addition, newer DVD's cannot be reserved. This is done because we have fewer copies and if we allow patrons to reserve a new DVD, the list would be very long and the patron would not get the DVD for a very long time. However, if we allowed patrons to reserve newer DVD's, at least they would know that they would eventually get the DVD. The members agreed that all DVD's could be reserved but none could be renewed. Marilyn also brought up the fact that materials that are allowed to be renewed can only be renewed twice. She asked the members if they thought that was adequate. They agreed that it is. Mrs. Matthes stated that if any of the board members receive comments or complaints, they should pass them along to her and she will address them. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Mrs. Matthes handed out information regarding a Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics workshop to be held on October 3and they are invited to participate if they wish. • Also provided was information regarding the Collier Senior Resource Center website which has now gone live. • Mrs. Matthes stated that the Public Services Training program and website is almost finished and will be announced to all Public Services employees probably this week. • Next year is the tenth anniversary of the Headquarters building. 3 161 2 A 19 • Year 2013 is the 5000' anniversary of the State of Florida. The State Library is the lead agency for the state in planning celebrations. • The Library card sign up month generated a number of comments. Habitat for Humanity Thrift Shop wishes to be listed next year as giving a discount to library card holders. • Additional shelving is being purchased for the headquarters building which should be arriving shortly. This is being done because frequently there are carts of books that cannot be shelved due to lack of space. Originally this building was intended to have more shelving than we actually have. • The purchasing process has begun to build covered walkways at South Regional. That should happen by January. • At the September 27 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the State Aid to Libraries application and the long range plan will be presented. It is being submitted under the consent agenda. • The courtyard landscaping has been completed. Changes to the fountain area will be addressed next. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS • Mrs. Grieve reported on the following items: • All of the authors have been selected for the lecture series to be held at the Naples Grande. • A Friends appreciation night is being planned for January 13 with a local author. • On September 30 and on October 29, Books -A- Million is having a book fair and the Friends will have a table. • Friends have a new receptionist at their office. • There will be a Friends Board meeting in October. • She intends to suggest to the Board that it should be active all year round and not just during season. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Grieve moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m. Approved Doris J. Lewis Chair, Library Advisory B rd 4 a 1612 A20 CLAM BAY AND LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEES JOINT SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Joint Session on Wednesday, October 26 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman elected 10126111 Tom Cravens, Chairman Tom Cravens Geoffrey S. Gibson j�j y7 nn Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker o n) Mary Anne Womble DF` Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Ana Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary " " " " " " " "" Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Fiala r Michael Levy, Pelican Bay Services Division Board Hiller 1 Henning REVISED AGENDA cowlf Cc "otta 1. Roll Call C- 2. Elect Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 3. Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Protocol Presentation by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 4. Question & Answer Session 5. Clam Bay Nutrient Standards Presentation by Dave Trecker, Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 6. Public Comments Misc. COReS: 7. Adjournment Date: 22111 I 12- ROLL CALL All Subcommittees members were present. Item 0:1U--V2R-2- 0 AGENDA AMENDED tir5 t0: Chairman Cravens amended the agenda to add Dr. Trecker's "Clam Bay Nutrient Standards" presentation to follow Mr. Hall's presentation. ELECT CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Chairman Cravens nominated, Ms. O'Brien seconded, and voted unanimously to appoint Dr. Trecker as Chairman of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. SURFACE WATER SAMPLING & MONITORING PROTOCOL PRESENTATION BY TIM HALL Mr. Tim Hall made a presentation about Clam Bay surface water sampling, monitoring protocol, and related work in Pelican Bay that his firm Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. is involved. He presented an overview map identifying water quality sampling points. The "Class 11 Sampling Locations" (yellow) and "Class III Sampling Locations" (red) indicate where the Turrell Hall firm has been analyzing samples since 1998 as required by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan and current mangrove maintenance permit. However, samples have been collected from these sites since 1980 as part of the 1978 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) surface water management permit. As part of 1 i 1612 A eU Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session October 26, 2011 the Atkins study to develop Clam Bay site - specific criteria, the County is monitoring nine (9) sites identified as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple). The SFWMD surface water management permit is a construction and operations permit that authorizes projects. The construction phase lasts until a project is complete and then the permit converts to an operational phase that is valid in perpetuity. Currently, the surface water management permit is in the operational phase and covers tangible parts of the stormwater management system, or the swale located on the west side of the berm. Water quality monitoring is being done to ensure that the Division's current mangrove maintenance permit activities are not adversely affecting water quality. For the mangrove maintenance permit, trained Division employees collect samples on a monthly basis from locations in Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay that are identified on the sampling points map as "Class II Sampling Locations" (yellow) and "Class III Sampling Locations" (red). The samples are sent to the County's lab to test primary parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO) to measure how much life the water can support; nitrate (NO3) and orthophosphate (OPO4) to indicate fertilizer runoff; and total dissolved solids (TDS) to indicate salinity. Additional parameters are tested including conductivity; nitrite; chlorophyll -A; phaeophytin; total phosphorus; and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Results are returned to the Division then sent to Turrell Hall for compiling, quarterly analysis, and preparation of an annual report that is submitted to the appropriate agencies. In general, benthic observations and data analysis demonstrates that the system is working. Division employees also collect samples from locations east of the berm because there are community issues related to stormwater distribution. Turrell Hall will use this data to develop a nutrient management plan for the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Landscape Water Management Subcommittee intends to participate in the project. QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION Ms. Marcia Cravens asked what the standard water quality monitoring protocol was during the 1998 ten -year permit, adding that Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will not accept the data for that reason that sampling did not follow Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA /QC) guidelines. Mr. Hall said that in 2010, his firm developed a QA/QC water quality monitoring protocol for the Division. Mr. Lukasz explained that the 1998 permit did not require standard QA/QC guidelines because none existed. The Division began following Mr. Hall's water quality monitoring and collection protocol in 2010. Mr. Hall said that most labs do not have a standard collection requirement, but do require a Chain of Custody form be submitted with the sample that discloses information pertaining to the sampling protocol. Dr. Ted Raia said Clam Bay is small in circumference and therefore less voluminous, producing more concentrated samples than larger water bodies and Mr. Hall agreed. Dr. Raia asked how Chlorophyll -A is measured because the water is rich in tannins and appears brown in color. Mr. Hall said it is a chemical test. Chairman Trecker said a chromatographic test would negate color masking problems. Ms. Mary Johnson asked which sites and permit is Turrell Hall monitoring, where the sites are being used by Atkins to develop site - specific criteria, and whether these sites are also being used to maintain stormwater outfall. Mr. Hall said that his firm is monitoring sites for the Division's mangrove maintenance permit as indicated on the water quality sampling points map as "Class II Sampling Locations" (yellow) and "Class III Sampling Locations" (red). The County is collecting samples for the Atkins study to develop site - specific criteria from nine sites indicated on the water quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple). Mr. Dorrill said none of the sites are used to measure stormwater outfall for the Surface Water Management permit. 7 t 161.2 A 20 Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session October 26, 2011 Chairman Cravens requested that Mr. Dorrill distribute the Surface Water Management permit. Mr. Dorrill responded that the permit file is available. Ms. O'Brien asked whether recent water quality monitoring data is appropriate for the FDEP Storage and Retrieval database, STORET. Mr. Hall said yes, the data is appropriate for STORET. Ms. Annice Gregerson asked Mr. Hall to clarify why historical water quality data was rejected by STORET. Mr. Hall explained that is was never a requirement of a permit or collection program to submit water quality data to STORET. In terms of being classified as reliable data, because it could not be verified that the data collection process followed QA /QC protocols as defined by the Florida Administrative Code, the data could not be used in STORET to make any regulatory decisions. However the data could still be used for review and comparison purposes. Currently, Division employees are trained to follow QA /QC water quality monitoring and collection protocol, and the data collection process is verifiable. Ms. Cravens said the 1978 Surface Water Management permit required water quality monitoring and the data was submitted to FDEP. Long -term historical data can be used to establish ambient water quality instead of a reference site, so the QA /QC water quality monitoring protocol used for the 1998 permit should be submitted to FDEP. Dr. Raia asked for clarification of how often equipment was calibrated. Mr. Hall said current QA /QC standard is to calibrate equipment after a certain number of samples, so if that was exceeded, it does not mean that the calibration was wrong, it just was not done to QA/QC standard. Ms. Cravens alleged the Atkins datasets include sites from Moorings Bay and Ms. Johnson disagreed. Mr. Hall said the County is collecting samples for the Atkins study to develop site - specific criteria from nine sites indicated on the water quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple). Mr. Dorrill asked if there was any correlation between levels of fecal coliform in Clam Bay and forty -year old septic systems in Seagate or Pine Ridge, or pet waste thrown into storm systems, and what it costs to test. Mr. Hall said the County was monitoring Pelican Bay beach for fecal coliform, but because readings never reached levels high enough to close the beach, the County plans to discontinue testing. He is not aware of any septic or sewer system monitoring done in Seagate to measure containment capacity, but in his opinion there is not enough there to cause a system- wide problem because the larger water body would dilute it very quickly. Fecal coliform testing is done in a series, so it is more expensive than a single test. Mr. Hall concluded that he has been working in the systems for a very long time and has a personal interest in it. The community does a very good job protecting the system and it is healthy, with seagrasses, fish, and manatees. In his opinion, the best defense is to continue the monitoring protocol in place. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN OVERVIEW Turrell Hall is developing a nutrient management plan for the Pelican Bay Foundation. Currently, the firm is mapping the flow of surface water through the community and testing for nutrient levels at strategic locations to find the causes of noticeable increases or decreases in order to develop guidelines to manage landscaping and water quality within the community. Mr. Hoppensteadt pointed out the Services Division is responsible for the stormwater management system and suggested that the Landscaping Water Management Subcommittee work with Mr. Hall to develop an upland management plan. He explained that there are stormwater system elements on private property and that the County has the authority to 3 1612 p Zp Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session October 26, 2011 inspect and enforce violations. The Foundation has the authority to enforce rules and regulations related to covenants. For example, a goal of the upland management plan is to establish measurable criteria for fertilizer standards and if a property owner was found to be in violation then the Foundation would have the authority to inspect and enforce the standard. CLAM BAY NUTRIENT STANDARDS PRESENTATION Chairman Trecker explained the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FDEP are establishing numeric nutrient limits on dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus for freshwater and saltwater bodies, including estuaries and coastal waters. Dr. David Tomasko, Atkins, Inc., a County consultant, analyzed water quality monitoring data at the nine sites identified earlier on the water quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple) and proposed nutrient standards for Clam Bay. FDEP agrees with Dr. Tomasko's approach to set standards for nutrients within the boundaries of current values to maintain a healthy system. The proposal sets the standard as a "swath" measured by conductivity (salinity) versus total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Water quality testing would continue at the same nine locations on a monthly basis. If a certain percentile of values falls outside of the "swath" it could indicate a problem requiring additional testing. If Clam Bay was declared impaired, the EPA proposal would grant up to fifteen (15) years for remediation. Mr. Hall's upland management plan would provide an early warning system to address potential problems. Using FDEP input, the EPA plans to set standards by November 2012. This timing is tentative and could be affected by political events. Chairman Trecker suggested the Clam Bay Subcommittee make a recommendation to the full Services Division Board to either take action by urging the FDEP to delay, support Dr. Tomasko's proposal, or do nothing. The Subcommittees discussed their options and consensus was to do nothing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Johnson said technical analysis should be done by qualified reviewers and all stakeholders included and in her opinion, during this process the Conservancy was not well represented. Dr. Raia agreed and said knowledgeable people in Pelican Bay were excluded from the process. Ms. Cravens said Dr. Tomasko's report is problematic because it includes reference sites and does not consider historical water quality data. She suggested the Board urge FDEP to delay. Ms. O'Brien said that moving forward this Board should be more involved in the process. Mr. Hoppensteadt responded that few people have the technical knowledge to comment on the proposal. Ms. Linda Roth said that the revised technical note is too stringent. Mr. David Roellig is skeptical of Dr. Tomasko's proposal. There were no more public comments and the discussion concluded. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker to adjourn. The Subcommittees members voted unanimously in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m. Tom airm Landscape Water na em Subcommittee Dave Trecke C airman, Clam Bay Subcommittee 4 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 11/16/20119:37:24 AM i 161'2 A2U CLAM BAY AND LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEES JOINT SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Joint Session on Wednesday, October 26 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman elected 10126111 Tom Cravens Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Tom Cravens, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Dave Trecker Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Michael Levy, Pelican Bay Services Division Board REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Elect Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 3. Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Protocol Presentation by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 4. Question & Answer Session 5. Clam Bay Nutrient Standards Presentation by Dave Trecker, Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Subcommittees members were present. AGENDA AMENDED Chairman Cravens amended the agenda to add Dr. Trecker's "Clam Bay Nutrient Standards" Mr. Hall's presentation. ELECT CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Chairman Cravens nominated, Ms. O'Brien seconded, and voted unanimously to appoint D of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Mr. Tim Hall made a presentation about Clam Bay surface water Pelican Bay that his firm Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. is involved. quality sampling points. The "Class 11 Sampling Locations" (yellow) where the Turrell Hall firm has been analyzing samples sinceJM Management Plan and current mangrove maintenance permit. 1980 as part of the 1978 South Florida Water Management Di and related work in 7 gW map identifying water Locations" (red) indicate ie Clam Bay Restoration and collected from these sites since water management permit. As part of 161'2 A2U CLAM BAY AND LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEES JOINT SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Joint Session on Wednesday, October 26 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members were present: Clam Bay Subcommittee Dave Trecker, Chairman elected 10126111 Tom Cravens Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Tom Cravens, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Dave Trecker Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Michael Levy, Pelican Bay Services Division Board REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Elect Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 3. Surface Water Sampling & Monitoring Protocol Presentation by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 4. Question & Answer Session 5. Clam Bay Nutrient Standards Presentation by Dave Trecker, Clam Bay Subcommittee Chairman 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Subcommittees members were present. AGENDA AMENDED Chairman Cravens amended the agenda to add Dr. Trecker's "Clam Bay Nutrient Standards" Mr. Hall's presentation. ELECT CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Chairman Cravens nominated, Ms. O'Brien seconded, and voted unanimously to appoint D of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. Mr. Tim Hall made a presentation about Clam Bay surface water Pelican Bay that his firm Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. is involved. quality sampling points. The "Class 11 Sampling Locations" (yellow) where the Turrell Hall firm has been analyzing samples sinceJM Management Plan and current mangrove maintenance permit. 1980 as part of the 1978 South Florida Water Management Di and related work in 7 gW map identifying water Locations" (red) indicate ie Clam Bay Restoration and collected from these sites since water management permit. As part of 161 2 A 2U, la``�ay and L1► dsc a Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session ctjb 26,101t the Atkins study to develop Clam Bay site - specific criteria, the County is monitoring nine (9) sites identified as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple). The SFWMD surface water management permit is a construction and operations permit that authorizes projects. The construction phase lasts until a project is complete and then the permit converts to an operational phase that is valid in perpetuity. Currently, the surface water management permit is in the operational phase and covers tangible parts of the stormwater management system, or the swale located on the west side of the berm. Water quality monitoring is being done to ensure that the Division's current mangrove maintenance permit activities are not adversely affecting water quality. For the mangrove maintenance permit, trained Division employees collect samples on a monthly basis from locations in Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bay that are identified on the sampling points map as "Class 11 Sampling Locations" (yellow) and "Class III Sampling Locations" (red). The samples are sent to the County's lab to test primary parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO) to measure how much life the water can support; nitrate (NO3) and orthophosphate (OPO4) to indicate fertilizer runoff, and total dissolved solids (TDS) to indicate salinity. Additional parameters are tested including conductivity; nitrite; chlorophyll -A; phaeophytin; total phosphorus; and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Results are returned to the Division then sent to Turrell Hall for compiling, quarterly analysis, and preparation of an annual report that is submitted to the appropriate agencies. In general, benthic observations and data analysis demonstrates that the system is working. Division employees also collect samples from locations east of the berm because there are community issues related to stormwater distribution. Turrell Hall will use this data to develop a nutrient management plan for the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Landscape Water Management Subcommittee intends to participate in the project. County is collecting samples for the Atkins study to de quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Mr. Dorrill said none of the sites are used to meal nine sites indicated on the water the Surface Water Management permit. art; t 1612 A 2U Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session October 26, 2011 Chairman Cravens requested that Mr. Dorrill distribute the Surface Water Management permit. Mr. Dorrill responded that the permit file is available. Ms. O'Brien asked whether recent water quality monitoring data is appropriate for the FDEP Storage and Retrieval database, STORET. Mr. Hall said yes, the data is appropriate for STORET. Ms. Annice Gregerson asked Mr. Hall to clarify why historical water quality data was rejected by STORET. Mr. Hall explained that is was never a requirement of a permit or collection program to submit water quality data to STORET. In terms of being classified as reliable data, because it could not be verified that the data collection process followed QA/QC protocols as defined by the Florida Administrative Code, the data could not be used in STORET to make any regulatory decisions. However the data could still be used for review and comparison purposes. Currently, Division employees are trained to follow QA /QC water quality monitoring and collection protocol, and the data collection process is verifiable. Ms. Cravens said the 1978 Surface Water Management permit required water quality monitoring and the data was submitted to FDEP. Long -term historical data can be used to establish ambient water quality instead of a reference site, so the QA /QC water quality monitoring protocol used for the 1998 permit should be submitted to FDEP. Dr. Raia asked for clarification of how often equipment was calibrated. Mr. Hall said current QA /QC standard is to calibrate equipment after a certain number of samples, so if that was exceeded, it does not mean that the calibration was wrong, it just was not done to QA/QC standard. Ms. Cravens alleged the Atkins datasets include sites from Moorings Bay and Ms. Johnson disagreed. Mr. Hall said the County is collecting samples for the Atkins study to develop site - specific criteria from nine sites indicated on the water quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple). a i ,ti Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session 161 A 2 October 26, 2011 , inspect and enforce violations. The Foundation has the authority to enforce rules and regulations related to covenants. For example, a goal of the upland management plan is to establish measurable criteria for fertilizer standards and if a property owner was found to be in violation then the Foundation would have the authority to inspect and enforce the standard. CLAM BAY NUTRIENT STANDARDS PRESENTATION Chairman Trecker explained the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FDEP are establishing numeric nutrient limits on dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus for freshwater and saltwater bodies, including estuaries and coastal waters. Dr. David Tomasko, Atkins, Inc., a County consultant, analyzed water quality monitoring data at the nine sites identified earlier on the water quality sampling points map as "Collier County Sampling Locations (purple) and proposed nutrient standards for Clam Bay. FDEP agrees with Dr. Tomasko's approach to set standards for nutrients within the boundaries of current values to maintain a healthy system. The proposal sets the standard as a "swath" measured by conductivity (salinity) versus total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Water quality testing would continue at the same nine locations on a monthly basis. If a certain percentile of values falls outside of the "swath" it could indicate a problem requiring additional testing. If Clam Bay was declared impaired, the EPA proposal would grant up to fifteen (15) years for remediation. Mr. Hall's upland management plan would provide an early warning system to address potential problems. Using FDEP input, the EPA plans to set standards by November 2012. This timing is tentative and could be affected by political events. Chairman Trecker suggested the Clam Bay Subcommittee make a recommendation to the full Services Division Board to either take action by urging the FDEP to delay, support Dr. Tomasko's proposal, or do nothing. The Subcommittees discussed their options and consensus was to do nothing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Johnson said technical analysis should be done by qualified reviewers and all stakeholders included and in her opinion, during this process the Conservancy was not well represented. Dr. Raia agreed and said knowledgeable people in Pelican Bay were excluded from the process. Ms. Cravens said Dr. Tomasko's report is problematic because it includes reference sites and does not consider historical water quality data. She suggested the Board urge FDEP to delay. Ms. O'Brien said that moving forward this Board should be more involved in the process. Mr. Hoppensteadt responded that few people have the technical knowledge to comment on the AA* Ms. Linda Roth said that the revised technical note is too stringent. Mr. David Roellig is skeptical of Dr. Tomasko's proposal. There were no more public comments and the discussion concluded. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker to adjou m ees members voted unanimously in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 3: L. Tom Cravens, Chairman, Landscape Water Management S Dave Trecker, Chairman, Clam Bay Subcommittee 4 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 11/16/20119:37:24 AM 161 A 20 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION 1V�NYUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 jjjj ........................ LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session , on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Fiala Hitler ✓ Henning Coyle Coletta G Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Joseph Crowley, Facilities Director, Philharmonic Center for the Arts Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Project Status e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status f. Community Landscaping g. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach h. The Phil's "Thank You Myra" Dedication and Temporary Banners i. Upland Surface Water Management j. Monthly Financial Report i. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 54 Reporting 5. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Update b. Announcements 6. Committee Reports 7. Old Business 8. New Business mist, Cokes: 9. Audience Comments 10. Miscellaneous Correspondence 11. Adjournment It�t #k i l�� 2'►� 2-Q 8506 Copies to: �20Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1 b 1 November 2, 2011 ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Hansen, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler made motion, seconded by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5.2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES 7Lmotion. n Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the October S, 2011 Pelican Bay ion Board Regular Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Mr. Do rrill introduced Mr. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group. Mr. Carter will assist Mr. Lukasz on the South Berm restoration project. COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the contractor is making progress and anticipates a substantial portion of the project will be complete by the second week of December. ALL -WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr. Lukasz explained that it was staff's intent to recommend approval of the all -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive to the Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) on October 25. However, the Transportation department is responsible for project management and required to make the recommendation. Approval is imminent. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that on October 5, the Board directed staff to explore whether a contractor, if offered incentives could complete a demonstration area of the Pelican Bay Boulevard (from The Commons to the North Tram station) pathways widening project before Christmas, however it is unlikely. Staff is obtaining additional bids because the original bid was substantially higher than Wilson Miller's estimate. Construction is planned to begin in April and complete in ninety days. Blueprint -size design plans will be made available to review at the Division office. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PROJECT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 3 (NWP3) for maintenance activities limits the amount of fill material, so whether the south berm restoration project is determined maintenance or new construction hinges on the amount of existing material available and amount of material necessary to restore the slope of the berm to its original condition. Pre - application meetings with both agencies (USACE and South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD)) are scheduled to occur before the end of November and would provide an indication of whether this project is maintenance requiring a NWP3, or new construction requiring a USACE individual permit that could take as long as eleven months to obtain If the project is determined new construction, a SFWMD permit modification is required. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING STATUS Mr. Chandler reported that he and Mr. Dorrill met with Transportation department staff and Commissioner Hiller to discuss refining the business points of the Services Division's proposal to loan the County funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard early. The County's original cost estimate to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard did not include milling. With milling, 8507 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 i61 2 X20 1 the cost to resurface the Boulevard increased from $1.1 million to $1.4 - $1.5 million. Last year, the County's Asphalt Rating Score (ARS) for the Boulevard was 61 %. An outside firm recently reevaluated the Boulevard's ARS at 64% and the County revised the resurfacing schedule which delays the project by one year, or until 2016. However, he added according to Mr. Casalanguida, this job should endure ten to fifteen years. If the Services Division loaned the County the funds to mill and resurface the Boulevard early, the County agreed to repay the full amount when the Boulevard is scheduled for resurfacing in 2016, which equates to the time that payment to a contractor would normally occur. In terms of creditworthiness, County bonds are investment rated, and added according to Commissioner Hiller, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to increase the current property tax millage rate of 3.5 mills up to ten mills without holding a voter referendum. Mr. Chandler recommended that the Services Division perform an unbiased survey to determine whether the community wants bicycle lanes installed in the roadway. Also, in the event that the Services Division Board decides to move forward to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard early, he suggested that staff develop a schedule of key events that need to occur including workshops and agreement. Mr. Dorrill agreed with Mr. Chandler's approach and staff would develop a schedule of the necessary steps involved to have resurfacing occur early, as well as obtain cost estimates for an unbiased survey to determine whether the community wants bicycle lanes in the roadway. The Board discussed whether to delay the project, if loaning the County funds would set a precedent, whether to obtain an independent road rating report, holding public workshops and concerns related to a budget shortfall, and deferral of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects already scheduled. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Dorrill reported that preparation work began last week at roadway medians including removing sod, and irrigation retrofitting. Also, staff has started planting annual flowers and laying pine straw. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County received grant funds to remove exotics from Clam Pass Park and adjacent area. Staff is awaiting confirmation of when the work will start and where it will be performed. THE PHIL'S "THANK YOU MYRA" DEDICATION AND TEMPORARY BANNERS Mr. Joseph Crowley, Director of Facility Operations, The Philharmonic Center for the Arts informed the Board that as part of the "Thank You Myra" dedication events scheduled in January 2012, The Phil received a Collier County permit to install temporary banners on December 12, 2011 until January 16, 2012. He asked whether the Board had questions or concerns and there were none. UPLAND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Mr. Dorrill said previously the Board requested distribution of the South Florida Water Management District Pelican Bay Master Surface Water Management permit. The agenda material includes an index of the permit and modifications. Due to the voluminous size of the file, the permit is available to review at the Services Division's office. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that October is the first month of the new fiscal year (FY 2012) and the monthly financial report is preliminary and unaudited. No revenue has been received and the majority of expenses, including payroll expenses have not posted which explains accrual variances. The Tax Collector issued property tax bills on November 1. The Budget Committee will start meeting in January to begin to develop the Fiscal Year 2013 budget. 1: 1612 M20+ Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB) NO. 54 REPORTING Mr. Dorrill reported that last year, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board adopted a reporting policy requiring public entities to indicate designated reserve funds as restricted carryforward. Currently, Collier County does not have this policy in place however, staff plans to find out whether the Clerk recommends implementation. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt observed that the new crosswalks cannot be seen at night and asked who is purchasing the plants for median landscaping. Mr. Dorrill explained thermoplastic reflective striping will be applied over the concrete headwall adjacent to the brick pavers to illuminate the crosswalk at night. Landscape architect, Ms. Goetz is assisting Mr. Lukasz with purchasing plants. Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned that the Surface Water Management permit was not distributed to the Board because it details responsibilities and obligations regarding landscaping, irrigation, and water quality monitoring. Mr. John Domenie said Bob's Barricades equipment is blocking visibility at the crosswalks under construction; there is some riprap on the west side of the berm south of The Commons; and resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard is not necessary. He asked Mr. Lukasz what the status of removing dodder vine is. Mr. Lukasz responded that dodder vine removal work is underway on Oakmont Parkway and U.S. 41. Mr. Bob Naegele recalled in 2007 that community sentiment regarding installing bicycle lanes in the roadway was favorable initially until residents learned the two travel lanes would be reduced to one and the Services Division should examine the proposed plans for inherent liability. Vice Chairman Cravens pointed out that the new plan maintains two travel lanes, but reduces the width of each lane from twelve to ten feet allowing for a four foot wide bicycle lane. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas handed over the Clam Bay update to Dr. Trecker, Chairman of the Clam Bay Subcommittee. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Foundation Board meets November 5 and November 18; the Coastal Advisory Committee meets November 10; and the Services Division's next meeting is December 7. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Dr. Trecker, Chairman, Clam Bay Subcommittee reported that at the October 26 Clam Bay and Landscape Water Management Subcommittees meeting Mr. Hall informed the Board that he is developing an upland nutrient management plan for the Pelican Bay Foundation. The Services Division is responsible for Pelican Bay's stormwater management system and the Pelican Bay Foundation has the authority to inspect and enforce covenant violations. The Foundation suggested that the Foundation and Services Division share oversight responsibility of Mr. Hall's study. Chairman Dallas suggested forming an advisory committee identical to the Community Improvement Plan working group that contains Landscape Water Management Subcommittee members and Foundation representatives. Mr. Hoppensteadt planned to meet with Messrs. Lukasz and Hall to draft an initial report to discuss on December 7. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Chairman Dallas that the Pelican Bay Services Division accepts joint oversight responsibility with the Pelican Bay Foundation of Turrell Hall's upland nutrient management study. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passina the motion. 1• Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 1612 X20 1 CLAM BAY NUTRIENT STANDARDS Dr. Trecker reported the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) are establishing numeric nutrient limits for dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus for freshwater and saltwater bodies, including estuaries and coastal waters. Dr. David Tomasko, Atkins, Inc., a Collier County consultant, analyzed water quality monitoring data at nine Collier County locations and proposed numeric nutrient standards for Clam Bay. FDEP agrees with Dr. Tomasko's approach to set numeric nutrient standards within the boundaries of current values to maintain a healthy system. The proposal sets the standard as a "swath" measured by conductivity (salinity) versus total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Water quality testing would continue at the same nine sites on a monthly basis and if a percentile of values falls outside of the "swath" it could indicate a problem requiring additional testing. Turreil Hall's upland nutrient management plan would provide an early warning system to address potential problems. Using FDEP input, the EPA plans to set standards by November 2012. However, this timing is tentative and could be affected by political events. The Board has four options: urge FDEP to delay recommendations to the EPA, propose alternative standards to FDEP, endorse Dr. Tomasko's proposal, or do nothing. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mses. Kathy Worley, Mary Johnson, Linda Roth, Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, and Mr. Bob Naegele expressed concerns about Dr. Tomasko's water quality data, methodology, and conclusions; and agreed that site - specific criteria should be attainable and based on appropriate and long -term water quality data. Mr. Steve Feldhaus defended Dr. Tomasko's proposal that is intended as a long -term management plan for Clam Bay developed using a scientific and regulatory approach and assured the Board the August technical note replaced the July report. Ms. Noreen Murray said both the Foundation and County hired scientific consultants to develop the proposal. Unless the Services Division is ready to hire its own expert then the only choice is to do nothing. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Chandler agreed with Ms. Worley, et.al that the water quality data did not establish a long enough timetable to come to appropriate conclusions and recommended the Board urge the FDEP to delay its recommendation to the EPA. Ms. O'Brien said the Board does not have enough information to make an informed decision, nor enough time to get up to speed, however doing nothing is not an endorsement of Dr. Tomasko's proposal. Ms. Womble agreed. Chairman Dallas recommended the Board do nothing and Dr. Trecker agreed adding that Dr. Tomasko's proposal may not be perfect, but it is sound. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board does not take any action regarding Dr. Tomasko's proposal for site - specific nutrient standards criteria in Clam Bay. The Board voted 9 -1 in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler was opposed STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Ms. Womble did not have anything to report because the Strategic Planning Committee did not meet. OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS No discussion MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion 8510 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 1612 A 20 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Feldhaus received news that FDEP approved the permit exemption to install Clam Bay Canoe Trail markers, starting the 21 -day public comment period. There was an issue related to the size of the markers. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) requires the markers dimensions to be two feet by three feet, which is too large, however to change the size of the markers, they need to change the law which would be time consuming, so the County made a decision to get the permit approved, markers installed, and then get the law changed. Also, FDEP approved informational buoys indicating seagrass and shoals, not signs. The Foundation is opposed to installing buoys so the County agreed to not install them and to appeal to the appropriate agencies. In response to Ms. O'Brien's questions regarding how the Services Division could receive this information timely, Mr. Feldhaus explained that until FDEP issued a statement regarding Dr. Tomasko's proposal, the information was the Foundation's internal information and he joined FDEP's mailing list that is open to the public. Dr. Ted Raia said the Clam Bay caution markers #1 -12 that are south of Clam Pass are inappropriate and the County will be replacing signs #13 -32 that are currently 12- inches x 12- inches with 18- inches x 18- inches signs. There are no water quality or seagrass problems in Clam Bay. Salinity comes from the Gulf, but nutrients do not, so the concept to understand is solubility. Dr. Trecker said the explanation is the "common ion effect ". Water can only solubilize up to a certain capacity. There will not be enough room for other substances if there is too much salt in the water. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board take a position regarding Clam Bay water quality standards. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dallas made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in avor, passing the motion and the meeting was ad'ourned at 3:52 p.m. f K4ith- YDalla7s, Ch1Vman 1.3-551 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 11/17/20114:14:43 PM 1612 A 20 . p PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session , on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Joseph Crowley, Facilities Director, Philharmonic Center for the Arts Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Mary Johnson, President, Mangrove Action Group Kathy Worley, Co- Director Environmental Science & Biologist, Conservancy of Southwest Florida AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 4. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive E 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 6 , `Z November 2, 2011 ROLL CALL With the exception of Mr. Hansen, all Board members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL 'I Mr. Chandler made motion, seconded by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as presented. The Board voted'I unanimously in favor. nassine the motion. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 5, 2011 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the October 5, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Mr. Dorrill introduced Mr. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group. Mr. Carter will assist Mr. Lukasz on the South Berm restoration project. COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the contractor is making progress and anticipates a substantial portion of the project will be complete by the second week of December. ALL -WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr. Lukasz explained that it was staffs intent to recommend approval of the all -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive to the Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) on October 25. However, the Transportation department is responsible for project management and required to make the recommendation. Approval is imminent. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that on October 5, the Board directed staff to explore whether a contractor, if offered incentives could complete a demonstration area of the Pelican Bay Boulevard (from The Commons to the North Tram station) pathways widening project before Christmas, however it is unlikely. Staff is obtaining additional bids because the original bid was substantially higher than Wilson Miller's estimate. Construction is planned to begin in April and complete in nine ays. Blueprint -size design plans will be made available to review at the Division office. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PROJECT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 3 (N r maint activities limits the amount of fill material, so whether the south berm restoration project is determi ai nce or n construction hinges on the amount of existing material available and amount of material necessary to rest ape of the berm to its original condition. Pre - application meetings with both agencies (USACE and South Fl ater :Wthis ent District ( SFWMD)) are scheduled to occur before the end of November and would provide an in project is maintenance requiring a NWP3, or new construction requiring a USACE individual ermit t as long as eleven months to obtain If the project is determined new construction, a SFWMD permit on is ed. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING STATUS Mr. Chandler reported that he and Mr. Dorrill met with Transportatio e ff and Commissioner Hiller to discuss refining the business points of the Services Division's pro t ty funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard early. The County's original cost estimate to resurface Bay var did not include milling. With milling, 8507 161 2 A 2 0 Pell n Bay erYices Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 the cost to resurface the Boulevard increased from $1.1 million to $1.4 - $1.5 million. Last year, the County's Asphalt Rating Score (ARS) for the Boulevard was 61 %. An outside firm recently reevaluated the Boulevard's ARS at 64% and the County revised the resurfacing schedule which delays the project by one year, or until 2016. However, he added according to Mr. Casalanguida, this job should endure ten to fifteen years. If the Services Division loaned the County the funds to mill and resurface the Boulevard early, the County agreed to repay the full amount when the Boulevard is scheduled for resurfacing in 2016, which equates to the time that payment to a contractor would normally occur. In terms of creditworthiness, County bonds are investment rated, and added according to Commissioner Hiller, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to increase the current property tax millage rate of 3.5 mills up to ten mills without holding a voter referendum. Mr. Chandler recommended that the Services Division perform an unbiased survey to determine whether the community wants bicycle lanes installed in the roadway. Also, in the event that the Services Division Board decides to move forward to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard early, he suggested that staff develop a schedule of key events that need to occur including workshops and agreement. Mr. Dorrill agreed with Mr. Chandler's approach and staff would develop a schedule of the necessary steps involved to have resurfacing occur early, as well as obtain cost estimates for an unbiased survey to determine whether the community wants bicycle lanes in the roadway. The Board discussed whether to delay the project, if loaning the County funds would set a precedent, whether to obtain an independent road rating report, holding public workshops and concerns related to a budget shortfall, and deferral of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects already scheduled. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Dorrill reported that preparation work began last week at roadway medians including removing sod, and irrigation retrofitting. Also, staff has started planting annual flowers and laying pine straw. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County received grant funds to remove exotics from Clam Pass Park and adjacent area. Staff is awaiting confirmation of when the work will start and where it will be performed. THE PHIL'S "THANK YOU MYRA" DEDICATION AND TEMPORARY BANNERS Mr. Joseph Crowley, Director of Facility Operations, The Philharmonic Center for the Arts informed the Bo t as part of the "Thank You Myra" dedication events scheduled in January 2012, The Phil received a Collier County stall temporary banners on December 12, 2011 until January 16, 2012. He asked whether the Board had questio one there were none. posted which explains accrual variances. The Tax Collector issued start meeting in January to begin to develop the Fiscal Year 2013 t 1: Pelican Due to financial report is dig payroll expenses have not 1. The Budget Committee will Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 {420 1 1 GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB) NO. 54 REPORTING Mr. Dorrill reported that last year, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board adopted a reporting policy requiring public entities to indicate designated reserve funds as restricted carryforward. Currently, Collier County does not have this policy in place however, staff plans to find out whether the Clerk recommends implementation. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Gerald Moffatt observed that the new crosswalks cannot be seen at night and asked who is purchasing the plants for median landscaping. Mr. Dorrill explained thermoplastic reflective striping will be applied over the concrete headwall adjacent to the brick pavers to illuminate the crosswalk at night. Landscape architect, Ms. Goetz is assisting Mr. Lukasz with purchasing plants. Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned that the Surface Water Management permit was not distributed to the Board because it details responsibilities and obligations regarding landscaping, irrigation, and water quality monitoring. Mr. John Domenie said Bob's Barricades equipment is blocking visibility at the crosswalks under construction; there is some riprap on the west side of the berm south of The Commons; and resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard is not necessary. He asked Mr. Lukasz what the status of removing dodder vine is. Mr. Lukasz responded that dodder vine removal work is underway on Oakmont Parkway and U.S. 41. Mr. Bob Naegele recalled in 2007 that community sentiment regarding installing bicycle lanes in the roadway was favorable initially until residents learned the two travel lanes would be reduced to one and the Services Division should examine Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Chairman Dallas that the P WapMWIces Division accepts joint oversight responsibility with the Pelican Bay Foundation o d nutrient management study. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the moti 'v 11612 A 20 Pelican Bay grvices Div&ion Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 CLAM BAY NUTRIENT STANDARDS Dr. Trecker reported the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) are establishing numeric nutrient limits for dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus for freshwater and saltwater bodies, including estuaries and coastal waters. Dr. David Tomasko, Atkins, Inc., a Collier County consultant, analyzed water quality monitoring data at nine Collier County locations and proposed numeric nutrient standards for Clam Bay. FDEP agrees with Dr. Tomasko's approach to set numeric nutrient standards within the boundaries of current values to maintain a healthy system. The proposal sets the standard as a "swath" measured by conductivity (salinity) versus total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Water quality testing would continue at the same nine sites on a monthly basis and if a percentile of values falls outside of the "swath" it could indicate a problem requiring additional testing. Turrell Hall's upland nutrient management plan would provide an early warning system to address potential problems. Using FDEP input, the EPA plans to set standards by November 2012. However, this timing is tentative and could be affected by political events. The Board has four options: urge FDEP to delay recommendations to the EPA, propose alternative standards to FDEP, endorse Dr. Tomasko's proposal, or do nothing. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mses. Kathy Worley, Mary Johnson, Linda Roth, Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club, and Mr. Bob Naegele expressed concerns about Dr. Tomasko's water quality data, methodology, and conclusions; and agreed that site - specific criteria should be attainable and based on appropriate and long -term water quality data. Mr. Steve Feldhaus defended Dr. Tomasko's proposal that is intended as a long -term management plan for Clam Bay developed using a scientific and regulatory approach and assured the Board the August technical note replaced the July report. Ms. Noreen Murray said both the Foundation and County hired scientific consultants to develop the proposal. Unless the Services Division is ready to hire its own expert then the only choice is to do nothing. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Chandler agreed with Ms. Worley, et.al that the water quality data did not establish a long enough timetable to come to appropriate conclusions and recommended the Board urge the FDEP to delay its recommendation to the EPA. Ms. O'Brien said the Board does not have enough information to make an informed decision, nor enough time to get up to speed, however doing nothing is not an endorsement of Dr. Tomasko's proposal. Ms. Womble agreed. Chairman Dallas recommended the oard do nothing and Dr. Trecker agreed adding that Dr. Tomasko's proposal may not be perfect, but it is sound. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Levy that the Pelican Bay Services Division t take any action regarding Dr. Tomasko's proposal for site - specific nutrient standards criteria in dry. Board voted 9 - I in favor, passing the motion. Mr. Chandler was opposed. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Ms. Womble did not have anything to report because the OLD BUSINESS No discussion NEW BUSINESS No discussion MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE No discussion 851 1612 Pelican Bay Services' Division Board Regular Session Minutes November 2, 2011 �p zo z , AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Feldhaus received news that FDEP approved the permit exemption to install Clam Bay Canoe Trail markers, starting the 21 -day public comment period. There was an issue related to the size of the markers. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) requires the markers dimensions to be two feet by three feet, which is too large, however to change the size of the markers, they need to change the law which would be time consuming, so the County made a decision to get the permit approved, markers installed, and then get the law changed. Also, FDEP approved informational buoys indicating seagrass and shoals, not signs. The Foundation is opposed to installing buoys so the County agreed to not install them and to appeal to the appropriate agencies. In response to Ms. O'Brien's questions regarding how the Services Division could receive this information timely, Mr. Feldhaus explained that until FDEP issued a statement regarding Dr. Tomasko's proposal, the infonnation was the Foundation's internal information and he joined FDEP's mailing list that is open to the public. Dr. Ted Raia said the Clam Bay caution markers #1 -12 that are south of Clam Pass are inappropriate and the County will be replacing signs 413 -32 that are currently 12- inches x 12- inches with 18- inches x 18- inches signs. There are no water quality or seagrass problems in Clam Bay. Salinity comes from the Gulf, but nutrients do not, so the concept to understand is solubility. Dr. Trecker said the explanation is the "common ion effect". Water can only solubilize up to a certain capacity. There will not be enough room for other substances if there is too much salt in the water. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board take a position regarding Clam Bay water quality standards. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dallas made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 3:52 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 851 i6I2� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit DE r I % Y NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNEJ%;'- ,- MCEM8EK*7, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: ri'la iiiiiar 1. Pledge of Allegiance Henning Coyle f 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. October 26, 2011 Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittees b. November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session S. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Project Status e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status f. Community Landscaping g. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach h. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report Mme• Copes: a. Clam Bay Update b. Committee Assignments' c. Announcements Item# iC2 Z 22,E Z6 7. Committee Reports 8. Old Business Copies to: 9. New Business a. Our Health in Pelican Bay (M.A. Womble) b. Pelican Bay Services Division Office Space in Proposed Community Center Addition (S. O'Brien) c. Announcements 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 12/2/20111:34:09 PM December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division l rd6guIr SZaslon 5c. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways - J. Chandler's Comments Page 1 of 1 ResnickLisa Subject: 12/7 1 5c. J. Chandler's Comments re: Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways (Widening) Project From: John Chandler fmailto :johnchandler219@amail.coml Sent: Saturday, November 05, 20119:54 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Pathway Widening Please forward this message to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. At the 12/7 Board Meeting we will probably be asked to approve a contract for the widening of the pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd from the Commons to the North Tram station. Before we approve such a contract, I think that it would be prudent for either Mr. Dorrill or Mr. Levy to show us what the current balance is in our Capital Projects fund, what that balance will be after the crosswalks are completed, and what it will be if we proceed with the subject pathway widening. I think we then need to review our list of potential 2012 capital projects and consider the potential of loaning the County $1.5 MM. I'm primarily interested in making sure that widening the pathway in 2012 does not prevent us from resurfacing PBB in 2012. John Chandler December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Servii Divisio oard Regular Sessi Q 5e. Administrators Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 1 of 8 A M1. • ResnickLisa ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: John Chandler <iohnchandler219 @gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:59 PM Subject: Re: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill /Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request To: ChesneyBarbara <BarbaraChesnev @colliergov.net> Cc: Neil Dorrill <Neil @dmgfl.com> The attached draft just arrived from the County. It's a good start toward a final agreement but there are some revisions that Neil and I will want to discuss with the County. Also, there are some questions that need to be addressed. For example, does the $154,608 quote from Road Safe Traffic Systems assume a bike lane? I suggest that this draft and its attachments be included in the 12/7 meeting packet. John Chandler The Executive Summary says "Attached hereto are quotes" but there are no quotes attached. Please email them. John Chandler On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, John Chandler <4ohnchandler219 @gmail.com> wrote: The PBSD Board has committed to a couple of "workshops" for Pelican Bay residents to discuss this issue during season. Therefore, our Board will not be voting on this topic until, at least, March. Assuming a positive vote at that time, the PBSD Board will then ask that the issue be put to the BCC for approval. John Chandler PBSD Board Member On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:14 PM, ChesneyBarbara < BarbaraChesneyBarbaraChesney @colliergov.net> wrote: Mr. Chandler /Mr. Dorrill: John Wet asked me to forward you the above attached DRAFT ES regarding Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing for your review. Please provide us with your comments or suggested revisions. If you are looking to place on the 12/13/11 agenda, then receipt of your comments would be time sensitive. If looking to be placed on the January BCC agenda, then you of course would have a longer time period to provide. On behalf of John Wet GMD Road Maintenance Barbara t . a December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 2 of 8 161 2 A 20''1 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to authorize the Pelican Bay Services Division to advance funds to the Growth Management Division to open a Work Order under Contract No. 09 -5328 to Better Roads, Inc., for milling and resurfacing and under Contract No. 10 -5410 for pavement markings and restriping to be performed by RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., for work on Pelican Bay Boulevard, subject to reimbursement of the eligible advanced funds in fiscal years 15/16 and 16/17. OBJECTIVE: To obtain authorization to advance $1,244,638.00 to the Growth Management Division to mill and resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard under Contract No. 09 -5328 and for pavement markings and restriping by Road Safe Traffic Systems, Inc., under contract No. 10- 5410, subject to the County reimbursing the advanced funds (less the additional cost of $19,420.00 for brick paver protection (which will not be reimbursed) in the amount of $1,225,218.00, upon the allocation of budgeted funds in fiscal years 15/16 and 16/17 in two equal payments. CONSIDERATIONS: The Community of Pelican Bay is designated as a dependent Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU), whose governing body is the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) oversees the operation of this Unit. The Community receives County Services directly from Collier County and special, non - County services and benefits from the PBSD. Pelican Bay property owners (both residential and commercial) tax and assess themselves each year to pay for additional PBSD services and amenities. Those PBSD funds are collected by the County but are administered by the PBSD Board. The PBSD wants to accelerate the current County programmed resurfacing date for Pelican Bay Boulevard by advancing funds in the amount of $1,244,638.00 to resurface and stripe the road in the current fiscal year, subject to the County's repayment of those advanced funds (less the additional cost for brick paver protection $19,420.00, which will not be reimbursed) without interest upon the allocation of budgeted resurfacing funds in fiscal years 15/16 and 16/17. Attached hereto are quotes from Better Roads, Inc., in the amount of $1,090,030.00 to perform the road milling and resurfacing, and RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., in the amount of $154,608 (Option #1), to provide pavement markings and striping. If approved, the work would be performed under County Contracts No. 09 -5328 and 10 -5410 through the issuance of Work Orders. Should any change orders agreed to by the county staff and staff of PBSD increase the cost of the project, funding to cover the increased cost will be advanced by PBSD and eligible expenses likewise reimbursed by the County out of the FY 15/16 and 16/17 resurfacing budget. As part of this arrangement, County staff will manage and supervise the resurfacing construction project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds in the amount of $ are budgeted within the MSTD General Fund 111 Road Maintenance budget. December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 3 of 8 20 161 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorize Pelican Bay Services Division to advance $1,244,638.00 to the Growth Management Division to mill and resurface, install new pavement markings and striping of Pelican Bay Boulevard under Contracts No. 09 -5328 and 10 -5410, subject to the County reimbursing the advanced funds (less the additional cost for brick paver protection $19,420.00, which will not be reimbursed) in the amount of $1,22,5218.00, upon the allocation of budgeted funds in fiscal years 15/16 and 16/17 in two equal payments. Should any change orders agreed to by the county staff and staff of PBSD increase the cost of the project, funding to cover the increased cost will be advanced by PBSD and eligible expenses likewise reimbursed by the County out of the FY 15/16 and 16/17 resurfacing budget. Prepared by: Pelican Bay Services Division Attachment: Estimates: Better Roads, Inc.; RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. I December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 4 of 8 1612 A BETTER ROADS I 1111 M I, r Mike tai fi'11 IPA Imo} �MM'1 -f� To: Better Roads Inc Contact: Clay Cross Address: 1910 Seward Avenue Phone: (239) 597 -2181 $14,200.00 Naples, FL USA Fax: (239) 597 -1597 Project Name: 11333 Pelican Bay Blvd Resurfacing Bid Number: 11333 Project Location: Naples, FL Bid Date: $246,500.00 Line # Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price 10 Mobilization 1.00 LS $14,200.00 $14,200.00 20 Maintenance Of Traffic 1.00 LS $23,400.00 $23,400.00 30 1.5" Asphalt Milling 123,250.00 SY $2.00 $246,500.00 40 1.5" Type SP -12.5 T /L -C 9,710.00 TON $81.00 $786,510.00 50 Paver Protection 1.00 LS $19,420.00 $19,420.00 Total Price for above Items: $1,090,030.00 Total Bid Price: $1,090,030.00 Notes: • PRICE ADJUSTMENT: A primary cost factor of this bid is based on the price of petroleum. Conditions in this market are highly unstable and beyond the control of the proposer. Therefore, the price bid for the asphalt items included in this proposal may be adjusted each month based on the increase or decrease in the statewide average price of liquid asphalt. The statewide average is determined monthly by the Florida Department of Transportation and is posted on the FDOT website. It is called the Monthly Asphalt Price Index and can be found at (http: / /www.dot.state.fl.us /Construction /fuel &bit /fuel &bit.htm). The amount of the price adjustment for this proposal will be calculated by the following method: For each $0.01 change in the Asphalt Index from the Index on the date of the original proposal and the date the asphalt material is placed the proposed price may be adjusted $0.01 /SY INCH or $.20 per ton. • SPECIFIC JOB CONDITIONS: • This is a unit price quote. Billing based on field measurements. • Prices are good through 12/30/2011 only and may be adjusted at any time in accordance with the Price Adjustment criteria stated above. • This proposal must become part of the contract agreement. • No Permits, Fees, Layout, Bond or Testing Included. If Bond is required add 1.5% • Additional phases of projects will not be added at the original contract amount without Better Roads agreement. • Prices based on one mobilization. Additional mobilizations will be charged at $1,800.00 each in addition to the unit prices. • This quote is based solely upon the information provided to Better Roads by which is as follows: • Exclusions: Any item not specifically listed in this proposal. • GENERAL PROPOSAL CONDITIONS: • 1. This Proposal shall become effective upon acceptance by the party or its representative to whom it is submitted, (the "Owner "). Owner shall be deemed to have accepted this Proposal by allowing Better Roads, Inc. ( "Contractor ") to commence work or preparation for work. The term "Owner" as used in this Proposal shall include the Owner's architect or engineer. Quotations herein, unless otherwise stated, are for immediate acceptance and subject to change. • 2. This Proposal, in addition to any additional terms expressly incorporated herein by reference, contains the entire agreement between the parties. No modification of this Proposal after acceptance shall be binding upon Contractor unless made in writing and signed by the duly authorized representatives of the Owner and Contractor. Furthermore, no backcharge or claim of the Owner for services shall be valid except by the agreement in writing by Contractor before work is performed. 11/14/201110:43:19 AM Page 1 of 2 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Servts f1le io ,JBo Reguj�Seoiono 5e. Administrator's Report -Pelican rd rfac t'R" Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 5 of 8 3. After acceptance of this Proposal as provided, Contractor shall be given a reasonable time in which to make delivery of materials and /or labor to commence and complete the performance of this Proposal. Contractor shall not be responsible for delays or defaults where occasioned by any causes of any kind and extent beyond it's control, including, but not limited to: delays caused by the owner, architect, or engineers; embargoes, shortages of labor, equipment or materials; vendor priorites and allocations, fires, floods, adverse weather, accidents and acts of God. . 4. Owner shall pay Contractor monthly progress payments on or before the tenth (10th) day of each month in the amount of the total value of work completed plus the amount of materials and equipment stored on the project by the end of the previous month, less the aggregate of previous payments to Contractor. Final payment shall be due when the work described in this Proposal is substantially completed. Sales of materials are payable in cash on delivery of the goods and services. . 5. All sums not paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from due date until paid, or the maximum legal rate permitted by law, whichever is less. If legal action is required to collect on this Proposal, then Contractor shall recover from Owner all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees. Further, failure by the Owner to make any payment to Contractor as herein provided, shall allow the Contractor to stop work without prejudice to any other remedy it may have. . 6. Owner shall prepare all work areas so they are acceptable for Contractor's work under this Proposal. Contractor will not be called upon to start work until sufficient areas are ready to insure continued work until job completion. The Owner represents and warrants that it shall coordinate the work and performance of it's own forces and any other Contractor on the site or related to Contractor's work so as not to delay, hinder or interfere with Contractor's performance thereof, and so as not to create additional costs to Contractor. If the work of Contractor is delayed, interfered, suspended or otherwise interrupted by Owner, or by any person or act within the power of Owner to control, then Owner shall be liable to Contractor for any increased or extended costs. . 7. Contractor guarantees all workmanship and materials against defects for a period of one year from the date of installation, except those items carrying a manufacturer's warranty which are warranted to the extent of the manufacturer's warranty. THIS WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION ON PAGE ONE HEREOF. Contractor will not be responsible for special, incidental, or consequential damages. Contractor shall not be responsible for damage to its work by other parties. Any repair work necessitated by Owner - caused damage will be considered as an order for extra work. . 8. Owner shall advise Contractor in writing of any defect or deficiency in the work at the time it is observed. After substantial completion of the work, Owner shall provide a written list of any construction defects or deficiencies to Contractor within fifteen (15) days of receipt of notice of substantial completion from Contractor. Contractor shall remedy those deficiencies within a reasonable time. . 9. Work called for herein is to be performed during Contractor's regular working hours. Overtime rates will be charged for all work performed outside such hours when requested or required by Owner. . 30. All materials shall be furnished in accordance with the respective industry tolerance of color variation, thickness, size, finish, texture and performance standards. . 11. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this Proposal or any of the contract documents for this construction project, Contractor my file a lien or claim on it's behalf in the event that any payment to Contractor is not made as and when provided for by this Proposal. . 12. The Owner shall make no demand for liquidated damages for delays or actual damages for delays in any sum in excess of such amount as may be specifically named in this Proposal, and no liquidated damages may be assessed against Contractor for delays or causes attributed to the Owner, other contractors or arising outside of the scope of this Proposal. ACCEPTED: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Buyer: Signature: Date of Acceptance: 11/14/201110:43:19 AM CONFIRMED: Better Roads Inc. Authorized Signature: Estimator: James S. Maddox (239) 597 -2181 jamesm @betterroads.net Page 2 of 2 04 r RoadSafe 8031 Mainline Parkway Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone # (239)489 -4240 Fax # (239)489 -0078 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 6 of 8 1612 A 20 Phone# DATE 11/9/2011 ESTIMATE 239.333.4888 ACCT # ESTIMATE # 25194 Please sign & fax Fax # COL -1 ATTENTION: ALEX if approved with confirmation of Contract or P.O.# 239.333.4889 JOB NAME for billing purposes. BOARD OF COUNTY ESTIMATOR PELICAN BAY BLVD BICYCLE FACILITY IMP COMMISSIONERS D.C. ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLES If sending a PO BOX 413016 JOB LOCATION Contract/Purchase NAPLES, FL. 34101 -3016 Order. A copy of our POC DOUG CROUSE PELICAN BAY BLVD Estimate is requested. PLAN DATE: 6/1/2007 REVISION DATE JOB # —F "LETTER OF COMMENCEMENT" WITH "N.T.O." INFORMATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING ANY PROJECT. QTY UNITS ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT $ TOTAL OPTION #1 (EXISTING CONDITIONS) 17,800 NF PW6SK10 -30 6 "WHITE SKIP(10- 30)PAINT 2,244 SF PPMARROW "ARROW" F.D.O.T./PAINT (66) 0.35 6,230.00 IQ000 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (HOLDING LINES) 2.00 4,488.00 69,400 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARD) 0.35 3,500.00 69,400 LF PY6SL 6" SOLID YELLOW PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARD) 0.35 24,290.00 800 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT(STOPBARS) 0.35 24,290.00 2,480 LF PWINTXW... 12" WHITE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 1.65 1,320.00 4,080 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT(INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALKS) 0.86 2,132.80 8,900 LF TW6SK10 -30 6" WHITE SKIP(10- 30)THERMOPLASTIC 1.65 6,732.00 1,122 SF TPMAR "ARROW "F.D.O.T /THERMO 0.80 7,]20.00 5,000 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (HOLDING LINES) 330 3,702.60 34,700 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC 0,80 4,000.00 34,700 LF TY6SL 6" SOLID YELLOW THERMOPLASTIC 0.80 27,760.00 400 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC /STOPBARS 0.80 27,760.00 1,240 LF TWINTXW... 12" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC INT'L CROSSWALK 2.69 1,076.00 2,040 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALKS) 1.10 1,364.00 1,100 EA A/RPM R/W RED/ WHITE RPM INSTALLED 2.69 5,487.60 OPTION M Subtotal 3.05 3,355.00 154,608.00 OPTION #2 (4' BIKE LANE) 69,400 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (BIKE LANE) 17,800 NF PW6SK10 -30 6 "WHITE SKIP(10- 30)PAINT 0.35 24,290.00 2,244 SF PPMARROW "ARROW" F.D.O.T. /PAINT 0.35 6,230.00 10,000 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (HOLDING LINES) 2.00 4,488.00 j 1 1 0.35 3,500.00 A late payment charge shall be imposed not to exceed the maximum allowed by law or 1 1/2% per month, whichever is less. Purchaser agrees to Seller pay all costs and expenses of collection, suit, or other legal action, including all actural attorney's and paralegal fees, incurred presuit, through trial, on appeal, or in any administrative proceedings brought as a result of the commercial relationship between them. Any cause of action which Seller may have against Purchaser may be assigned by Seller to Road Safe Traffic Systems or any affiliate thereof without the Purchaser. consent of Please sign & fax if approved with confirmation Contract P.O.# of or for billing purposes. TOTAL BID PRICE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS SHEET'S 1 4500098994 SIGNS ARE MOUNTED ON GALV U- CHANNEL POSTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. /PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN TO SCHEDULE WORK. SIGNATURE: Page 1 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 7 of 8 16 ' 2A 20 RoadSafe ESTIMATE Phone # DATE 11/9/2011 8031 Mainline Parkway 239.333.4888 ACCT # ESTIMATE # 25194 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Please sign & fax Phone # (239)489 -4240 Fax # COL -1 ATTENTION: ALEX if approved with confirmation of Fax # (239)489 -0078 Contract or P.O.# 239.333.4889 JOB NAME for billing Purposes. BOARD OF COUNTY ESTIMATOR PELICAN BAY BLVD BICYCLE FACILITY IMP COMMISSIONERS If sending a ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLES D.C. JOB LOCATION Contract/Purchase PO BOX 413016 Order. NAPLES, FL. 34101 -3016 POC DOUG CROUSE PELICAN BAY BLVD A copy of our Estimate is requested. PLAN DATE: 6/1/2007 REVISION DATE JOB # "LETTER OF COMMENCEMENT" WITH "N.T.O." INFORMATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING ANY PROJECT. QTY UNITS ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT $ TOTAL 69,400 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARD) 0.35 24,290.00 69,400 LF PY6SL 6" SOLID YELLOW PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARDS) 0.35 24,290.00 800 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT(STOPBARS) 1.65 1,320.00 2,480 LF PW12XWA... 12" WHITE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 0,86 2,132.80 4,080 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT(INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALKS) 1.65 6,732.00 9,720 NF PW6SK6 -10 6" WHITE SKIP (6 -10) PAINT 0,35 3,402.00 4,986 SF PPMBA "BIKE ", "LANE"," ARROW " /PVMT. MESSAGE /PAINT (2 COATS) 2.00 9,972.00 34,700 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (BIKE LANE) 0,80 27,760.00 8,900 NF TW6SK10 -30 6" WHITE SKIP(10- 30)THERMOPLASTIC 0,80 7,120.00 1,122 SF TPMAR "ARROW" F.D.O.T/THERMO 3.30 3,702.60 5,000 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (HOLDING LINES) 0,80 4,000.00 34,700 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (NEW EDGE LINES) 0,80 27,760.00 34,700 LF TY6SL 6" SOLID YELLOW THERMOPLASTIC (NEW EDGE LINESO 0.80 27,760.00 400 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC /STOPBARS 2,69 1,076.00 1,240 LF TWINTXW... 12" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC INT'L CROSSWALK 1,10 1,364.00 2,040 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC INT'L CROSSWALK 2,69 5,487.60 4,860 NF TW6SK6 -10 6" WHITE SKIP (6 -10) THERMOPLASTIC 0,80 3,888.00 1,100 EA A/RPM R/W RED / WHITE RPM INSTALLED 3.05 3,355.00 OPTION #2 Subtotal 223,920.00 OPTION #3 (BIKE LANE W/ 5' STRIPED BUFFER) 138,800 LF PW8SL 8" SOLID WHITE PAINT 0.49 68,012.00 41,640 LF PW 18SL 18" SOLID WHITE PAINT 1.10 45,804.00 2,244 SF PPMARROW "ARROW" F.D.O.T./PAINT 2,00 4,488.00 10,000 LF PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT 0.35 3,500.00 69,400 1 LF I PW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARD) 0,35 24,290.00 A late payment charge shall be imposed not to exceed the maximum allowed by law or 1 1/2% per month, whichever is less. Purchaser agrees to pay Seller all costs and expenses of collection, suit, or other legal action, including all actural attorney's and paralegal fees, incurred presuit, through trial, on appeal, or in any administrative proceedings brought as a result of the commercial relationship between them. Any cause of action which Seller may have against Purchaser may be assigned by Seller to Road Safe Traffic Systems or any affiliate thereof without the consent of Purchaser. Please sign & fax if approved with confirmation of Contract or P.O.# for billing purposes. TOTAL BID PRICE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS SHEET'S 4500098994 SIGNS ARE MOUNTED ON GALV U- CHANNEL POSTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. /PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN TO SCHEDULE WORK. Page 2 SIGNATURE: December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status Executive Summary & Estimates from Better Roads, Inc., & RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. Page 8 of 8 # a 1612 420 RoadSate ''� ESTIMATE TRArFiC SY "'' Phone # DATE 11/9/2011 8031 Mainline Parkway 239.333.4888 ACCT # ESTIMATE # 25194 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Please sign & fax Phone # (239)489 -4240 Fax # COL -1 ATTENTION: ALEX if approved with confirmation of Fax # (239)489 -0078 Contract or P.O.# 239.333.4889 JOB NAME Iorbilling purposes. BOARD OF COUNTY ESTIMATOR PELICAN BAY BLVD BICYCLE FACILITY IMP COMMISSIONERS If sending a ATTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLES D.C. JOB LOCATION Contract/Purchase PO BOX 413016 Order. NAPLES, FL. 34101 -3016 POC DOUG CROUSE PELICAN BAY BLVD A copy of our Estimate is requested. PLAN DATE: 6/1/2007 REVISION DATE JOB # "LETTER OF COMMENCEMENT" WITH "N.T.O." INFORMATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO STARTING ANY PROJECT. QTY UNITS ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION UNIT $ TOTAL 69,400 LF PY6SL 6" SOLID YELLOW PAINT (NEW EDGE LINES PER STANDARD) 0.35 24,290.00 800 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT(STOPBARS) 1.65 1,320.00 2,480 LF PW 12XWA... 12" WHITE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 0,86 2,132.80 4,080 LF PW24SL 24 "SOLID WHITE PAINT INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 1.65 6,732.00 9,720 NF PW6SK6 -10 6" WHITE SKIP (6-10) PAINT 0.35 3,402.00 4,986 SF PPMBA "BIKE ", "LANE ", "AP ROW"/PVMT. MESSAGE /PAINT (2 COATS) 2,00 9,972.00 69,400 LF TW8SL 8 "SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC 0.93 64,542.00 20,820 LF TW 18SL 18" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC 1.65 34,353.00 1,122 SF TPMAR "ARROW" F.D.O.T/THERMO 3.30 3,702.60 5,000 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (NEW EDGE LINES) 0,80 4,000.00 34,700 LF TW6SL 6" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC (NEW EDGE LINES) 0,80 27,760.00 34,700 LF TY6SK10 -30 6" YELLOW SKIP(10- 30)THERMOPLASTIC 0.80 27,760.00 400 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC /STOPBARS 2.69 1,076.00 1,240 LF TW 12SL 12 "SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 1.10 1,364.00 2,040 LF TW24SL 24" SOLID WHITE THERMOPLASTIC INTERNATIONAL CROSSWALK 2,69 5,487.60 4,860 LF TW6SK6 -10 6" WHITE SKIP (6 -10) THERMOPLASTIC 0,80 3,888.00 8,070 EA A/RPM R/W RED/ WHITE RPM INSTALLED 3.05 24,613.50 OPTION #3 Subtotal 392,489.50 NOTES: THIS ESTIMATE IS A "BEST GUESS" ESTIMATE. FINAL QUANTITIES MAY VERY. A late payment charge shall be imposed not to exceed the maximum allowed by law or 1 1/2% per month, whichever is less. Purchaser agrees to pay Seller all costs and expenses of collection, suit, or other legal action, including all actuml attorney's and paralegal fees, incurred presuit, through trial, on appeal, or in any administrative proceedings brought as a result of the commercial relationship between them. Any cause of action which Seller may have against Purchaser may be assigned by Seller to Road Safe Traffic Systems or any affiliate thereof without the consent of Purchaser. Please sign & fax if approved with confirmation of Contract or P.O.# for billing purposes. TOTAL BID PRICE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS SHEET'S 4500098994 $771,017.50 SIGNS ARE MOUNTED ON GALV U- CHANNEL POSTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. /PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN TO SCHEDULE WORK. " SIGNATURE' Page 3 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status K. Dallas Loan County $1.5 Million for Repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard Fund 322 Non -Ad Valorem Cash Flow Sheet Page 1 of 2 ., 1 R 1- Res►nick,Lisb From: Keith Dallas [keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 4:01 PM 161 ^ To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle; McCaughtryMary Subject: Fund 322 Cash Flows Attachments: Fund 322 Cash Flows Loan County $1.5 Lisa, Attached is a sheet for Fund 322 that shows hypothetically the cash flow of the fund, beginning the first of the 2012 fiscal year and going out 10 years, assuming the PBSD does loan the County $1.5 million to resurface Pelican Bay Blvd. It is an update of the one I did earlier this year, taking into account recent activities, known cost changes, and updating for known timing changes. Specifically I have assumed: • The beginning balance comes from page 1 of our 2012 budget, using the "carry forward" and "rolled capital project/program carry forward" lines from the "capital projects" column. It is a reasonable approximation of our starting Fund 322 assets, given what we knew at the point of developing the 2012 Budget. • The assumed Capital Charges assumptions are shown by year below the cash flow projections. • The 2012 Crosswalk figures and Landscaping came from PBSD staff, based on actual costs to date, plus projections for the rest of the project. The crosswalk figures include those financed by the Foundation (the majority of which had been reimbursed to the PBSD by the end of fiscal 2011 and is reflected in our beginning asset balance). It also includes Engineering and moving street lighting cost. • The cost of widening the pathway to 8' on a portion of PBB is based on the first actual proposal we received. Staff is in the process of obtaining hopefully lower quotes. • I moved rebuilding the Myra Daniels pathway to fiscal 2013, since it will probably take that long to renovated St. Williams. • The rest of the items are based on last year's priorities set by the Board, and Wilson Miler's estimates, increased for inflation from 2011. They do not reflect any other projects beyond 2015 that in the future the PBSD may decide are needed. As with any projections, they should be taken with a grain of salt, since they are out of date by the time they are printed. Further the actual timing and scope of future projects may be revised by future PBSD Boards, producing results significantly different than shown. Nonetheless, I think the cash flow projections do indicate that the $1.5 million loan will stress the fund and probably cause the PBSD to alter some of its priorities. This is particularly true if we continue to want to maintain a $500,00 minimum balance in the fund, to protect ourselves from unforeseen emergencies. Keith 161 2 p20 V C c c� +� 1 w t0 s" L':O ©QOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 C O % ° 1 ,l 07$ M 41) 00000000 L L U .+. + m U N O O O L lfl O o C. C_ C ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O N M > Q x-'0000000000 4r 4r Q O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N L L C C M M M M M M M M M M N 0 a .0 c� a N L (LO fu (c � 0 w 7 m -o O —O 0) O N O" U' 01 O ` y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >+ cn c LL 0 *� u O L-0000000000 + O L � M tOtOtDtDtDtDt000t o +oF- wn ')-2i � � � C 0000000000 00 O� a m m o m 'C w c o0 0 0 C '� CL) t m 9 m O N N U Q) ri Q� N Ln tD M O O O tt tD M 0+ 0000 i (r3 -o A i (1) m Q1 �W C 00 0 M 00 m tD +N-1 O� N o Q" -2 m O. M 0 M M tD tO N [F 00 Lf» m -Y O .Y •-{ pp 0 C m C H (0 � x-+ (,� U ra m N .-I M —q 0 0 0 0 0 r-I N m m fPr M N i m O� L + r0 O (0 L N - Id `$ N L } fPr fPr Mfr . ifr tfr . ,. N N � N d 0 > o O O r fO L ru CO a°i N LL o N LL U' SP E a) u U 0�0 IL 09 N M M M to O Q1 O 00 U (d (U + L Z VI m c �1 H C m d1 M m w m ri Ln 1-1 Lr d' O M 0 N k 1 L!) O O m 0) � `9 _° U ,LAG M C r-I d' M N r-1 qt 0 Oi +� � > Z m� O a m a � *� -0 Li L 4fr iA- tfr 4d4 AP, if)- tfr ri —4 CO 0 O c o m m o fl. L c O 0 01 a' {i4 tfr � � o >- (U C O a 0 a� T C D m N +' m O Ln L a 0 00 E r 000j W. 9 13 ° > U , N N N N N N N N N N 000000000000000000 fp rru 0 V EO a >. Lr N(2 c Q 0) O C M M M M M M M M M M U C "' r0 ° ,�yoN c >O CL,I�I�I�L�I�L�I�r�L� () a ro 3M O U o 0 — rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn N N N N N N N N N N a� m= 0 > E Q N i Z � O ° 4fr 4A 4fr jfr ifr {fr Mfr ifr ifr ter ro a m Q a� c0ina 0Lo T4 �a + + + }1 0 U) L OOOOOOOOOO O- O �. C� R-0 f6 Q m C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 31L W VI V) 00000000000 00000 O O O C C O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 —_ O O i E t° U i O 0 v, r Vi- �'fr -sr {fr Vfr Mfr tfr AA ifr [tr fz O m 00. O U Q Q '-1 '� o 0 o tfr ttr •- J p0�0000000 a- +za - ' fa >- CT ro ra fa U N tD tD {fr 4fr ffr it f fr ffr [F M O C C w ` .--I 00 N O O O O Cl C C C C -� c-0 c c c O rory U (U c Ls�m� 03(A(A(t)d' O o r-I O N O O M 0 0 0 U 00 't 00 qt 01 N d- r4 N ko 0 0 o C (0 00 t 00 00 M 00 Ln tD +-I O 0 0 0 000 (000N (= M M tD N 00 Lr _4 re) 00 00 00 0) 0 j r to 0) O m 00 N L1) Ln rl M r" 1-1 Lf) O O 00 O O M O >. C, ih Vr ifr i& , j ,� nj N N N N O 'fr 4fr 4drr m N O H L.- L N M lf1 lD n M M O +-I - L 0 M ,-1 .--1 r-I ri r-I r4 ri r1 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C �C O U In r-I Y 161 2 p20 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status - M. Levy Comments Page 1 of 1 From: Mike Levy To: ResnickLisa Subject: Spread Sheet for Item 5e - Funding Requirements for Capital Projects (Fund 22) Date: Wednesday, December 07, 20117:04:24 AM 1612 A20 Thanks to Chairman Dallas for modifying the spread sheet developed last April during the PBSD Budget FY 12 Budget preparation. This spread sheet has been modified by Chairman Dallas to show the impact of loaning the County $1.5 million. I believe that it is a minimum projection of capital funds required. For example, with favorable feedback from the community, PBSD may wish to complete the remaining crosswalks in 2012 and to continue with the landscaping renovation. The modified spread sheet does not provide any funds for the remaining cross walks, nor does it provide any additional funds for landscaping until 2015. Also, during the CIP Town Meetings, there was much favorable community reaction to widening the pathways on Pelican Bay Blvd (as well as Gulf Park). Funds are provided for widening the pathways on one side of the road only. Mike Levy mikelevy435 @gmail.com December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status K. Lukasz Comments re: Cash Flow - Lake Bank Restoration Page 1 of 1 I � 1612 A20 From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:51 AM To: LukaszKyle; ResnickLisa Cc: McCaughtryMary Subject: Re: Cash Flow - Lake Bank Restoration Kyle, Good point. Lisa, make sure rest of Board sees this. Keith On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:47 AM, LukaszKyle wrote: Mr. Dallas, One thing I notice on your Cash Flow sheet is that there is only funding for lake bank restoration for the current FY12. We would need to continue to budget additional funding for this in future years approximately equal to this amount. Otherwise they would deteriorate well beyond what the community would consider acceptable. Kyle December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status - Tentative Timeline Page 1 of 1 16 ' 2A 20 Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing (Tentative) Timeline 2011 December 12/2 Receive draft executive summary / recommendation from Nick Casalanguida 12/7 Pelican Bay Services Division Board to review and approve draft executive summary / recommendation 12/13 Board of County Commissioners to approve executive summary / recommendation 2012 January Obtain proposals for bicycle lane survey; J. Chandler recommended online survey company (verify only one vote per resident /household) February Pelican Bay Services Division Board to review survey proposals and make selection February -March Perform survey March -April Pelican Bay Services Division Board to review survey results; approve striping May -June Milling, resurfacing, and striping work could be done as early as May, and as late as June (as long as complete prior to the rainy season) 12/1/20111:48:14 PM December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report - Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status - PBPOA Proposal Page 1 of 1 161 2A 20 PELICAN BAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 600, • Naples, FL 34108 (239) 566 -9707 • FAX (239) 598 -9485 • E -Mail PBPOAgpbpropertyowners.org November 16, 2011 Keith Dallas, Chair Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive Naples FL 34108 Subject: Inter -fund transfer from PBSD to Collier County The PBPOA is not in favor of the current status of the preliminary proposal of processing an inter -fund transfer of 1.1 (or 1.5) million dollars to resurface the Pelican Bay Boulevard in 2012. However, we do support providing a secured loan which would be payable in full in 2015. To secure this loan, collateral would be the twelve acres of land presently owned by the County within Pelican Bay. A default (2015) would result in the transfer of the twelve acre property to the Foundation. We do not support any delayed repayments, interest free or unsecured loan to the County. Sincerely, N "&ff#Vr M. Vokfur, Susan Boland, President Cc: J.Hoppensteadt, W. Carpenter, Chair December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 1 of 10 1 b I A -a 20 P � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Partnership Initiative (CPI) Grant Agreement and authorize all necessary budget amendments to recognize grant revenue in the amount of $53,000 for a Dune Restoration Project in the Clam Bay Park area. OBJECTIVE: To approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Coastal Partnership Initiative Grant Agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection for a Dune Restoration Project in the Clam Bay Park area. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County applied for a CPI Grant which was approved by the Board on November 9, 2010. The County was awarded grant funds in the amount of $53,000. This Grant will allow Coastal Zone Management staff and its contracted vendor to remove exotic plants from the dune line landward 150 feet throughout the Clam Pass Park area. The proposed Dune Restoration Project is a twofold project. This project will enhance and restore the beach dune system by first removing all non - native invasive plant species and, secondly, by planting native species after the invasive plant species have been removed. Non- native plant species such as Scaevola ( Scaevola taccada), Australian Pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifoliusa) are encroaching upon and smothering the native plant species within the Clam Pass Park area. Shallow roots from non- native plants do not allow for dunes to become stable and cause sand loss, habitat loss and beach erosion. Once the existing invasive plant species have been removed, native plants such as Sea Oats, Beach Elder and Beach Morning Glory will be planted along the beach front landward 15 feet. Areas behind the 15 foot planted zone will allow for natural recruitment of native plant species. FISCAL IMPACT: Total project cost is $106,000. Grant revenue represents $53,000 and requires a 50% match with cash, in -kind or a combination of both. A budget amendment is required to recognize grant proceeds in the amount of $53,000 to Public Services Grant Fund (709) Project 33183. Collier County will provide $53,000 in cash match including staff time and operating supplies for a total project cost of $106,000. A budget amendment is required in the amount of $53,000 to Public Services Grant Match Fund (710) Project 33183. Cash match is available within TDC Beach Renourishment Fund (195) Project 90044. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The Dune Restoration Project will support the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the County Growth Management Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County's Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — CMG RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Partnership Initiative (CPI) Grant Agreement December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 2 of 10 ZU, and authorize all necessary budget amendments to accept grant revenue in the amount of $53,000 for a Dune Restoration Project in the Clam Bay Park area. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Department Director December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 3 of 10 RECAP 1612 A 2 0 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners AGENDA November 08, 2011 9:00 AM 16 D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION 14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Partnership Initiative (CPI) Grant Agreement and authorize all necessary budget amendments to recognize grant revenue in the amount of $53,000 for a Dune Restoration Project in the Clam Bay Park area. For the removal of non - native plant species while replacing and replanting native plant species December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT A PROJECT WORK PLAN DEP Agreement # CM210 Proiect Title: Collier County Dune Restoration Proiect Grantee Organization Name: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Chief Elected Official or Agency Head: Fred Coyle Title: Chairman Address: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 City: Naples Zip Code: 34112 -5746 Area Code and Telephone Number: (239) 252 -8097 Area Code and Facsimile Machine Telephone Number: (239) 252 -3602 E -Mail Address: Fredcoylena,collier og vnet Proiect Manager Organization Name: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Name: Pamela Keyes Address: 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 103 City: Naples Zip Code: 34112 Area Code and Telephone Number: (239) 252 -2980 Area Code and Facsimile Machine Telephone Number: (239) 353 -2950 E -Mail Address: pamelake es ,colliergov.net Fiscal Agent Organization Name: Collier County Board of County Commissioners Name: Pamela Keyes Address: 3299 East Tamiami Trail City: Naples Zip Code: 34112 Area Code and Telephone Number: (239) 252 -2980 Area Code and Facsimile Machine Telephone Number: (239) 353 -2950 E -Mail Address: Pamelakeyes0kolliergov.net DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 1 of 7 1612 A2 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 5 of 10 Mailing Address for Warrant (if other than the Grantee address): 16 ' \J A 20 FEID No.: 59- 6000558 DUNS No.: 076997790 Project Location: Identify the location of the project and include the county /counties involved in the project area. If this project affects water, include the watershed and hydrologic unit code. The Dune Restoration Project is located in Collier County within Clam Pass Park. County in which project is located: Collier DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 2 of 7 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session - -, 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach 9 P P 9 9 .I Page 6 of 10 x" Abstract ., ]ReAriotion: Briefly but completely describe the problem to be addressed and the project solution to Pthe problem Pliaase` emit to one page. Collier County, located on Florida's southwest coast, has over 40 miles of beach and dune habitats that are threatened by encroachment of non -native invasive plants such as Scaevola, Australian pine and Brazilian pepper. The county's coastal dune habitats are vital not only for keystone species such as the gopher tortoise, but also for loggerhead sea turtles and shore birds, such as the piping plover and least tern. Native plants (railroad vine, sea oats and beach elder) are critical for stabilizing and building the dune system; however, these native species are being crowded -out and overrun by exotic invasive species. Collier County requests FCMP funds to implement a dune restoration project to restore the beach dune system within the Clam Pass Park, one of Collier County's most heavily visited parks with over 115,000 visitors a year. The proposed dune restoration is twofold: it will enhance and restore the beach dune system by removing all non- native invasive plant species, then native species will be planted along the beach front. County staff will monitor the beaches and dunes for any exotic plant re- growth and immediately remove any invasives found to be reseeding, and will monitor new plantings to ensure their healthy growth. Once the native species are planted, the root systems will immediately begin to help stabilize and build the dune system. The treatment and removal of invasive plants will begin on the westernmost dune vegetation and continue landward 150 feet. Native plants will be planted on 1 -foot centers using a hydro gel to ensure survival throughout the winter. Collier County will plant 69,000 plants in the Clam Pass Park area, and will supply the ropes, posts and educational signs to keep visitors off the newly - planted vegetation. A volunteer day will also conducted to assist the contractor, Earth Balance, in planting native vegetation. Information on beaches, dunes, erosion, and invasive species will be provided to all volunteers. FCMP funds will be used for contractual services. Non - federal matching funds will be derived from salaries (county staff supervising plant removal and native plantings); use of county equipment (trucks, gas); supplies (ropes, posts and educational signage); a portion of contractual services; and costs for any permits needed for vehicle beach access ($250 per vehicle). DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 3 of 7 a r61 A 4 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along each Page 7 of 10 Proiect Description, Related Tasks and Deliverables: Provide a detailed description of the work to be performed for the project. Project descriptions must include specific tasks for the completion of the project, deliverables specific to the tasks (required reports such as progress reports and final reports are not deliverables as they are required by all agreements and are not project specific), estimated timeline for the completion of the tasks and submittal of the deliverables and the criteria that will be used to evaluate the successful completion of the task. PAYMENT WILL BE BASED ON COMPLETION OF DELIVERABLES: Deliverables must be submitted and approved prior to payment. Deliverables must be quantifiable, measurable and verifiable. Each deliverable must be directly related to a task specified in the scope of work and must identify the minimum level of service to be performed. Task 1 ($57,604.16): Treatment and removal of invasive plant species will begin on the westernmost dune vegetation and will go landward 150 feet. All woody species and shrubs within the 50 to 75 feet of the beach will be cut into 4 -foot to 6 -foot pieces and scattered or piled inside the thicker vegetation out of sight of the beach. All remaining targeted invasive species landward and not visible from the beach will be killed -in -place with an approved herbicide. Deliverable 1.1 ($57,604.16): Project oversight and photos of the treatment and removal of invasive plant species. Completion Date: January 31, 2012 Budget Information: $53,000 -FCMP & $4,604.14 -Match Salaries: $2,961.92 -Staff time is estimated to be 128 hours of oversight. The Environmental Specialist will oversee this project and the hourly rate is $23.14. Fringe Benefits: $1,642.24 will be used as match in Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist oversight. These benefits will be reported as actual cost paid. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. Contractual Services: $53,000 will be contracted to, Earth Balance for the removal of exotics. Task 2 ($43,104.16): Replant native plants such as Sea Oats, Railroad vine, and Beach Elder along the front of the beach dune and back 15 feet. Deliverable 2.1 ($43,104.16): Project photos of the replanting of native plants such as Sea Oats, Railroad vine, and Beach Elder along the front of the beach dune and back 15 feet. Completion Date: January 31, 2012 Budget Information: $43,104.16 -Match Salaries: $2,961.92 -Staff time is estimated to be 128 hours of oversight. The Environmental Specialist will oversee this project and the hourly rate is $23.14. Fringe Benefits: $1,642.24 will be used as match in Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist oversight. These benefits will be reported as actual cost paid. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. Other Expenses: The Environmental Specialist will use the County truck as match. All gas usage and a percentage of truck usage will be documented. Staff estimates this usage at $500 Contractual Services: $38,000 of cash match will be contracted to Earth Balance for the planting of native plants. Task 3 ($3,379.10): Protect Dunes and educate citizens. Collier County will install ropes and post educational signs to keep people off the newly planted plants. Deliverable 3.1 ($3,379.10): Photos of rope and signage installed. Completion Date: January 31, 2012 Budget Information: $3,379.10 -Match Salaries: $694.20 -Staff will be onsite to oversee the contractor, answer any questions and educate the public and document the progress. Staff time is estimated to be 30 hours of project coordination, education and project oversight. Also, the Environmental Specialist will be responsible for ordering supplies, tracking Purchase Orders and maintaining all associated paperwork. The Environmental Specialist will oversee this project and the hourly rate is $23.14. DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 4 of 7 �. V December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach Page 8of10 Fringe Benefits: $384.90 will be used as match in Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist position. These benefits will be reports as actual cost paid. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. Supplies: $1,200 - Collier County staff will order and purchase ropes, posts and educational signs for the contractor to install. Contractual Services: $1,100 will be contracted to Earth Balance to install ropes and post and educational signs. Task 4 ($1,193.18): Volunteer Planting Day. Education about beaches, dunes, erosion, exotic plants and invasive species will also be provided to all volunteers. Deliverable 4.1 ($1,193.18): Sign in Sheets and copies of materials (hand -outs, PowerPoint presentations. Completion Date: February 29, 2012 Budget Information: $1,193.18 -Match Salaries: $436.58 - Environmental Specialist — 20 hours, $23.14, = $462.80. University of Florida Sea Grant Agent - 12 hours, $22.00= $264.00. Senior Equipment Operator — 12 hours, $15.30= $183.60. The County is only claiming $436.58 as match. Supplies: $500 will be used towards the purchase of sea oats, hydrating gel, shovels, gloves, water for the volunteers. Fringe Benefits: Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist will be $256.60. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. Task 5 ($719.40): Exotic Monitoring. Deliverable 5.1 ($719.40): Exotic Monitoring Report. Completion Date: April 30, 2012 Budget Information: $719.40 -Match Salaries: $462.80 -Staff time is estimated to be 20 hours to monitor the project area, document any exotic recruitment and contact the contractor if needed. Once completed the Environmental Specialist will write a final report to submit to the Granting Agency on the projects progress. The Environmental Specialist will oversee this project and the hourly rate is $23.14. Fringe Benefits: $256.60 will be will be used as match in Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist oversight. These benefits will be reported as actual cost paid. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 5 of 7 t December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sess1 6 f ' { A 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Alon ea¢� 20 1 Page 9 of 10 !!l111 Total Project Budget Schedule: Please type the total dollar amounts in all applicable categories and leave other categories blank. If your grant Agreement requires match, it must equal the FCMP funds requested, or one hundred percent (100 %). A Budget Category FCMP Funds MATCH Funds 1. Salaries 7,517.42 2. Fringe Benefits 4,182.58 _ 3. Travel 4. Equipment Purchases 5. Supplies 1,700 6. Contractual Services 53,000 39.100 7. Other Expenses 500 8. Indirect Charges FCMP Total $53,000 Match Total $53,000 NOAA Project Total $106,000 Total Project Cost: $106,000 (The total cost of the project includes all costs for the project provided by all funding sources.) DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 6 of 7 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along BeacA 20 Page 10 of 10 Proiect Budget Narrative: Describe line items for each applicable budget category shown on the budget schedule. Provide sufficient detail to show cost relationship to project activities. Complete for both FCMP and match items, if applicable. If in -kind match is being provided by a third party, a letter from that party confirming the amount and tyVe of that match must be included with this project work plan. Note: Indirect costs are not allowed as match. FCMP Funds: Contractual Services $53,000: $53,000 will be contracted out to Earth Balance for the removal of exotic vegetation. Match Funds: Salaries $7,991.24: The Environmental Specialist will be supervising and managing all grant related activities. The Environmental Specialist position is compensated at $23.14 hourly. This rate does not include Fringe Benefits (please see below). It is estimated that all deliverable will take 338 hours to complete. 24 of these hours will be completed by the University of Florida Sea Grant Agent - 12 hours, $22.00= $264.00. Senior Equipment Operator —12 hours, $15.30= $183.60 Fringe Benefits $4,182.58: Fringe Benefits for the Environmental Specialist oversight for all deliverables. These benefits will be reported as actual cost paid. This number was derived from actual hourly cost of fringe benefits being $12.83. Supplies $1,700: $500 will be used towards the purchase of sea oats, hydrating gel, shovels, gloves, water for the volunteers. $1,200 - Collier County staff will order and purchase ropes, posts and educational signs for the contractor to install. Contractual Services $39,100: $39,100 will be contracted out to Earth Balance for exotic plant removal and the planting of native plants. Other Expenses $500: The Environmental Specialist will use the County truck as match. All gas usage and a percentage of truck usage will be documented. DEP Agreement No. CM210, Attachment A, Page 7 of 7 1l eU December 7, 2011 �'e�can Bay Services Divteion l3oarfi regular Session 161 2 5g. Administrator's portl- Update on Renvo�ring �xo6rA from Clam Pass Park Pelican Bay Foundation Authorization to Collier County /Coastal Zone Management to Remove Invasive Vegetation at "Park Site & Conservation Area" Page 1 of 2 Via Mail and Email December 1, 2011 J. Gary McAlpin, Director Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite 103 Naples, FI- 34112 Pamela Keyes, Environmental Specialist Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Suite 103 Naples, FL 34112 Dear Gary and Pam: You have requested the prior written approval of the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation" for the removal of certain invasive plants species in the areas defined as the Park Site and Conservation Area in that certain Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions (the "Declaration ") dated April 13, 1982, filed in OR Book 000966, Pages 001844 -53. Section 2(a) of the Declaration provides that "All vegetation in PARK SITE and CONSERVATION AREA shall be left in its native state. However, when removal of any vegetation in PARK SITE or CONSERVATION AREA is necessary, a plan for such removal by OWNER shall be submitted to DECLARANT for its prior written approval." You have advised us that the County has received a DEP Grant Agreement No. CM210 (the "Grant Agreement ") for treatment and removal of invasive plant species that will begin on the westernmost dune vegetation and will go landward 150 feet. The Grant Agreement provides that all woody species and shrubs within the 50 to 75 feet of the beach will be cut into 4 -foot to 6 -foot pieces and scattered or piled inside the thicker upland vegetation (not in any areas populated by mangroves), out of sight of the beach, and that all remaining targeted invasive species landward and not visible from the beach will be killed -in -place with an approved herbicide. You have further described in greater detail the specifics of your plan for removal of the invasive species in a meeting with the Foundation's President and Secretary on November 15, 2011 in the County offices of the Coastal Zone Management Department, indicating that such removal will primarily be conducted along the length of beach between markers 36A and 39A. Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. ® 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard ® Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597 -8081 ® (239) 597 -6802 FAX ® E -Mail: memberservices@pelicanbay.org 161 ,4 December 7; 2011' PAliga B.4 Divi ion.Aard'Regular Session 5g. Administrator's Report - Update on emo`vin� Exotics from Clam Pass Park Pelican Bay Foundation Authorization to Collier County /Coastal Zone Management to Remove Invasive Vegetation at "Park Site & Conservation Area" Page 2 of 2 Please be advised that the Foundation grants its approval for the removal of invasive plant species in the Park Site and Conservation Area as per the Grant Agreement and the specifics of your removal plan as relayed on November 15, 2011. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, PELIC4NAA, OUNDATION, INC. James Nol3wsteadt President Cc: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors Steve Feldhaus, Secretary — Pelican Bay Foundation Keith Dallas, Chairman, Pelican Bay Services Division Nell Dorrill, Administrator, Pelican Bay Services Division Kyle Lukasz, Pelican Bay Services Division 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Property Appraiser Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 0 0 a m io ti ti 0 N N a N N 16 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division boar gue ion 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 1 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 1, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 2,117,648.67 1,755.71 343.85 19,033.41 $ 2,138,781.64 $ 2,138,781.64 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 6,726.47 60,342.91 1,292,615.54 779,096.72 $ 67,069.38 2,071,712.26 $ 2,138,781.64 N °o c, M N N N O N N O N ci 1 N � U December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Servaces 6 [714isi l BdE�l1 (I /� Regular Session 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 2 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 1, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Special Assessment - Water Management Admin Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification Special Assessment Past Due Charges for Services Surplus Property Sales Insurance Payment for Damages Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenace and Repairs IT Direct Capital IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. Indirect Cost Reimbursement Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings and Equipment Insurance - General Printing, Binding and Copying Clerk's Recording Fees Advertising Other Office and Operating Supplies Training and Education Total Water Management Admin Operating Water Management Field Operations $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - 666,300.00 319,824.00 321,791.73 1,967.73 1,907,800.00 915,744.00 928,741.05 12,997.05 2,603.19 2,603.19 1,500.00 - - - 15,300.00 841.50 858.11 16.61 $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,358,709.50 $ 2,376,294.08 $ 17,584.58 $ 41,400.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 4,233.91 $ 2,666.09 8,800.00 - - - 400.00 1,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. - 4,800.00 - - - 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 13,400.00 100.00 - 100.00 26,900.00 4,500.00 4,144.00 356.00 3,900.00 700.00 476.50 223.50 3,000.00 100.00 2.64 97.36 11,300.00 2,800.00 2,532.00 268.00 1,200.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,300.00 200.00 5,700.00 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 2,000.00 300.00 143.49 156.51 1,100.00 200.00 25.00 175.00 $ 209,000.00 $ 58,700.00 $ 53,807.54 $ 4,892.46 Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 22,100.00 $ 14,519.32 $ 7,580.68 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 2,000.00 236.25 1,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 1,164.67 - 1,164.67 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 1,414.67 1,414.67 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 3,800.00 3,800.00 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 200.00 286.42 (86.42) Temporary Labor 42,400.00 9,100.00 9,284.00 (184.00) Telephone 500.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,100.00 1,322.87 1,777.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 23.00 23.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 90.00 90.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 900.00 900.00 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Tree Triming 30,000.00 5,000.00 2,496.00 2,504.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 300.00 447.31 (147.31) Page 1 of 3 r A u � j,6 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay 1 Lr. rvices Divisioinoard Regular Session 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 3 of 11 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 16,900.00 16,488.91 411.09 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 300.00 151.75 148.25 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 1,900.00 1,949.06 (49.06) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 69,992.33 $ 47,253.97 $ 22,738.36 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 800.00 - 800.00 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 7,100.00 $ 4,362.01 $ 2,737.99 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 - 190,100.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 5,700.00 - 5,700.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 5,700.00 4,867.00 833.00 Telephone 3,900.00 700.00 480.50 219.50 Postage 3,000.00 200.00 2.66 197.34 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 3,100.00 2,715.61 384.39 Insurance - General 500.00 - - - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 1,500.00 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 400.00 214.97 185.03 Training and Education 1,500.00 300.00 25.00 275.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 23,800.00 $ 12,667.75 $ 11,132.25 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 134,600.00 $ 78,160.23 $ 56,439.77 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 16,600.00 16,320.44 279.56 Pest Control 5,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 400.00 865.76 (465.76) Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 4,900.00 3,070.00 1,830.00 Temporary Labor 190,100.00 39,900.00 39,721.12 178.88 Telephone 3,200.00 500.00 430.38 69.62 Electricity 3,400.00 600.00 271.20 328.80 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 2,800.00 2,793.54 6.46 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 400.00 (32.86) 432.86 Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 - - Insurance - General 8,800.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Insurance - Auto 10,000.00 1,700.00 - 1,700.00 Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 300.00 - 300.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 4,200.00 1,257.25 2,942.75 Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 11,200.00 - 11,200.00 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Tree Triming 63,600.00 11,600.00 11,200.00 400.00 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 1,500.00 1,463.02 36.98 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 500.00 153.00 347.00 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 17,100.00 22,211.47 (5,111.47) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 17,700.00 17,832.15 (132.15) Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 8,000.00 5,979.00 2,021.00 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 5,000.00 1,722.58 3,277.42 Painting Supplies 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 500.00 - 500.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 500.00 638.80 (138.80) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 1,500.00 1,396.02 103.98 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 285,500.00 $ 205,453.10 $ 80,046.90 m Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 437,992.33 $ 319,182.36 $ 118,809.97 C 0 m iD ti N O N N Page 2 of 3 v 0 0 m io N ti 0 N N 0 N N 612 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regu)ke21 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 4 of 11 Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ General Improvements - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ $ Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ - $ $ - Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 437,992.33 $ 319,182.36 $ 118,809.97 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 19,900.00 6,029.31 13,870.69 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 37,383.00 37,210.69 172.31 Reserves (21/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,097,183.00 $ 1,083,140.00 $ 14,043.00 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 1,535,175.33 $ 1,402,322.36 $ 132,852.97 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 823,534.17 $ 973,971.72 $ 150,437.55 Page 3 of 3 A Z t December 7, 2011 Pelican I S6celDiv Board Regular Session 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 5 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 1, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 0 0 m cp N N ti 0 N N C7 N H Assets 377,559.06 224.16 2,178.50 $ 379,961.72 $ 379,961.72 Liabilities and Fund Balance 64.40 2,806.64 194,157.20 182,933.48 $ 2,871.04 377,090.68 $ 379,961.72 1�6 2 A December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 6 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 1, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Other Operating Supplies Electrical Contractors LO C 0 M 10 0 N N (7 N N $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - 436,800.00 209,664.00 215,594.21 $ 5,930.21 $ - 15.36 $ 15.36 4,144.00 $ 10,366.50 $ 10,366.50 4,500.00 225.00 108.79 $ (116.21) 598,900.00 367,489.00 383,684.86 $ 16,195.86 $ 41,400.00 $ 6,900.00 $ 4,233.82 $ 2,666.18 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 4,483.33 4,144.00 $ 339.33 3,900.00 $ 700.00 363.04 $ 336.96 2,000.00 $ 100.00 2.64 $ 97.36 12,100.00 $ 2,000.00 2,636.50 $ (636.50) 300.00 $ - - $ - 800.00 $ 100.00 - $ 100.00 1,000.00 $ 200.00 - $ 200.00 93,700.00 17,133.33 14,030.00 3,103.33 62,500.00 10,400.00 6,671.22 3,728.78 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 100.00 - 100.00 400.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 44,200.00 7,400.00 5,844.70 1,555.30 800.00 - - 900.00 - - 1,700.00 4,300.00 4,300.00 - 4,300.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 200.00 200.00 - 200.00 500.00 500.00 - 500.00 64.40 (64.40) 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) Page 1 of 2 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Boar A20 gJWSWsion 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 7 of 11 Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 1,700.00 - 1,700.00 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 29,600.00 16,551.40 13,048.60 Total Field Expenditures 2401500.00 46,733.33 30,581.40 16,151.93 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery/Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total Operating Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Future Construction Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) h O O ti M 0 N N O N N 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 46,933.33 30,581.40 16,351.93 13,500.00 3,375.00 2,172.76 1,202.24 8,900.00 2,225.00 - 2,225.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - 22,000.00 - - 357,400.00 318,600.00 315,172.76 3,427.24 598,900.00 365,533.33 345,754.16 19,779.17 - 1,955.67 37,930.70 35,975.03 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 00 0 0 N M N N H O N N O H 6 _ December 7, 2011 Pelicanicel Din B A oard Regu � lar S o ession 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 8 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 1, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 358,446.92 408.92 939.67 359,795.51 $ 359,795.51 Liabilities and Fund Balance 522.50 522.50 303,213.58 56,059.43 359,273.01 $ 359,795.51 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 297.64 $ 1,652.36 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,558.00 1,482.37 75.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 19,408.00 $ 17,680.01 $ 1,727.99 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 64,408.00 $ 21,900.01 $ 42,507.99 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 286,211.88 $ 330,611.01 $ 44,399.13 H 0 a .ti Page 1 of 1 H a N Lf1 O N H December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay1r6 D6oZbard Ae uZsQon 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 9 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 1, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ - Special Assessment 127,100.00 61,008.00 61,370.38 362.38 Special Assessment Past Due 496.47 496.47 Fund 111 34,000.00 - - - Transfer from Tax Collector 939.67 939.67 Interest 700.00 100.00 192.62 92.62 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 350,619.88 $ 352,511.02 $ 1,891.14 Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ 27,200.00 $ 1,724.00 $ 25,476.00 Other Contractural Services 70,151.60 11,700.00 2,496.00 9,204.00 Tree Trimming 29,000.00 4,800.00 - 4,800.00 Other Equipment Repairs 349.77 - - - Aerial Photography 7,500.00 - - Minor Operating 588.01 - - - Other Operating Supplies 1,000.00 - - - Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ 43,700.00 $ 4,220.00 $ 39,480.00 Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ 1,300.00 $ - $ 1,300.00 Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 45,000.00 $ 4,220.00 $ 40,780.00 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 1,950.00 $ 297.64 $ 1,652.36 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,558.00 1,482.37 75.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 19,408.00 $ 17,680.01 $ 1,727.99 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 64,408.00 $ 21,900.01 $ 42,507.99 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 286,211.88 $ 330,611.01 $ 44,399.13 H 0 a .ti Page 1 of 1 H a N Lf1 O N H V December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division *kd eLlUession 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 10 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 1, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 2,674,900.44 Interest Receivable 2,699.73 Due from Tax Collector 2,453.47 Total Current Assets 2,680,053.64 Total Assets $ 2,680,053.64 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts/Trade Payable $ 31,289.78 Goods Received Inv. Received 26,373.96 Total Liabilities 57,663.74 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 2,582,848.52 Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 39,541.38 Total Fund Balance 2,622,389.90 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,680,053.64 0 0 N m iD ti N 0 N N 0 N N -1bl"i'em - A U December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5h. Administrator's Report I Monthly Financial Report (Revised) Page 11 of 11 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 1, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Lake Bank Restoration Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Licenses and Permits Traffic Signs Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) N O O 06 ci C 0 N O N N $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 159,312.00 161,533.04 2,221.04 19,500.00 1,950.00 1,262.16 (687.84) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,151,146.04 $ 3,206,166.24 $ 55,020.20 $ 132,154.37 $ 11,012.86 $ 8,844.65 $ 2,168.21 85,000.00 - - - 2,978,637.97 173,753.88 156,161.17 17, 592.71 16,369.00 (16,369.00) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 50,000.00 - - - 7,004.18 (7,004.18) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,326.10 1,242.60 21,323.00 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 224,335.45 $ 227,705.10 $ (3,369.65) $ 10,300.00 $ 2,575.00 $ 777.21 $ 6,800.00 4,080.00 3,896.51 17,500.00 - - $ 34,600.00 $ 6,655.00 $ 4,673.72 $ $ 3,341,284.04 $ 230,990.45 $ 232,378.82 $ $ - $ 2,920,155.59 $ 2,973,787.42 $ Page 1 of 1 1,797.79 183.49 1,981.28 (1,388.37) 53,631.83 F December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Service l iv n 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Clam Bay Markers Page 1 of 5 ResnickLisa Subject: 12/7. 6a. Clam Bay Update 1 "Arrow" Sign at Marker #10 From: KeyesPamela Sent: Friday, December 02, 20114:03 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: McAlpinGary Subject: RE: "Arrow" Directional Sign(s) at Marker #10 Hello Lisa, This sign will be posted below the LKR sign and have two arrows (one sign). When looking at the sign there will be an arrow pointing left that says "Pass" and an arrow pointing right that says 13 -32. It will be approximately 30 inches long and 12 inches thick. hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thank you, Pamela From: ResnickLisa Sent: Friday, December 02, 20113:16 PM To: KeyesPamela Cc: McAlpinGary Subject: "Arrow" Directional Sign(s) at Marker #10 Hello Pamela, I have a few questions about the "arrow" directional sign(s) that will be installed at Marker #10: (one arrow points to Clam Pass /Gulf of Mexico; the other points to #13 -32) 1. What is the size of each "arrow" sign? (not sure if this is one or two signs, please clarify) 2. Are they attached to the same post as Marker #10? 3. If so, are they attached above the " #10" or below the "LKR" sign, or? Thanks, Lisa Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lresnick cr,collier ov.net http:/ /pelicanbgyservicesdivision.net US I2 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisioloaakegular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Clam Bay Markers Page 2 of 5 CL LOCH KEE Waterway Markers 1 -12 1s MARKER 36 24 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Clam Bay Markers Page 3 of 5 C✓ 6 i l . t December 7, 2011 Pelican Balr6s N ReAr si IWJ / 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Clam Bay Markers Page 4 of 5 5 C R f December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Clam Bay Markers Page 5 of 5 Bridge Sign 36° ATTENTION — CAUTION CLAM BAY /PASS IS A MULTI -USE WATERWAY For Kayaks, Canoes, Boats and Swimmers 24" USE CAUTION THROUGHOUT MARKED TRAIL ESPECIALLY AT PASS ENTRANCE Local Knowledge Required F-1. 01% CV CV O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update - Foundation's Recommendation Page 1 of 1 1612 A 20 From: ResnickLisa Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:17 AM To: Dave Trecker (djtrecker @yahoo.com); Donna Cox (Donna.Cox @waldorfastoria.com); Geoffrey S. Gibson l josiegeoff @aol.com); Hansen, Hunter H. ( Hunter .Hansen @waldorfastoria.com); Jim Powers oim @dmgfl.com); John Baron obaron @watersideshops.com); John Iaizzo (iaizzo @comcast.net); John P. Chandler oohnchandler219 @gmail.com); Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net); Karen McIntyre; LukaszKyle; Mary Anne Womble (Teedup I @aol.com); McCaughtryMary; Mike Levy (mikelevy435 @gmail.com); ResnickLisa; Susan O'Brien (naplessusan @comcast.net); Tom Cravens (nfn16799 @naples.net) Subject: *IMPORTANT *PLEASE READ FOR TODAY'S MEETING* Dear Pelican Bay Services Division Board: On behalf of Chairman Dallas, please read the emails below prior to today's meeting. The item will be discussed first thing! Thanks, Lisa From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 20115:40 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; Steve Feldhaus Subject: Fwd: here it is Lisa, The Foundation is recommending the PBSD, in conjunction with the County, take the action below regarding Clam Bay canoe markers. I think the language below is self explanatory. I will have it presented under my Chairman's Report, Clam Bay Update. However timing wise I plan to move it at the meeting to right after the Agenda Approval. Make sure everyone knows this is being discussed and if possible has had a chance to read it before the meeting. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: "Feldhaus, Stephen" <sfLfeldhauslaw.com> Date: December 6, 20115:20:05 PM EST To: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(ri)comcast.net> Subject: here it is Steve Feldhaus, the Chairman of the Pelican Bay Foundation's Ad Hoc Committee on Clam Bay, intends to present to the PBSD Board tomorrow the recommendation of the Foundation that the PBSD modify the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan by amending the reference on pages 38 and 39 that currently reads: "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating their water craft outside the same." The Foundation believes that, in light of the action taken by the Board of County Commissioners at its June 15 meeting to approve the canoe trail markers and related informational signs, in light of the approvals given for the installation of such signs by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, by the United States Coast Guard, and by the Army Corps of Engineers, and in light of the notice of intent to issue an exemption and proprietary consent for such canoe trail markers and signs by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, it would be appropriate for the PBSD formally to amend the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan by deleting the sentence cited above and by inserting in lieu thereof a section describing the signs and markers as approved by the BCC, the FWL, the USCG, the ACOE, and which are the subject of the FDEP's notice of intent to issue an exemption and proprietary consent. Mr. Feldhaus indicates that the Foundation further recommends that the PBSD work closely with County staff and with the County Attorney to ensure that any such modification is done properly and openly. Mr. Feldhaus, who continues to work closely with the County on Clam Bay matters in his role representing the Foundation, has offered to work with the PBSD, on behalf of the Foundation, in the planning of the recommended modification. U 9 i i z TO: PBSD Directors December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Committee Reports I Clam Bay Subcommittee Report by D. Trecker, Chairman Page 1 of 3 1612 A 20 FROM: Dave Trecker Clam Bay Subcommittee SUBJECT: Clam Pass Dredging DATE: December 5, 2011 This is a brief update on the permit application for Clam Pass dredging. Collier County (Coastal Zone Management), in consultation with the Pelican Bay Foundation, applied earlier this year for a 10 -year maintenance permit to dredge Clam Pass. The permit request [SAJ- 1996- 02789(IP -LAE)] was directed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The stated purpose: "Conduct periodic maintenance dredging over 10 years in the Clam Pass /Clam Bay for ecological improvement of this estuary, with re- utilization of suitable dredged materials for beach re- nourishment." Clam Pass was previously dredged between 1981 and 1998 to reopen the pass when closed by sedimentation and in 1999, 2002 and 2007 as part of a regular maintenance program. The current permit request would allow periodic maintenance dredging of a 80 -foot -wide entrance cut to "an historic target depth" of 3.6 — 5.1 feet at mean low water. Maps appended to the request specify the template — width and depth of dredging Clam Pass and the inlet extending inland 1,800 lineal feet to the start of waterways leading south to Outer Clam Bay and north through the mangroves to Inner Clam Bay. This is comparable to the actual dredging carried out in 2007. The permit request is silent on "triggers" — conditions that would justify or require future dredging. However, a response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) specified, "Periodic dredging of Clam Pass is `triggered' to occur when the average cross sectional area within the active portion of dredge template is consistently below 200 sq. ft. (2007 Humiston & Moore Monitoring Report). Tidal prism and phase lag will also be monitored and N a 0 v m 0 ti 0 N O N N December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Committee Reports I Clam Bay Subcommittee Report by D. Trecker, Chairman Page 2 of 3 f 16A Ae'U used as indicators of when dredging is required. Monitoring and maintenance of the pass will be initiated by cooperative agreement between Collier County and Pelican Bay." The so- called "triggers" were based on data analyses by and recommendations from coastal engineering experts — Humiston & Moore, Atkins and Olsen Associates. It is unclear whether the response to the USFWS qualifies as an amendment to the permit application. It probably doesn't matter, because the "triggers" are largely subjective. No metric limits are assigned to tidal range and phase lag changes, and no length of time is specified for the cross - sectional template to be below 200 sq. ft. When Clam Pass is dredged would be a judgment call by the County and Foundation, presumably with guidance from their consultants. Critics of the permit request say an 80 -ft. entrance cut is excessive; a less invasive 40 -ft. cut would suffice. They also urge that biological monitoring be part of the permit. Some say "triggers" for dredging should include biological considerations. All parties agree periodic dredging of Clam Pass is necessary. Most agree the 1999, 2002 and 2007 dredgings enhanced the health of the estuary. Most also agree dredging is not needed at this time, since the estuary is healthy and current flushing is adequate. My take on the situation is as follows. While an 80 -ft. entrance cut may be excessive, it apparently does no harm. The 2007 dredge, which used an 80 -ft. cut, did little if any damage to Clam Bay. It was a net plus. The estuary remains healthy. Because the allowed dredging would not extend far inland, it should not lead to more boat traffic in the interior bays. Outer Clam Bay would remain shallow; Seagate would still have trouble getting its big powerboats to the Gulf. There is no evidence the allowed dredging would portend future "navigational dredging" in Clam Bay or inter -bay flushing of Moorings m 0 0 m 0 ti .1 0 N N O N H December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7. Committee Reports I Clam Bay Subcommittee Report by D. Trecker, Chairman Page 3 of 3 1612 it® Bay, both of which I assume would be vigorously opposed by everyone in Pelican Bay. It is my understanding that permit approval awaits two biological opinions — one from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (for the FDEP) and one from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (for the USACE). No action of the PBSD board is required or recommended at this time. 0 0 m 0 O N u1 O N December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9a. New Business -Our Health in Pelican Bay (M.A. Womble � � O Page 1 of 1 1612 Our Health in Pelican Bay Introduction A continuing discussion here in Pelican Bay concerns the need for a barrier along route 41. Discussions have, for the most part, focused on the need for a barrier, but only as it relates to two issues, increased security and the reduction of noise. There is another portion of the barrier debate that has drawn little attention. A.... Tailnime Pollution Multiple studies have concluded that people living new highways are exposed to vehicle emissions known as "tailpipe pollution". This includes elevated levels of ultra fine particulates, black carbon, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, etc.. These studies have been published by respected organizations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. B ... The Effect on Health These same studies have linked tailpipe pollution to'increases in asthma, heart disease, cancer, bronchitis, autism, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's, and a general shortening of life spans. These health problems more severely affect the very young and also, older individuals. C. The Pollution `Blanket" These studies also conclude that this tailpipe pollution spreads like a blanket across areas adjacent to highways. Of course, concentrations are more severe closer to a highway and pollution dissipates as it moves further and further away from the source. By the same token, studies have shown that toxic pollution travels up to one and one half miles from a highway. This easily covers all of Pelican Bay including someone walking on the berm. D. Prevention The US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that highway barriers trapped pollutants, channeling them up and away. It was found that barriers generated a significant reduction of pollution in neighborhoods adjacent to highways. L Highway 41 Collier County estimated that in 2010 the annual vehicle count, passing Pelican Bay was seventeen million, one hundred thirteen thousand. (An example of the extent of tailpipe pollution.... The exhaust from a Pruis emits .334 pounds of CO2 per mile. It's 2 miles past Pelican Bay .... 2 miles X.334 pounds X 17 million vehicles is 11,400,000 pounds of tailpipe pollution released each year right next door to our community. ...& that's just the CO2 part) The unfortunate thing is that most of us are not aware that this pollution may be destroying our health. and the toll it's taking on our bodies. It's in the air that we breathe as we bike, stroll or simply sit on a lanai. It's affecting our health, ever so slowly, but so very surely, day, after day, after day. The need for a barrier is a very complicated issue. All the more reason to engage the appropriate experts, so that they can provide professional guidance to the Strategic Planning Committee and the Board. This should be a comprehensive review of not just the sound issue but also an evaluation of a barrier as it relates to security and to the health risks to our community. This professional advice can be evaluated and a decision made either to construct a barrier, or not. One way or the other, it will be a decision that is based upon a solid foundation of expert advice, not speculation, sem i- professional input or emotion.. Dave Ritger December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9b. New Business - Pelican Bay Services Division Office Space in Proposed Community Center Addition (S. O'Brien) Page 1 of 2 aaaaagar aariaR0 oil flri`t9Imun i t n1 nH7 `:haft »tu71t1 V"133111111 ;a:NtltlllikI ::arauar ra0aar ■maaaar -all praaa'am maoo reroaa acauu a ©man a aga aaaroar ouuc� oaoari ©arraar^ ,monsoon oaaarc caaaaaao — MM=;'a • • . • oed ocrl 04:1 .room 000a ararr7rr ao - na ©aar.rra arrnraa t--16 goommm .. ............ �....�. � I t� swssfwa�w�sslre 9 11 1 1 r "aJlf'ti 11 4C Lot t91 er 1 4 ti 1 itl s`� r r h Y ' P. B. S. D. RECEPTION ; P. B. S. D. i r r y. 1 i r t +•s « r" ic.�vws � December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 9b. New Business - Pelican Bay Services Division Office Space in Proposed Community Center Addition (S. O'Brien) Page 2 of 2 Ulf l bd,Aw ^W CC f.J'1t! W" W el-t V N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 10. Audience Comments (B. Beauchamp) Page 1 of 1 1612 A ^ O ResnickLisa fI.YJ, Subject: 12/7/11 10. Audience Comments (B. Beauchamp) - - - -- Original Message---- - From: brucebeauchamp(&cox.net [mailto:brucebeauchamp tai cox.netl Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 11:58 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Blv. Paving • Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:54:22 -0500 • From: <brucebeauchampkcox.net> • To: Iresnick ,collieer o v.net • Subject: Pelican Bay Blv. Paving > To whom it may concern: > I am a resident of Pelican Bay who happened to run a paving company for 25 years in Rhode Island. I read an article in a recent Pelican Bay Newsletter recently which indicated that the Service Div. was contemplating forwarding the funds to the County to pave Pelican Bay Blvd. earlier than the anticipated scheduled paving in 2016. > I rode the length of the Blvd. with the expressed purpose of observing defects . I saw no settlements, cracks, or other deficiency that could warrent an early paving schedule. It appears that the only deficiency is cosmetic. I believe that there is no need to accelerate the paving schedule. > I would appreciate being notified of any underlying deficiencies of which I am not aware . > 1 am also concerned about the quality of the paving at the new cross -walks being installed. The pavement that was installed at the intersection of Oakmont, and Pelican Bay Blvd. N appears to be of a finer texture than normal and the quality of the installation is substandard. > I appreciate your consideration of my concerns. > Yours truly, > Bruce A. Beauchamp > 7058 Barrington Circle Unit 102 > Naples Fl. 34102 > Tel 401 - 996 -9474 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 10. Audience Comments (J. Doyle and S. Doyle re: 5e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing) Page 1 of 2 From: naplespatriots @comcast.net [mailto :naplespatriots @ comcast.net] 161 A O Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 201111:15 AM To: office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net; keithdallas @comcast.net Subject: Re: PBSD -- 12/07/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status - -Cash FlowAnalysis Mr. Dallas, Upon reviewing the Cash Flow Analysis, we do not see the repayment of the loan from the county in 2015. From: naplespatriots @comcast.net To: office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, keithdallas @comcast.net Cc: nfn16799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com, johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, iaizzo @comcast.net, mikelevy435 @gmail.com, naplessusan @comcast.net, djtrecker @yahoo.com, teedupl @aol.com, "hunter hansen" <hunter.hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, donnafiala @colliergov.net, georgiahiller @colliergov.net, tomhenning @colliergov.net, fredcoyle @colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net, johnsusanboland @aol.com Sent: Monday, December 5, 201111:33:13 PM Subject: PBSD -- 12/07/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status - Audience Comment Mr. Dallas: RE: Agenda Item 5 (e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status We very much like the idea proposed in the letter from PBPOA President Susan Boland to Keith Dallas dated 11/16/2011 regarding the need to have the proposed $1.5M loan for the resurfacing secured by the 12 acres of county land within Pelican Bay should the PBSD remain obstinate and decide to pursue the resurfacing project in 2012. Another possibility would be to have the county deed all of the roads within the Pelican Bay MSTBU to the Pelican Bay Foundation so that we can privatize them since the net effect here is that Pelican Bay residents may be forced to maintain these roads should the economy deteriorate further and the county finances collapse. Joseph T. Doyle Sandra J. Doyle Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay From: naplespatriots @comcast.net To: office@ pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, keithdallas @comcast.net Cc: jlytle @naplesnews.com, nfnl6799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com, johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, iaizzo @comcast.net, mikelevy435 @gmail.com, naplessusan @comcast.net, djtrecker @yahoo.com, teedupl @aol.com, "hunter hansen" < hunter .hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, donnafiala @colliergov.net, georgiahiller @colliergov.net, tomhenning @colliergov.net, fredcoyle @colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net, johnsusanboland @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 20118:59:21 AM Subject: PBSD -- 11/02/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing- Audience Comment Mr. Dallas: RE: Agenda Item 4 e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing We once again restate our objection to the early resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard via a loan to Collier County as submitted as an audience comment for the October 2011 PBSD Board Meeting and outlined in this email stream for your reference. The new information provided by Mr. Chandler for the November 2011 meeting regarding the Collier County credit ratings is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We are not questioning the current credit - worthiness of Collier County. However, I would point out that the imminent downgrade of the credit rating of the federal U.S. Government projected for late November or early December could negatively impact local and state governments. And there is a possiblilty that the credit- worthiness of Collier County could deteriorate over the 4 -year period of the proposed loan if this economic recession persists. More importantly, REAL issue here is that the board's scheme to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard ahead of the Collier County schedule by using CIP funds represents a material conversion of dollars for an item (resurfacing) that is not part of the CIP plan. Furthermore, the funds for resurfacing should rightfully come from the Collier County Gas Tax Revenues. The loan scheme in effect amounts to double taxation to the Pelican Bay December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 20 �) 10. Audience Comments (J. Doyle and S. Doyle re: 5e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing) Page 2 of 2 3 +. % " f! Homeowners since the`proposat*paies the gasoline funds by using the CIP reserves. Finally, we do not believe that the PBSD Board would have the authority to use the CIP funds for resurfacing without the consent of the Pelican Bay Homeowners in the form of a special referendum. Joseph T. Doyle Sandra J. Doyle Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay From: naplespatriots @comcast.net To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, keithdallas @comcast.net Cc: jlytle @naplesnews.com, nfnl6799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com, johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, iaizzo @comcast.net, mikelevy435 @gmail.com, naplessusan @comcast.net, djtrecker @yahoo.com, teedupl @aol.com, "hunter hansen" < hunter .hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, don nafiala @colliergov. net, georgiahiller @colliergov. net, tomhenning @colliergov. net, fredcoyle @colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net, johnsusanboland @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 20119:32:23 AM Subject: PBSD -- 10/05/2011 Agenda Item -- Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing- Audience Comment Mr. Dallas: Agenda Item 4 e) Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing We endorse Mr. Levy's position in his 9/26/2011 email to the PBSD Board regarding the board's scheme to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard ahead of the Collier County schedule. If Pelican Bay chooses to do the resurfacing now (2012), two years before it is scheduled to be done, we would have to lend the county money for five years. We would be lending from funds currently reserved for the CIP, for something that is not, and never was, a part of our CIP plan. This, in turn, would complicate PBSD CIP implementation; and would most likely delay execution of CIP projects. We are in favor of leaving the repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard to be done on the county's schedule (2014), using normal county funds - -from the gas tax. Additionally, I would like to point out to the PBSD board and the Collier BCC that advancing the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard is unfair to other citizens of Collier County since it gives the appearance of "jumping ahead in line" for other county road resurfacing needs. These types of underhanded actions makes Pelican Bay look like a bunch of rich brats who get priority over the poorer residents of Collier County. Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay From: naplespatriots @comcast.net To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net, keithdallas @comcast.net Cc: jlytle @naplesnews.com, nfn16799 @naples.net, jbaron @watersideshops.com, johnchandler219 @gmail.com, josiegeoff @aol.com, "hunter hansen" <hunter.hansen @hilton.com >, iaizzo @comcast.net, 4mikelevy @embargmail.com, naplessusan @comcast.net, djtrecker @yahoo.com, teed upl @aol.com, donnafiala @colliergov.net, georgiahiller @colliergov.net, tomhenning @colliergov.net, f red coyle@ colliergov.net, jimcolletta @colliergov.net Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 20116:50:59 AM Subject: Pelican Bay Services Division Untimely Postings and Communications Mr. Dallas, I find that your new system regarding audience participation in Pelican Bay Services Division business matters is inadequate. At the past several meetings you have instructed the audience that you would prefer to solicit input either in advance of PBSD meetings OR during the discussion of a specific item during the meeting. However, as of 6am this morning, neither the statutory required meeting notice nor an advance agenda have been posted to the PBSD website - -and the meeting is today, October 5th at fpm. I would hardly call this participatory government. In fact, the residents of a communist country would appear to get more consideration than we do here in Pelican Bay! Joseph Doyle Sandy Doyle Laurel Oaks /Pelican Bay December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) N D December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) ,'Ir- `—x `r December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raja) a.F, yI F vwm� i ,. fNJ O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) K.� I �s Cv N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) • V c December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) 1�-" N 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) �L December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) `-" V 0, December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) Fh. ter 0. N L V 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) t°► I wj December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) t . y. r 011% A � ^ t V C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) 1 "_L N N� O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) �1 i M • ) O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) T7-- F-1, 1 v 1r v December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) I- " dmn . N 3> N C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) s `-" CD l � i v December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) t—L SWOMM. N N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) �a N N 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) >'1 �x dwbft� N N O um U10 F tm w LL ! tm w c� z OM J am h a,..ie am OM December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) Pape 20 of 41 Aggg Dteag'ng CLAM BAY TIDAL RANGES YEAR i N Omw December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) C. 1-"1 jA N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) r iV N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) CD t Waterway Markers 1 -12 MARKER CLAM PASS CLAM PASS — CAUTION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED KEEP LOOKOUT FOR BOATERS AND SWIMMERS 1 www.)=.net 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) C::) / � M � T f `a ♦ V N F--= N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) COO, �—x 1 V V C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) L/--,I §--'6 N N O 1 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) 4 R n� V O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) I--,- C r-L C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) �Y IM 2:::o M) 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) ):%'" OMMOM [ %-Jq t v 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) 9.- 141W O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) Ww. l V t V C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) t f V 0 December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) C December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) �.F ale I-" N N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) rNOW ��J >f �+ O The future is up to you. Keep informed. Attend the Foundation meetings. Read the blogs on the PBFs Community Forum, the PBPOA Members Message Board and our own Speakup Pelican Bay. When you vote, let the person you vote for know your values and what you expect from them. December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) F—J. rr� N N O December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) A �rV V December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) 4 P" A N O c� December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay Update (Presented by Ted Raia) #-.L EMMO.. N) r\) r ' U k em ber 7, 10 "11 Pelican Bay Services 6 sion Board Regular Session ' - 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay update — - .,k (Presented by Marcia Cravens) MM40RANDUM Date: August 7, 1998 To: Barbara Smith, Senior Secretary Pelican Bay Services Division From: Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Re: Resolution 98 -289, Accepting Terms and Conditions of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of rnvirormental Protection re Ongoing Management of the Clam Bay System Enclosed please find a copy of the document as referenced above, Agenda Item 416B18, approved by the Board of County Coronissioners on August 4, 1998. Kindly forward the instruments as indicated in the resolution to Minutes and Records. If you should have any questions, please contact me at: 774 -8406. Thank you. Enclosure s r I6B18 ttF:tit)I•I:'I't0� 1612 \().98- 289 A A I4Ftit)l.l = =T(UN ACCE1'f1XG THE, TKIL IS Ail) ('OmNTioms OF Tim US ARMY CORIN OF F4N(:I.NFFKS SECTION aW PFRAI1T NO. 19961127891IP -CCI AND TIIF FL0141UA UF.PAKTmv,%T AF t'kOTF.C1 1() % (Y)NN(JUDATE 1) JOINT Ct)ASTAI, PEK3IIT. titN'FNF :IG� S('I;-%IF1tt ;F 1) I-ANDS AttTIM)RIZ.ATU)N AND. VAKI: NCr -N;(). p128J61- 110140. A (()NIPREIIENSIVE FOR THE 1404MOKATION AND %I; .XA( ;E.Ilk \7' OF 'I•t16 CLAM IIA%* 51:�1'F ;11 AND •10 AFT110NI %F; 'rltE I)IRF:(T()K ()F PF:I.ICAN HAY SI:IIVI('Fti T() SIGN TIIE PFNAIITS QV IIFIIALF OF (•OI.I.IF:14 (*Ot'X'rl• HE IT KFSOIA-ri). the Itarlrd ad• (•olun. ('onlmixl i"Mrs of Cadlicr Comm. 1 N +riJa, conAmust J. 1'N. I pq+n na+tinn nla&*- -`LV"1 IVd alkl lumcd delcnnined tt► approve amt accept the terms anJ cutaliti/+ns ul'tll . (+Iluaing Pertttil� and ! a!lementr :nxl its ratilj and aliinn the violn ul llk Ctlo ent ()ntcr (IN:I' hik X+t. nl2X4(+24tgl -1(•► afaled the 6 J.1% IWA11%. I'rlx. 1. 1'.%. AC(A: Slvlfion41M l'ennit.Vn. l99(v<I27Xr)tll'- C'(,1. 2. UDEP Consolithmed Joint ('u;lstaf NrMil, Sovemi8n lul/ttlerpej I.alk1. Au1'a+riration anal Variance - o. pt2X4(934X)I J('. IIF: IT F('NT11F:R KFtiplyri). that 1W insinmlemll r►lerenced atx/re art; tll he "ttache&l ark' nt ;ldc a part "I' this ltew,lutiun and that the 1)irectm or the Pelican Ila% sm ice.: lliri %ion i• Ikrch)• atltla+riled ami directed its sack .loch further autlimizalion a% nla% l+e rehired t+l elliwar:ae the purpv+.es aril intent of-[11e allrn a permit. and Hasenlem• :u1J to implement :m.) chide by the term, anJ ruoxtition.1.l•tlw ('nmem Order. lili. ltem►lution sill heconle eliictit,e i nnictfialdy upon its rosave. 1 his Ites+►luli++n adopteJ this ___ ` ,;j. ,.J'Atwum. 110M.:lticr motiall. %lc+%IIJ amal nlriorin• t;itte. 1):1'11:1): .' A I'I I:S•I : 1744'14111 l 1:.1114(,('K. CLERK Attcst :: r, •: +•atr• Signature c,:.1�. ,�rt s :1ppn+a ed as till li+rtll :Illd legal lllllclency 1)a. iJ l •. N'� iget It(,ARD of- CO NIN('O11.%11s11O. \I It% C01.1.11a4 COl'.N,l Y. FL(,ltll)A . -a Il: IlAItA 11. I l:lt • 1•-- c•tI:UK�IA ORDINANCE NO. 96- 16 16124 eu T' �• c AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VESSEL CONTROL AND WATER SAFETY IN THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR INTENT ND PURPOSE; PROVIDING TITLE AND CITATION; SETTING TII APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR VESSEL SPEED r,= R JI,ATION; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING v �j6 PErG�LTIES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOiVIONFLICTANDSEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING r C?° taAN 6FECTIVF. DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 327.60, Florida Statutes, has the Icgal authority to adopt this Ordinance to impose idle speed zones on waterways in the unincorporated areas of the County; and _ WHEREAS, it is necessary that the speed and operation of vessels located in the Clam Bay System as specified herein be controlled in order to protect manatees and their habitat; and WHEREAS, the Clam Bay System has been designated as a Natural Resource Protection Area in Collier County; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest for the safety and welfare of the canoeing public, kayakers, and small boat operators, that certain controls and regulations be enacted to reduce risk and injury to the canoeing public, kayakers, and small boat operators and ensure the enjoyablity of these natural resources by the general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. INTENT AND PURPOSE It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the public, including residents and visitors to Collier County and in particular to the Clam Bay area by providing reasonable regulation to the operation of vessels as defined. It is further intended that this ordii.ance shall be liberally construed to effect such intent and purpose. .SECTION THREE: APPLICABILITY This Ordinance shall apply to and be enforced on all the waters of the following described Restricted Areas: I. The Clam Bay System including Upper Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay, Outer Clam Bay, and Clam Pass. The restricted areas are as specified on the map attached hereto as "Exhibit A." . 1 i f c.. ORDINANCE NO. 96- 16 16124 eu T' �• c AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO VESSEL CONTROL AND WATER SAFETY IN THE CLAM BAY SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR INTENT ND PURPOSE; PROVIDING TITLE AND CITATION; SETTING TII APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR VESSEL SPEED r,= R JI,ATION; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING v �j6 PErG�LTIES; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; PROVIDING FOiVIONFLICTANDSEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING r C?° taAN 6FECTIVF. DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 327.60, Florida Statutes, has the Icgal authority to adopt this Ordinance to impose idle speed zones on waterways in the unincorporated areas of the County; and _ WHEREAS, it is necessary that the speed and operation of vessels located in the Clam Bay System as specified herein be controlled in order to protect manatees and their habitat; and WHEREAS, the Clam Bay System has been designated as a Natural Resource Protection Area in Collier County; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest for the safety and welfare of the canoeing public, kayakers, and small boat operators, that certain controls and regulations be enacted to reduce risk and injury to the canoeing public, kayakers, and small boat operators and ensure the enjoyablity of these natural resources by the general public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE. INTENT AND PURPOSE It is the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to protect and promote the health, safety and welfare of the public, including residents and visitors to Collier County and in particular to the Clam Bay area by providing reasonable regulation to the operation of vessels as defined. It is further intended that this ordii.ance shall be liberally construed to effect such intent and purpose. .SECTION THREE: APPLICABILITY This Ordinance shall apply to and be enforced on all the waters of the following described Restricted Areas: I. The Clam Bay System including Upper Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay, Outer Clam Bay, and Clam Pass. The restricted areas are as specified on the map attached hereto as "Exhibit A." WW I! SECTION FOUR: VESSEL SPEED RE(i UIr1TION 1612A2� Except during an emergency or operation by an official of the government while engaged in official business, the operation of any vessel in excess of idle speed, as defined herein, in or on any waters of the Clam Bay System is hereby prohibited and is a violation of this Ordinance. Said prohibition is effective and enforceable provided the "no wake" area is designated by regulatory marker, signage, buoy, or any other notice of the "no wake" status. The locations of such notices shall be placed at the discretion of the County Staff. All such notices posted by the County are official notices of the County. It is no defense to a violation of this Ordinance to allege that the Defendant did not observe notice of the "no wake" status of the waters of the Clam [lay System. .SECTION FIVE: DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following words are defined as follows: A. IDLE SPEED means the minimum speed through or over the surface of the water that will allow the vessel operator to maintain steerage of the vessel. B. OPERATE means to be in control of the speed of a vessel traveling over or in water. C. VESSEL means a motor propelled and/or artificially propelled boat, sailboat, barge, airboat or other watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation of one (1) or more persons over or in the water, whether propelled by wind, propeller, or forcing flow of water by propeller or impeller, or otherwise. Vessel does not include a canoe, kayak, or similar small minimum wake type vessels provided the vessel is then being propelled only by paddle and not by motor, pump, or sail. "Vessel" does not include seaplane. SECTIONSIX: PENALTIES Each violation of this Ordinance is a civil infraction. If a Citation of Violation is not contested and is paid in full and on time, the fine shall be Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation within any six (6) month period, and one hundred dollars (S [ 00.00) for a second violation by the same person within any one (1) year period. If the fine is not paid in full and on time, the Court may impose a fine of up to five hundred dollars (5500.00) plus court costs and any other costs and /or fees authorized to be imposed by the Court by Florida Statutes. As an alternative means of enforcement, violations of this Ordinance may be referred to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. SECTIONSEVEN. ENFORCEMENT The provisions of this Ordinance shall be enforced by any member of any duly authorized law enforcement agency or officers having enforcement jurisdiction in Collier County, Florida. Civil Citations may be used to notify the defendant of allegations of violations of this Ordinance. SECTION EIGHT. • CONFLICTAND SEVERABILITY In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. if any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. i ....... 161 ZA 2U SECTION NINE: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF IA 1Y9 AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article, " or any other appropriate word. SECTION TEN. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ 9 r day of_ ezallz- , 1996. ATTEST: DW[GHT-E, BROCK, Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: t�l C. Thomas C. Palmer Assistant County Attorney TC?hrwb (Wdinancealwatasarcty.6 i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: C. NORRIS .hairman ME Thfs ordiff' nce find with the secretcry of $-ate's office the and ^?"tppo��� !his rjay ©y_L"�f.4� T ` 3M IZOPOSED SPEEDWARKER LOCATIW i• w Gl r T1 n q m x O c NNE CLAM BAY 8 a SCALE Q .5 MILES CLAM - PASS i IDLE SPEED NO WAKE KxIIIVtf'P IN 'MUTER CLAM BAY ro r n v x v �t Z� d to 1 do J o� 00 16 rL 1 SEAGATE DRIVE 1k s+ 16l 2 A 2U STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 96 -16 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 9th day of April, 1996, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 10th day of April, 1996. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Ex- officio to Board of. County Commissionerso.. By; /s /Maureen Kent,= Deputy Clerk' .; 161���1Z =CMIVE sv=mY "IOaCK"D SW DC%= O! COMM iiZ0X=2 APPAOVS 2= = 706Th Tam CIM sAT "STM As AX ZDLS spa sD SCM. That the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve the Ordinance posting the Clam Bay System as an Idle Speed Zone. COXS ERATIONIS s 1. The Clam Bay Task Force has asked staff about the possibility of restricting the excessive speed of personal watercraft traveling in the Clam Bay System. 2. The Collier County Manatee Protection Plan approved by the BCC on May 23, 1995, and accepted by the State on July 25, 1995, identifies the Clam Bay System as an Idle Speed Zone. 3. On February 20, 1996 the BCC directed the Natural Resources Department to write an Ordinance posting the Clam Bay Systis as an Idle Speed zone (Agenda item SA(2), and to fund the posting of signs from the General Fund. gM=1 XMCkGEKZNT IMPACT s An Ordinance posting the Clam Bay System supports Policies 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the County Growth Management Plan. FACT s Adoption of the Ordinance will require the County to post signs. Costs of permitting and installation is estimated at $1500, to come from the General Fund Reserves. APR 91 16 A Z Cl :: °- That the BCC approve the Ordinance posting the Clam Bay 8ystes as y; idle Speod and authorizing the appropriate budget amendment to a- fund the posting of this area. •r_ �f r ;J Prepared by: Dates O Kevin H. n, Sr. Environmental Specialist `A 3•ZZ•96 Reviewed by. Dates Wf iam D. t, 717V. L., Director Ra ur 1 Resources nt V; 3 Approved by: Date: ncent A. Mtero, Administrator ommunity Development Environmental Services c. k 4 4.4 �.'+I l r; ti �J IM.�LA��;tN• s W;7 APR � TO. FROM: DATE: 1612 1- )2 MEMORANDUM Pamela S. Mac'Kie Commissioner, District 4 David C. Weigelf County Attorney May 24, 1996 .vf-o � !t RE: Pelican Bay Conservation Area Maintenance / Mangrove Issues This past Wednesday evening I was listening to the WNOG radio station Amy Chartrand / Commissioner Mac'Kie interview rebroadcast, wherein, in response to a question concerning funding sources and responsibilities for the damaged mangrove area in Pelican Bay, you responded something to the effect, that, if County Attorney David Weigel were listening, perhaps I would provide you some legal assistance in that regard. Having received my "calling," I am pleased to provide you with a recent memorandum concerning this very issue that I had provided to Commissioner Hancock this past Friday. Although specific questions and responses are provided in the referenced May 17, 1996 memorandum, I have taken the liberty to describe in this memorandum a little bit of history pertaining to the Pelican Bay Improvement District and its successor in interest, the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. The Pelican Bay Improvement District came into being in 1974 by virtue of a special act: Laws of Fla., Chapter 74 -462, which created the Pelican Bay Improvement District and provided for its governing board (qualified electors residing within the district), extensive powers, and a means of "succession," whereupon the County Commission of Collier County in its sole discretion could (and did) succeed to the powers, rights, duties, functions and obligations of the district. The Board of County Commissioners succeeded to the principle functions of the Pelican Bay Improvement District pursuant to Chapter 74 -462, Laws of Fla., on June 19, 1990• In parallel fashion, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 90 -111 in 1990 creating the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit that is comprised of and includes those lands "being one and the same as the lands encompassed by _ the Pelican Bay Improvement District_" (Ord. 90 -111, §2, as amended.} As stated in- my May 17, 1996 - memorandum to Commissioner Hancock, the creation, purpose and powers of the Pelican Bay MSTBU are for and include the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas within the MSTBU. (See attached 5/17/96 memo for details.) Thereupon, it would appear that a municipal service taxing unit (actually, a municipal service taxing and benefit unit), has existed since 1990 with the capability of taxation within the district for the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas within the unit. I hope the foregoing information is of assistance to you and responsive to your query. If you should have any further questions in this regard, please contact me at your convenience. Attachment DCWJmrb Bmisc*licanbay- maclde J� k December 7, 20ii Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report - Clam Bay update " ( (Presented by Marcia Cravens) Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive o Suite 605 o Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -)749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 Mr. Donald W. Kinard Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division Enforcement Section 199602789 (1P -CC) Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 -0019 Dear Mr, Kinard: May 6, 2009 � � O 1612 On May 6, 2009 at a duly noticed meeting the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), the permittee on the Department of the Army permit number 199602789 issued on August 11, 1998, voted to request a modification and clarification of the permit and authorized this letter. Specifically the language in the following paragraph of the management plan included by reference is misleading, especially if one interprets "marked" as referring to lateral navigation signs. Lateral navigation signs denote safe passage which does not exist: "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same." The management plan should be clarified to read as follows: "Finally the waters of Clam Pass and Outer Clam Bay shall be marked with non - lateral navigation signs to clearly mark areas of concern for boaters and the prohibitions against operating their water craft outside the same_" This would be in full compliance with Collier County Ordinance 96 -16 that guarantees the navigation rights to all and also provides enforcement of the non - lateral sign restrictions. Review 'of all the minutes taken during the preparation of the permit agrees that this is the intent of the correct language and the contents of the following paragraphs in the permit also confirm this intent: "For the most part, the accumulation of sediments and the shoaling that has taken place f i e r C O u n c y b 1612 A,20,4' .' has resulted in physically limiting accessibility of Clam Bay to deeper draft boats and particularly those equipped with engines." "The Management Plan would not anticipate any changes in the recreational use characteristics of Clam Bay." f 8 � "Ap r4Aat notification, sibnage and policing will be provided by the County or PBSD e suwcdfrpliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam, Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay." Furthermore there is no main channel and the USCG has not imposed any requirements on the PBSD to install these signs. 1 want to add that NOAA Nautical Chart 1 1430 has Clam Pass marked as "non- navigable" and the Coast Pilot describes, "Clam Pass, about 5 miles N of Naples, is a shoal drainage canal to Outer Clam Bay. The pass is used only by outboards in good weather." The section on inside navigation states, "Navigation on the waterways covered by this volume requires a knowledge of the channel conditions and other factors restricting navigation." ,A, shoal, by definition, is a hazard to navigation.. We are in the process of refurbishing the canoe trail markers in need of repair and are adding three markers to mark the trail to the pass. I am including the plan showing the location of the canoe trail markers and the non - lateral navigation signs. Sincerely, Theodore J. Raia, Jr. Director Pelican Bay Services Division Encl: Canoe trail plan NOAA Nautical Chart 11430 Coast Pilot, Pages 207,237 CC Ms. Susan Blass, Section Chief Mr. Tunis McElwain, Regulation Enforcement Pelican Bay Foundation Pelican Bay Services Division COMBO TRAIL MARKMER & INFO SIGN CAUTION IDLE SPEED SHALLOW WATERAW SEACIRASSES PRESM LOCAL KNOWLEDU TRAIL A= it TAPZ TYPICAL TRAIL MAFOaR TFZAfL MAP�';E�, la. 14 CU TAPF ­Vf No i. flat R �, 41 ol fI;& IZ Ij 10 �.A 411- fi q. ex 7 _2 � ww Z_ A,- # 10 �.A 411- fi q. ex 7 _2 � ww Z_ A,- # pit"` A 4 -� 1612 "DMNATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATEON U N I T C C• _ 7 i. T L 5 0 C P ,A P 7 tl C 'L T �. :1 :0 U l: C NOWs n -Line Chart Viewer The nautical chart is a fundamental tool of marine navigation. It shows water depths, obstructions, aids to navigation, channels, shoreline, and more — hopefully all the information mariners need to navigate safely. OAA's 1,00"lus U.S. coastal and Great Lakes nautical charts are viewable here on -line. Each chart is up -t"ate with the most recent Notices to Mariners. Use these on-line charts as a ready reference or planning tool. Use one of on your voyage. rr 161E 00. :oast: e�ac%Puerto Klcos ann Virgin Islands 2008 (36th) Edition This edition has been corrected through; 7th Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners No. 14108, and the 8th Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners No. 14/08. Changes 1 through 38 to the previous edition (35th Edition, 2407) have been entered into this edition Changes to this edition will be published in the Seventh Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, the Eighth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners, and the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA) Notice to Mariners. The changes are also on the internet at httpt /Auwtical charts .noaa.govAisd /cpdownload.htm. U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Oceanic and AknwsplheriC Adminisim i:ion (NOAA) Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret), Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; and Administrator, NOAA Natio=l ®man Sexviee John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management Washington, DC For sale by the National Ocean Service and its sales agents a zo ..r 161 a ��o Gulf of Mexico O Chapter 3 0 207 be expected for 200 miles after leaving Dry Torhigas. For the next 100 miles the current generally sets E at 0.5 knot For the next 200 miles the set is about NNE at 0.2 knot. For nearly 200 miles before reaching Galveston the set is approximately WW at 0.2 knot It is emphasized that this approximates the long -term mean current pattern and that it may not be experi- enced on any particular voyage. (See Loop Current, this chapter.) Winds and storms frequently modify condi- tions, and their effects must be taken into account ins Piavigation am 11 Navigation on the waterways covered by this vol- ume requires a knowledge of the channel conditions and other factors restricting navigatiorilveneral items of interest to the vessel operator are—Indicated in the paragraphs that follow, details are given in the text 0 2 Special regulations governing the use, administra- tion, and navigation of floodgates and locks of the Intracoastal Waterway are given in 207.185 and 207.182, chapter 2. ManmWe canals on) In addition to thenumerous bayousand natural ca- nals, thousands of manmade canals have been dredged in the wetlands along the Gulf coast While the original purpose of many of these canals was for private access to pipelines, well locations, or for other mineral -re- lated activities, some are used by boaters. These canals and bayous contain numerous obstructions including barriers, pipes, pilings, and construction debris. Some of these structures are permanently maintained and have been suitably marked or lighted by their owners. Many others appear and disappear without notice and are uncharted, unlighted, and unmarked. Even on the marked structures, mariners cannot rely on the mark- ings always being maintained in good condition be- cause of vandalism or weather damage. Therefore, all persons using canals and bayous must anticipate the hazards posed by these obstructions and navigate with extreme caution, especially at night and during periods of reduced visibility. ti i racoastal and adjoining waterways there are many sharp bends which are dangerous to vessels meeting or passing. On approaching a bend, a vessel should reduce speed suficlentN to be able to stop within half the distance to a ship coming from the op- posite direction. Under no circumstances should a ves- sel attempt to overtake and pass another at a bend. Even with sufficient view of the channel ahead and af- ter proper exchange and understanding of signals, the overtaken vessel may suddenly sheer from current ac- tion. This is even morepronouncedwith larger vessels and tows. Crosscurrents 11311 Where hvo streams cross, the current will have a greater velocity in the deeper channel. This is notice- able along the Intracoastal Waterway where it follows a dredged canal cutting across a winding stream. Cross- currents wil I also be n oticed where either an inlet from the ocean or a drainage canal or a river enter the water- way. oszi Crosscurrents are espedaUy strong along the Intracoastal Waterway in San Carlos Bay, The Rigolets -New Orleans Cut, Chef Menteur Pass, Vermil- ion River Cutoff, and Brazos and Colorado Rivers. Spoil banks a33i Nature quickly covers her scars. This is true of the spoil banks made by dredging. When awash, these banks are often covered by grass, bushes, and some- times fairly large trees: (134) Wafer biyacinth is a floating freshwater plant which infests numerous streams tributary to the South Atlan- tic and Gulf Coasts. It has bright green leaves and a purple flower. It propagates from seeds and suckers, spreads quickly in most localities, and may cause com- plete suspension of navigation if not removed The hya- cinths form in mats or jams and float around driven by the wind or current In open water these mats often re- semble small islands. At times some of the bays and tributaries may be changed in appearance due to hya- cinth jams. Where the water is apt to be brackish, an at- tempt can be made to force a boat through the mat. In doing so, however, ere should be Laken that any logs that might be floating in the weeds are not struck with force enough to damage the hull. Snakes may also be found on the hyacinth mats. The work of removing this growth is undertaken by the various Corps of Engi- neers districts and the State of Florida by the processes of spraying, cutting, and the use of boom& (Ian gya a3n Thee distinct: types of mangrove are found in the S section of this area. Yellow or white mangrove is found principally on the sand flats in front of the fast land Red mangrove is rooted in water most of the time. Black mangrove grows on sand ridges and higher ground which cover only at very high water or storm tides. The black mangrove sometimes grows to aheight of 50 to 60 feet Along the coast from Cape Sable to Everglades City, most mangroves grow from 25 to 50 feet high with some stands of red mangroves reaching Large apartment buildings on either side of the en- trance are prominent. (217i Clam Pass, about 5 miles N of Naples, is a shoal drainage canal to Outer Clam Bay. The pass is used only by outboards in good weather. A fixed pedestrian bridge with a clearance of 7 feet vertically, and 12 feet horizontally crosses Outer Clam Bay. (See 117.1 through 11759 and 117.323, chapter 2, for draw- bridge regulations.) asap 019) P21) i Wiggins Pass, 4 miles N of Clam Pass, is subject to frequent changes. The pass is used by small craft enter- ing Coeobatchee River and the chain of lagoons and in- land waterways that lead N to the passes in Estero Bay. A private light marks the approach to the pass. Inside the pass, a channel, marked by private daybeacoas, leads S to Water'lhrkey Bay. There are several marinas an the N side of the Cocohatchee River near the mouth that provide gasoline, diesel fuel, water, ice, dry stor- age, and marine supplies. Hull, engine and electronic repairs can be made; lift to 5 tons. A highway leads along the coastal beach from Bonita Beach on little Hickory Island and crosses Big Hickory Pass on a bridge with a 40 -foot fixed span with a clearance of 10 feet. A microwave tower, about 7 miles inshore between Wiggins Pass and Big Hickazy Pass, is reported to be prominent. The tower, 715 feet high, is marked at the Lop by a red aircraft UghL A lighted green wafer tower on Big iilickov Island and a hotel between Wiggins Pass and Clam Pass are also reported to be prominent In April 1992, Big Hickory Pass was reported open for small craftwith local knowledge, Private daybeacons reportedly mark the channel from the pass S through Hogue Channel, Big Hickory Bay, and Fish Trap Bay to Imperial River and also N through Broadway Channel to New Pass and Big Carlos Pass, Local knowledge is ad- vised. A marina on the E side of the bridge over Big Hickory Pass has berths with electricity, psoline, wa- ter, and ice. The highway continues N from Big Hickory Pass over causeways on the islets in the S end of Estero Bay with bridges over New Pass, the pass just N of Big Hi& ory Island, and Big Carlos Pass. The bridge over New Pass has a clearance of 30 feet, and the one over the en- trance to the lagoon on the E side of Black Istand has a 30 -foot fixed span with a clearance of 10 feet. An 1612 A­�0 Key West to Tampa Bay ■ Cha ter 4 1K 237 overhead power cable with a clearance of 36 feet crosses the entrance to the lagoon just W of the bridge, M In April 1982, the reported depth was 4 feet in New Pass and in the channel leading S to the marinas and fish camps near Big Hickory Pass. Stakes mark the channel. in February 1978, a row of pil ings, centered in 26°22'42" N., 81'51'53'W., was reported to obstruct the charmel through New Pass. aces Big Carlos Pass, marked by lighted and unlighted buoys, is about 15 miles NW of New Pass. A hridge with a 50 -foot bascule span crossing Big Carlos Pass from Carlos Point to Black Island has a clearance of 23 feet at the center. (See 117.1 tbrongh 11759 and 117.267, chapter 2, for drawbridge regulations,) o�ss High -rise buildings on the S end of Estero Island are prominent when approaching Big Carlos Pass from the Gulf. Other high-rise and/or lower condominiums dot the Gulf side of Estero Island at its N end, cars About 1 mile NW of the bridge, a 2,100 -foot pri- vately dredged cut, 150 feet wide with several canals branching off from it, leads to a basin 500 feet long and 200 feet wide. A marina in the basin has gasoline, electricity, water, ice, marine supplies, wet and dry storage, and a pump - outstation. Engine repairs can be made. in March 2007, 6 feet was reported in the ap- proach to the marina. m» San Carlos Bay, 41 miles NNW from Cape Romano, is largely bUedwith shoals on which the depths vary be- tween 1 and 6 feet, and is of importance chiefly as the approach to Caloosahatchee River, the Okeechobee Wa- terway, and the Intracoastal Waterway, Gulf Section. The bay and adjacent waters are frequented mostly by small vessels and yachts, and are popular with tourists and fishermen during the winter. 9m Sanibel island Llgbt (26W111%, 82-00451'W.), 98 feet above the water, is shown from a brown square pyramidal skeleton tower, enclosing a stair cylinder on Point Ybel, the E end of sastibel Island. x% San Carlos Bay I1ght SC (L6°25 `N., 81 °5733V ), 16 Feet above the crater, shown from a dolphin, is 3.6 miles SE of Sanibel Island Light and marks the en- trance to San Carlos Bay, COLREGS Dommatiop Lines aim The lines established for San Carlos Bay are de- scribed in 90.748, chapter 2. charmers (2311 Matatuaa (Estero) Pass opens into the SE end of San Carlos Bay, 2.5 miles from Sanibel Island Light. 161 �q 24mv3IId3D lSli JAN 0 y /Ull PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Fiala Hiller Henning Pledge of Allegiance Coyle Roll Call Coletta Agenda Approval Clam Bay Update (S. Feldhaus) Approval of Meeting Minutes a. October 26, 2011 Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittees b. November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. All -Way Stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Project Status e. Pelican Bay Boulevard Resurfacing Status f. Community Landscaping g. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach h. Monthly Financial Report Misc. Corres: Chairman's Report a. Committee Assignments Date._ ' L'� � 12. b. Announcements Committee Reports Z p a. Clam Bay Subcommittee (D. Trecker) b. Strategic Planning Committee (M.A. Womble) Copies to: Old Business New Business a. Our Health in Pelican Bay (M.A. Womble) b. Pelican Bay Services Division Office Space in Proposed Community Center Addition (S. O'Brien) Audience Comments Miscellaneous Correspondence Adjournment REVISED AGENDA 8512 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes December 7, 2011 ROLL CALL 1612 A 20 With the exception of Messrs. Baron, Gibson, and Hansen all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler made a motion seconded by Vice Chairman Cravens to amend the agenda to have Mr. Feldhaus present a Clam Bay updatefirst. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. CLAM BAY UPDATE Mr. Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee informed the Board that the Seagate Property Owners Association initiated a lawsuit under a Florida Statute that authorizes individuals and homeowners associations to seek enforcement of agency actions when agencies themselves refuse to act. Seagate has asked a Collier County Circuit Court Judge to enforce what they contend is a requirement of the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Seagate maintains that the 1998 permit requires marking the main channel from Seagate to Clam Pass with red and green lateral navigation markers. In the past, the County sought to do what Seagate is seeking to do, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) agreed, and FDEP was ready to issue a permit. However the Pelican Bay community actively fought the action and through a political compromise persuaded the County to work with the broader community to come up with an appropriate alternative marker system. With the exception of Seagate, there was agreement that canoe trail markers and informational signs were appropriate for Clam Bay. The Board of County Commissioners agreed and in June 2011, authorized the Coastal Zone Management department to apply for a canoe trail marker permit that was approved by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), FDEP, and ACOE. In November 2011, Seagate filed a complaint with Collier County Circuit Court requesting an administrative hearing in opposition of the FDEP action approving installation of canoe trail markers. In his opinion, the 1998 permit does not require red and green navigational markers, but the outcome will be determined by a judge. However, the 1998 permit authorized the Services Division to implement the CBRMP that contains one reference about marking the main channel in accordance with USCG standards, the sole basis for Seagate's argument. If this language is removed then there is no further mention of navigational markers. By its very terms, the CBRMP is a dynamic document that the Services Division continues to be responsible for implementing and it should be reviewed and revised as circumstances change. The County and regulatory agencies agreed that canoe trail markers and informational signage are appropriate for Clam Bay. He strongly recommended that the Services Division work with County staff and County attorneys to propose an appropriate modification to the CBRMP to remove the sole basis that supports Seagate's lawsuit. Mr. Feldhaus clarified that the lawsuit only involves FDEP, not ACOE. The 1998 FDEP permit authorizes modification of the CMRMP with agency approval. However, FDEP and other agencies approved installation of canoe trail markers and informational signs, so there should be no objection. The judge would determine whether there is a permit violation based on the evidence provided by Seagate and language in the permit. The judge would also ask FDEP why the agency did not enforce the requirement. As a former litigator, and after consulting several other attorneys and former judges who agreed, he advised that if the Services Division does not take the recommended and very specific action to modify the CBRMP then there is some risk that Seagate prevails and a judge orders installation of red and green navigational markers in Clam Bay. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia made a presentation stressing red and green markers_ imply that boats have safe passage. According to ACOE and USCG, canoe trail markers satisfy the requirements of the 1998 permit. 8513 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes X61 ago December 7, 2011 Mr. Bob Naegele was concerned if the Services Division takes the recommended action it might impede the Board of County Commissioners from returning control of Clam Bay to the Services Division. Mr. Tim Hall said that his firm was responsible for implementation of the Plan, not development of it. The firm did eventually address the statement in question through the canoe trail markers. He indicated the statement was in the Plan because dredging would place a channel to an operational structure, the drawbridge. The USCG requires the approach marked so that boats know where to go before the bridge. However considering the drawbridge was seldom used, in 1999, the USCG did not require red and green markers be installed and in 2000, the canoe trail markers were permitted. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed Mr. Feldhaus' recommendation. Members expressed concerns that a modification of the Plan could be seen by a judge as gratuitous. However, most members were concerned with not taking action to modify the Plan as recommended by Mr. Feldhaus. Language would be drafted and general consensus was to review, discuss further and vote on approval at the January 4 meeting. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to authorize the Chairman and Administrator to work with the Foundation and County to seek a modification of the 1998 permit as indicated today. The Board voted unanimously in_favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26 2011 CLAM BAY & LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT_ SUBCOMMITTEES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the October 26, 2011 Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session minutes as presenter. The Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. NOVEMBER 2, 2011 BOARD REGULAR SESSION 7Lpassing an Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the November 2, 2011 Pelican Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor otion. ADMINISTRATOR'S R EPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that the community crosswalks project is well underway, but there were some utility delays. Mr. Lukasz reported that one delay was caused by Public Utilities having to lower the water line at the median cut at the North tram station crossing, but has been completed. The contractor has resumed working at the North tram station crossing and anticipates substantial completion by the end of next week. Another delay was caused by a leak in a stormwater pipe at the corner of Oakmont and Pelican Bay Boulevard that the Transportation department is still repairing. Mr. Dorrill added the contractor is adjusting the cobblestones at locations where they were slightly out of alignment. ALL -WAY STOP AT PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD AND RIDGEWOOD DRIVE Mr. Dorrill reported that the all -way stop at Pelican Bay Boulevard and Ridgewood Drive is complete with flags installed to call attention to drivers of the new four -way stop. Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 December 7. 2011 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff obtained bids from two contractors on the County's list and the pricing for asphalt on both bids were more than $75,000 over the engineers' original estimate or alternatively, staff could explore whether Bateman contractors are interested in preparing a proposal. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PROJECT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that a meeting is scheduled today at 4 p.m. with the consultants and Special Counsel Frank Matthews to discuss permit requirements in advance of the agencies pre - application meetings. Staff would provide an update January 4. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff received a draft executive summary from County staff that states their intent to phase -in resurfacing work and repayment of eligible expenses in FY 15/16 and FY 16/17. Additional cost to protect the brick pavers is $20,000 and is not eligible for reimbursement. Mr. Chandler said the Chairman's article in the Pelican Bay Post committed the Board to holding public workshops in Season and he does not see a need to approve moving forward until the Board has an opportunity to review and comment on the backup material provided. He pointed out the vendor proposals show this project will cost $1.2 million vs. $1.5 million previously estimated. However, bicycle lane striping is an additional $70,000. Chairman Dallas said most comments he has heard regarding loaning the County funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard have been negative. Arguments against included the Services Division would set a precedent by paying for a project that is the County's responsibility; the County could default on repayment; funding deficit could defer implementation of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects; project is for cosmetic, not structural purposes; and is frivolous spending. He suggested the Board discuss and decide whether to move forward or table this project. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Thomas Brown said the Services Division should not loan the County funds for public road maintenance. Ms. Noreen Murray was concerned about the Services Division loaning the County funds for road maintenance and the impact it could have on CIP projects. BOARD DISCUSSION Several members agreed with what Chairman Dallas articulated regarding comments and arguments heard opposing the project. The Board discussed preventive maintenance and mitigation measures, and the accuracy of the County's engineering evaluation. The Board agreed that the issues were whether to move forward or table loan negotiations with the County; and to find out if the road is structurally sound by obtaining an independent engineering evaluation. Mr. Dorrill pointed out the reason the Board was having this conversation is because the County does not have a uniform plan to maintain roads in the foreseeable future and is also grossly underfunded. His understanding of today's discussion is the Board's consensus is to wait until structural problems are exhibited. He did not recommend resealing because Pelican Bay Boulevard is a high - volume arterial road and it would wear -away quickly. If warranted, he recommended an independent engineering evaluation be done. For discussion January 4, comparison purposes, and to find out whether an independent evaluation is necessary, Mr. Dorrill would obtain additional information regarding microsurfacing processes done at Lely Resort where the road is falling apart and Pelican Bay Boulevard where it appears there are cosmetic issues vs. structural problems; and obtain an updated list of Pelican Bay roads scheduled for resurfacing from the Road Maintenance department. 8515 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes �. 6 �� 2 AL. 0 December 7, 2011 Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to table current negotiations with Collier County to loan the County the funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard until some future date. The Board voted unanimous! in avor passing the motion. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Dorrill reported that community landscaping projects are nearing completion. At the renovated areas, staff installed new pop -up stream irrigation heads that conserve water. Mr. Jerry Moffatt was concerned about when sod and plants would be replaced where removed to construct ADA ramps at the Hammock Oak and Oakmont crossings. Mr. Lukasz replied substantial landscaping work would be complete by the end of next week. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's does not have excess grant funds to remove exotics south of Clam Pass. He recommended the Board direct staff to obtain a bid from the County's contractor, Earth Balance to do additional work for the Services Division north of the Pass. Mr. James Hoppensteadt reported the Foundation has given the County approval to remove exotics on Foundation property. Mr. Tim Hall confirmed the Clam Bay channel maintenance permit requires exotic removal. However agencies recognize the impossibility of 100% removal and allow exotics to cover 2 -5% of the area. Ms. Marcia Cravens suggested the Board utilize Mr. Hall, already on board to remove exotics. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested the Board utilize trained volunteers to remove exotics and replant native plants. Staff would work with Mr. Hall to identify additional exotic removal areas and report back on January 4. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that one -half of the annual assessment revenue was received. Of note, seasonal expenses for fertilizer and herbicide were within $400 of the year -to -date budget, but this was expected. Operating Fund payroll expenses are understated because it does not reflect recent activity. The street lighting fund shows an insurance payment to pay for damages to a pole caused by a car. Mr. Chandler suggested staff place a note on the report to explain seasonal or irregular year -to -date expenditures. Ms. Mollie Moffatt was not pleased with the community's general appearance. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Chairman Dallas assigned Ms. O'Brien to the Budget Subcommittee. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Board of County Commissioners meet December 13; the Foundation Board meets December 16; and next Services Division Board meeting is January 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Dr. Trecker reviewed the Board's November 2 discussion regarding imminent water quality regulations and that the Board voted not to take any action. 8516 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes December 7, 2011 161 2 A,20 Dr. Trecker reported that what is proposed in the County's permit application to dredge Clam Pass in his opinion should cause no harm. Rather than discuss at great length today, he suggested that after the Clam Bay annual monitoring report is issued scheduling a workshop that would involve presentations by Messrs. Tim Hall and Ken Humiston. Mr. Hall said that he expects the annual report complete by mid - December and available to the Board January 4. Ms. Cravens alleged the County withheld pertinent information when it submitted the permit application. Ms. O'Brien requested Dr. Trecker provide a copy of the permit application. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Ms. Womble reported the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) met to discuss conceptual plans to improve The Commons and Community Center; including developing green space, tree canopies, communitywide fiber optic internet technology; and voted to recommend to the Foundation Board to engage the services of a civil engineer. Mr. Moffatt reported that the Facilities Committee recommended supporting Foundation staff opinion to not make changes the commissary kitchen at The Commons and explore expanding the Sandpiper kitchen instead. NEW BUSINESS OUR HEALTH IN PELICAN BAY Ms. Womble reported at the last Foundation Board meeting, Mr. Dave Ritger presented information regarding studies that concluded "tailpipe pollution" is the cause of health problems that might be prevented by constructing a barrier between the highway and residential area that would trap and reduce pollutants in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Dave Ritger expressed frustration because no groups in Pelican Bay are studying whether a barrier is needed along U.S. 41 and requested the Board have a study done that focuses on health issues caused by tailpipe pollution. Mr. Hoppensteadt and the Board acknowledged the U.S. 41 barrier project is the Foundation's responsibility. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE SPACE IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER ADDITION Ms. O'Brien reported that the Foundation is proposing Services Division office space at the Community Center and suggested the Board discuss and provide input. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation welcomed the Board's feedback and the space would be rent free. Chairman Dallas was concerned the current design implied that Ms. Resnick would perform the role of receptionist for both the Services Division and Foundation staff. Mr. Dorrill agreed conceptually this is a good idea and pointed out the design plans are preliminary. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Cravens liked the idea of saving money on rent, but was concerned that merging offices could cause confusion. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in [favor, passing the motion. 1,1,:AZ � K i . Dallas, (h man 8517 Minutes by LRJ 12/29/20113:12:00 PM 16 f 2A o �j A N PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 $Y : ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Special Session on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at one o'clock in the afternoon at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman Dave Trecker absent John P. Chandler Mary Anne Womble Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Baron absent John Iaizzo Hunter H. Hansen Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Fiala _ Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Hiller Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Henning - Coyle Coletta — AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Discussion of Proposed Resolution Regarding Pending Legal Action Concerning Markers in Clam Bay 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Dr. Trecker, and Messrs. Baron and Gibson, all members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas explained the sole issue of the meeting was to discuss and decide whether to support the proposed resolution regarding pending legal action initiated by Seagate concerning markers in Clam Bay. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia supported the Pelican Bay Foundation defending the community against red and green markers. However the Board of County Commissioners is ex- officio governing body of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board and sole authority to modify the 1998 permit. All regulatory agencies stated the 1998 permit does not require red and green markers. He does not agree this Board should take swift action that the court could view as disingenuous and suggested postponing a vote to support the proposed resolution. Ms. Jane DeFalco, 16 -year resident of Pelican Bay supported Dr. Raia's position. Ms. Mary Johnson was concerned the Services Division's support for t#AwsQb#W would enshrine "sign pollution ". Date: No one else in the audience wished to speak and Chairman Dallas closed the au ten ssion. Item #: Codes to: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Minutes 1612 December 14, 2011 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING PENDING LEGAL ACTION CONCERNING MARKERS IN CLAM BAY Mr. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation presented the Foundation's position regarding the pending legal action concerning markers in Clam Bay. The Foundation recommended the Services Division support the proposed resolution that seeks to memorialize the Services Division's endorsement of the existing canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay authorized by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The issue is how to properly mark Clam Bay. Although all approving authorities recently authorized canoe trail markers and informational signs as appropriate markers in Clam Bay, the Board must recognize this position was not always universally held. Previously and despite the community's objections, the Board of County Commissioners, Clam Bay Advisory Committee, Coastal Advisory Committee, and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) agreed red and green lateral navigation markers were appropriate markers for Clam Bay, so there is ambiguity with how the language can be interpreted. As the Board discussed December 7, under a Florida Statute that authorizes individuals and homeowners associations to seek enforcement of agency actions, Seagate contends the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit issued by FDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP) requires red and green lateral navigation markers in Clam Bay. The CBRMP states that if the main channel is marked, it must be marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) standards. This language does not exist in the FDEP permit. This language does not exist in the CBRMP implementation section. This Board is the authority to implement the CBRMP. It is the Foundation's position that the Services Division has a duty to amend this language because it has caused confusion. He urged the Board not to waive its authority and opportunity to amend the CBRMP and support the proposed resolution. Chairman Dallas explained the deadline for the legal filing is December 19, so this issue must be dealt with today. There are two parts to the proposed resolution. One is that the Board supports the Foundation, and the other part is amending the CBRMP so that the language does not exist, remove any doubt, and render Seagate's argument moot. The Foundation would provide the Services Division with adequate representation vs. the County Attorney who does not have a vested interest. F Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the resolution mending to amend specific language in the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan remove any Scriveners errors in the document. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing otion. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted unanimous) in favor, assin the motion. Keith . Dallas, airman Minutes by LRJ 12/22/201110:55:43 AM 8519 16th 20 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN SPECIAL SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. o RR�I ba -C-�.tjp AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: JAN n 9 M12 AAU.k'V-c L-1 1. Pledge of Allegiance BY " °" " " " " " " " " "° C4 �C'4 Xd 2. Roll Call 3. Discussion of Proposed Resolution Regarding Pend' Action Concerning Markers in Clam Bay Fiala 4. Audience Comments Hiller Henning 5. Adjournment Coyle Coletta ,?c. ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. Misc. Cones: Date: Item k t l ^ 26 Copies to: 12/12/201111:56:32 AM 1612p20 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ") Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit, Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization and Variance No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) (the "1998 DEP Permit ") authorized the Pelican Bay Municipal Services and Benefit Taxing Unit known as the Pelican Bay Services Division (the "PBSD ") as permittee to implement the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (the "Plan "); WHEREAS, the 1998 DEP Permit and the Plan were designed to deal with the environmental degradation of Clam Bay that was occurring in 1998, and were not designed to change the navigational characteristics of Clam Bay; WHEREAS, there is nothing in the 1998 DEP Permit specifically dealing with the installation of markers within Clam Bay, and, in fact, a careful review of the 1998 DEP Permit and all of the supporting findings of facts clearly indicates that the 1998 DEP Permit required only the following markers in all of Clam Bay: Section 3(h) (page 9/21 of the 1998 DEP Permit): "Permanent manatee informational signs, such as those shown in the enclosed example sheets, shall be installed and maintained at the canoe boat ramp at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay following completion of the initial dredging event." Section 5 (page 9/21 of the 1998 DEP Permit): "The Clam Bay ecosystem contains waterways that are difficult to navigate due to shallow water depths and meandering channels lined with protruding mangroves branches and roots. To protect the significant natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay ecosystem, and to provide protection to the public safety (boaters utilizing these waters), there shall be an idle speed /no wake restriction on motorized vessels used in the system (as stipulated in County Ordinance No. 96 -16). The existing restrictions placed upon boating activities within the Clam Bay system by County Ordinance No. 96 -16 shall remain active and enforceable for the life of this permit. Additionally, two Florida Marine Patrol approved signs that state: "Idle Speed -No Wake" and "Caution- Shallow Water and Natural Resources Present - Tilt Motor Up to Prevent Prop Dredge- Damage to Natural Resources Subject to Fines, Pursuant to Chapter 370, F.S." shall be placed at the following locations following completion of the initial dredging event: 1) One within the entrance to Clam Pass facing boaters entering the bays; 2) One at the entrance to Outer Clam Bay facing north and easily legible to boaters entering Outer Clam Bay; 3) One at the entrance to Inner Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Inner Clam Bay; 4) One at the entrance to upper Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Upper Clam Bay; and, 1612 A20 5) One within the upper reaches of Outer Clam Bay facing southeast and easily legible to boaters leaving Seagate." WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps ") also issued a permit at the same time as the 1.998 DEP Permit (the "1998 Corps Permit "). The Corps' Findings of Fact with respect to the 1998 Corps Permit also made it clear that the 1998 Corps Permit also did not contemplate any changes in navigation in Clam Bay. In its evaluation of recreation considerations under the Public Interest Section of its findings of Fact (Section 9.a (13), page 22/28), the Corps stated: "(13) Recreation: The proposed Plan will not change the current recreational use of the Bay, however, the Plan does contain a Recreational Component that will address appropriate notification, signage, and policing of the Bay." In its evaluation of navigation considerations under the same Public Interest Section of its Findings of Fact (Section 9.a (11), page 22/28), the Corps stated: (11) Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)): .... The original Plan sought to restrict the use of motorized boats within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision to the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition, the proposed Plan would implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant changes in navigation in the Bay." WHEREAS, the foregoing two sections of the 1998 DEP Permit, Sections 3(h) and 5, and Section (13) of the Corps Findings of Fact with respect to the 1998 Corps Permit, contain the only mention of even signage in either the 1998 DEP Permit, the 1998 Corps Permit, or in any findings of fact issued by either agency in connection therewith (collectively, the "Permit Documents "). There is no mention of markers anywhere in the Permit Documents. WHEREAS, the Plan did directly deal with motorized boating in Clam Bay, in Section 3.3.2 dealing with the Proposed Recreational Component of the Plan: Plan, pages 36 -38: "For the most part, Clam Bay remains inaccessible to the general public.... Canoeing of the waterways within Clam Bay remains a popular activity for those seeking a more intimate look at the estuary, and its wildlife or those seeking solitude in the upper reaches of the bay. Fishing is also a frequent undertaking from either the boardwalks or canoes. Swimming is confined to the beach area, although there is a reasonable amount of wading in Clam Pass and back into the estuary as much as 1,000 or so feet from the mouth of the Pass. 2 1612 A20 The use of motorized watercraft is not prohibited, and evidence of periodic use of such is evident from observation. For the most part, the accumulation of sediments and the shoaling that has taken place has resulted in physically limiting the accessibility of Clam Bay to deeper draft boats and particularly those equipped with engines. Most, if not all of the motorized boat traffic is believed to originate in the Seagate residential area and be confined to the area from Outer Clam Bay to Clam Pass. [emphasis supplied] The Management Plan would not anticipate any change to the recreational use characteristics of Clam Bay. The contemplated widening and deepening of Clam Pass and the interior channels leading into Outer Clam Bay will not measurably improve navigability. Earlier assumptions to the contrary have proved to be inappropriate as the channel itself remains very confined. Further, since no dredging of Outer Clam Bay is proposed, accessibility across the same will not be noticeable improved. [emphasis supplied] Presently, Collier County has enacted Ordinance 96 -16 which Ordinance provides for the utilization of the Clam Bay area by motorized watercraft provided that they operate at no wake and idle speed. The Management Plan recommends no change in that protocol. The PBSD will however, in cooperation with the County, vigorously enforce the existing Ordinance. Further, if significant adverse impacts to the natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay system are confirmed by the Collier County Department of Natural Resources, the FDEP and the Corps environmental staffs to be directly attributable to the use of motorized boats within the Clam Bay system, then additional restrictions or adjustments in the use of motorized boats within the Clam Bay system shall be considered for imposition to ensure that the ecological integrity of the Clam Bay system is preserved.... Appropriate notification, signage and policing will be provided by the County and the PBSD to ensure compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at the southern end of Clam Bay. These are intended to ensure that persons accessing the Clam Bay system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the existence of no wake /idle speed requirements for motorized boat operation and importantly, the importance of staying out of areas as having maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat. Precise language to be included in the signage will be determined in cooperation with the agencies post permit issuance. [emphasis supplied] WHEREAS, the only mention of markers that occurs in any document connected with the Permit Documents is in the Plan, where, on page 38 and 39, the following sentence occurs: "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating their water craft outside the same." [emphasis supplied] 3 16[2p20 WHEREAS, the foregoing clearly indicates that the purpose of the referenced markers was to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat in the main channel by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying out of such areas. [emphasis supplied] WHEREAS, the residents of the community known as Seagate ( "Seagate ") have contended for several years that this single sentence in the Plan mandates the installation of red and green navigational markers in Clam Bay, not only in the "main channel," which is the only area that this sentence mentions to be marked, but also through Outer Clam Bay. WHEREAS, the PBSD, as the original permittee of the 1998 DEP Permit and the 1998 Corp Permit, and as the author of the Plan, is fully aware that neither the 1998 DEP Permit, the 1998 Corps Permit, nor the Plan contemplated the installation of red and green navigational markers anywhere in Clam Bay. WHEREAS, the PBSD, as the original permittee of the 1998 DEP Permit and the 1998 Corp Permit, and as the author of the Plan, believes that the purpose of the referenced markers was to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying out of such areas. WHEREAS, by the explicit terms of the 1998 DEP Permit and by the explicit terms of the Plan the Plan was designed as a dynamic document that can be modified over time: General Condition 1 of the 1998 DEP Permit: All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached drawings approved as a part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of this permit. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing of any anticipated deviation from the permit so that the Department can determine whether a modification of the permit is required. Plan, page 4: "It is recognized that as management protocols are implemented, monitoring conducted, and the demands on the natural ecosystem change, new challenges and opportunities will develop beyond those presented in this plan. The PBSD is aware that changes will occur and has development a Management Plan that is dynamic and can be modified through time while still meeting the PBSD's goals." Plan, page 5: "The Report has been used to select those management protocols that meet the goals established by the PBSD and related and interested stake holders. The long -term goal of the Management Plan is that it be used as a tool for evaluating new management options, as well as existing protocols as circumstances require. It should be used minimally, on an annual basis, for m 1612 A20 reviewing any new issues or options, as well as for evaluating existing operational protocols. These analysis [sic] will assist in the prioritization for implementation in the next ensuing year. SAs new management issues develop and others are resolved or implemented, the Management Plan can be updated to reflect the current and future needs of Clam Bay." Plan, pages 5 -6: "The goals established by the PBSD for the Clam Bay Management Plan are:.... develop operational protocols that allow the permit holder to respond to changing circumstances under defined parameters ...." Plan, page 8: "In the Section entitled the Role of the PBSD, the report discusses a framework for the PBSD to become not only a clearinghouse and coordinator for activities relating to Clam Bay, but also the primary manager of the implementation protocols." Plan, page 10: "As the official manager of the Management Plan, the PBSD will direct and have responsibility for its implementation and operation over time. As such, the PBSD will plan and implement identified management protocols. The objectives of these management protocols will be to protect, enhance, and maintain the natural resources and the ecological value of Clam Bay. WHEREAS, the PBSD has treated the Plan as a dynamic document and has made changes in implementation protocols over the life of the Plan, including, among other things, determining what markers are most appropriate for Clam Bay to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying out of such areas. WHEREAS, the Chairman of the PBSD Board participated with representatives of the County, the City of Naples, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the Mangrove Action Group, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Seagate on a Clam Bay Marker Working Group to attempt to determine what marking system is most appropriate for Clam Bay. WHEREAS, the Chairman of the PBSD Board and the Clam Bay Working Group, with the exception of the representative of Seagate, recommended the installation of canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay in order (i) to protect maturing seagrass beds and potential manatee habitat by ensuring that those who use the system know about the importance of staying out of such areas, and (ii) to provide notice to users of the system of the presence of shoals, and (iii) to provide notice to users of the system that the system is being used by a variety of watercraft. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County (the "BCC ") considered on June 14, 2011 the recommendation of the Clam Bay Marker Working Group and approved and adopted this recommendation and instructed Collier County staff to seek to obtain a permit from the relevant authorities authorizing the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs. 5 1612 A EU WHEREAS, the Collier County Director of Coastal Zone Management applied for and obtained on September 9, 2011, a permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ( "FWC ") for the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs. WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, the Corps notified Collier County as follows: As long as the markers are consistent with Special condition 2 of the Corps permit no. SAJ- 1996 -02789 an additional permit is not needed because the markers are already authorized under this permit. The Corps will allow informational channel markers instead of coast guard approved markers. The intent of this condition within the Corps permit is to protect the resources while allowing safe passage. The markers shown in the attached application appear to satisfy this requirement and will bring the permit back in compliance. Please see the attached letter and make sure to submit the requested documentation once the work is completed. WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the USCG notified Collier County as follows: This email is in response to the attached State of Florida, FWC permit 11 -020 dated September 9, 2011 for the establishment of information marks in Clam Pass /Bay. The USCG has no objection for the placement of the marks per the attached permit. WHEREAS, on November 2, 2011, the DEP gave notice of its intent to grant an exemption and a consent to use sovereign submerged lands for the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs. WHEREAS, the PBSD considers the Plan to have been de facto amended to provide for the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs by virtue of the foregoing actions. WHEREAS, in order to avoid any doubt regarding this fact, the PBSD Board wishes to make it clear that the Plan has been amended to provide for the installation of these canoe trail markers and informational signs. WHEREAS, the PBSD has in the past assessed the residents of Pelican Bay to fulfill its functions as the permittee under the Plan, and continues to assess the residents of Pelican Bay to fulfill the other purposes of the PBSD with respect to Clam Bay as outlined in Collier County Ordinance 2006 -05, which include the "the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve...." 31 1612 R20 WHEREAS, the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation ") is the homeowners association representing each of the residents of Pelican Bay who are assessed by the PBSD. WHEREAS, the PBSD is a dependent district of Collier County. WHEREAS, the PBSD wishes to ensure that the residents who have been and are being assessed by the PBSD to pay for the design and implementation of the Plan and for ongoing matters involving Clam Bay being handled by the PBSD are represented in the lawsuit brought by Seagate. WHEREAS, the PBSD wishes to request that the Foundation intervene in the lawsuit brought by Seagate in order to represent the interests of such residents. NOW THEREFORE, the PBSD Board hereby resolves as follows: RESOLVED, that the Plan and the 1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates the Plan have been amended in fact by the actions of (i) the Clam Bay Marker Working Group in recommending the installation of canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay, (ii) the BCC in approving and adopting this recommendation and in instructing Collier County staff to obtain a permit from the relevant authorities authorizing their installation, (iii) the FWC is permitting their installation, (iv) the Corps in approving their installation, (v) the USCG in approving their installation, and (vi) the DEP in providing a notice of intent to grant and exemption and consent to use sovereign submerged lands for their installation; and be it further RESOLVED, that in order to remove any doubt as to whether the Plan and the 1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates the Plan have been amended in fact by the actions of (i) the Clam Bay Marker Working Group in recommending the installation of canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay, (ii) the BCC in approving and adopting this recommendation and in instructing Collier County staff to obtain a permit from the relevant authorities authorizing their installation, (iii) the FWC is permitting their installation, (iv) the Corps in approving their installation, (v) the USCG in approving their installation, and (vi) the DEP in providing a notice of intent to grant and exemption and consent to use sovereign submerged lands for their installation, the Plan and the 1998 DEP Permit to the extent it incorporates the Plan are hereby amended by deleting the sentence on pages 37 and 38 of the Plan that provides "Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the prohibitions of operating their water craft outside the same" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "Finally, Clam Bay will be marked with the canoe trail marker and informational signs permitted by the FWC on September 9, 2011, and as are covered by DEP's notice dated November 2, 2011, of intent to grant an exemption and consent to use sovereign submerged lands for their installation; and be it further 7 1612 A'20 RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the PBSD Board be and hereby is instructed to provide a copy of these resolutions duly adopted by the PBSD Board to the Collier County Attorney for such further action by the BCC as is deemed necessary and appropriate; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Foundation be and hereby is requested to intervene in the lawsuit brought by Seagate in order to ensure that the residents of Pelican Bay who have been and are being assessed by the PBSD to pay for the design and implementation of the Plan and for ongoing matters involving Clam Bay that are being handled by the PBSD are represented in the lawsuit brought by Seagate. 17-11 L/// / Kei J. Dallas, Ch . ian Y Pelican Bay Services Division Board E 4 b O N M ti ry H N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Pagel of 143 1612 A 20 o� c U_ c =4-1 Findings Number: ( ITI (i © 017 18 9 Conversion services provided by: rrcc , GHA PHICS The Information and Image Managers 1925 -A NW Second Street Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 372 -6039 - Fax: (352) 378 -6039 On -line: www.micrographiesinc.com =o Statement ._ c =4-1 Findings Number: ( ITI (i © 017 18 9 Conversion services provided by: rrcc , GHA PHICS The Information and Image Managers 1925 -A NW Second Street Gainesville, FL 32609 Phone: (352) 372 -6039 - Fax: (352) 378 -6039 On -line: www.micrographiesinc.com December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special,Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 2 of 143 r 1612 CESAJ -RD -WF APPLICATION No. 199602789(IP -CC) MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Finding for Above- Numbered Permit Application 1. Applicant: Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 2. Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project: a. Location: The proposed work is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. b. Existing Site Conditions: The Clam Bay system consists of three primary bays; Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay, and Clam Pass Inlet. The three bays are connected by a series of tidal creeks and all receive runoff from adjacent upland and wetland areas. Outer Clam Bay, the largest of the three bays, connects to an inner channel that connects to the Gulf of Mexico by way of Clam Pass. Typically, wherever coastlines are protected from the direct action of waves, the area between tides (intertidal zone) supports wetland vegetation. In Clam Bay, the intertidal community is the mangrove forest. The mangrove forest at Clam Bay is structured and behaves as expected for a mangrove forest of the type found in the coastal regions of South Florida. Three species of mangroves are found in Clam Bay: red mangrove (Rhizophaora mangle), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). Clam Bay contains approximately 575 acres of jurisdictional area, which consist of 443 acres of mangroves, 124 acres of open water bays and channels, 1 acre of cattail marsh, and approximately 7 acres of seagrasses. The Clam Bay system is bounded on the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road, to the south by Seagate Drive, to the east by the Pelican Bay Development and to the west by the Gulf of Mexico. The development of Pelican Bay had a limited impact on the wetlands themselves (approximately 78 acres located in the Statement of Findings Page 1 N b O N M N N N N May 14, 1998 i December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 3 of 143 .X 1612 A 20 "J CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application northwestern corner of the property) leaving the mangrove forest intact and preserved around the bay. Clam Bay is now designated a Natural Resource Protection Area by Collier County. Tidal range is restricted throughout the Clam Bay system. Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has migrated north and south along the shore over the years. Historically, the bay was open to the north through Vanderbilt Lagoon and to the south by Venetian Bay, However, the northern connection was blocked by the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road in the 1950's, and the southern connection was blocked by the construction of Seagate Drive in the 1960's. In 1976, three culverts were .installed under Seagate Drive to reconnect Venetian Bay to Clam Bay. Currently, those culvert have deteriorated and resulted in a limited flow capacity. The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, but it is restricted by sediment deposits just inside the pass and along meandering tidal creeks surrounded by mangrove forest. The smaller embayments located primarily to the north of the pass are not subject to normal tidal exchange except during exceptionally high tides. The drainage basin for Clam Bay encompasses approximately 3,000 acres, of which, 2,000 acres have been developed. The development landward of the mangroves required a stormwater management system which was designed to and does spread runoff along the eastern edge of the Clam Bay estuary. Runoff into the bay occurs at the extreme northwest end of the system and continuously along the eastern edge of Clam Bay. A berm separates the developed portion of Pelican Bay from the estuary lying to the west of the development, but numerous culverts through the berm discharge water to a swale system along the eastern perimeter of Clam Bay. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), a 1978 study conducted by Tropical BioIndustries Co. and Gee and Jenson indicted that approximately 8.8 acres of black mangroves in the interior of the system had died. In 1992, an area of dead black mangroves was discovered west of Upper Clam Bay. Subsequent investigations of the mortality did not reveal the cause and red and white mangroves were seemingly unaffected by the die -off. However, excessive inundation of the pneumatophores of the black mangroves has been linked to tree mortality (Scholander, 1955; Mckee, 1993 & 1995), According to the Pelican Bay Services Division, in the early 1990's and in 1995, the majority of the black mangrove within the Upper Clam Bay had been affected by stagnant high water levels completely submerging the pneumatophores Statement of Findings Page 2 M 0 0 N M H �y ry 0 N N N N *^1 May 14, 1998 a 0 0 N ni Ty H a N N N N *y December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 4 of 143 ` 1612 AZT, CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application for 2 to 4 weeks. In 1995, significantly larger areas of mangroves (inclusive of red mangroves and some white mangroves) were dying and as of April 1996 the acreage of dead mangroves within the Clam Bay system was approximately 50 acres. In response to this die -off a number of interrelated initiatives were undertaken by both the public and private sectors in an attempt to determine the cause of the die -off, slow the die -off, and to initiate limited restoration. As a result of these initiatives a variety of related permit applications were prepared by WCI Communities, L.P., Pelican Bay Service Division, and Collier County. Department of the Army (DA) Permit 199501027 (LP-CC) issued on April 3, 1996, authorized the excavation of 9,200 cubic yards of shoaled sand from Clam Pass Inlet to restore flushing to Clam Bay. This permit was sequentially reissued in March 1997 and 1998. DA Permit 199601979(LP -CC) issued on June 26, 1996, authorized the manual excavation for the re- opening of 1312 linear feet of main tidal channels within Upper Clam Bay. DA Permit 199602789(LP -CC) issued on January 28, 1997, authorized the placement of two portable hydraulic dewatering pumps and associated piping for emergency dewatering of the Bay. C. Initial Project Description: Over the past several years, approximately fifty acres of mangroves located primarily in Upper Clam Bay have died. Collier County created a Mangrove Task Force to investigate the die -off and to develop an action plan. The proposed Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is part of a program to stop the expansion of the mangrove die -off areas and eventually reverse the process and restore the dead mangrove areas. The applicant proposes the following as principal elements and benefits of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (Plan): 1. Installing a tidal flap gate system linking Venetian Bay with outer Clam Bay, thereby increasing the turnover of water in Outer Clam Bay. This is proposed to improve water quality for the benefit of the extensive seagrass habitat and its associated marine life, as well as provide enhanced scouring of Clam Pass as the surcharge of water that formerly oscillated between Venetian Bay and Outer Clam Bay will be forced to exit on the ebb tide through Clam Pass. 2. Deeping and widening Clam Pass to provide for a significantly enhanced tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, as Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 3 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 5 of 143 1612 A 2 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application well as provide high quality sand for "beach renourishment" and the creation of upland islands of native tree flora, which is proposed to contribute to the ecological diversity of the Clam Bay system. The dimensions of the proposed excavation cuts range, depending on the location, between 3 feet to 4 feet (MLW) in depth with a bottom width from 15 feet to 40 feet. 3. opening of the deteriorating network of interior tidal creeks and channels to both improve the tidal exchange capacity of the Clam Bay system, and contribute to enhanced water quality within the system. The restoration of the tidal exchange dynamics is proposed to permit the ingress and egress of marine life utilizing the mangrove embayments, accelerate the recovery of the mangrove habitat and restore the desirable estuarine quality of the Clam Bay system. 4. The selective cutting of 50 to 75 percent of the dead mangrove trees is proposed to improve the aesthetic quality of the Clam Bay System, as well as permit the establishment of mangrove starter islands to help stimulate the recovery of the mangrove habitat. The proposed tree cutting will be accomplished with chain saws to cut the dead tree trunks at close to ground level and left on site. 5. The development and implementation of a revised freshwater /stormwater management system for the developed uplands lying east of Clam Bay is proposed to facilitate a reexamination of the role of fresh water in the Clam Bay system, with an anticipated result being a significantly reduced level of fresh water irrigation for Pelican Bay and a modified landscaped palette to be introduced over time. Total direct wetland impacts for the proposed works referenced above are approximately 11.36 acres. Total area within the Clam Bay project site comprises approximately 443 acres of mangroves and 124 acres of open water bays. d. Changes to Project: The application review resulted in the following changes to the proposed project: Adjusted the navigation standard to conform to Collier County Ordinance 96 -16 and include a material destruction provision requiring additional protection to Clam Bay. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 4 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 6 of 143 1612 hZ0 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application • Clarification of an affirmative duty by Collier County to undertake the freshwater studies and development and implementation of an action plan based on the studies. Including additional language clarifying the right of the agencies (COE & DEP) to review and approve the freshwater /stormwater study reports. • Removal of aerial spoil disposition for Cuts 1, 2, and 3 and identification of the spoil sites and protocols for those locations in upland areas behind (landward /bayward) of the dune line. • Clarification of the location and characteristics of the main channel excavation, including reduction and demonstration of minimization for impacts to seagrasses. Including a provision for mitigation of seagrass impacts if not fully recovered within a five year time period. • Relocation of beach suitable dredge material between the mean high and low water lines. Slurry material will be discharged behind the dune located in a previously approved spoil disposal site approximately 200 feet south of the pass. • Deletion of spoil islands from the Plan. • Clarification of ongoing maintenance and post implementation standards. Additional supporting data and text to augment conclusions demonstrating the need for the enhanced tidal exchange dynamics was forward to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for verification. 3. Project Purpose: a. Basic: Wetland Enhancement b. Overall: To restore hydrological and efficient tidal exchange to Clam Pass and the interior creeks and address the freshwater input into the Clam Bay system. 4. Statutory Authority: Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the "Clean Water Act. 5. Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending: Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 5 i { 'S, 0 0 N M ^1 0 h M1 N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 7 of 143 X61 A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application a. State water quality certification (W0C): The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is currently processing Application Number 11- 304991 -9. b. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency /permit: There is no evidence or indication from the State of Florida that the project is inconsistent with the Florida CZM. Issuance of a DEP /WMD permit certifies that the project is consistent with the CZM plan. c. Other authorizations: No information has been received regarding any other authorizations that may be required. 6. Date of Public Notice and Summary of Comments: a. The application was received and initially reviewed on 9 April 1997. Additional information was requested on 23 April 1997, and the application was considered complete on 10 July 1997. A public notice was issued on 17 July 1997, and sent to all interested parties including appropriate State and Federal agencies. It should be noted that due to a delay by the applicant to respond to the Corps request for additional information, the DEP review process preceded the Corps public notice. Therefore, several comments were received concerning the proposed project review by the DEP prior to the DA public notice date. All comments received on this application have been reviewed and are summarized below: (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA did not respond to the public notice. It is assumed that this is pursuant to their letter of 25 May 1994 which stated that the EPA would "...no longer routinely provide written responses to public notices for which we have no comment or no objection." However, in phone conversation on 15 September 1997, Mr. Haynes Johnson of the EPA, Wetlands Protection Section, Atlanta, indicated that he had concerns of the lack of specifics with in the Plan to address plant physiology and pathology. Statement of Findings Page 6 May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 8 of 143 a 1612 A zo CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (FWS): In an undated letter received on 14 August 1997, the FWS requested a 30 -day extension to the public notice comment period. In DA letter dated 14 August 1997, the public notice comment period was extended to 19 September 1997. In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Part IV(3)(a), in letter dated 19 September 1997, the Service advised that the proposed work may affect aquatic resources of national importance. Specific concerns of the FWS was the loss of seagrass habitat, deposition of dredged material onto intertidal areas, proposed spray of dredge material onto mangrove wetlands, and lack of "upstream" problem solving and focus on diverting excess fresh water off of the mangrove wetlands in Upper Clam Bay. A recommendations by the FWS was to monitor the area for a one year period and submit the information to the Federal agencies for their evaluation. Pursuant to Part IV(3)(b) of the MOA, the FWS Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, issued a determination, by letter dated 8 October 1997, that the proposed work will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic resources of national importance if permitted as specified. The Service strongly recommended a mutual resolution of the identified wetland /wildlife concerns at the field level prior to issuance /denial of the permit. (3) National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS): In letter dated 13 August 1997, the NMFS requested a 30 -day extension to the public notice comment period. In accordance with the procedural requirements of the 1992 404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Part IV(3)(a), in letter dated 19 September 1997, the NMFS advised that the proposed work may affect aquatic resources of national importance. Specific concerns of NMFS was the proposed loss of 1.6 acre of seagrass habitat, lack of "concrete proposals for reducing freshwater inputs that should be incorporated into the management plan ", and the questionable hydrological methodology of the Plan. statement of Findings Page 7 0 a N M ry N N N N May 14, 1998 L] Q 0 N ti M N H H N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 9 of 143 1612 A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application Pursuant to Part IV(3)(b) of the MOA, the NMFS Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, issued a determination, by letter dated 10 October 1997, that the proposed work will have substantial and unacceptable impacts on aquatic resources of national importance if permitted as specified. The NMFS strongly recommended a mutual resolution of the identified wetland /wildlife concerns at the field level prior to issuance /denial of the permit. (4) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): In letter dated 22 August 1997, SHPO indicated that in their opinion, because of the project location and /or nature, the proposed project would have no effect on any sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of national, state, or local significance. The project is also consistent with Florida's Coastal Management Program and its historic preservation laws. (5) congressional Inquiry: In letter dated 27 August 1997, Congressman Porter Goss requested an update on the proposed project, In DA letter dated 24 September 1997, Congressman Goss was updated on the application's status. (6) State and local agencies: City of Naples: In letter dated 8 July 1997, Mr. Jon C. Staiger, Natural Resources Manager, indicated the City's support of the proposed Plan with the exception of the proposed restriction on motorized vessels within Clam Bay. (7) Organizations: The Conservancy of Southwest Florida (The Conservancy): In letter dated 6 May 1997, The Conservancy responded to the DEP review of the proposed Plan (DA application was incomplete and awaiting additional information). The Conservancy indicated concerns over the plan's lack of methodology, data, and references. • Specifically, the Conservancy indicated concerns to the creation of "upland islands" and channelization of the system. The applicant responded to the Conservancy's concerns in a separate letter dated 10 July 1997. Statement of Findings Page 8 May 14, 1998 0 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 10 of 143 161 E A CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application Save the Manatee Club: In letter dated 29 May 1997, Mr. Fran Stallings representing the Save the Manatee Club indicated that the proposed Plan was conceptually sound. The Mangrove Action Group, Inc.: In letter dated 5 June 1997, the Mangrove Action Group indicated their support for the proposed project. Seagate Property Owners Association, Inc. & Seagate Beach Club, Inc.: In letter dated 24 June 1997, members from the above referenced groups indicated that although they supported the restoration of the Clam Bay they felt that there was no need for the proposed upland islands. In addition, they indicated strong opposition to the proposed restriction of motorized vessels in the Bay. Save the Bays Association, Inc.: On 28 July 1997, a joint DEP and Corps meeting was held at the Naples City Hall at the request of Save the Bays. A summarization of this meeting was provided in the Save the Bays publication dated 29 July 1997, however, the primary concerns to the proposed Plan were maintaining boating rights in the Seagate area and avoiding negative effects at Doctors Pass from the proposed flap gates. It should also be noted that many Save the Bays publications were provided to the Corps throughout the review process concerning Save the Bays on -going review of the proposed Plan. Contessa Condominium Association: In letter dated 19 August 1997, Nancy Ertle, President of the Contessa Condominium Association, indicated their support to the Plan and requested immediate approval. Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, Inc.: In letter dated 5 September 1997; John W. Hoyt, President of the Pelican Bay Property owners Association, indicated their support for the proposed Plan. Pelican Bay Advisory Board: In letter dated 9 September 1997, Rodkey Craighead, representing the Pelican Bay Advisory Board, indicated their support to the proposed Plan. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 9 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 11 of 143 1 6 A 2 0 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (8) Individuals: It should be noted that many individuals (50 +) wrote letters in support of the various organizations stated above. Unless the individuals had specific comments other than what was indicated by their associated organizations, they were not addressed separately under this review. In letter dated 9 July 1997, Mr. Michael Williams indicated support for the proposed Plan, specifically the proposed installation of the flap gate culverts. The following individuals indicated their support for the proposed Plan through separate letters as documented in the supporting file: Richard P. Hamilton, Anthony P. Pires, Jr., Russ Mudge, Marilyn and Calvin Arnold, and Dorothy and Dick Splittorf b. Response to the comments: The comments received in response to the public notice were coordinated with the applicant via facsimile on 8 October 1997. The applicant responded to the comments in letter dated 14 October 1997. The applicant's response stated that the issue of freshwater input into Clam Bay over emphasized the freshwater component of the mangrove die -off. The critical issue was not the amount of freshwater into the system, but the systems absence of adequate tidal flushing. Although the freshwater input into the system remained a component of the Plan, the applicant stressed that the appropriate focus of the Plan was to address the flushing capacity of Clam Bay as a whole system. Furthermore, the Plan had been revised resulting in a reduction of seagrass impacts from 1.6 acres to 0.31 acre, representing less than 20% of the total excavation of the main excavation channel. The spoil islands had been eliminated and the applicants agreed to employ a cyclone separator to increase the amount of disposable beach sand. Additional revisions within the Plan reflect a direct responsibility of the applicant to address fresh water input. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 10 6 M ^1 M O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 12 of 143 1612 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application specific revisions of the Plan dated 17 October 1997, included the following: 1. Adjusting the navigation standard to conform to County Ordinance 96 -16 and include a "material destruction provision" requiring additional protection to Clam Bay. 2. Concise language that there is an affirmative duty to undertake the freshwater studies and then develop and implement a plan of action based on the studies. 3. Removal of aerial spoil disposition from Cuts 1, 2, and 3 and identifying the spoil sites and protocols for those locations. 4. Clarification of the location and characteristics of the main channel excavation, including impacts on seagrasses. 5. Deletion of spoil islands from the Plan. 6. Additional data and text to augment the conclusions relative to the need for the enhanced tidal exchange dynamics. c. Additional Coordination of Project Revisions: The applicant provided a copy of the revised Plan and coordination letter dated 17 October 1997, to the agencies for comment. d. Agency Response: NMFS: In phone conversation on 3 November 1997, John Iliff of the NMFS Miami office indicated that they would still maintain their objections based on the Plan's impacts to seagrasses and lack of action on the freshwater input into Clam Bay. FWS: In letter dated 9 December 1997, the FWS indicated that although the Plan revisions incorporated significant changes, they maintain their objections to the proposed Plan. The FWS indicated that the revisions did not address the upstream problems associated with excess fresh water entering into Clam Bay. Corps: The applicant was requested to provide hydrological data and modeling to the DEP for review and verification of the proposed dynamics of the Plan. On 9 February 1998, the applicant provided the requested hydrographic modeling data to the Corps and DEP for evaluation. In an email dated 2 March 1998, Richard Bray Statement of Findings Page 11 ti 0 m ry 0 �v n h N May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 13 of 143 161.2i A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application of the DEP, indicated that the DEP's review of the project was complete on 24 February 1998 and that he would be making a recommendation towards issuance of the permit. In addition, on 3 March 1998, the applicant provided a copy of letter from Applied Technology & Management, Inc. indicating a peer review of the modeling data. 7. Alternatives: a. Avoidance (No action, uplands, availability of other sites), geographic alternatives: The purpose of the proposed project is a wetland enhancement plan, and as such, is a wetland dependent activity. Therefore, consideration of uplands and availability of other sites is not relevant. However, consideration to no action alternative was considered. The applicant has demonstrated that there is currently degradation of the existing black mangrove system with negative effects on white and red mangroves located at Upper Clam Bay (the northern portion of Clam Bay). In addition, portions of the proposed Plan are to address the chronic siltation of the Clam Pass inlet (the middle of Clam Bay) and deteriorating culverts located at Outer Clam Bay (the southern portion of Clam Bay). Due to the interrelationship of the different portions of the Clam Bay system, the no- action alternative would not allow for a comprehensive review and solutions to the project area as a whole. To address one issue without the other issues may even be considered as a piece -meal action and as such an incomplete project plan. b. Minimization (modified project designs, etc.): The original application included proposed impacts to 11.6 acres of wetlands, including 1.6 acres of seagrasses. During the application review process, and in full consideration to agencies comments, the proposed project minimized the -seagrass impacts to 0.31 acre, eliminated the deposition of dredged material to create upland spoil islands, and minimized impacts to mangroves by redepositing the dredged material unsuitable for beach renourishment onto upland sites landward of the dune system. C. Compensatory Mitigation (Wetland enhancement, creation, etc.) : Although the project purpose of the Plan is wetland enhancement, the proposed project would have approximately 0.31 acre of direct seagrass impacts. It is proposed by the applicant that the Plan will enhance seagrass habitat through improvement in water quality and tidal exchange and provide additional seagrasses within the Clam Bay system to exceed the initial 0.31 acre impact. Statement of Findings Page 12 m 0 m ^1 m ri O N N N N .y May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 14 of 143 1612 A 20 CESAJ-RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application If within five years from the date of the construction activities, seagrasses in Clam Bay have not recovered the 0.31 acre loss, the applicant agrees to mitigate for the total 0.31 acre seagrass impact. This mitigation will be accessed and in accordance with the Habitat Equivalency Analysis as proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (HEA.doc Nov95). d. Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis: The Clam Bay system consists of a mangrove ecosystem with several ecotones. The mangrove system is degrading due to a combination of factors, the most evident is loss of tidal prism. The surrounding developmental impacts to the natural system have severed the historic circulation of the bay by severing the northern connection to the Gulf of Mexico with the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road, addition of freshwater input into the bay (both surface water and storm water run off) from upland development, and reduced the southern connection to the bay by the construction of Seagate Drive. The loss of the two historical connections, north and south within the bay, have impaired the natural ability of the bay system to maintain the flushing capacity necessary to keep Clam Pass Inlet from silting in due to the Gulf front migration of beach sand. It is this combination of effects that have caused prolong inundation of freshwater events to levels detrimental to the black mangrove physiology. The Upper Clam Bay portion of the mangrove system has been previously evaluated and accepted as compensatory mitigation for impacts to the mangroves from the surrounding development. The current conditions of the culverts under Seagate Drive are deteriorating and in need of replacement. The applicant has not only demonstrated the Plan's compliance with Avoidance Alternative criteria, but the no- action alternative would result in a non- compliance of permit actions for two or more portions of the Clam Bay ecosystem. The applicant has provided a Hydrographic Summary of the Clam Pass System dated February 1998, prepared by Tackney & Associates, Inc. to demonstrate the necessity and validity of the proposed dredging activity within the Plan. This data was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for analysis. The resultant conclusion by the DEP was that the proposed project was viable and practicable. In addition, the data was peer reviewed by Applied Technology & Management, Incorporate (ATM), at the request of the applicant's agent, Mr. Ted R. Brown. In letter dated 3 March 1998, ATM concluded that the data and report support the conclusions stated by Tackney & Associates, Inc. It is the Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 13 �n H O M ^Y M M N H a N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 15 of 143 ;.612 A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application contention by the applicant, that in order for the Plan to be effective, the dredge design (volume and flow) is an integral part of the overall dynamics of the enhancement to the whole system. Therefore, although the applicant has field verified the location of the channel to be dredged to avoid as much of the seagrass habitat as possible, further minimization of seagrass impacts is not viable without affecting the dynamics of the Plan. The proposed channel was staked in the field and a field visit by Ms. Ilene Barnett from the Fort Myers DEP office and the undersigned Team Leader, concluded that the proposed channel is indeed the least damaging, practicable alternative. Due to the overall benefit to be realized to the aquatic ecosystem from the proposed enhancement plan, no mitigation is required for the proposed project with the exception of possible seagrass habitat loss. The primary objective of the Plan is for the reestablishment of the mangrove system. It would be a secondary benefit of the Plan to water clarity by the tidal exchange that is proposed to enhance seagrass habitat. As an additional assurance that the proposed project does not have an adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem, the applicant will provide compensatory mitigation for the 0.31 acre of proposed seagrass impact if reestablishment of those seagrasses lost as a result of the Plan's implementation has not occurred in five years from the date of the commencement of the proposed works. Furthermore, and in accordance with NMFS, the evaluation of the compensatory mitigation will be accomplished pursuant to NOAA's Habitat Equivalency Analysis. 8. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation: a. Factual Determinations (230.11): (1) Physical Substrate (230.11(a)): Physical Compatibility: dredge material varies from a relatively clean sand (beach quality sand) to dark organic fines. (2) Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity (230.11(b)): (a) - Current patterns: Analysis of the tidal data by Tackney & Associates, Inc. indicates that average water surface elevations in the Inner and Upper Clam Bays are both super- elevated above the average Gulf water surface elevation by approximately 0.2 Statement of Findings Page 14 May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 16 of 143 .. ibl2 A2U CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application feet. This indicates that the tidal range in Inner and Upper Clam Bays is muted and that the system is receiving significant additional water through runoff and restricted capacity to drain additional inflow. (b) - Circulation: Tidal range is restricted throughout the Clam Bay system. Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has historically migrated north and south. The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system. The smaller embayments located primarily to the north of the pass are not subject to normal tidal exchange except during exceptionally high tides. At the southern most portion of the bay, three 24" culverts were installed at the Seagate crossing, allowing flow in and out of the southern portions of Outer Clam Bay. However, Tackney notes that slightly less than one quarter of the tidal prism of Outer Clam Bay is from the Seagate culverts. There is a stormwater management system which was designed to spread runoff along the eastern edge of the Clam Bay estuary. Runoff into the bay occurs at the extreme northwest end of the system and continuously along the eastern edge of Clam Bay. A berm separates the developed portion of Pelican Bay from the estuary lying to the west of the development, but numerous culverts through the berm discharge fresh water to a swale system along the eastern perimeter of Clam Bay. The stormwater management system, as presently designed, holds for discharge to Clam Bay approximately 3800 acre feet of water. (c) - Salinity: The effective rainfall equivalent for the Clam Bay watershed is approximately 80" plus a year. This combined with the low tidal prism within Upper and Inner Clam Bay has reduced the salinity within the upper portion of the systems substantially. However, due to the lack of tidal prism effecting the flushing component of Upper Clam Bay, stagnant isolated depressions become hypersaline due to the remaining salinity within the sediment. (d) - Municipal and private water supplies: Irrigation water for Pelican Bay is obtained from the Pelican Bay Waste Water Treatment System (0.68 MGD), Pelican Bay off -site well field (1.02 MGD) and Collier County's North Naples Wastewater Treatment Facility (1.43 MGD). Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 15 •i a m ni H N ry N N Q m ^Y M N N 'Y N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 17 of 143 iol2 A20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (3) Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (230.11(c)): It is anticipated that the proposed project will use best management practices for turbidity controls as regulated by the DEP. However, the applicant has proposed that the spoil disposition site will be diked and turbidity screens will be placed at the two points of connection into the main channel of Clam Pass. (4) Contaminant Availability (230.11(d)): There are no known sources of contaminants within the project area. (5) Aquatic Ecosystem Effects (230.11(e)): (a) - Structure of ecosystem: Clam Bay is an intertidal community composed primarily of mangrove forest. (b) - Ecosystem functions: Tidal flushing allows nutrients to be distributed within the mangrove forest and provides for the transportation of dead leaves, twigs, etc. As these materials decay, they become food for marine life. It is the mangrove detritus which is consumed by the many organisms at the base of the food chain and which in turn create the next trophic level necessary to support fish and other aquatic specie populations that characterize the mangrove forest community. (c) - Recreational and commercial fisheries: There is no direct relationship to commercial fisheries, however the system is a supporting community for many commercial and sport fish species. These include penaeid shrimp, blue crab, spotted seatrout, flounder, snook, tarpon, and pompano. The bay does provided limited recreational fishing activities. (d) - Threatened or endangered species: The project has been coordinated with the FWS. The FWS has determined that the project will not have any adverse impacts on T &E species, However, it should be noted that the site does contain wading bird habitat and sea turtle nesting grounds. Any proposed project impacts to the sea turtle nesting areas will be restricted and conditioned as not to occur during, and /or affect, the sea turtle nesting season. Statement of Findings Page 16 May 14, 199a S 4 Q m ^Y M N N 'Y N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 17 of 143 iol2 A20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (3) Suspended Particulate /Turbidity (230.11(c)): It is anticipated that the proposed project will use best management practices for turbidity controls as regulated by the DEP. However, the applicant has proposed that the spoil disposition site will be diked and turbidity screens will be placed at the two points of connection into the main channel of Clam Pass. (4) Contaminant Availability (230.11(d)): There are no known sources of contaminants within the project area. (5) Aquatic Ecosystem Effects (230.11(e)): (a) - Structure of ecosystem: Clam Bay is an intertidal community composed primarily of mangrove forest. (b) - Ecosystem functions: Tidal flushing allows nutrients to be distributed within the mangrove forest and provides for the transportation of dead leaves, twigs, etc. As these materials decay, they become food for marine life. It is the mangrove detritus which is consumed by the many organisms at the base of the food chain and which in turn create the next trophic level necessary to support fish and other aquatic specie populations that characterize the mangrove forest community. (c) - Recreational and commercial fisheries: There is no direct relationship to commercial fisheries, however the system is a supporting community for many commercial and sport fish species. These include penaeid shrimp, blue crab, spotted seatrout, flounder, snook, tarpon, and pompano. The bay does provided limited recreational fishing activities. (d) - Threatened or endangered species: The project has been coordinated with the FWS. The FWS has determined that the project will not have any adverse impacts on T &E species, However, it should be noted that the site does contain wading bird habitat and sea turtle nesting grounds. Any proposed project impacts to the sea turtle nesting areas will be restricted and conditioned as not to occur during, and /or affect, the sea turtle nesting season. Statement of Findings Page 16 May 14, 199a December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 18 of 143 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (6) Proposed Disposal Site (230.11(f)): Containment: Excavation of organic fines from Cut 4A will be discharged to a spoil disposal site located behind the dune line adjacent to the entrance to Clam Bay. This area presently consist of predominately clean sand which' will be excavated to a depth of -1 foot NGVD to accommodate approximately 1500 to 2000 cubic yards of organic fines. Excavated beach sand from the spoil disposal site will be used for beach renourishment. If additional disposal areas are required for the organic fines, then the PBSD in consultation with the FDEP and the Corps will locate such additional areas in uplands behind the dune line. Beach Renourishment: It is anticipated that approximately 16,000 to 19,000 cubic yards of beach quality sand from the proposed project will be used for beach renourishment and placed between the mean high water and the mean low water area of the beach to allow for wave dispersal along the beach. (7) Cumulative Effects (230.11(g)): It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse cumulative effects from the proposed project. (8) Secondary Effects (230.11(h)): The possibility of secondary effects from use of motorized vessels within the bay was raised during the application review. The original Plan proposed to restrict the use of motorized vessels within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision in the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition the proposed Plan will implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant changes in navigation of the bay or adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. b. Restrictions on discharges (230.10): (1) Alternatives (See paragraph 7): (a) The activity is located in a special aquatic site (wetlands, sanctuaries and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle and pool complexes, etc.) yes-X- no Statement of Findings Page 17 N O M H M ti ry *M N N N N May 14, 1998 m 0 v M ry M N N ry N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 19 of 143 1612, A 2U CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (b) The activity needs to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfill its basic purpose. yes-X- no _ (c) It has been demonstrated in paragraph 7 above that there are no practicable nor less damaging alternatives which would satisfy the project's overall purpose. yes-X- no (2) other program requirements: (a) The proposed activity violates applicable State water quality standards or Section 307 prohibitions or effluent standards. yes no—X- (b) The proposed activity jeopardizes the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species or affects their critical habitat. yes no—X- (c) The proposed activity violates the requirements of a federally designated marine sanctuary. yes no—X- (3) The activity will cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States, including adverse effects on human health; life stages of aquatic organisms; ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and recreational, esthetic, and economic values. yes no_X_ (4) Appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. yes—X— no c. Findings (230.12): The proposed site for discharge of dredged or fill material complies with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Statement of Findings Page 18 May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 20 of 143 IL ()I Z A CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application 9. Public Interest Review: a. All public interest factors have been reviewed. The following public interest factors are considered relevant to this proposal. Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered. (1) Conservation: Clam Bay is designated a Natural Resource Protection Area by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. This area consist of approximately 540 acres of mangroves and some 30 acres of open water bays. Upper Clam Bay has been previously recorded within a conservation easement with Pelican Bay Services Division as the grantor and South Florida Water Management District as the grantee. The proposed Plan would provide for the enhancement of the existing system. (2) Economics (33CFR320.4 (q)) . The Management Plan is to be funded initially by an assessment of the Pelican Bay resident base under the direction of the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) and by a matched contribution of $1,000,000 from WCI Communities and by Collier County. Funding priority and availability will change yearly. It will be, therefore, appropriate during the annual planning exercise to closely evaluate funding availability and determine sources for both immediate and long term needs. (3) Aesthetics. The current conditions have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area. Although there is some regrowth and recruitment of herbaceous species, the overview is that of a dead /dying mangrove forest. Pelican Bay development is an up -scale residential community that utilizes the Clam Bay mangrove forest and the Gulf of Mexico as its primary aesthetics. The proposed Plan would improve the aesthetics of the system to the surrounding area. (4) General environmental concerns (33CFR320,4(p)). As previously stated, the existing mangrove system is stressed and declining in function as mangroves are dying. In addition, as the mangrove system decays, the lack of flushing within portions of the Bay create adverse water quality conditions, which in -turn create stressful conditions on the remaining healthier mangroves. These conditions are perpetuated by freshwater input during stormwater events creating long term inundation of the system. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 19 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 21 of 143 161 L A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (5) Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)). As previously stated Clam Bay consists primarily of an intertidal mangrove forest. Three species of mangroves are found in Clam Bay: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and black mangrove (Avicennia germinans). The Clam Bay system can be broken down into three interrelating bays; Outer Clam Bay, Inner Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay. Clam Pass Inlet, the only direct connection to the Gulf of Mexico, is located between Outer Clam Bay and Inner Clam Bay. Upper Clam Bay is located at the northern portion of the system and is the area of concern for the continual decline of the black mangrove basins. Currently 50 acres within Upper Clam Bay have been adversely affected and consist of dead mangrove trees (mostly of black mangrove, but the mortality is inclusive of red and white mangroves as well) and a transitional highmarsh community of saltwort (Batis maritima) and glasswort (salicornia virginica). Although there is some mangrove mortality extending into Inner Clam Bay, the system as a whole is still fairly undisturbed. However, in a 1997 field visit attended by members of the Corps, FWS, NMFS, DEP, and EPA, it was noted that the clarity of the water within the interior channels of Inner Clam Bay was less than expected and not viable for seagrass habitat. Outer Clam Bay is the largest of the bays and is also more directly influenced by the Gulf via Clam Pass Inlet. In addition, Outer Clam Bay is connected to Venetian Bay via three 24" culverts under Seagate Drive. This system appears to be the more stable of the three bays, and in fact, has recently experienced seagrass recruitment in the northern portion of outer Clam Bay and into Clam Pass Inlet. Clam Pass is the critical and only link to Clam Bay by the Gulf of Mexico. The pass is an unimproved, marginally stable tidal inlet. In the past 20 years, the pass has closed on at least six occasions, three in the last three years. The reason that the pass has closed so often is that the tidal prism of the inlet is inadequate to scour out sediment carried into the pass by wave generated longshore transport. Currently, much of the inlet channel has silted in and the pass appears to be approaching closure. Due to the incapacity of the inlet, the tides in the upper reaches of Clam Bay are weak and variable. Runoff from rainfall further reduces the interior tidal range and during Tackney's field study, total rainfall of approximately 4 inches in Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 20 N N 6 ni ti N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 22 of 143 A � ' ` 161 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application three days was sufficient to flood Upper Clam Bay to such an extent that the tidal fluctuation was completely eliminated. Typically, incoming water into a mangrove wetland brings with it nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and marginally lower salt concentrations. Conversely, the outgoing water leaving a mangrove wetland removes metabolic waste products (e.g., carbon dioxide, toxic sulfides) and excess salt. However, in the absence of tidal influence, metabolic wastes accumulate in the sediment and it eventually turns toxic and anoxic. Consequentially, in the absence of surface water circulation or tidal activity, mangroves slowly die due to deleterious changes in the sediment. In addition, long periods of inundation in Upper Clam Bay of freshwater suffocated the root systems of black mangroves causing stress of the tree and eventual mortality. It is with this concept that the applicant has linked the increased mortality of the black mangroves in Upper Clam Bay with the decrease in capacity of Clam Pass. The applicant further points out that this critical process has nothing to do with the salinity, or absence thereof, or with the presence or absence of surface and subsurface water, but rather, the tidal prism of the system. The proposed Plan provides for a systematic approach to augment and reverse various adverse conditions within the Clam Bay ecosystem. The proposed Plan's purpose is to increase the tidal prism of the whole system and redressing the freshwater input into the system. The proposed Plan will enhance the existing conditions of the wetlands and thereby provide an increase in wetland function. (6) Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)): There are no historic and cultural resources affected by the project. (7) Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)).: Both the National Marine Fishers Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have reviewed the proposed Plan, inclusive of several site visits. The NMFS indicated that the original proposed Plan would have adverse impact on fishery resources. Specifically, the project would eliminate an estimated 1.6 acres of Cuban shoal grass and 0.7 acre of red mangrove habitat. NMFS emphasized that both seagrass beds and mangroves provide nursery, forage and refuge habitat to a wide variety of commercially and recreationally important marine fish and shellfish. No written comments have been received from NMFS concerning the revisions to the.Plan. Statement of Findings Page 21 N N O W N �i O N N N N *-a May 14, 1998 The FWS recommended that the applicant implement the components of the original Plan that consisted of the tidal flap gates under Seagate Drive, the interior tidal creeks, deepen and widen Clam Pass, use of the portable pumps, selective removal of dead mangrove material from the affected areas, and development and implementation of a public awareness program. However, FWS objected to the components of the original Plan that consisted of the excavation of the interior channel connecting Clam Pass with Outer Clam Bay, deposition of dredge material onto intertidal areas, and the spraying of dredge material onto the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the FWS indicated that, in their opinion, the Plan did not significantly address freshwater input into the bay. (8) Flood hazards: N/A. (9) Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)): N/A. (10) Land use. The proposed Plan is in compliance with local zoning and land use. (11) Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)): There is some concern that the dredging within Clam Pass and outer Clam Bay may increase navigational use through the Pass by property owners in the Seagate Community. There are approximately 80 single family residential home sites located within this community that have waterfront access. The original Plan proposed to restrict the use of motorized vessels within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision in the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition, the proposed Plan will implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant changes in navigation of the bay. (12) Shore erosion and accretion: Although the Plan will provide for beach renourisment, there should be no adverse impact or substantial effects on shore erosion and accretion. (13) Recreation: The proposed Plan will not change the current recreational use of the bay, however, the Plan does contain a Recreational Component that will address appropriate notification, signage and policing of the bay. Statement of Findinga Page 22 h C ti M h N N h May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 23 of 143 '1 161 2 A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application The FWS recommended that the applicant implement the components of the original Plan that consisted of the tidal flap gates under Seagate Drive, the interior tidal creeks, deepen and widen Clam Pass, use of the portable pumps, selective removal of dead mangrove material from the affected areas, and development and implementation of a public awareness program. However, FWS objected to the components of the original Plan that consisted of the excavation of the interior channel connecting Clam Pass with Outer Clam Bay, deposition of dredge material onto intertidal areas, and the spraying of dredge material onto the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the FWS indicated that, in their opinion, the Plan did not significantly address freshwater input into the bay. (8) Flood hazards: N/A. (9) Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)): N/A. (10) Land use. The proposed Plan is in compliance with local zoning and land use. (11) Navigation (33CFR320.4(o)): There is some concern that the dredging within Clam Pass and outer Clam Bay may increase navigational use through the Pass by property owners in the Seagate Community. There are approximately 80 single family residential home sites located within this community that have waterfront access. The original Plan proposed to restrict the use of motorized vessels within the bay, but public outcry for historic riparian rights for access to the bay caused a revision in the Plan to remove this restriction. However, existing regulation by Collier County limits motorized vessel throughout the bay to idle speed and no wake. In addition, the proposed Plan will implement a provision for evaluation of boat traffic and any adverse impacts to the Bay. The proposed Plan should not produce any significant changes in navigation of the bay. (12) Shore erosion and accretion: Although the Plan will provide for beach renourisment, there should be no adverse impact or substantial effects on shore erosion and accretion. (13) Recreation: The proposed Plan will not change the current recreational use of the bay, however, the Plan does contain a Recreational Component that will address appropriate notification, signage and policing of the bay. Statement of Findinga Page 22 h C ti M h N N h May 14, 1998 ♦ k, t a h c in 0 n h n E December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 24 of 143 161,2 A-120 CESAJ -RD -WF (1996O2789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application (14) Water supply (33CFR32O.4(m)): N/A (15) Water quality (also 33CFR32O.4(d)): A specific component of the Plan is for the development and implementation of a best management practices program to assist in modulating irrigation requirements for the developed areas of Pelican Bay. Review and studies proposed by the Plan, may involve additional water quality provisions to be added to the existing stormwater management system. In addition, it is proposed that water quality within Clam Bay will be improved through the enhancement of the deteriorating mangrove system by increasing the flushing component of Clam Bay. It is anticipated that this will also promote seagrass growth within the system. (16) Energy needs (33CFR32O.4(n)): N/A (17) Safety: N/A (18) Food and fiber production: N/A (19) Mineral needs: N/A (20) Considerations of property ownership: The application review accumulated over 65 individual letters from adjacent property owners to Clam Bay. In addition, 8 organizations that represent constituents within the area also responded to the public notice. All of the above showed an overwhelming support to the proposed Plan, however, some concerns over the Plan's initial restrictions on motorized vessels and creation of upland spoil islands were raised. As a response to the concerns by the public, the applicant revised the proposed Plan to resolve the concerns over navigation and removed upland spoil islands from the Plan. In addition, as Clam Bay has been declared by Collier County as a Natural Resource Protection Area, the proposed project is considered as being not contrary to the public interest. c. Describe the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work. The project is primarily a Public interest project and although there will be some secondary benefits to the local home owners through the enhancement of the bay, the project benefits will be realized by the public in general. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 23 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 25 of 143 .� 1612 A 20 CESAJ -RD-WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application d. Describe the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the purposed work where there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use: Both the FWS and NMFS indicated concerns that the proposed Plan does not demonstrate the necessity of the dredging of the connection between Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass. In addition, a component of the Plan is to delay addressing freshwater input into the Clam Bay system until after a three year study. It is the contention of the FWS and NMFS that the freshwater component should be resolved prior to the dredging of Outer Clam Bay and associated connection to Clam Pass. It is the position of the applicant that the primary element to the enhancement of the bay system is the restoration of a tidal prism throughout the bay system. In addition, the applicant has stated that the Pelican Bay Services Division has a limited control over the freshwater usage within the watershed and without supporting data and voluntary assistance, it is not practicable to address the freshwater component of the bay system at this time. Further delays in addressing a proactive approach to the failing dynamics of the Clam Bay system would result in the following: 1. continual frequent maintenance dredging of Clam Pass. 2. continual degradation of the stressed mangroves within Upper Calm Bay. 3. continual deterioration of the Seagate Drive culverts and resulting compliance action to assure their maintenance. 4. lack of available funding for future enhancement activities. It is the conclusion of the Corps that based on all supporting documentation that the benefits of the proposed works outweigh the concerns raised by the resource agencies on conflicts to the resource use. In addition, the applicant's hydographic modeling supporting the proposed dredging activities has been independently peer reviewed and verified in another review by the DEP. e. Describe the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects which the proposed work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited: Detrimental impacts are expected to be minimal. The beneficial effects associated with project would be permanent. f. Threatened or endangered species: The proposed project has been coordinated with FWS. In letter dated 19 September 1997, the Statement of Findings Page 24 May 14, 1998 C) C) m c n December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 26 of 143 A'20 1 b t CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above - Numbered Permit Application FWS concluded that the proposed project in not likely to adversely affect manatees. In addition, with special conditions limiting some of the activities to timeframes outside of the sea turtle nesting season, tilling the renourished areas to a depth of 29 inches, and avoid discharge of material onto native vegetation, the FWS determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles and their nests. Therefore, the proposed project will not jeopardize the continued existence or critical habitat of any threatened or endangered species. g. Corps wetland policy: The proposed wetland alteration is necessary to realize the project purpose and should result in minimal adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of the project would outweigh the minimal detrimental impacts. Therefore the project is in accordance with the Corps wetland policy. h. Cumulative and secondary Impacts: There should be no adverse cumulative or secondary impacts caused by the project other than those already addressed in Paragraph 8.a.(7) &(8). i. Corps analysis of comments and responses: It was the primary concerns of NMFS that (1) the overall plan presented to restore mangrove habitat in Inner and Upper Clam Bays will result in adverse impacts to seagrass habitat in outer Clam Bay and (2) does not specifically address a significant contributing factor to the mangrove die -off i.e., chronic freshwater inputs into Clam Bay. In addition, initial concerns of the FWS were the loss of seagrass habitat, deposition of dredged material onto intertidal areas, proposed spray of dredge material onto mangrove wetlands, and lack of "upstream" problem solving and focus on diverting excess fresh water off of the mangrove wetlands in Upper Clam Bay. A recommendation by the FWS was to monitor the area for a one year period and submit the information to the Federal agencies for their evaluation. In letter dated 9 December 1997, the FWS indicated that their remaining concerns were that the Plan does not address excess fresh water entering into Clam Bay. Specifically, the FWS indicated that the mortality of the mangrove system is due to excess freshwater, not the lack of tidal flushing. The applicant has provided documentation by several environmental professionals on the affects of reduced tidal flushing on Statement of Findings Page 25 N O G� H m N N N N N N N May 14, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 27 of 143 16L2A20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application mangroves. The applicant has also provided information on the limited affects of fresh water on mangroves. Conclusion of the evidence provided by the applicant, which was coordinated directly by the applicant to the resource agencies, indicates that the primary fresh water component responsible for the mangrove die -off, is the temporal effect of the duration of inundation on the mangrove system. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated that the existing conditions within the system have reduce the tidal prism and flushing capacity of Clam Bay. . The applicant has provided documentation of hydrological modeling to support the proposed Plan's restoration of tidal flushing through the Clam Bay system, inclusive of effects within Upper Clam Bay. This documentation has been verified by the DEP and peer reviewed by ATM, an independent environmental consultant. The conclusion by the DEP and ATM was that the applicant has demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed works and their benefit to the overall bay system. The current design of the Seagate Drive culvert replacement proposal was originally requested by the EPA during the placement of culverts under Seagate Drive in 1976. The current conditions of the culverts would conclude that replacement is necessary in order to maintain the permitted design. The proposed Plan, not only provides for the replacement of the culverts, but also upgrades the culverts to the original requested design which was not practicable at the time of the installation in 1976. Neither the FWS nor the NMFS had any remaining negative comments concerning the proposed Plan's enhancement of the interior tidal creeks and it effectiveness on the mangrove system. The necessity of this proposed enhancement is further demonstrated by the Clam Bay Restoration Project, Report 1, February 1997 Time Zero Monitoring Report produced by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. dated 28 February 1997. The concerns by both the FWS and NMFS on the Plan's Stormwater /Freshwater Management component are noted. However, the applicant has provided substantial documentation and data to demonstrate the intent and viability of the proposed Plan. In addition, the applicant has indicated that it is not practicable to either require immediate changes due to unknowns, nor to wait until adequate studies have been completed to make changes to the existing freshwater usage and stormwater management systems. It should be further noted that the water use and stormwater management systems are existing permitted systems. Statement of Findings Page 26 h n C rri c N N N May 14, 1998 m N O Qt M <1 O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 28 of 143 161,2 A 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application In DA letter dated 27 April, 1998, in accordance to Section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act, FWS and NMFS were provided copies of the draft DA permit and documentation for their review. In letter dated 6 May 1998, NMFS indicated their decision not to request higher level review. In letter dated 19 May, 1998, FWS indicated their decision not to request a higher level review. 10. Determinations: a. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI): Having reviewed the information provided by the applicant and all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental impacts, I find that this permit action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. b. Compliance with 404(b)(1) Guidelines: Having completed the evaluation in paragraph 8 above, I have determined that the proposed discharge complies with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. c. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review: The proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. It has been determined that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by 40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the Corps' continuing program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the Corps. For these reasons a conformity determination is not required for this permit action. Statement of Findings May 14, 1998 Page 27 4 N 0 N N N N ti December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 29 of 143 6e"1 2 A. 20 CESAJ -RD -WF (199602789(IP -CC) SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above- Numbered Permit Application d. Public Interest Determination: I find that issuance of a Department of the Army permit is not contrary to the public interest. PREPARED BY: ALLISON C. CLOUafi, P.W.S. Team Leader, Fort Myers Regulatory Office REVIEWED BY: �09N,QD H. LVER, C.E.P. fo?-- Chief, West Permits Branch Statement of Findings Page 28 APPROVED BY: JOE R. MILL 01-.....Colonel, Corps of Engineers Commanding May 14, 1998 `%W� Regulatory Division West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office 199602789(IP -CC) MODIFICATION #2 Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston Humiston & Moore Engineers 10661 Airport Road N. Suite 14 Naples, Florida 34109 Dear Mr. Humiston: December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 30 of 143 461 2AZa0 MAY 289 Reference is made to your letter dated May 12, 1999, in which you asked to modify Department of the Army (DA) Permit 199602789(IP -CC) issued to Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division. The project is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. You have requested a modification to re -grade a small section of beach immediately south of Clam Pass. Specifically, this modification includes the re- grading of approximately 100 to 150 feet in the'shore parallel direction, and the re- grading will involve redistributing approximately 100 to 200 cubic yards of sand. The re- grading will be conducted by bringing equipment in from the south, keeping it below the mean high water line to avoid nesting habitat and the need for tiling the area again. The impacts of the proposed work on navigation and the environment have been evaluated and the permit is hereby modified in accordance with your request. You should attach this letter and the enclosed revised project plans to the permit. All other conditions of the original permit remain in full effect, including the reports on the mitigation progress as stated in the Special Conditions section of the original permit. Thank you for your cooperation with our permit program. BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Joe R. Miller Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer Enclosures 0 a Regulatory Division West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office 199602789(IP -CC) MODIFICATION #2 Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston Humiston & Moore Engineers 10661 Airport Road N. Suite 14 Naples, Florida 34109 Dear Mr. Humiston: December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 30 of 143 461 2AZa0 MAY 289 Reference is made to your letter dated May 12, 1999, in which you asked to modify Department of the Army (DA) Permit 199602789(IP -CC) issued to Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division. The project is located in Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. You have requested a modification to re -grade a small section of beach immediately south of Clam Pass. Specifically, this modification includes the re- grading of approximately 100 to 150 feet in the'shore parallel direction, and the re- grading will involve redistributing approximately 100 to 200 cubic yards of sand. The re- grading will be conducted by bringing equipment in from the south, keeping it below the mean high water line to avoid nesting habitat and the need for tiling the area again. The impacts of the proposed work on navigation and the environment have been evaluated and the permit is hereby modified in accordance with your request. You should attach this letter and the enclosed revised project plans to the permit. All other conditions of the original permit remain in full effect, including the reports on the mitigation progress as stated in the Special Conditions section of the original permit. Thank you for your cooperation with our permit program. BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Joe R. Miller Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer Enclosures 0 a December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 31 of 143 20 Copy Furnished: Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Resources Permitting Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard - Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 m 0 rn N ni N N N O N N N N December 6, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 32 of 143 it HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING Mr. Robert Brantly, Jr., P.E. DEP Bureau of Beaches & Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 310 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 1612 N-4 20 .j Re: Request for Plan Acceptance JCP File No. 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) HM File No. 8 -042 10641 AIRPORT ROAD N.. SUITE 29 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 FAX: 947 594 2025 PHONE: 941594 2D11 Hand Delivered on December 7, 1998 Enclosed please find a reduced set of construction plans for the dredging of Projects 1 and 2 of the Clam Bay Restoration Plan as referenced above. In addition to the reduced plans (11" x 17 °) 1 am also enclosing some of the full size sheets for clarity. These plans are provided for acceptance by the Department in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1(g). While we recognize that this request may necessitate a permit modification, we believe that the changes represented herein are consistent with the intent of the permit issuance and should be handled via letter of authorization. The changes presented are consistent with the scope of the work discussed during our previous meeting on November 17, 1998. Turrell and Associates, Inc. met with Joe Bozzo of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, along with Maura Kraus and Mac Hatcher of Collier County to review the plans as presented herein. They met at the project site on December 3'd. Of particular concern to the FGFWFC was the potential impact to gopher tortoises. Attached is a memorandum from Todd Tun-ell's office indicating that the meeting on site went very well. The Technical Specifications have been completed and are being assembled along with the sediment analysis report. We expect to provide you with two sets of completed full size construction plans and two copies of the Technical Specifications later this week. The purpose of reviewing the drawings referenced herein is to obtain any comments, which may be included onto the plans at this time. It is the County's intent to complete Dredging Project #2 and the preparation of Disposal Areas 2 and 3 under Dredging Project #1 prior to the sea turtle nesting season. The Page 1 of 2 x y� 4 December 6, 1998 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 32 of 143 it HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS COASTAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PERMITTING Mr. Robert Brantly, Jr., P.E. DEP Bureau of Beaches & Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., M.S. 310 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 1612 N-4 20 .j Re: Request for Plan Acceptance JCP File No. 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) HM File No. 8 -042 10641 AIRPORT ROAD N.. SUITE 29 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 FAX: 947 594 2025 PHONE: 941594 2D11 Hand Delivered on December 7, 1998 Enclosed please find a reduced set of construction plans for the dredging of Projects 1 and 2 of the Clam Bay Restoration Plan as referenced above. In addition to the reduced plans (11" x 17 °) 1 am also enclosing some of the full size sheets for clarity. These plans are provided for acceptance by the Department in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1(g). While we recognize that this request may necessitate a permit modification, we believe that the changes represented herein are consistent with the intent of the permit issuance and should be handled via letter of authorization. The changes presented are consistent with the scope of the work discussed during our previous meeting on November 17, 1998. Turrell and Associates, Inc. met with Joe Bozzo of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, along with Maura Kraus and Mac Hatcher of Collier County to review the plans as presented herein. They met at the project site on December 3'd. Of particular concern to the FGFWFC was the potential impact to gopher tortoises. Attached is a memorandum from Todd Tun-ell's office indicating that the meeting on site went very well. The Technical Specifications have been completed and are being assembled along with the sediment analysis report. We expect to provide you with two sets of completed full size construction plans and two copies of the Technical Specifications later this week. The purpose of reviewing the drawings referenced herein is to obtain any comments, which may be included onto the plans at this time. It is the County's intent to complete Dredging Project #2 and the preparation of Disposal Areas 2 and 3 under Dredging Project #1 prior to the sea turtle nesting season. The Page 1 of 2 m m a b ni H ri O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 33 of 143 1612 A 20 r County is scheduling to put these projects out for bid this week, requiring a mandatory pre -bid conference and site visit in a couple of weeks. At that time, we hope to have all matters cleared up so that qualified bids could follow. As I stated earlier, two full sets of construction plans and specifications will be provided by the end of this week. We appreciate the continued assistance from you and Keith throughout this process, and I look forward to our meeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed drawings, please give me a call. Sincerely yours HUMISTON OORE GIN Brett D. Moore, P.E. Enclosures cc: Turrell & Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 HUMISION & MORRE ENGINEERS • NAPLES. FLORIDA December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 34 of 143 1612 A 20 Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building Lawton Chiles 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Virginia B. Wetherell Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 Secretary CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED December 15, 1998 Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division c/o Brett Moore, P.E. Humiston n-and Moore Engineers 10661 Airport Road N., Suite 14 Naples, Florida 34109 Notice of Permit Modification Permit No. 0 128463-00 1 -JC, Collier County Clam Bay Restoration and Long -Term Management Project Dear Mr. Moore: Your request to modify this permit has been received and reviewed by Department staff. The proposed permit modification is to authorize: (1) an alternative upland spoil disposal area for Cut #1; (2) an increase the width of channel Cut #4 through Clam Pass; and (3) alternative pipeline corridors between the dredge cuts and the disposal areas. The proposed alternative disposal area for Cut #I is an upland undeveloped building site, to the east of Clam Bay. The dredged material consists of a high percentage of fine material and organic matter and, because the material does not have any economic value, pursuant to Rule I8- 21.011(3)(c)2, F.A.C. no severance fees are required. This disposal site was chosen to avoid use of the proposed spoil disposal area on the landward side of the beach dune. Department staff considers the proposed new disposal area for Cut #I a preferred alternative to the previously authorized disposal area for Cut # 1. Channel Cut #4 through Clam Pass. will be widened to improve directional tidal flow between Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Department staff have reviewed the proposed channel widening and determined that the change to the channel dimensions is not expected to have an adverse effect on inlet processes and will improve tidal exchange. The proposed dredge cuts for Cut #4 will not exceed the previously authorized depths of —4 ft. NGVD. The proposed pipeline corridors are located between each channel cut and their associated disposal areas and include pipeline placement through mangrove, open water and wetland habitat. The pipeline required for the channel dredging will be relatively small, lightweight and made of a flexible material which will enable manual placement. Minimal mangrove trimming "Protec4 Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources- Printed on recycled paper. Notice of Permit Modification December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 35 of 143 Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No. 0128463-001 -JC Page 2 1612 Ai 20. will be conducted pursuant to the permit Specific Condition No. 7 to enable the contractor to manually place the pipeline. The pipeline corridor and any associated trimming will be designated by the approved wetland scientist and verified by Department staff. The attached drawings reflect the above modification and shall supercede the associated permit drawings (sheets 23, 24, 25, and 28). After thorough review the staff has determined that the proposed alteration does not increase the potential for adverse impact on the coastal system, public beach access seaward of the mean - high water or nesting sea turtles and hatchlings and their habitat, and that the proposed alteration does not reduce the design adequacy of the project. Since the proposed modification is not expected to result in any adverse environmental impact or water quality degradation and is expected to be of environmental benefit, the permit is hereby modified as requested. By copy of this letter and the attached drawings, we are notifying all necessary parties of the modification(s). This letter of approval does not alter the July 6, 2008 expiration date, other Specific or General Conditions, or monitoring requirements of the permit. This letter and accompanying drawings must be attached to the original permit. This permit is hereby modified unless a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is timely filed under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, as provided below. The procedures for petitioning for a hearing are set forth below. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S., is not available for this proceeding. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received by the clerk) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to redetermine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in further modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. If a sufficient petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time to file a petition is timely filed, this permit modification automatically becomes only proposed agency action on the application subject to the result of the administrative review process. Accordingly, the applicant is advised not to commence construction or other activities under this permit modification until the deadlines noted below for filing a petition for an administrative hearing or request for an extension of time has expired. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 36 of 143 Notice of Permit Modification Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No. 0128463 -001 -JC Page 3 161 2 A20 A Under rule 62- 110.106(4), Florida Administrative Code, a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, before the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If a request is filed late, the Department may still grant it upon a motion by the requesting party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. In the event that a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Any intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. In accordance with rules 28- 106.111(2) and 62.110.106(3)(x)(4), F.A.C., petitions for an administrative hearing by the applicant must be filed within 21 days of receipt of this written notice. Petitions filed by any persons other than the applicant, and other than those entitled to written notice under section 120.60(3), F.S., must be filed within 21 days of publication of the notice or within 21 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first. Under section 120.60(3), F.S., however, any person who has asked the Department for notice of agency action may file a petition within 21 days of receipt of such notice, regardless of the date of publication. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. A petition that disputes the material facts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the 43 Notice of Permit Modification Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No. 0128463 -001 -JC Page 3 161 2 A20 A Under rule 62- 110.106(4), Florida Administrative Code, a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may also request an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing. The Department may, for good cause shown, grant the request for an extension of time. Requests for extension of time must be filed with the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, before the applicable deadline. A timely request for extension of time shall toll the running of the time period for filing a petition until the request is acted upon. If a request is filed late, the Department may still grant it upon a motion by the requesting party showing that the failure to file a request for an extension of time before the deadline was the result of excusable neglect. In the event that a timely and sufficient petition for an administrative hearing is filed, other persons whose substantial interests will be affected by the outcome of the administrative process have the right to petition to intervene in the proceeding. Any intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with rule 28- 106.205, F.A.C. In accordance with rules 28- 106.111(2) and 62.110.106(3)(x)(4), F.A.C., petitions for an administrative hearing by the applicant must be filed within 21 days of receipt of this written notice. Petitions filed by any persons other than the applicant, and other than those entitled to written notice under section 120.60(3), F.S., must be filed within 21 days of publication of the notice or within 21 days of receipt of the written notice, whichever occurs first. Under section 120.60(3), F.S., however, any person who has asked the Department for notice of agency action may file a petition within 21 days of receipt of such notice, regardless of the date of publication. The petitioner shall mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition for an administrative hearing within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. A petition that disputes the material facts on which the Department's action is based must contain the following information: (a) The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner's representative, if any, which shall be the December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 37 of 143 Notice of Permit Modification Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No. 0128463 -0014C Page 4 i61,2 A20 address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding, and an explanation of how the petitioner's substantial interests are or will be affected by the agency determination; (c) A statement of when and how the petitioner received notice of the agency decision; (d) . A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; (e) A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; (f) A statement of the specific rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; and (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action. A petition that does not dispute the material facts on which the Department's action is based shall state that no such facts are in dispute and otherwise shall contain the same information as set forth above, as required by rule 28- 106.301, F.A.C. Under sections 120.569(2)(c) and (d), F.S., a petition for administrative hearing must be dismissed by the agency if the petition does not substantially comply with the above requirements or is untimely filed. This action is final and effective on the date filed with the Clerk of the Department unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above. Upon the timely filing of a petition this order will not be effective until further order of the Department. This permit modification constitutes an order of the Department. The applicant has the right to seek judicial review of the order under section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a notice of appeal under rule 9.110 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure with the Clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000; and by filing a.copy of the notice of appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate district court of appeal. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date when the final order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. The applicant, or any party within the meaning of section 373.114(1)(a), F.S., may also seek appellate review of this order before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission under section 373.114(1), F.S. Requests for review before the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission and served on the Department within 20 days from the date when the final order is filed with the Clerk of the Department. 0 H N M H ry H d N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 38 of 143 Notice of Permit Modification Collier County — Pelican Bay Services Division Permit No. 0128463 -001 -JC Page 5 1612 A320 When there has been no publication of notice of agency action or notice of proposed agency action as prescribed in rule 62- 103.150, F.A.C., a person who has actual knowledge of the agency action or has knowledge which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Department has taken final agency action, has a duty to make further inquiry within 21 days of obtaining such knowledge by contacting the Department to ascertain whether action has occurred. The Department shall upon receipt of such an inquiry, if agency action has occurred, promptly provide the person with notice as prescribed by rule 62- 103.150, F.A.C. The Department does not require notice of this agency action to be published. However, the applicant may elect to publish notice as prescribed in rule 62- 103.150, F.A.C., which constitutes notice to the public and establishes a time period for submittal of any petition. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the letterhead address or by telephone at (850) 487 -4471, ext. 123. Sincerely, Robert M. Bran , Jr., P.E. Professional Engineering Administrator Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems RMBfkjm cc: Todd Turrell, Turrell and Associates Harry Huber, Collier County Ted Brown, Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A. Michael. Poff, Coastal Engineering Consultants Jon Iglehart, DEP- South District Office- Ft. Myers DEP, Office of General Counsel Chip Clough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mac Hatcher, Collier County Department of Natural Resources Kyle Lucasc, Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division David Guggenheim, The Conservancy of SW Florida Dan Spina, Save the Bays, Association Kay Potter, Mangrove Action Group, Inc. DEP- Bureau of Protected Species Management File FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. 4-0a 4 ) ! D -/s _ Q " Deputy Clerk Date i . iz%. r 0 N M H H N N N N .i December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 39 of 143 161,2 A20 TLJRRELL & ASSOCIATE$, INC. MARINE & ENVIRONMENTAL 3584 Exchange:Avenue, Suite B, Naples, Flori0a 34104, Phone: (941) 643 -0166, Fax: (94 t) TO: Chip Clough FAX COVER LETTER Dear Chip, Dredging associated with the above referenced project was completed April 26, 1999 and all machinery and equipment removed from the beach prior to May 1' in accordance with Special Condition #10 (a) of the USAC� permit authorizing this work. No activity other than visual observation has occurred on the beach since this date: The beach was tilled as per Condition 10 (d) and an annual status report sent to your attention and Don Borda's in Jacksonville on February, 19, 1999 as per Condition #1. The Scope of Work for xhe Storm and Freshwater Studies has also been submitted to the USACE. Condition #2 (f) of the DEP permit (018463- 001-JC) specifies that if visual surveys of beach areas affected by the placement of material reveal escarpmwnts greater than 18" in height for a distance of 100 feet these should be re- graded prior to May I'. If escarpments re -form after this date the Department will determine the appropriate action to be taken. On post - construction survey a small escarpmient, (Q011) was observed just south- of Clam Pass however with wave actiori and high tides!, it has increased to an average height of 2 feet for approximately 100 feet in length. An outline of the work proposed to remove this feature has been faxed to your office today, May 12, -by Humiston & Moore Engineers. Subsequent communications with Collier County Natural Resources staff (Maury Kraus), DEP Bureau of Protected Species Managgment (Karen Moody) and Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (Keith Mille), and Andy Eller and Sandy MacPherson of the Fish and Wildlife Service, lead to a recently received verbal approval front Ms. MacPherson to proceed with re- grading the beach to it's natural contour. As the USACE permit specifies that works will occur outside of sea turtle nesting season, this may require a minor permit We are transmitting 2 page(s), including This cover sheet. If you do pot receive all of the pages, or have difficulty reading them, please call (941) 643 -0 TOIci L6LOP22 Ol 1DOSSHB'71- 13&nl. Wodi WUSZ:Be 6661 -£S -SO V.S. Army Corps of Engineers FROM: Qoe Essex FAX: 334 =0797 DATE: May 12, x999 RE:, i (.plan: Bay Restoration = Beach Re- grading itSACE Permit #1199601789 (Xk -CC, 'ITT # 9845 Dear Chip, Dredging associated with the above referenced project was completed April 26, 1999 and all machinery and equipment removed from the beach prior to May 1' in accordance with Special Condition #10 (a) of the USAC� permit authorizing this work. No activity other than visual observation has occurred on the beach since this date: The beach was tilled as per Condition 10 (d) and an annual status report sent to your attention and Don Borda's in Jacksonville on February, 19, 1999 as per Condition #1. The Scope of Work for xhe Storm and Freshwater Studies has also been submitted to the USACE. Condition #2 (f) of the DEP permit (018463- 001-JC) specifies that if visual surveys of beach areas affected by the placement of material reveal escarpmwnts greater than 18" in height for a distance of 100 feet these should be re- graded prior to May I'. If escarpments re -form after this date the Department will determine the appropriate action to be taken. On post - construction survey a small escarpmient, (Q011) was observed just south- of Clam Pass however with wave actiori and high tides!, it has increased to an average height of 2 feet for approximately 100 feet in length. An outline of the work proposed to remove this feature has been faxed to your office today, May 12, -by Humiston & Moore Engineers. Subsequent communications with Collier County Natural Resources staff (Maury Kraus), DEP Bureau of Protected Species Managgment (Karen Moody) and Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (Keith Mille), and Andy Eller and Sandy MacPherson of the Fish and Wildlife Service, lead to a recently received verbal approval front Ms. MacPherson to proceed with re- grading the beach to it's natural contour. As the USACE permit specifies that works will occur outside of sea turtle nesting season, this may require a minor permit We are transmitting 2 page(s), including This cover sheet. If you do pot receive all of the pages, or have difficulty reading them, please call (941) 643 -0 TOIci L6LOP22 Ol 1DOSSHB'71- 13&nl. Wodi WUSZ:Be 6661 -£S -SO December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 40 of 143 20 *4 ZO*d -IUIOi modification. Given that nesting has begun in Collier County, all concerned are anxious to completA the work as soon as possible. Staff from this office will be present throughout and succeSsfil completion coordinated with Collier County Natural Resources staff. Your prompt attention Is appreciated and verbal or faxed authorization will reduce any further delay. Sincerely, TURREU & ASSOCIATES, INC. cloe Essex Biologist CC: Ken Humiston, Humiston & Moore Engineers, 5974025 41e Lukasz, PB�D, 597-5400 ?-0'd ZLLOtICE 01 OOSSM-1-132k'M W08=1 wu9e:80 666T-ET-GO 05/12/1999 16:18 9415942025 HUMISTON & MOOR)i COASTAL ENGINEERING DEYIGN AND PERMITTING December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented t d by J. Hoppensteadt Page 41 of 143 '� ^A � O H & M ENGINEERS PAGE 02 10661 AVVCRT ROW N., 9XM 14 NVM FLOMOk34109 FAX 901 5901025 prck % 94l Aw 2=1 May 7, .1999 ; # l;�'...__- �___ - - -- Memo to: Sandy McPhemom USFB , FAX 904. 232.2404. From: Ken Humiston Re: Beach Grading, Clam Ba)t Restoration Project, Corps of Engineers 'Permit #199602789(IP_CC) We have requested authorization from the Fiorida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to re -grade a relatively small section -of beach in the referenced . project area, immediately south' of Clam Pass. We have discussed this with 'Keith. Mille ,of the DEP Bureau �of geaches and Coastat Systems, and Karen Moody of the Office of Protected Species. Both have indicated that they will grant approval contingent upon approval of the USF &WS. The area .to re- graded is approximately 100 to - 150 feet in the shore .parallel direction, and the re-- grading. will involve redistributing approximately 100 to 200 cubic , -yards 'of sand. We propose to conduct the. re- grading by bringing equipment in from the south; keeping it below the `mean high water line to avoid nesting habitat'and'the need for tilling the area again. It is estimated that the re- grading will involve less than- 200 cubic yards of sand and will be aoMpleted in a 'few hours. Although the referenced project is essentially. complete, the small amount of additional grading is desirable to'lower the beach profile in an area where It is too steep. The re- grading will reduce potential. for scarp formation as the beach readjusts in. response to wave activity. Additionally, readjustment of the beach which has occurred to date has'.exposed a few small pockets of fine silty material .which will be 'eliminated byre- grading this area. The re- grading will consist of pushing sand waterward to below mean high water. This. will" flatten the profile to'' reduce potential for scarp formation. The sand which will be pushed Waterward is material which, was dredged from the inlet and bay.system, but placed on the beach mechanically rather than Hydraulically_ Because of the fact that it was placed mechanically, it was not washed as clean as hydraulic beach fill, and -contains some small pockets of silty material: :Pushing this material.seaward will allow waves and-currents to disperse -the silty :material in the manner which it is normally' dispersed during hydraulic beach fill construction, consistent with the manner in which the rest of this project was conducted. Grain size analysis has-, shown that the coarse fractions of this material Jr. beach compatible it is estimated that the overall silt content of a h rf b h N N N N C O M N M n .^t N N N N ry December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 42 of 143 1612 A�4 05/12/1999 16:18 9415942025 H & M ENGINEERS PAGE 03 i th mat rial to be re- graded is' less than 10 %. Dispersing this silty material will also address concerns which have been expressed by Maura Kraus with the Collier County Natural Resources Department regarding the suitability of the mechanically placed beach fill as sea turtle nesting .habitat due to the presence of the pockets of silt. Cloe Essex of Turrell & Associates has discussed this with Andy Eller of your local office, and she will be calling you on Monday, May 10. We would appreciate . I if you could expedite your review of this request so that we may complete this final element of the project as soon as possible, Please call me if you have any questions. Copies to: Kyle Lukasz, Pelican Bay Service District, Fax 597 -5400. Cloe Essex, Tdrrell & Associates, Fax 643 -6632 Andy Eller, USF&WS, Fax 353 -8640 Keith Mille, DEP, Fax.650488 -5257 Karen Moody, OEP Fax 850 - 9214369 Maura Kraus, Collier County, Fax 774 -9222 HUMISION 1k MOORE ENGINEERS • NArt'ES. FLORIDA 05/12/1999 16:18 9415942025 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 43 of 143 161,2 A 20 H & M ENGINEERS PAGE 01 HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS z'� • ' 10661 t'tli URr RWD N. SU(IE 1 t COASTAL .l.:v; • �F 34109 ENGINFkiNG bE51GN 15" 2O 75 AND KNMITTING PHOW Art "4 Iwo May 12, 1999 Mr. Chip Clough U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2301 McGregor Blvd. Ft. Myers,,FL 33901 SENT VIA FAX 334 -0797, 3 pages Re: Beach Grading, Clam Bay Restoration, H &M File No. 8042 Dear Mr. Clough: Attached is a copy of a memo which describes the referenced beach grading. We have verbal approval from DEP to perform the referenced grading, contingent upon concurrence of the USF &WS. We have spent the last week obtaining a verbal approval from the USF &WS, which is now contingent upon approval from your office. We would appreciate it if you could provide us with the approval of the Corps so that we can complete this extremely minor amount of grading, which-was initially requested by the Collier County Natural Resources staff for the purpose of improving the beach as sea turtle nesting habitat. As indicated in the attached memo, the proposed re- grading will take only a few hours_ We would appreciate it if you can expedite this request_ Sincerely yours, HUMISTON & MORE ENGINEERS Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. copies to_ Kyle Lukasz, Pelican Bay Servioe District, Fax 597 -5400 Cioe Essex, Turrell & Associates, Fax 643 -6632 Andy Eller, USF &WS, Fax 353 -8640 Sandy McPherson, USF &WS, Fax 904 - 232 -2404 Keith Mille, DEP, Fax 850 -488 -5257 Karen Moody, DEP Fax 850 - 921 -4369 Maura Kraus, Collier County, Fax 774 -9222 m O N M ti O N N N N .y � �r`t, � •Qd4tEfTWX` � sS r IFLORI A o Lawton Chiles Governor December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppenste dt Page 44 of 143 A'20 Department of 0 Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary CONSOLIDATED JOINT COASTAL PERMIT AND SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS AUTHORIZATION PERMITTEE/AUTHORIZED ENTITY: Permit/Authorization No.: 0128463- 001 -JC Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Div. (Previously l 13049919) c/o Ted Brown, Esquire Date of Issue: July 06, 1998 Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A. Expiration Date: July 06, 2008 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 County: Collier Project: Clam Bay Restoration and Long -Term Management This permit is issued under the authority of Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 62, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The activity is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a Joint Coastal Permit. Pursuant to Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62 -113, F.A.C., the Department is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on this activity. This permit also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act; and, certification compliance with water quality standards under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344. This activity also requires a proprietary authorization, as the activity is located on sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, and Sections 253.002 and 253.77, F.S. The activity is not exempt from the need to obtain a proprietary authorization. The Department has the responsibility to review and take final action on this request for proprietary authorization in accordance with Section 18- 21.0051, and the Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62 -113, F.A.C. In addition to the above, this proprietary authorization has been reviewed in accordance with Chapter 253 and Chapter 258, F.S., Chapter 18 -20, Chapter 18 -21, and Section 62- 343.075, F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees. As staff to the Board of Trustees, the Department has reviewed the activity described below, and has determined that the activity requires a Consent of Use for the use of those lands, �r 4 m Primed on recycled paper. N �Y H Q N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 45 of 143 1612A20 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 2 of 21 pursuant to Chapter 253.77, Florida Statutes. The Department hereby grants its Consent to the permittee to use the sovereign submerged lands for the activities authorized in this permit, provided all general and specific conditions, and monitoring requirements stipulated in the permit are met by the pennittee. The above named permittee is hereby authorized to construct the work shown on the application and approved drawings, plans, and other documents attached hereto or on file with . the Department and made a part hereof. This permit is subject to the limits, conditions, and locations of work shown in-the attached drawings, and is also subject to the attached General Conditions, Specific Conditions, and Monitoring requirements which are a binding part of this permit. You are advised to read and understand these drawings and conditions prior to commencing the authorized activities, and to ensure the work is conducted in conformance with all the terms, conditions, and drawings. If you are utilizing a contractor, the contractor also should read and understand these drawings and conditions prior to commencing the authorized activities. Failure to comply with all drawings and conditions shall constitute grounds for revocation of the permit and appropriate enforcement action. The applicant has requested a variance (VE -11 -726) from Rule 62- 4.244(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which requires that a dredge and fill mixing zone be no more than 150 meters in radius from the point of discharge or source of pollution. The applicant has requested a mixing zone of up to 1,000 meters for the nearshore disposal of the beach quality material. The Department intends to grant this variance request per Chapters 403.201 and 403.938, Florida Statutes, and, Ch. 62- 103.100, F.A.C. The requirements and conditions of Variance No. VE -11 -726 are binding with this permit and shall become requirements and conditions of the permit. Activities authorized by this permit shall not commence until the Final Order granting Variance No. VE -11 -726 has been issued by the Department. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is to conduct activities to improve the hydrodynamics of, and thus restore and manage, the Clam Bay ecosystem by conducting the activities in association with and specified by the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP), which is attached to and made part of this permit as Attachment "A ". The Permittee is authorized to implement the CBRMP as set forth therein. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the Permittee is authorized to: dredge approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material from Clam Pass and restricted channels within the system; conduct periodic dredging of Clam Pass and the interior channels to maintain the design depths; conduct minor, small charge blasting of the restricted interior channels; replace three 24 inch diameter culverts along Seagate Drive with similar sized one -way flow to the north culverts; deposit the beach quality material on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass and dispose of the fines on the uplands; kill and remove the nuisance exotic vegetation within the system; conduct studies to determine the sources for excess water discharge into the system from the developed uplands; formulate an Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan with s. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 46 of 143 FDEP Permit No,: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 3 of 21 recommendations based on the results of the studies; and, implement the Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan in accordance with its terms. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located in the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and surrounding developments in Collier County, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, & 33 of Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Class II waters, not approved for shellfish harvesting. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. All activities authorized by this permit shall be implemented as set forth in the plans, specifications, and attached drawings approved as a part of this permit, and all conditions and requirements of this permit. The permittee shall notify the Department in writing of any anticipated deviation from the permit prior to implementation so that the Department can determine whether a modification of the permit is required. 2. If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with any condition or limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall immediately provide the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (Bureau) and the appropriate District office of the Department with a written report containing the following information: a description of and cause of noncompliance; and the period of noncompliance, including dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. 3. This permit does not eliminate the necessity to obtain any other applicable licenses or permits which may be required by federal, state, local or special district laws and regulations. This permit is not a waiver or approval of any other Department permit or authorization that may be required for other aspects of the total project which are not addressed in this permit. 4. This permit conveys no title to land or water, does not constitute State recognition or acknowledgment of title, and does not constitute authority for the use of sovereignty land of Florida seaward of the mean high -water line, or, if established, the erosion control line, unless herein provided and the necessary title, lease, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use has been obtained from the State. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any necessary authorizations from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund prior to commencing activity on sovereign lands or other state -owned lands. 5. Any delineation of the extent of a wetland or other surface water submitted as part of the permit application, including plans or other supporting documentation, shall not be considered specifically approved unless a specific condition of this permit or a formal determination under section 373.421(2), F.S., provides otherwise. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 47 of 143 A t s , FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 4 of 21 6. This permit does not convey to the permittee or create in the permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the permittee. The issuance of this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. 7. . This permit or a copy thereof, complete with all conditions, attachments, plans and specifications, modifications, and time extensions shall be kept at the work site of the permitted activity. The permittee shall require the contractor to review the complete permit prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this permit. 8. The permittee, by accepting this permit, specifically agrees to allow authorized Department personnel with proper identification and at reasonable times, access to the premises where the permitted activity is located or conducted for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms of the permit and with the rules of the Department and to have access to and copy any records that must be kept under conditions of the permit; to inspect the facility, equipment, practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and to sample or monitor any substances or parameters at any location reasonably necessary to assure compliance with this permit or Department rules. Reasonable time may depend on the nature of the concern being investigated. 9. At least forty -eight (48) hours prior to commencement of activity authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Bureau and the appropriate District office of the Department a written notice of commencement of construction indicating the actual start date and the expected completion date. 10. If historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered at any time on the project site, the permittee shall immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Bureau. 11. Within 30 days after completion of construction or completion of a subsequent maintenance event authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems and the appropriate District office of the Department a written statement of completion and certification by a licensed professional engineer registered in the state of Florida. This certification shall state that: all locations and elevations specified by the permit have been verified; the activities authorized by the permit have been performed in compliance with the plans and specifications approved as a part of the permit, and all conditions of the permit; or shall describe any deviations from the plans and specifications, and all conditions of the permit. When the completed activity differs substantially from the permitted plans, any substantial deviations shall be noted and explained on two copies of as -built drawings submitted to the Department. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 48 of 143 sK 941A 161 el, FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 5of21 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to commencement of the activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall ensure the following activities are conducted and information provided: a) At least 30 days prior to each construction event, the permittee shall identify a qualified biologist/ wetland scientist(s) familiar with ecosystems of Florida and submit their qualifications to the Department for approval. This individual will serve as the supervising scientist that oversees the biological components of this restoration project and will halt construction if he/ she suspects that violations of the permit have occurred. b) At least 30 days prior to commencement of construction, the "Proposed Scope of Work" described in the Biological Monitoring section of this permit shall be submitted to the Department for approval. c) Prior to commencement of construction, the construction plans and bid documents showing the work area contemplated to be constructed shall be submitted to the Department to be verified/ approved by Department staff. Excavation work authorized by this permit shall be administered in accordance with Specific Condition L(g) below. To the fullest extent possible, the smallest, lightest mechanized equipment and smallest work areas adequate to conduct the activities authorized by this permit shall be used to minimize adverse impacts to natural resources and the substrate where mangrove regeneration is encouraged. d) Prior to commencement of each dredging event authorized by this permit, a pre - construction conference shall be held among the contractor, the owner or authorized agent, the wetland scientist(s), the marine turtle permit holder, the USFWS, and a staff representative of the Department to establish an understanding among the parties as to the items specified in the General and Specific conditions of the permit and the Monitoring requirements. At least 10 days advance notice shall be provided prior to conducting this meeting. e) The Permittee shall submit the project specifications as required under Specific Condition 1.(g) below to BPSM for review and approval relative to the project specifications' probable impacts on marine turtles. If the type of dredge proposed has the potential to adversely impact marine turtles as determined by BPSM staff, additional conditions to protect marine turtles may be required by the Department as part of this permit. f) If blasting is proposed, a blasting plan shall be submitted to the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems and the Bureau of Protected Species Management in Tallahassee for approval at least 30 days before the proposed blasting event. Additional conditions relating~ to the proposed blasting activities may be needed and added to this permit by the Department. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 49 of 143 .'.« A2ij FDEP Pernnit No.: 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 6 of 21 g) At least forty -five (45) days prior to the initial dredging event and any subsequent maintenance dredging event authorized by this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee detailed project specifications, including but not limited to plan view and cross section drawings, which detail the dredge and fill limits at the dredging and disposal sites, the method of construction and construction schedule, and a processing fee as specified by Rule 62B -49, F.A.C. Additionally, the work area of the authorized excavation shall be clearly marked in the field by the wetland scientist(s) to allow the Department staff to verify and approve the location of the excavation. The Department may request additional information as necessary in order to review each proposed dredging event. Written approval from the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee shall be obtained before proceeding with each dredging event. Department approval for individual dredging events may be contingent upon the permittee's acceptance of additional conditions, such as turbidity and/ or water quality monitoring, which may be determined to be appropriate based on data submitted to the Department in support of a dredging request or upon the results of previous dredging. 2. The following conditions are required to minimize impacts to marine turtles: a) No construction, operation, transportation or storage of equipment or materials are authorized seaward of the dune crest during the marine turtle nesting season (May i` through October 31' ). This includes dredging of the main pass and disposal of dredged material seaward of the dune crest, including the intertidal zone. The other activities landward of the dune crest may be conducted during the marine turtle nesting season provided the necessary measures are taken to protect marine turtles. b) Fill material placed on the beach shall be sand that is similar to that already existing at the beach site in both coloration and grain size. All such 611 material shall be free of construction debris, rocks, other foreign matter and shall not contain, on average, greater than 10 percent fines (i.e. silt and clay) passing a No. 200 sieve and shall not contain coarse gravel or cobbles (exclusive of shell material) retained by a No. 4 sieve. c) Fill material shall not exceed a 10:1 horizontal to vertical slope and shall be placed below MHW. If till disposal results in a barrier or depression in the beach profile that interferes with marine turtle nesting, the permittee shall be required to remove that feature upon request by the Department. d) Reports on all nesting activity is currently provided to the Department by Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection. The Permittee shall ensure that the reports prepared by the Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection shall include the collection of data specific to the project area for the initial nesting season following the 0 N M H N N N N M 0 0 N M +-i ry ry N N N N FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 7 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 50 of 143 1612 A20" completion of construction, and for a minimum of two additional nesting seasons, unless waived as herein provided. Monitoring during the additional seasons may be waived if the permittee can demonstrate that the fill material is no longer present in the project area, or that turtle nesting the first season post - construction was not adversely affected compared to an appropriate control area. Monitoring shall include daily surveys and any additional measures for turtle protection authorized by the Department. Reports shall be submitted to the Department in accordance with current protocols with the Collier County Department of Natural Resource Protection, but as soon as practicable after the completion of all monitoring activities, and shall include daily report sheets noting all activity, nesting success rates, hatching success of all relocated and in situ nests, and names of all personnel involved in nest surveys and relocation activities. All nesting surveys and nest relocations shall be conducted only by persons with prior experience and training in these activities and duly authorized to conduct such activities through a valid permit issued by the Department, Division of Marine Resources, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62R -1. e) If heavy equipment is required to transport equipment or materials on the dry beach (above MHW), the path of the equipment will be tilled to 36" to avoid compaction impacts prior to the following nesting season. f) Visual surveys for escarpments or barriers along the project area shall be made immediately after completion of the project and prior to May 1 in any year that disposal of beach quality material is placed on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass unless inspection of the disposal area indicates that the dredged material has been removed by natural processes, in which case this permit condition shall not apply. Results of the surveys shall be faxed to the Bureau of Protected Species Management, (850) 921 -4369, prior to any action being taken. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet shall be leveled to the natural beach contour by May I". The Department shall be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that can interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. In each year where the escarpment survey is conducted, a summary of the survey and actions taken shall be submitted to the Department. g) During the marine turtle nesting and hatching season, all lighting associated with project activities landward of the dune crest and visible from the beach shall be limited to the immediate area of active construction only. Such lighting shall be shielded low pressure sodium vapor lights to minimize illumination of the nesting beach and nearshore waters. h) In the event an unmarked marine turtle nest or a dead, injured, or sick marine turtle is discovered during construction activities, the marine turtle permit holder and the Bureau of Protected Species Management shall be notified immediately such that appropriate December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 51 of 143 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 8 of 21 conservation measures can be taken. 3. The following conditions are required to minimize impacts to manatees: 1612A20 a) The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of manatees and the need to avoid collisions with manatees. All construction personnel are responsible for observing water - related activities for the presence of manatee(s). b) The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. c) Siltation barriers, if used, shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, are properly secured, and are regularly monitored to avoid manatee entrapment. Barriers must not block manatee entry to or exit from essential habitat. d) All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "no wake /idle" speeds at all times while in the construction area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four -foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. e) If manatee(s) are seen within 100 yards of the active daily construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee. These precautions shall include the operation of all moving equipment no closer than 50 feet of a manatee. Operation of any equipment closer than 50 feet to a manatee shall necessitate immediate shutdown of that equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has departed the project area of its own volition. t) Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Marine Patrol at 1- 800 -DIAL FMP (1- 800 - 342 - 5367). Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1- 904 -232- 2580) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1- 407 -562 -3909) in south Florida. g) Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all construction/dredging activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. A sign measuring at least 3 ft. by 4 ft. which reads Caution: Manatee Area will be posted in a location prominently visible to water related construction crews. A second sign should be posted if vessels are associated with the construction, and should be placed visible to the vessel operator. The second FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 9 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 52 of 143 A-20 1612 sign should be at least 8 1/2" by 1 I" which reads Caution: Manatee Habitat. Idle speed is required if operating a vessel in the construction area. All equipment must be shutdown if a manatee comes within 50 feet of operation. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Marine Patrol at 1 -800 -DIAL FMP (1 -800- 342 - 5367). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should also be contacted in Jacksonville (1 -904- 232 -2580) for north Florida or in Vero Beach (1- 407 - 562 -3909) for south Florida. h) Permanent manatee informational signs, such as those shown in the enclosed example sheets, shall be installed and maintained at the canoe boat ramp at the southern end of Outer Clam Bay following completion of the initial dredging event. 4. Pursuant to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DOS -DHR) regulations, no heavy equipment, land clearing, or ground disturbing activities shall be allowed at sites 8CR476, 8CR547, and 8CR576, unless subjected to prior testing by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the DOS -DHR. See the attached permit drawings for the locations of these historically significant areas to be avoided. 5. The Clam Bay ecosystem contains waterways that are difficult to navigate due to shallow water depths and meandering channels lined with protruding mangrove branches and roots. To protect the significant natural resources and water quality of the Clam Bay ecosystem, and to provide protection to the public safety (boaters utilizing these waters), there shall be an idle speed/ no wake restriction on motorized vessels used in the system (as stipulated in County Ordinance No. 96 -16). The existing restrictions placed upon boating activities within the Clam Bay system by County Ordinance No. 96 -16 shall remain active and enforceable for the life of this permit. Additionally, two Florida Marine Patrol approved signs that state, "Idle Speed- No Wake" and "Caution- Shallow Water and Natural Resources Present- Tilt Motor Up To Prevent Prop Dredge- Damage to Natural Resources Subject to Fines, Pursuant to Ch. 370, F.S." shall be placed at the following locations following completion of the initial dredging event: 1) One within the entrance of Clam Pass facing boaters entering the bays; 2) One at the entrance to Outer Clam Bay facing north and easily legible to boaters entering Outer Clam Bay; 3) One at the entrance to Inner Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Inner Clam Bay; 4) One at the entrance to Upper Clam Bay facing south and easily legible to boaters entering Upper Clam Bay; and, 5) One within the upper reaches of Outer Clam Bay facing southeast and easily legible to boaters leaving Seagate. 6. To protect the submerged natural resources (seagrasses and oyster beds) adjacent to the channels to be dredged, weighted turbidity screens that extend to the bottom of the waterbody N 0 N M ct O N N N N 4; 0 C N �f q h N N N FDEP Permit No.: 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 10 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 53 of 143 161t2 A20 shall be installed between the natural resource and the dredge to effectively isolate the natural resource from the active dredge and prevent adverse impacts to the natural resource via suspended panicle settlement. The turbidity screens will only need to be placed on the down current side between the natural resource and the dredge to assist the contractor in identifying the significant natural resource areas and to protect the natural resources from the dredge and temporarily elevated turbidity levels. 7. A minimal amount of trimming and removal of mangroves will be needed to conduct the authorized activities in the smaller interior channels. These activities are to be supervised by the Department approved wetlands scientist described in Specific Condition 1 above. To ensure that the biological health and productivity of the mangroves are not adversely impacted to a significant extent, the following mangrove trimming procedures must be followed, pursuant to Sections 403 .9321 - 403.9333, Florida Statutes. Only once- per -year trimming of the mangroves needed to conduct the activities authorized by this permit, and to maintain the canoe trails is allowed; no trimming of mangroves to create or enhance views within this ecosystem is allowed. Prior to trimming or removing any mangroves, the species of the trees must be identified and tagged by a qualified biologist, wetland scientist(s), or botanist and verified by staff from the Department's South District Office in Ft. Myers, or the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee. All trimmed mangrove parts greater than one inch in diameter shall be removed and composted on the uplands to prevent further restriction of tidal flow within the interior channels: Live Manerove Trimming Procedures a. Maximum Diameter- No white mangrove tree with a single trunk diameter greater than twelve inches dbh (diameter at breast height= the diameter of the tree at 4.5 feet above the substrate) may be top trimmed. No black mangrove tree with a single trunk diameter greater than eight inches dbh may be top trimmed. No red mangrove tree with a single trunk diameter greater than one inch may be top trimmed. b. Top Trimming- White and black mangrove trees within the specified trunk diameters may be trimmed to a height of four feet above substrate. The limit of top trimming for red mangroves within the specified trunk diameters is 6 linear feet above the substrate. Top trimming shall not occur from May I through September 30. No more than half of the canopy of the tree shall be trimmed. No white and black mangrove trees less than 4 linear feet in height shall be trimmed. No red mangroves less than 6 linear feet in height shall be trimmed. c. Removal of Lateral Branches- For white and black mangrove trees, lateral branches originating between four and fifteen feet above the substrate may be removed from a trunk of any dbh. For red mangroves, up to fifty percent of the lateral branches originating between six and fifteen feet above the substrate may be removed. In multiple trunk trees, the trunk having the greatest dbh is designated as the primary trunk; others are designated as lateral branches. ..er 0 N M Q N N N N ti 'a December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 54 of 143 161 2 A 20 .4 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 11 of 21 d. General Prohibitions - 1) No herbicides or chemicals may be used to alter mangroves. 2) No burning may be used to alter mangroves. 3) No deliberate damage to prop roots, pneumatophores, and regular roots. 4) No cutting of any mangrove that serves as breeding, nesting, or roosting area for colonial water birds; or is used by endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern for breeding, or which is routinely used, by endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern, as listed in Rule 19 -27, F.A.C., and 50 CFR 17.11 -12; or contains a nest or nests of protected solitary nesting birds as defined in Rule 39- 12.002 or 39- 27.002, F.A.C., except where a permit has been issued by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, or, where appropriate, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to remove the nest or nests. Dead Manerove Trimmine or Removal Procedures a. Due to the large numbers of dead mangroves within certain areas of this ecosystem, up to 50% of the dead trees may be removed within the areas of massive die -offs to facilitate recolonization by mangroves. b. For public safety, all dead mangroves within 20 feet of the existing paved roads may be removed. c. Prior to removing any dead mangroves, the trees shall be inspected and tagged for removal by the approved wetland scientist(s). Prior to their removal, these tagged trees shall be approved for removal by staff from the Department's South District Office in Ft. Myers, or from the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee. The larger, sturdier dead trees suitable for roosting and nesting shall remain. d. Dead mangroves approved for removal shall be removed at the substrate level with care not to damage or disturb surrounding, living vegetation. e. The removed dead trees shall be composted or disposed on the uplands to prevent further restrictions of tidal flow within the interior channels. 8. As part of the restoration and long -term management of this ecosystem, activities shall be conducted to remove the nuisance exotic vegetation (including Australian pine and Brazilian pepper) within the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area. These activities shall be conducted with the goal in mind to remove all nuisance exotic vegetation from the area with the actual percentage of nuisance exotic vegetation not exceeding 1 %a of the total vegetated area. When removing the nuisance exotic vegetation, care shall be taken to not harm the surrounding native vegetation. Mechanical removal should remove as much of the roots of the exotic as possible followed by hand removal, or chemical treatment of any suckers. If chemical treatment is used, only environmentally safe chemicals, such as garlon and roundup, shall be used with special care taken to not spill/spray any in or on the water or native vegetation. p N O h N N FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 12 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 55 of 143 1642 A20 9. Within seven days of completion of the authorized activities (including the mangrove alterations, interior channel excavations, and removal of nuisance exotic vegetation) throughout the Clam Bay ecosystem, the contracted crews shall return to each work area and remove the trimmed branches and trees (dead trees approved for removal) greater than 1 inch in diameter to appropriate upland locations. The crews shall also regrade any spoil pile or berm that may have been created as part of the excavation work, such that there is no impediment to sheet flow and no created uplands as a result of the project. 10. Small charge explosives maybe used to restore tidal flow in the interior channels where the use of mechanized and hand -held equipment is not feasible. The areas designated for the use of explosives shall be marked by the wetland scientist(s) and these marked areas shall be approved by Department staff prior to the use of the explosives. The explosives shall be carefully placed and detonated only in areas where their use will have minimal adverse impacts to significant natural resources. A Florida licensed explosives expert shall install and detonate all explosives associated with the project. 11. To develop a data set to understand the impact of freshwater discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem from the developed uplands, the permittee shall submit detailed plans for the following primary studies within 120 days following permit issuance to the Department for approval. These studies are designed to identify existing water sources and water needs, and propose feasible methods to meet these water needs while concurrently reducing water discharges into the Clam Bay ecosystem (see the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan for the details and specifics of each study): Study 1- Vegetation Analysis/ Irrigation Requirements; Study 2- Retarding Upland Water Flows into Clam Bay; Study 3- Reducing Flow from Perimeter Berm Area to Clam Bay; Study 4- Groundwater Flows; Study 5- Utilization of Stormwater Management Lakes as Source for Irrigation; and, any additional studies that may be needed to generate the information required to fully understand the impact of freshwater discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem from the developed uplands. The study plans shall include detailed descriptions and maps, activities to be conducted, methods, and qualified personnel involved for each study. The permittee shall begin implementation of the Department approved studies within 180 days following permit issuance. 12_ The permittee shall conduct the studies required by Specific Condition No. I 1 for up to three years following permit issuance. However, if the data generated from the studies suggest that additional data gathering will not materially aid the permittee and the Department in understanding the impact of freshwater discharge into the Clam Bay ecosystem, the permittee may request the Department for authorization to terminate one or more of the studies and proceed to the analysis and recommendation phase as described in the CBRMP and this condition. cs 6 N N N ti a x, a FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 13 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 56 of 143 161 [,a e0*4 Following this study period, the permittee shall analyze the data gathered, formulate recommendations based on the data, and to the extent suggested by the data,, design a plan to reduce water discharges into the Clam Bay ecosystem from the developed uplands ( "Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan' or UWDRP). If a UWDRP is required as a result of an analysis of the data by the permittee and the Department, then the permittee will submit to the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems in Tallahassee and the Department's South District Office in Ft. Myers the UWDRP for approval. Once the UWDRP is approved by the Department, the permittee shall implement the UWDRP as provided for therein, but in no event later than five years following permit issuance unless a modification or waiver of that time frame is agreed to by the permittee and the Department. The implemented activities to reduce upland discharge of water shall be monitored in accordance with the terms of the UWDRP following completion of their implementation. It is anticipated that all activities described here and in Section 4.5.4 of the CBRMP will be completed within the ten (10) year permit term, but nothing will preclude the Department with the consent of the permittee, from extending the time for implementation of any portion of the UWDRP if the interest of the ecology of the system would be improved by doing so. The permittee will, as suggested in the CBRMP, implement in connection with this permit a program of community involvement to help ensure the maximum amount of community participation possible should the studies described in the CBRMP, and required here, suggest the need for one or more UWDRPs. In this context, the Department recognizes that the decision to require one or more UWDRPs will be dependent on the outcome of the studies described in the CBRMP and required here. The following time -table summarizes the anticipated schedule for the activities associated with the studies required above: ACTIVITY SCHEDULE 1. Submit detailed plans of each primary Within 120 days from permit issuance study to the Department for approval. (anticipated to be October 22, 1998). 2. Begin implementation of the approved Within 180 days from permit issuance primary studies. (anticipated to be December 22, 1998). 3. Conduct the primary studies and gather For up to 3 years following permit issuance data. (anticipated to be July 22, 2001). 4. Develop as required by the data one or UWDRPs shall be submitted by April 22, more "Upland Water Discharge 2003, to the FDEP and will be implemented Reduction Plan" based upon results/ in accordance with their terms. recommendations of primary studies and submit to Department for approval. i d N M ry �Y O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 57 of 143 16L2g2U FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 14 of 21 5. Implementation and monitoring of the To be completed within the permit term. "Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan". 6. Submission of monitoring report for the To be submitted in accordance with the term "Upland Water Discharge Reduction of the UWDRPs. Plan" that includes any noted modifications or corrective actions needed. 13. The permittee shall conduct the studies, gather the information, and submit the reports stipulated in the "Monitoring Required" section of this permit. If the monitoring reveals adverse impacts have occurred as a result of conducting the authorized activities, the permittee shall cooperate with the Department to develop and implement such remediallcontigency plans as may be desirable to effectuate the purposes of this permit. The Permittee shall not be liable for damages or costs resulting from adverse impacts to the ecosystem unless those adverse impacts are a direct and proximate result of the intentional or negligent act(s) of the Permittee in the implementation of the activities authorized by the permit. MONITORING REQUIRED: 1. Water Quality Monitoring Turbidity monitoring during dredging and discharge, and as necessary prior to the removal of turbidity control devices. A. Dredge Site Frequency: Twice daily, at least four hours apart, beginning at least two hours after dredging begins and continuing during the dredging activities. Location: Background: At least 200 meters upstream of the project site outside of any visible turbidity plume, at mid - depth. Compliance: Downstream of the turbidity curtains which separate the dredge from the natural resources on the resource side of the curtains. When the natural resources are more than 150 meters downcurrent of the dredge, the compliance zone shall be no more than 150 meters downcurrent of the dredge within the densest portion of any visible turbidity plume, at mid- depth. J 0 N M ti H O N N N N I t FDEP Permit No.: 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 15 of 21 B. Disposal Sites December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 58 of 143 161 2" eG Frequency: Twice daily, at least four hours apart, beginning at least two hours after dredging begins and continuing during the dredging activities. Location: Background: At least 200 meters upstream of the project site (in the nearshore zone of the Gulf of Mexico) outside of any visible turbidity plume, at mid - depth. Compliance: At no more than 1,000 meters downstream of the discharge point in the intertidal zone (between the mean high and mean low water lines) and 61 meters (200 feet) offshore (from the mean low water line), within the densest portion of any visible turbidity plume, at mid - depth. All monitoring data shall be submitted within one week of analysis with documents containing the following information: (1) permit number; (2) dates of sampling and analysis; (3) a statement describing the methods used in collection, handling, storage and analysis of the samples; (4) a map indicating the sampling locations; and (5) a statement by the individual responsible for implementation of the sampling program concerning the authenticity, precision, limits of detection and accuracy of the data. Monitoring reports shall also include the following information for each sample that is taken: (a) time of day samples taken; (b) tidal stage and direction of flow (c) depth of water body; (d) depth of sample; and (e) antecedent weather conditions. The compliance locations given above shall be considered the limits of the temporary mixing zone for turbidity allowed during construction. If monitoring reveals turbidity levels at the compliance sites greater than 29 NTUs above background turbidity levels at the corresponding background sites, construction activities.shall cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. Any such occurrence shall also be immediately reported to the Department's office in Ft. Myers. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Department's office in Tallahassee and to the South District Office in Ft. Myers. Failure to submit reports in a timely manner constitutes grounds for revocation of the permit. When submitting this information to the Department, please clearly include, at the top of each page or as a cover page to the submittal: "This information being December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 59 of 143 or t{�� 161 ZA 20 -Ji ,11 4 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 16 of 21 I provided in partial fulfillment of the monitoring requirements in Permit No. 0128463-001 - JC (Previously 113049919)." 2. Hydrographic Monitoring To generate the data needed to adequately assess the potential impacts of opening up the restricted channels of the interconnected waterways as authorized by this permit, the hydrographic monitoring program shall include the following: a. Topographic surveys of Clam Pass and surrounding 500 feet zone. The surveys shall be conducted immediately prior to and following completion of the authorized excavation. Additional surveys of Clam Pass shall be required as often as the permittee seeks to conduct maintenance excavation within Clam Pass or the main channel excavated pursuant to this permit and identified in the CBRMP as Cuts 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D. In such circumstances, the survey produced shall meet the standards set forth in paragraph "B" below. b. Within seven (7) days of completion of the authorized excavation of the interior channels, and thereafter as frequently as may be required for the duration of the permit, the enhanced interior channels shall be surveyed at a minimum of 100 feet cross- sections to ensure that the desired elevations have been attained. It is anticipated that these surveys will be initiated as and when it appears to the Permittee and its wetland scientist(s) that maintenance excavation of these channels may be required to maintain the integrity of the system. A copy of the survey, certified by a registered land surveyor, shall be submitted to the Department as a part of a request for authority to conduct maintenance excavation pursuant to Specific Condition L(g) above, or if the survey reveals no present need for additional excavation, it will nonetheless be submitted to the Department as additional data within thirty (30) days of completion of the excavation. Any survey submitted pursuant to this section shall contain a note, based upon the surveyor's examination of the excavated area which indicates whether the surveyed cross - sections reasonably reflect the site conditions for the entire area excavated. c. The permittee shall submit an engineering report and survey maps summarizing the monitoring data and project performance to the Bureau within 90 days of completion of each survey. The report shall include an analysis of the sediment characteristics of Clam Pass and any changes observed in the pass, identify erosion and accretion patterns along the pass and adjacent beaches, and identify any adverse impacts which would be attributable to the activities authorized by this permit. If survey data of the pass is submitted it should be submitted on 3.5 -inch high density floppy disk in an ASCII format and the data shall be arranged according to the FDEP /DBS specifications so as to include all of the information required by the FDEP/DBS specifications. 4 4 O W^ N ti Q �v N N N FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 17 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 60 of 143 d. Monitoring stations shall be established at representative sites (as shown on the permit drawings as reflected in the CBRMP) throughout Upper, Inner, and Outer Clam Bay to record the following hydrological parameters: 1) time of day samples taken; 2) water temperature ( °C and °F); 3) depth of water body; 4) depth of sample; 5) antecedent weather conditions; 6) water quality, including salinity, silicates, nitrites, total organic carbon, chlorophyll, phaeophydn, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, nitrate, nitrate ammonia, total kjeldahl nitrogen, and total dissolved solids; 7) sedimentation levels; 8) rainfall; 9) tidal stage and direction of flow; 10) other influential flows, such as groundwater and stormwater flows; 11) wind direction and velocity; and, 12) identification of the sample location which corresponds to the number shown on sampling Iocation maps. These analyses shall be made immediately prior to and following construction, and monthly thereafter, with the exception of the water quality analysis (number 6 above), which may be conducted on a quarterly basis. Staff gages shall be installed at these stations in order to measure the relative tide range at each station. In order to measure the effect of the dredging on the tidal range, one station should be located adjacent to or within the degraded mangrove area. This station should be equipped with a tide gage capable of continuous readings of tide stage. The monitoring required by this section (e.) will provide valuable data concerning the effects the restoration project is expected to have on the hydrology of the Clam Bay ecosystem. This information is crucial for future management decisions for this important natural resource, therefore, this monitoring shall continue for the life of the permit. The data collected from this monitoring shall be listed, analyzed, and submitted to the Department in annual Hydrographic Monitoring Reports. 3. Biological Monitoring As required in Specific Condition Lb), at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction, the permittee shall provide a "Proposed Scope of Work (PSOW)" from the Department approved wetland scientist(s), or from another qualified environmental organization with experience conducting research on Florida's ecosystems. The PSOW will include a list of scientifically accepted methods that will be conducted, and when, and by whom, to adequately assess the Clam Bay ecosystem (with a primary focus on the mangrove and seagrass communities) before and after the activities authorized by this permit are conducted. The PSOW shall include the FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 18 of 21 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 61 of 143 1612A20 following information plus any additional information or scientific methods deemed appropriate by the contracted scientists: a. Flight -dated aerial photography of the Clam Bay ecosystem before and after the activities authorized by this permit are conducted. The aerials shall be taken during July of each year and submitted to the Department annually for the duration of the permit. The aerials must be color, vertical aerial photographs, controlled and rectified at a scale appropriate for post - production digitilization and a scale sufficient to delineate differing habitat zones and dominant species within each zone. The flight line shall include all of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and the nearshore zone to at least 400 feet offshore (from the mean high water line). b. As concurrently as possible with taking the aerial photographs, ground- truthing activities shall be conducted in areas of special concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including areas of widespread dead and dying mangroves, Inner, Upper, and Outer Clam Bays, the areas receiving water discharges from the uplands, and areas contiguous with the main pass. The ground - truthing activities shall include the use of the latest accepted scientific methods to survey the types of habitats of concern within the Clam Bay ecosystem, including mangrove and seagrass dominated habitats. These surveys shall include a listing of species present, percent coverages by species, size ranges and averages, and overall health/ biological trends for each fixed quadrat, transect, or plot studied.. These surveys and any associated drawings/ mapping shall be conducted prior to conducting the dredging activities and once each year (in July) thereafter for the life of the permit. c. Annual biological monitoring reports (BMRs) shall be submitted beginning one year following permit issuance. The first annual BMR shall contain the time -zero conditions of the Clam Bay ecosystem existing prior to commencement of the permitted activities and a progress report of the activities conducted since permit issuance. Thereafter, each BMR shall contain a progress report of the activities completed since the previous BMR and all the data collected pursuant to a. and b. above. Each BMR shall include graphical representation and overlays of the collected data on computer generated drawings of the aerials, and ground -level color panoramic photos of each study area at fixed stations. The annual BMRs shall also contain an analysis of the collected data and make conclusions and recommendations concerning the impacts the permitted activities have had on the Clam Bay ecosystem based on the analysis of the data collected, including the biological monitoring data, the hydrographic monitoring data, and the water quality monitoring data. MONITORING SUMMARY: Turbidity monitoring during construction; hydrographic/ water quality monitoring of Clam Pass, the interior waterbodies, the adjacent beaches, and the Seagate culverts; biological monitoring associated with marine turtle and manatee protection; and, long -term biological monitoring of the Clam Bay ecosystem via fixed vegetative and benthic surveys. m 0 N s"7 �1 N N N N ey December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 62 of 143 i4 y f r� FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 19 of 21 COMPLIANCE TRACKING SUMMARY: • 1612A20 - Commencement of Activity Notice- Due at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activity, per General Condition 9. Project Completion and Certification - Due within 30 days following subsequent dredging events from a Florida registered engineer, per General Condition 11. Preconstruetion Conference- At least 10 days prior to commencement of activity, per Specific Condition l.d). Marine Turtle Monitoring Reports- Reports due annually that include compaction measurements, escarpment survey results, and daily survey results, per Specific Condition 2. Written Dredging Requests- At least 45 days prior to each event per Specific Condition l,g). - Mangrove Tagging Verification by Department Staff- Must be done prior to trimming or removing any mangroves, per Specific Condition 7. Study Plans- Due within 120 days following permit issuance, per Specific Condition 11. Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan- Due within 3 years following permit issuance, per Specific Condition 12. Turbidity Monitoring Reports- To be conducted twice daily during construction and submitted weekly, per Monitoring Required section. Water Quality Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section. Hydrographic Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section. Biological Monitoring Reports- Due annually, per Monitoring Required section. AGENCY COMMENTS: Florida Department of Community Affairs- May 23,1997- No objections. Florida Department of State- Division of Historical Resources- June 23, 1997- Provided specific conditions to protect potentially historic sites 8CR476, 8CR547, and 8CR576. City of Naples- July 8, 1997- Supports the project. PARTIES REQUESTING NOTICE: Man rog ve Action Group, Inc. Save the Bays Association. Inc. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida N C5 N M �-i H H O N N N m 0 M a N N N N ti i FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 20 of 21 Executed in Tallahassee, Florida. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 63 of 143 161 La AZT STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kirby B. een Deputy Secretary Copies furnished to: Bob Brantly, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Jon Iglehart, DEP- South District Office- Ft. Myers Kalani Cairns, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service George Percy, Fl. Dept. of State Keri Akers, Fl. Dept. of Community Affairs Andreas Mager, U.S. Dept: of Commerce Susan Gray, SFWMD Stacey Cowley, DEP, Office of General Counsel Estus Whitfield, Governor's Office of Environmental Affairs Chip Clough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mac Hatcher, Collier County Government Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division David Guggenheim, The Conservancy of SW Florida Dan Spina, Save the Bays, Association Kay Potter, Mangrove Action Group, Inc. Hilburn Hillestad, Environmental Consultant- Arvida Dorothea Zysko, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. Karen Moody, DEP- Bureau of Protected Species Management John Iliff, National Marine Fisheries Service Eric Staats, Naples Daily News John Mac'kie, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Permit Information Center FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 20 of 21 Executed in Tallahassee, Florida. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 63 of 143 161 La AZT STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Kirby B. een Deputy Secretary Copies furnished to: Bob Brantly, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Jon Iglehart, DEP- South District Office- Ft. Myers Kalani Cairns, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service George Percy, Fl. Dept. of State Keri Akers, Fl. Dept. of Community Affairs Andreas Mager, U.S. Dept: of Commerce Susan Gray, SFWMD Stacey Cowley, DEP, Office of General Counsel Estus Whitfield, Governor's Office of Environmental Affairs Chip Clough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mac Hatcher, Collier County Government Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division David Guggenheim, The Conservancy of SW Florida Dan Spina, Save the Bays, Association Kay Potter, Mangrove Action Group, Inc. Hilburn Hillestad, Environmental Consultant- Arvida Dorothea Zysko, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. Karen Moody, DEP- Bureau of Protected Species Management John Iliff, National Marine Fisheries Service Eric Staats, Naples Daily News John Mac'kie, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Permit Information Center a l: c c n ry N I December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 64 of 143 k A 2U .. 1612 FDEP Permit No.: 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049914) Page 21 of 21 FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, with the designat d Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Date Recommended and written by: i b pages attached. i ago. 8 P December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay i i io rd Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt t Page 65 of 143 +9 JB - • • ti•' i f j � . ' Z • j 1 p `• , `.�:. p . ; its t �_, ..1EgO�1Li)•�!YCt ' - y �.; )- • *"• -..- 1 \• �"� -,- 7f ire J! t � '} } -9 � = sa: a Gcrt Curse _ (j _ � ✓ .r•- .� , or � - ' t ;�' _~ _ t• e \} r .H`di4� Naples'- . _ t i _ t :..- - (./ _` :� •'. .. __ _ _ - _ 11 � Liam Pass, -- - _ 1 ��' `�• ; . _ �,s' . � 1� . _ t a` Historical Sites to Avoid During Construction kNClam Bay Restoration Project FDEP File No.: 0128463 (. ,tea '• t't.;� a- -�. 3° ' Gc4 course ! _ , .}::1,®ir -�'1 • t •lam• y r \� 1' °t �, .� I .` � _ .• .. t �JU 1997 ;r fu t5 ,�,��-',• R DA, fAi SYSTE o 1�- �• " ( fit' _ - — - - N <L,- . -rv..^ �..> - __ IG(] t'`�� _ -• N N N N .ti 4 161 20. vv w < December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Boar Special Assio n Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 66 of 143 SLER 0818 PERMANENT MANATEE SIGNS INSTALLATION PROCEDURES There are two types of manatee sions that may be required, 1) "Caution Manatee Area "; and 2) "Manatee Informational Displays" (see attached examples). The typical Manatee Informational Displays include two sions: a "Manatee Fact Sheet" and "Basics for Boaters ". These signs are intended to increase the awareness of boaters of the presence of manatees in the area and of the potential threat boats pose to the animals. Custom - designed signs are allowable if the basic specifications and information are comparable, but must be approved by the Department. These signs are non - regulatory in nature. Procedure for Aooroval: 1. The applicant should forward a project site plan, with the type and locations for sions to the Bureau of Protected Species Management, Department of Environmental Protection, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 245, Tallahassee, Florida 32-3-99. The applicant should also include a chart indicating the location of the facility in relation to waterways and county location, and the Permit and/or Lease number associated with the- project. 2. The Bureau of Protected Species Management will review the proposed site sign plan. The applicant will be notified within 30 days if the signs and locations proposed by the applicant are unacceptable. Correspondence will be sent to offer suggestions on the type, number and location's of sign(s). if the applicant has not received a response within 30 days, the proposed signs and their locations should be considered approved. 3. If during a site visit, approved signs and their locations are'found not to be in accordance with the instructions given in this *document, failure to follow these directions re relocation or addition of siod i t RECEIVED FEB 191996 ATTACHMENT - March 15, 1995 SUB LANDS & ENV. RES. Attachment �, Page 1 c December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 67 of 143 1612 A SLER 0818 ` PERMANENT MANATEE SIGNS INSTALLATION PROCEDURES (continued) Instructions for location and types_ FACILITY TYPE/SIZE SIGN REQUIREMENT Private, Commercial, or Public facility No Signs Required <10 wet or dry slips, for permanent mooring Private, Commercial, or Public Facility Manatee Informational Displays with 5 or more slips for temoorary mooring (in association with upland service restaurants, charters, etc.) Private, Commercial, or Public facility Caution Manatee Area Sions Required with 10 -19 wet, dry, temporary or permanent slips Private, Commercial, or Public facility Caution Manatee Area Sions with >20 slips (wet, dry, temporary or and Manatee Informational Displays permanent) Boat Ramp, Private or Public I Manatee Informational Displays Manatee Informational Displays must be located in a prominent location, such as near walkways, dockmaster offices, restrooms or foot trafzlc access points to piers /docks for maximum visibility. Caution Manatee Sions for docking facilities should be placed on land, walkways or docks. These sions should be oriented so that the boaters using this facility will be reminded to watch for manatees while boating. These sions are not required to be placed in view for the general boating public. If a facility has separate docks with separate access walkways, a Caution Manatee Sign should be installed near each walkway or dock. Permanent manatee signs should not be installed on pilings in water, or be attached to navigational markers, or in any way impede navigation. S'. RECEIVED FEB 15 1996 - SUS LANDS & ENV. RES. ATTACHMENT - March 15, 1995 1� F ° D Attachmen- , Page 2 F N ' O ry ry N N 0 N a N N N r��r�rrrrrr.. .ate 161 2 ZG December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 68 of 143 LER 0818 INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS for Permanent Manatee Signs (continued) Approved Sign Suppliers: Both types of signs are available through the companies:Iisted below and may also be available from other local suppliers throughout the state. Permit/lease holders; marinas, and boat docking /launching facilities should contact sign companies directly to arrange for shipping and billing. Caution and Informational Siaans- Cape Coral Signs & Designs Inc. 1311 Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33990 1- 800 -813 -9992 813- 772 -9992 FAX 813- 772 -9992 JADCO $igning Inc. 708 Commerce Way Post Office Box 911 Jupiter, Florida 33458 '1 -800 -432 -3404 . 407 -747 -1065 FAX 407 -744 -2985 Municipal Supply and Sion Company Information Sians fonlyl Post Office Box 17 New City Sign Company Naples, Florida 33939 -1765 2245 Central Avenue 1 -800- 329 -5366 St. Petersburo, FL 33713 813 -262 -4639 813- 323 -7897 FAX 813 -262 -4645 FAX 813- 323 -1897 RECEIVED FFR 1 5 1996 SUB LINOS & ENV. RES. ATTACHMENT - March 15, 1005 Attachment D, Pacre 3 4 ti WEST INDIAN MANATEE FACT SHEET 0 .... ... ... ww _.U. C�.: Ma.ma_se in_fo=ational Di Cpl ay (I of 2) 161 ZQ December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services bivision B Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 69 of 143 SLER 0818 MANA& BASICS FOR BOATERS SAVR A L04 Z.- . ... ....... ............ .......... St.: M-Snatas Infor7national Dis�iay (2 c= 2) ATTACHMENT -March 15, 1995 Attachment D, Page 4 RECEIVED I. A FEB .15 1996 A R I En. S-A SUB LANDS & ENV. Rm Caution Manatee Area ATTACHMENT -March 15, 1995 Attachment D, Page 4 rrrrrr�l.. December 14, 2011 Pelica ay rvi es on oar poecial Session 0S A Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 70 of 143 4w 06. 1997 - 11:55:03 D: \0WG\010APR079S01.d. d Y i In MIAMI t— tJ \-/ I'1 1 1 `.4 I 17 1 v 1 ,-1 P PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION �iILSONN - MILLER � {, 3rW BeUq One, 6W1. b n N ni H 6 N N N N M t t;0K87RUCDOK MANAGERS kPh 1%1) 046 -4616 Ms (NI) 643-6716 Figure 1.1 (o) STEPHEN MEANS "� PIA. REG. 56644 f tr 38 r os 11 December 14, 2011 PelicanBayrvices I Z A �a ion Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 71 of 143 Nov 06, 1997 - t 1:53:49 Q: \DWG\0103\PR079S02.dwq C r 0 T1 K x r C 1 /A..- ® 1992 DIE —OFF AREA = (7.4 ac.) Q Q Q i LOCATION OF 1992 MANGROVE DIE -OFF AREAS PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 1.1(b) WILSON COLLIER " PR.. 1997 LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL i_M: 4.9 1rP "" "M � 3211 495 25E 11/97 SERVICES, INC. p p2 090 - 001—£RPAP "" P£R-79 M I L L E R srEPr+eN MEANS wen { L.M.B. /918 2 0r J8 FLA. REG. 36644 N h O n N M ti O N N N N ti Nw 06, 1997 - 11:55:48 0_ \DWG\0103\PR0M03.dwq 161 e A 2U December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 72 of 143 4 . r I�t 1■ .�. �i► t; All • III LEWIS :a ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. I 0bF-080-001 loin 0 N M H H O N N N N 16 Q A 2U Deatmb& 14,8201 iorOlelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 73 of 143 Nov 06, 1997 — 11:56:33 0: \DWG\0103\PR079SO4.drg 0 C r e K m X s C C I1n..— FEB., 1996 DIE —OFF AREA = (8.9 ac.) TOTAL DIE —OFF = 45.9 ac. LOCATION OF 1996 MANGROVE PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL 4,9 VIP SERVICES, INC. ' OIN MILLER D�VrP 0 N M cr n n O ry N N N r Q Lr Q Q DIE -OFF AREAS' 1997 N I Figure 1."1(d) 38 STEPHEN HEMS 4_ oc FM REG. 36644 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services 6i --A20 Division oard Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 74 of 143 ' 0 CO N M h N O N N N N WIN r � � 0 CO N M h N O N N N N December 14, 2011 P�lCa6ay lery Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 75 of 143 n 0 cc N M N H H 0 N N N N 1. O rV ,I, )u 16J 2AL' December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 76 of 143 SYSTU I SYSTE L L. COS PELICAN BAY STORMWAT-3 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SOUTH HALF) uarro FIGURE 3,2.2.1,c 2U December 14, 2011 Pelican Bees l oard Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt APPLICANT; PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Page 77 of 143 WILSON MILLER Nov 06, 1997 — IM4:04 0: \0wG\0103\PR079s08.d.Q ® TIOE GAUGE ® SALINITY 0 TIDE STAFF GAUGE O CURRENT SALINITY AND TIDE GAUGE FIELD STATIONS PROJECT /I/ A" DA Y Figure APPLICANT; PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 3.2.3.1(a) 0..rT 538 WILSON MILLER TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. COASTAL ENGINEERING — COLLIER " PR., 1997 49 '49S 25E `9 0102- -080- 001 —£RPAP PE R- 79 �BY>�. L.M.B. 9t8 M 8 39 6 m N M H H H 6 N N N N ti a w N M H C N N N N L 7 0 161 & Z04 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 78 of 143 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON — COLLIER TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. S&` 4.9 "'°'49s COASTAL ENGINEERING o oz oso -oor- MILLEROR" Vr/C7 C. M,'° B. /9)8 5 4 3 2 Figure 3.2.3.3.(4) �dPR., 1997 'V NM 97 x Flo: P.0. EE D. T. TACKNEY 9 OF ,38 FLA. REC. 24583 0 N cz U W CL U) m 0 07 a c c9 o � c a) n N p U_ UI 9 m m fl] C C � a3 N U � Q d N N C � M V � O 0 EEr- U 6 a7 0 O) d 1612 A 20 CC r `c y W a K O O U ti a 6LOSZ £Z LIOZ -ZZ-ZT • - iii�11111ii ii�i�nnni ti iiiiii N in�11111n iiiiiini t _ : i�tnil111i iiii n t t : nni IIIIii iiii t ninni n�i1 111111 niiiinininini - i�i111111ni11i1 nniii�i • • t. • CC r `c y W a K O O U ti a 6LOSZ £Z LIOZ -ZZ-ZT N CO m U N Q m O m� C m O � 'N N N Q CL U M ) T N N CO C C U m w U � � Q Q N Q C O N C � M V O O � N O U � � 0 65 d 1612 A 2041 d n 0 0 t N rn n w a x b U U 6 080 6Z ff i iTOZ -,Z-ZI - n 11 El nnnnnnnnnnn mnnn Ell n11 -IN IN mnn n nnn n nnnnnn nnnnn inn nnn RAN 111111111111 IIIIII nInln nnnnnnnn-1nnn INN ni nnn nnnnn, nnnnnnnn�n�nnnnnnnnnnn� .ennnn� �nnnnnnnnt5? nnnnnunnnnnnn.�nnnnn �nnnnnnll� 1111nC:nnnn ��nn1 Y�nln�n nnnnnn inn AJnnnn_nnn "lnnn - n nnnnl Y'L:nnnn�-inn .P-x nnn nom_ • nnnnnnn �snnn n �nnnn7Pin �n nnnnnnn{ fnnnn�nnnnnn � n�.nnnn�L • Ell mK Mal nnn rinnn Pill nnn n nnnnn III nnnnnnn ill NO nn � Innnnn 11 nnn n n Ell . , .nnn . u nnnnn - �-nn -n nn -n n -n nn -n • nnnnn::nn::nn::n :nn: inn n nn � • nn � - nn = - n = nn . nn =n nn�nnnnnnnnn nnnnnnn nn nnMINEnnn n nnnnnn nn - nn nnnnlNINE n nnnnnnn _ of • • x d n 0 0 t N rn n w a x b U U 6 080 6Z ff i iTOZ -,Z-ZI NO 06. 1997 - 12:07:53 0. \0WG\0105\PR079S12.drg G t �z A2U December 14 2011 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board special Session Y P Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 81 of 143 LOCATION MAP I PROJECT: PELICAN BAY /CLAM BAY - SEAGATE CULVERTS' IMPROVEMENTS Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.1.((3) caxx: COLLIER CATU 01197 �I I LS C MILLER -Q !6 1�` 49, `�25E 1197 P R$, EVwi=NY6NTAL CON3ULiAN73 ENCn+saxs. SUHV8Y0�. LAtf0.4C'1P@ ARCHRF.LiS t COMJTR MON MANAGE 3 "" � `� OlOJB) P£R -79 STFp}tEry A A7EAN5 � �/ J.C.RIJ19 � 12 .1361 SWO wiW7 t•••. ft)t. tM N.pl- rl�+a•M 00,- r Ph— <aq 649-4"0 ►- (91) 043 -5716 ru REG. � 3684 H w 0 4 M m H ti O N N N N .N N w 0 0 m ni ti ry N O N N N N H Nov 06, 1997 - 12:08:38 0: \DWG\0103\PR079S13.dsg EXISTING TRIPLE 24' ROUND REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (TYPICAL) �• " P 16 I � A r /�J December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divi B{�ciaession Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 82 of 143 —= r r_, - 4 -11 PLAN VIEW XISTING GRADE q SEAGATE DRNE STING HEADWALL • ��X1TYPICAL) t 1 1 1 SECTION EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT: PELICAN BAY /CLAM BAY— SEAGATE CULVERTS IMPROVEMENTS APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION cou4rr COLLIER a.Mc 011.97 I L S O tj #;:;, MILLER 11/97 SM f 6 tvs; 49S �. 25E EV ptaNxsR4, ENYIRONMSNRBULTANr9. ENG(=AM C10103 -08t -005 �� PER -75 SURY6YOR$, I.AZ(D5CAP8 ARCF(rtEC'r$ k C,ON3R(17GTIOt( MA27AG8R9M ><0,70A. 00 WUML HAA76N k PICUL UM 3e IkU- t.— ft l . 600. PI-4 . FU6" 34106 -SWT Pb— (941) 840-4040 nr (941) eu -5715 J. C.R/J19 13 or 3 D Figure 4.5.1.(b) STEPHEN A. MEANS FLA. REG. 13684 ro 0 0 m ni ti H ti 0 N N N N *r TURBIDITY b Is, U --AN December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 83 of 143 EXISTING TRIPLE ROUND CONCRETE REINFORCED J t U. N0001,: / l a EDGE OF WATER PLAN VIEW "-20- INSTALL CONCRETE HEADWALL, 3 — TIDEFLEX CHECK VALVES AND RIP —RAP SEDIMENT BASIN is 4— wo CEWUff a%cs BARRIER C SEAGATE DRIVE EXISTING HEADWALL MATCH EXISTING -� (TYPICAL) BOTTOM ELEVATION — ------------- II EXISTING GRADE �'. TOP OF RIP-RAP ELEVATION SECTION o ( -). }0 20' HORIZONTAL N.T.S. VERTICAL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT: PELICAN BAY/CLAM BAY — SEAGATE CULVERTS IMPROVEMENTS Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 45. t .(C) '16 COLLIER WE 01197 WILSON b MILLER P � °49S 25E 11 /97 FtL PtANN$R4 ENwiRONNEMAL CONSULTANi3. ENCINB8R9. SOxve� Ok3P 1(1K1tYSSCrs k CO TSAM CTION MAUN ERS 0103 -081 -005 PER-79 STEPHEN A MEANS Moo 0-11" Lao., e„u. E6: kNPI 106 -#Wr rPhh (941) 44* -440 n. (wl) e.s.evls � �� J.C.R J19 �14a or 38 FLk REG. 136844 �... A-20 1 : December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 84 of 143 Nw 06, 1997 - 12 :10:03 G. \DWG\0103\PR079S15.d.g w - Ii (r WATER LEVEL i inn.rc� i �f 1 I i t O t O t f 1 1 O t I � I I 1 1 I i t f EXISTING 24" RCP RED BALL TIDEFLEX (TF -2) CHECK VALVE N.T.S. .CHECK VALVE DETAIL PROJECT: PELICAN BAY /CLAM BAY - SEAGATE CULVERTS IMPROVEMENTS APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES 01VISION coum: COLLIER tx� 03 197 WILSON MILLER >� ' 16 49S ?SE 11 /97 PuxxsRS ErmROxiasxru CON9ULTAKTS. ENO(rr8gtts �mx 0103 -OB1 -005 rat ER -T9 SulivBt'oR9, Lwn . ARC azm k CONSTRUCT)On MAMCERs WM=t. It1UAY- R&A M k r"1* INC. Ot11N Ht'/EW N0. Sw_U M ama u.u.r t.. ; a.,It. too. P. 4— rk=". aloe -eam Ph— (wl) ao-aao r� (w1) ass -a7Ie J.C.R. 319 15 � J8 v a c c ni 0 n h N ry Figure 4.5.1.(d) STEPHEN A. MEANS FLA. REG. #36844 .6 V2A4U .rat a.i s December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 85 of 143 �y>� — izio:.�.� u: \UY(6�ulvo�rrcuiyo�o.owg s t POST -, L 6' MAX. o `n� 41 �� o -- II- - - - - -- ---- -li- -- u u OPTIONAL POST POSITION PRINCIPLE POST 20't POSITION (CANTED 20 TOWARD FLOW) w�FILTER FABRIC (IN CONFORMANCE WITH FILTER FABRIC SEC. 985 FOOT SPEC.) SILT FLOW 8" BURIED DEPTH ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION SILT FENCE N.T.S. ANCHOR BALES WITH 2 - 2" x 2" x 4' STAKES PER BALE FLOW BALES TO BUTT PLAN LOOSE SOIL PLACED BY SHOVEL 2" x 2" & LIGHTLY COMPACTED ALONG STAKE UPSTREAM EDGE OF SALES z FILL SLOPE "�► SECTION TYPICAL BALE SILT BARRIER N.T.S. EROSION /TURBIDITY CONTROL PLAN PROJECT: PELICAN BAYICLAM BAY — SEAGATE CULVERTS IMPROVEMENTS APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION ."' COLLIER OaE. 03197 wILS011 MILLER �� � --25E' 16 495 tt 97 SuPmsrouNN f u+ MOTE s t CHSt�v .rills ucszm 0103 -081 -005 ER -79 WILWX, bUJR uxm a mm um OR" VIEW N0. %CET NQ OO JL 9.9.7 Ems., ft1w M 14401. FUniU 34105 -SWT rhos. (941) 440 -400 n: (at) 643 -4716 J.C.R. 319 16 or 3f �n ro 0 0 m M H H H N N N N Figure 4.5.1.(e1 STEPHEN A. MEANS FLA. REG. J)6844 r vo. IVY. - tc.t Ivy U: \Uwc\01US \r'HvAp31.0 -9 CLOSED CELL SOLID PLASTIC FOAM FLOATATION (6" DIA. EQIV.)(12 LBS. PER FT. BUOYANCY) 8" POLYPRO o �REINFORCED OPVC ROPE (600 LB. FABRIC (300 PSI BREAKING STRENGTH) TEST) WITH LACING S ) GROMMETS —�.► TYPE I FLOATING TURBIDITY BARRIER OH ID. S' S rRGUE PANEL FOR DEPTH S' ON LESS). S' OT . STD. (AOOR10NA1 PANEL FOR DEPTHS "'). Figure CURTAIN TO REACH BOTTOM UP TO DEPTHS OF 10 FEET. — — TWO (2) PANELS TO BE USED FOR DEPTHS GREATER THAN �� COLLIER TO FEET UNLESS SPECIAL DEPTH CFRTJUNS SPMFICAUY FOR tN THE PLANS OR AS DETEWKEO BY THE ENpNf ER. SHORE LINE LIMITS OF - NmiCE: CONSTRUCTV COL6ONEKM OF TYPE 1 MAY BE SUMAR OR — — — OENTICAL TO FROPR`ETTRY DESIGNS ANY T CA � FLOATING. � OF v4T-N;EMENT ON THE PROPRCLARY RIGHTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION DESIGNER SKALL SE THE SOLE RE5PONSIMU/ OF THE _- USER sT.mmLtnaa FOR TYPE 1 SHALL BE AS APPROVED BY THE ENGNEIIt A December 14, 2011 I&ISe2s6vision Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 86 of 143 POST (OPTIONS: 2' x 4 OR 2 1/2' MIN. DIA. WOOD; STEEL 61 MAX 1.33 LBS /FT. MIN.) -,_ O ' - ii - - - - -- -u - 1/4" U U i $ OZ. GALVANIZED STAKED TURBIDITY BARRIER NYLON REINFORCED PVC FABRIC (300 PSI TEST) ,A TPA Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.1. (e2) �� COLLIER Hatt 1 L S C 1 �i MILLER TURBDRT BAF6V S FOR FLOwtNG RLV ND: TT 97 — — STREAMS AND TIOAL CREEKS MAY -08T -005 LIMITS OF T CA � FLOATING. � OF N0: 17 cc 38 CONSTRUCTION TIRES HNT WU SUIT SITE GONOffxI S AHD MEET EROSION SHORE LINE CONTROL AND WATER swum REOUIREMt NM THE BARRIER — — CONTRACt �OPDON UNLESS — — OTHERWISE SPECF7ED IN THE FLAN HDWEVER PAYMENT W1U. BE UNDER THE PAY RTit( ESTASI2 p THE RAM COR FLOA�OTINRG TURBIDITY �DOm FLi5 w BARRIERS T DDARWF. 5 STAKED TURBtOM BARRIERS TO BE VCSLALLED M VERn AL POSITION UNLESS GTH R SE DIRECTED BY 1,RD Y BAKERS ARE TO DE USED w ALL PERMANENT TURBIDITY BARRIER APPLICATIONS EOD(E5 Of MATER REGARDLESS Of WATER DEPTH. 2. MAWR AND SPACING Of ANCHORS OEPENOEXT ON WATER VELOXIES. 3, DEPt.OYuEM OF ahMER AROUND PU LOCATIONS MAT . VARY TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS 4. NANCATON MAY REQUIRE SEQdE NTM BARRIER DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATK*r TURBIDITY BARRIERS N.T.S. EROSION /TURBIDITY CONTROL PLAN PROJECT: PELICAN BAY /CLAM BAY — SEAGATE CULVERTS IMPROVEMENTS Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.1. (e2) �� COLLIER DATE.- 97 1 L S C 1 �i MILLER SEC TsP. Rf:F: iS 49S 25E RLV ND: TT 97 w v P(AxxsRRSS, ENVtxoNUBNTAT CON8ITLTANTB. ENGBTBZTesC1p103 $URYBYORS. I.ANDSClLPB ARCFIITELi9 k CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS STEPHEN A MEANS -08T -005 : PER -T9 J.C.R.f319 N0: 17 cc 38 Wmsm KULM BARYON k PM MO. 3tM BAU*7 L+ DW4 [DO. N.pl. neUn UIOa -e.40T Phm (941) OU -4040 hi (MHI) wx7le FHA. REG. $6844 SD w 6 O M T+f N *^1 O N N N N *Y jr "woo dov 08. 1997 — 12:11.50 nn \nw^mns\PRn7QglRd.n TG - TIDE GATE TS - TIDE STAFF A 2U December 14, 2011 l".§'aylServ?ces Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 87 of 143 PLAN VIEW OF CONSTRICTIONS IN PRIMARY CREEKS, CHANNELS & BAYS PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. COASTAL ENGINEERING MILLER ro 0 0 m H +q N ry N N I Figure 4.5.2.(a) 0. T. TACKNEY M.B. /9l8 X18 a 38 F1A REC. 20583 December 14, 2011 is a S 4 Diva i i ZQecial Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 88 of 143 r 06. 1997 — 12 :11:39 0NDwM0I03\ PRO79SI 9_dra +25— ! GVLF HIGH +2.0 eO +1.5 PHASE LAG•'• ! BAY HIGH Avg Bay tee ~`•�� Avg. Gdf tcK4 ,r �i r'• 8AY LOW ~ ` GULF LOW D 1tCH7 9:00 11100 11:00 17-00 13:06 14:00 1100 1600 17:00 18:00 12:60. 20:00 21:00 -0.5 •L • % APPROXIMATE MEAN TIDAL CYCLE FOR GULF GULF AND INNER CLAM BAY - JUNE 6, 1996 100% HIGHER 50% 10% 0 —1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 WATER SURFACE CUMULATIVE FREQUENCIES PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(b) WILSON �TM COLLIER APR., 19.97 4.5.2'1(0)) TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. -964.9 49s zsE ;" 4 32,33 COASTAL ENGINEERING ` a;oZ 080 - 001- ERPAP -79 1� I L L E R D. T. REG. 20 a a. L.A1.6. 1918 19 DF J8 FLA. REG. 20583 W 0 0 M M ry +y ry ^3 N N N H 0 b H b N N N N ti AJ vu 1612 A zo December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 89 of 143 Dec 10, 1997 - 12:35:40 0. \DWG\0 INNER -IS BAY -1 -i.5 -1.6 -1.0 ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO 1929 NGVD REPRESENTATIVE WATER DEPTHS PROJECT:.: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN RAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON crr. COLLIER TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. sE °4•9 1'"495 '25L COASTAL ENGINEERING PRDJEM ? oso- ool -£RPAF MILLER O"W/E -w L_A48.191 B N I Figure 4.5.2.(d) -ib .my� -2{ D• T. TACKNEY 1 FLk REG. 20583 U -11 -t9 sll¢t 20 0 of 38 -io - -z0 _u 1.6 -15 -10 -15 };�•� NNTH BMW -2S R'6�3 CLAM PASS, -, R ' ,5 O O st.0 X -•6 L d F.6 l.i O 90v1H J -iS -21 -1.9 OUTER CLAM 8AY U -20 9 ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO 1929 NGVD REPRESENTATIVE WATER DEPTHS PROJECT:.: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN RAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON crr. COLLIER TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. sE °4•9 1'"495 '25L COASTAL ENGINEERING PRDJEM ? oso- ool -£RPAF MILLER O"W/E -w L_A48.191 B N I Figure 4.5.2.(d) 0At4dPR., .1997 .my� 11 97 D• T. TACKNEY 1 FLk REG. 20583 F lit PER -79 sll¢t 20 0 of 38 (�'� �> eU 2 4 December 14, 2011 Pelican ervices Di sion Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 90 of 143 Nov 06, 1997 — 12:15:14 0: \OWG\0103\PR079S21.dwg O Q) X LiJ O tl 0 R=0.31 tt '15% CLAM PASS R=101 ft 100% UPPER STORAGE i AREA I O U X CLAM a PASS L� O L� O LOWER STORAGE AREA MODEL -1 MODEL -2 (UPPER CREEKS & BAYS) (STORAGE AREAS) PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(e) WILSON coukr COLLIER °APR., 1997 4.5.2.(f) TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. 49 '"° "`� 49S 25E 'Igg7 ti197 COASTAL ENGINEERING p pZ 080- 001 —ERP4P — PER -79 MILLER °� ' � L.M.B. 1918 � NO: 21 w 38 0. T. TACKNEY FLk REG. 20855 I. m M ry 0 N N N N — n5. 1097 - 1510d1 n \flwfl mni��fM7a9'fA d_.. CLAM PASS O U_ x W 75 O LL C.� HICU December 14, 2011 Pell B e ice ision Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 91 of 143 :ET 4 EET 3 SHEET 2 SHEET 1 REFER TO FIGURES 4.5.2(g)(2) AND 4.5.2(g)(3) FOR BREAKOUT SHEETS 4 ALIGNMENT OF 4A -4D CHANNEL FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY PROJECT: C(Alvf BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(g)(1) WILSON TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. - COLLIER °PR., 1997 s[c 4.9 rrr: x-: acv na 495 25E 11 77 COASTAL ENGINEERING ° Of0i 080- 001 —ERPAP PER -79 MILLER °R"' F1ccr "" M REG. 2 853 L.M.B. /918 22a a J8 0 ti m ni ti H N 0 N N N N H O ti m Ki H Q N N N N H A 204 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Seles6isln Bi�i Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 92 of 143 oec 10, 1997 — 12:32:51 0: \0wG\0103\PR0 .d.9 SHEETI SHEET 2 30 -90% Holodule 70 -80% Algae Covered A 20 -30% 40 -509 Holodule Short Grass Mangrove Algae Covered Mangrove p 60 -70% Halodule 38% Restricted to / / West Side 30 -40% Holodule 40 -50% Holodule South Boardwalk 24'1 40 -50% < 189 Holodule Restricted to West Side 65 -70% Holodule Mangrove Mangrove < 207. Thalassio YO'f Patchy FOR RMITTING PURPO ES ONLY PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(g)(2) WILSON r COLLIER _ 'TAPR., 1997 TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. s`� 4.9 3 ,.n:495 25E 11 9 COASTAL ENGINEERING °AO"tt"", `°"'a N0107- 080- 00t —ERPAP PER —T9 MILLER 0K1rM 8T'/LYV rA. _g; FT W. R. T. TACKNE'r L.M.B. 1919 22b or 39 FLA REG. 20853 0 H M M H Q, O N N N N D= 10, 1997 - 12:34:27 SHEET 3F 1612 A eU December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 93 of 143 10- -20% Heavily 0 -1 R Scoured $ Mangrove < <30% < SX Heavily Scoured 12'# S Covered e 10 -15% 50 -607 Short -Algae Heavily Covered Scoured / ^\ Mangrove Mangrove 10 -15X Short -Algae 60 -70% Covered Heavily Scoured Mangrove SHEET 4 10't Mangrove ' 57 Scoured Orovcl -Sand Mangrove 20'1 5 -10% Very Heavily Scoured , 5 -107 Short -Algae Covered - 10 -209. Short 60 -707 Scoured Heavily _ Scoured WILSON MILLER Mangrove SHEET 4 10't Mangrove ' 57 Scoured Orovcl -Sand Mangrove 20'1 5 -10% Very Heavily Scoured , P RPOSE ONLY PROJECT: CLAM BAY FigUfe APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(g)(3) 0 T iACKNEY F� REC. 20853 WILSON MILLER TACKNEY AND INC. ASSOC., COASTAL ENGINEERING murm , COLLIER r�EE�__ "APR.. 1997 "C"324:393 "—' ",: 495 25E """a 11 /97 ° a;oZ 080 - 001-ERPAP PER -79 °"`" er/E� �° L.M.B. /918 �T .o: 22c or 38 Dec 10, 1997 - 12:05:41 0. \DWG\O1 O O X 11.7 LL 0 1�. J 6 R -36 December 14, 2011 PlanSay J Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 94 of 143 Approximate Ending Point CUT #1 /`^t5ft CHANNEL O 730 It LENGTH U X Li 7� Approximate O Beginning Point 1i J CD R -39 R -37 INNER (� CLAM ` BAY I APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPOIL DISPOSAL AREAS FOR CUTS 1, 2 & 3 AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DNR MONUMENTS Approximate Ending Point CUT # 2 20ft CHANNEL 550 H LENGTH Approximate Beginning Point - SILT FENCE/ FILTER FASRIC DUNE GULF SPOIL BEACH TYPICAL SECTION FOR SPOIL DISPOSAL ANCHOR HAY BALES A EXCAVATION /SPOIL DISPOSAL PLAN FOR PERMITTING C T S 1 X 2 O J PURPOSES ONLY PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(h) COLLIER "APR., 7997 4.5.2.(k) WILSON TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. 49S 25E 1i s MP COASTAL ENGINEERING NO102 080- Oar -ERPAP "E PER -79 MILLER 0. T. TACKNEY ° " �� b. � 7 FLk REG. 20853 t.M.8.f978 33 � 38 0 m ni 0 N N N N *-r Nor 05, 1997 — TS:33:Z9 U: \OWG\Q O () X t LJ CLAM o O PASS J 161 LA QDecember 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisio'e. pecial Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 95 of 143 — Approximate Ending Point CUT #3 20ft CHANNEL 630 it LENGTH - Approximote Beginning Point MIDDLE BOARDWALK APPROXIMATE SPOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION FOR CLAM PASS (SEE SHEET 28 OF 38 — FIGURE 4.5.2(0) FOR DETAIL) CLAM PASS O C.? X w LL O LL J EXCAVATION/SPOIL DISPOSAL PLAN CUTS 3 `& 4 PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILS ©N MILLER TACiiNEY AND ASSOC., INC. COASTAL ENGINEERING aouxr r. COLLIER -APR.. 1997 - sFC 4,9 ' 49S 25£ t" 97 N0102 080 - 001 —ERPAP n PER -79 � ^� L.M.B. 918 �"M 24 or 3B 0 M M N ry H N N N N CUT # 4A 30ft CHANNEL 2330 It LENGTH F SOUTH BOARDWALK FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY Figure 4.5.2.(i) 4.5.2.0) 0. T. TACKNEY :7A REG. 20853 a rn 0 N M M H H O N N N N ti — .0. ,syi - w :4c4v u :\uw6\V1 SEE NOTE -1 V o' Ncvo __-- -3 ft L 15 it CUT 1 161 2 Abu December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 96 of 143 p 0' NOW -CUT 3 �-3It L 20I't L CUT 2 &3 Q 0' NGVD -4 ft 40 It CUT 4A p 0' NGVD -a ft <- 20 IT CU T 46 p 0' NGVD - SEE NOTE -2 -a tt L 5 30 ft CUT 4C s NOTES: 4 1. EXISTING SECTIONS 3 VARY, 2 SCALE 2. SIDE SLOPES 0 ANGLE t OF REPOSE (ASSUMED 30') 0 2 4 6 8 10 HOR120NT,V TYPICAL CUT SECTIONS PROJECT: CLAM BAY APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WILSON couxrr. COLLIER "r PR_ 1997 TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. 5r- 4.9 ""', "G" "� COASTAL ENGINEERING PRO 49s 2s£ I,._ „___ N0702 -080- 001 -£RPAP PER -79 MI L L E Ia on”" syg� " �, LM.8. 19 i8 25 aF 38 Figure 4.5.2.(i) D. T. TACKNEY FLA. REG. 20853 161 �A eU December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Servicivision Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 97 of 143 Nov 06, 1997 — 15:59:52 0: \OWC\0103\PR079S26.d.a INVERTEBRATES OBSERVM OFFSHORE Porifera Aplysina fistularis ChondrUla nucula Cinachyrella alloclada Cinachyrella kuekenthal Cliona delitrix Cliona celata Ircinia spp. Niphates erects Haliclona spp. Cnidaria (corals) Cladocom arbuscvla Diplorin spp Muricen spp. Pdmzoanthus parasiticus Siderastrea radians Solenastren hyades Leptogorgia hebes Leptogorgia virgulata Polychoetes Aricidea philbinae Capitelia capitata Fabricia trilobata F4-icnospio hetembranchia Tunicates Didemnum spp. Styela spp. Mollusks Fighting conchs Strobus alatus Pen shells Atrina rigida AEGA71013SERVED OFFSHORE Algoe Green olaoe (Division ghloroohytol Acetabulari.a spp. Caulerpa sertudarioides Caulerpa mexicana caulerpa perolifera Penic -Ulus capitatus Ulva lactuca Ulva fasciata Udotea spp. Codiums spp. Red olgoe (Division rhodoahvtol Cracilaria tikuahiae Hypnea spp. Brown algae (Division ohoeoohvto) Sargassum fUipendula Dictyota divaricata• -Species believed to be correct. Echinoderms Beaded sea star Astropecten spp. Long - spined block urchin Diadema antillarum Netted sea star Luidia clathmta Nine -armed sea star luidia senegalensis Variable urchin Lytechinus variegatus Five -holed keyhole urchin Mellita quinquiesperforata Anthropods -Stone crab Menippe mercenar= Horseshoe crab Limvlus polyphemus Spider crab Libinia emerginata VERTEBRATES OBSERVED OFFSHORE Fish Leather jackets Oliguptites saurus Sea robin Prionotus scritvlus Sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum Toodfish Opsanus beta Tiger golby Cobiosoma macmdon INFORMATION PROVIDED BY Sheepsheod Archosargus probatocephalus TURRELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pinfish Lagodon rhombeides Nurse shark Cinglymostoma cirmturn DOCUMENTED ORGANISMS IDENTIFIED OFFSHORE FROM CLAM PASS FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(m) WILSON COLLIER "ffPR., 1997 TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. 4.9 RM 495 it 9 COASTAL ENGINEERING N0102 080- 001 -ERPAP PER -79 MILLER Fu. REG.w20553 ° -A7 '�. LM.B. 918 "� 2b ar JS z :w 1612 R December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisi kno?ftQpcial Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 98 of 143 HARD BOTTOM TRANSECT LOCATIONS 0 M rrj '-1 N ri O N N N N r Figure 4.5.2.(n) a I ROVES j� I i i e i i I N6ROVES i IRGROVES fates. Inc A con —King !7. E7 132942 CLAM PASS HARD BOTTOM TRANSECT LOCATIONS .r.r. Rtvrs+oN o..a N..c yi�ae x6. 7miY —M 27 Oi 38 r.► RGE. a m �i q ry h n N I Jo. 07, 1998 — 13:17:52 CLAM PASS SPOIL DISPOSAL - AREA FOR APPROXIMATELY 600 TO 800 FEET OF CUT 4A MIXING ZONE AND — DISPOSAL AREA FOR CUTS 4A (NORTH OF 600 TO 800 FEET), 46, 4C AND 4D DISPOSAL TO BE BETWEEN MEAN HIGH AND LOW TIDE 1 As .z December 14, 20 � y I and Special Session Statement of Findin s resented 9 p Page 99 of 143 ■ OUTER CLAM BAY Iw SPOIL DISPOSAL LOCATION FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.2.(x) WILSON cou.'M COLLIER 'A-PR., 1997 TACKNEY AND ASSOC., INC. COASTAL ENGINEERING 49 "°° 49g 25E 1:1 N0102 080- 001 -ERRAP PER -79 MILLERDR- BYiEW NM LAl.8. /918 �, ,� 28 a 36 o. T. TApwEY FLA. RED. 20853 3 M m H '^I H N N N N •`1 1612 A 20 *' December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 100 of 143 n on 07, 1993 — 13:17:03 0: \0WC\0103\' -&8A dwg 7.4 7 r PLAN VIEW 2.66 2.34 r 1 SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA 1 •f • SECTION A -A SCALE: 1' = 40' �l \Ti:"'.� Yp�•'SWC° %�ryt�,r X1,41 •g-.' H1 fgi'Ss��, 9•,,}AYS 2 cN6,�6' EXISTING ELEVATION 'C3/�� �. ?•« �Y �� `r '.�' �t7 '�• A+ yii' J . +T.y a1�V PROPOSED ELEVATION .itl'Pi.�sYt�fi�.Ctn.YB i �Y�' . • 1700 •• NOTE: SECTION r r s s APPROXIMATELY EXCAVATED BEACH OLIALITY • SAND RELOCATED BEACH TO GUILFSIDE FOR • AND/OR PLACEMENT OVER • DISPOSAL `\ TEMPORARY BERM SPOIL DISPOSAL FOR PERMfUINGM PURPOSES • PROJECT: Figure t WILSO r� TACKNEY AND . - MILLER FL& REG. 20853 _ —. S i tlri! ` r5?��i Kt �ti/ �: .!Fr n.�_r�"•��.�' o s T ._ j2Ss tiAl�����•e'L+��'ir4d r��rt� S- r` . t +14.87 71 r 1' � ' 3i i L 1 q t t tr A • t t!i't ti rt r�rlli i t�9..y�}�w"2t�1j i ,, J � � � f.: O N ry O N N N N t; 1612 A ZQ December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 102 of 143 PHASE ONE BOUNDARIES OF MANGROVE PROPOSED LATERAL CHANNEL MANAGEMENT UNITS RESTORATION EXISTING RESTORED CHANNELS PROPOSED SWALE RESTORATION WILSON N 9( H a MILLER PER -79 Sheet 30 of 38 PROPOSED MAIN CHANNEL PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF [�) ue RESTORATION DUSTING CHANNELS [- g �. RESTORATION ECHANNEL PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS 4.5.3.(b) P m 6 m s ry N N N 1612 A 20 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 103 of 143 I BOUNDARIES OF MANGROVE MANAGEMENT UNITS EXISTING RESTORED CHANNELS I PROPOSED MAIN CHANNEL RESTORATION --- ....r..- ��....> PROPOSED SIDE CHANNEL RESTORA71ON WILSON PHASE TWO N CONTINGENCY PLAN wE ff MILLER -- -.-.�T PROPOSED LATERAL CHANNEL RESTORATION �-^-- PROPOSED SWALE RESTORATION PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING CHANNELS III i PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS PER -79 Sheet 31 of 38 Figure 4.5.3.(c) zs N rri ry O N N N ZU December 14, 2011 Pelican Bjeflfivi Zoard Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 104 of 143 ;I PHASE THREE (a) CONTINGENCY PLAN. BOUNDARIES OF MANGROVE MANAGEMENT UNITS EXISTING RESTORED CHANNELS PROPOSED MAIN CHANNEL RESTORATION ._ , ..... PROPOSED SIDE CHANNEL RESTORATION WILSON N wE s MILLER PROPOSED LATERAL CHANNEL RESTORATION PER -79 PROPOSED SWALE RESTORATION Sheet 32 of 38 PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING CHANNELS Figure j j PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS 4.5.3.(d 1) 2 N m T, N a N N N BOUNDARIES OF MANGROVE MANAGEMENT UNITS �.+rs EXISTING RESTORED CHANNELS PROPOSED MAIN CHANNEL RESTORATION �.. _ PROPOSED SIDE CHANNEL RESTORATION Y P b! 2A 20 December 14, 2011 Pelican I Services Division Board S ecial Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 105 of 143 PHASE THREE (b) CONTINGENCY PLAN PROPOSEO LATERAL CHANNEL RESTORATION PROPOSED SWALE RESTORATION PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING CHANNELS I,I PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS WILSON x c e MILLER PER -79 Sheet 33 of 38 Figure 4.5.3.(42) C N m U n m O m a C m O N y N N � n N p co a m � m C C N m N U N ^ oa N C M LL r O � .L O O a m m Dina 161 2 kLU Na 06, 1997 - 12:25:13 0 : \DWC�0 PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.3.(e) cwmm: COLLIER "�PR- 1.997 W I L S ON x M I L L E R X4,3 ""495 � 25E , Hm NO102 -08D- 001 -fRPAP PER -79 P ENVnmxxcNru CON4ULTAKM ENCrx>s�s SVRYEY0�8 ARCHRECi'S k CAN3iRUC11ON MA!!AG &RS STEPHEN MEAN !>�+.w ��° �' L.M.B. 918 9Ef7 � 34 c+ 3B sMWK YaLm & AM t PCL om scoo eeu.r i+o. awe. eoa a.ai.� ne"a. si�oe eaor ph— ("ll xarao r- ("o e+ 4716 M N N CO l.J_) N CL LLJ LLJ C� JQ W n n c0 n 00 N 07 c0 N z W �L f1j Z w ui cY a a ap Z LJ < in N M Lli � w a a- O 0+ 00 Ci O1 a:) 1T c G cn z o _ C' ND w < Li-i = ~ � s rn ^ co N v w �n i M a_ _, LLJ zw z cn Z W J N m O tD co mm Q W w z O 4w. 3 V_ a z w a Q z of w Ld z :5E CD Q co 00 z Q J m 0-4 a > H �? > o PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.3.(e) cwmm: COLLIER "�PR- 1.997 W I L S ON x M I L L E R X4,3 ""495 � 25E , Hm NO102 -08D- 001 -fRPAP PER -79 P ENVnmxxcNru CON4ULTAKM ENCrx>s�s SVRYEY0�8 ARCHRECi'S k CAN3iRUC11ON MA!!AG &RS STEPHEN MEAN !>�+.w ��° �' L.M.B. 918 9Ef7 � 34 c+ 3B sMWK YaLm & AM t PCL om scoo eeu.r i+o. awe. eoa a.ai.� ne"a. si�oe eaor ph— ("ll xarao r- ("o e+ 4716 FLA- REG. 36644 90T MET rr0z -zz -zr T' 0 M m c h h N N Dec 12, 1997 - 12c33:39 0: \Owa"'01 1612_. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Divisi'fn B?r cialiession Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 107 of 143 INTERNAL MAIN CHANNEL RESTORATION EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION X -X INTERNAL SIDE CHANNEL RESTORATION ,r -,rr• MHW - 1.50 FT. NGVD. MLW - ( -)0.51 FT. NGVO L I PER D.T,OTACKNEYELEVATIONS .) EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION Y -Y SECTION Z -Z TYPICAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED CROSS - SECTIONS, HISTORICAL MAIN DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND SIDE DRAINAGE CHANNELS. N.T.S. PROJECT: CLAM. BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION . 4.5.3.(f) VE'"E" MEANS FLA. REG. 3664; WILSON INV MILLER LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. cw.rr COLLIER 'APR., 1997 S` `' X495 � 25E 11 9 o of 080 - 001 -001 "` P R -79 w-���N t.M.8. /918 Swhm J5 a 38 0 m �i N n n N Dec 12. 1997 — 12:3+:13 I i6lZ A6U December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 108 of 143 INTERNAL LATERAL CHANNEL RESTORATION C -1 tr EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION XX —XX INTERNAL SWALE ._RESTORATION MHW — 1.50 FT. NGVD. MLW — ( —)0.51 FT. NGVD (GULF TIDE ELEVATIONS PER D.T. TACKNEY. P.E.) SMALL LATERAL CHANNEL AND SWALES N.T.S. PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.3.(8) WILSON LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL caurrr COLLIER my NOP SfC: ._ 1997 4,9 —. nce Rif 49S ZSE 11197 7 SERVICES, INC. ° 0102 080- 001 -001 sac PER -79 MILLER � B.� «a � STEPHEN MEANS L.M.B. 1918 36 c 38 FLA REG. 36644 c v m O �V N n N A 2U i December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 109 of 143 Dec 12. 1997 — 12:34:54 D: \DWG\01 NOT ALL SPOIL DISPOSAL AS THIN LAYER OF BIODEGRADABLE ORGANIC MUCK. PEAT AND PLANT DEBRIS RESULTING FROM EXPLOSIONS. NO SPOIL PILES, BERMS OF UPLANDS TO BE CREATED. TOTAL DEBRIS AS SPOIL WILL NOT EXCEED XXX CU. YDS. EXISTING INTERNAL MAIN CHANNEL RESTORATION (CHANNEL "A" ONLY) SECTION X —X T —mil PROPOSED INTERNAL SIDE CHANNEL RESTORATION (CHANNELS B,C,D,1 A -6A & 1C) EXISTING SECTION Y —Y SECTION Z —Z PROPOSED MANUAL AND EXPLOSIVE CLEARING MAXIMUM 225 CU_ YDS. OF BOTH MANUAL AND EXPLOSION DISTRIBUTED DEBRIS MANUAL AND EXPLOSIVE CLEARING MAXIMUM 1,386 CU. YDS. OF BOTH MANUAL AND EXPLOSION DISTRIBUTED DEBRIS MHW - 1.50 FT. NGVD. MLW - ( -)0.51 FT. NGVD (GULF TIDE ELEVATIONS PER O.T. TACKNEY, P.E.) METHODS OF SOIL DISPOSAL * N.T.S. PROJECT: CLAM BAY Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.3.(h) WILSON °a"-f` COLLIER w�-PR., 1997 LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL �° 4.9 "' — M "a 49S 25E 11/97 SERVICES, INC. N0102- -080- 001- -ERPAP PER -79 MILLER STEPHEN MEANS B./9T8 X37 rx 38 FLk REG. 36644 0 frt M n 0 r. n N N I AZU December 14, 2011 Pelican I bcelDiv2h Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 110 of 143 Dec 12. 1997 - 12:35:26 D: \DWG\0103\PR0 d.q INTERNAL LATERAL CHANNELS MAN MANUAL CLEARING ONLY 6 - r MAXIMUM 441 CU. YDS. OF 12' MANUALLY DISTRIBUTED DEBRIS EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION XX —XX INTERNAL SWALES BOAC YANG MANUAL CLEARING ONLY 3' 6' _ MAXIMUM 229 CU. YDS. OF MANUALLY DISTRIBUTED DEBRIS EXISTING PROPOSED SECTION YY —YY MHW - 1.50 FT. NGVD. MLW - ( -)0.51 FT. NGVD (GULF TIDE ELEVATIONS PER D.T. TACKNEY, P.E.) METHODS OF SOIL DISPOSAL *(2) N.T.S. PROJECT: CLAM BA Y Figure APPLICANT: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 4.5.3.(i) WILSON ca,M. COLLIER "VR- 1997 acF: . a„ cv w97 LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. a9s :A' ZsE oz OBO- OQI -ERPAP P R -79 MILLER STEPHEN MEANS �„� ��� w. s.�:cs ra L.M.B. /918 38 or 38 RA REG. 36644 July 6, 1998 John G. Mac'Kie, III Becker & Poliakoff 3003 Tamiami Trail North Ste. 210 Naples, Florida 34103 Re: OGC Case No. 98 -1923 and Permit Nos. 0128463- 001 -3'C & VE-11 -726 Dear Mr. Mac'Kie: Enclosed please find three originals of the stipulation with attached consent order for your review and signature. Please sign the original stipulations and forward to Mr. Ted Brown for his signature. By copy of this letter I'm requesting that Mr. Brown return to me as soon as possible one fully executed original stipulation and attached consent order. The other originals are for your files. It is my understanding from Mr. Rich Bray that the permits will be signed and issued today. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (850) 921 -9639. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Encs FMF:cg cc: Rich Bray, DEP M "Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources" *ri ri Printed on recycled paper. 0 N ti N N A Ussion 1 December 14, 2011 Pelican y isi Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 111 of 143 c aw 'N Department of ............. . �� A: J Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building Lawton Chiles 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Virginia B. Wetherell Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32399.3000 Secretary July 6, 1998 John G. Mac'Kie, III Becker & Poliakoff 3003 Tamiami Trail North Ste. 210 Naples, Florida 34103 Re: OGC Case No. 98 -1923 and Permit Nos. 0128463- 001 -3'C & VE-11 -726 Dear Mr. Mac'Kie: Enclosed please find three originals of the stipulation with attached consent order for your review and signature. Please sign the original stipulations and forward to Mr. Ted Brown for his signature. By copy of this letter I'm requesting that Mr. Brown return to me as soon as possible one fully executed original stipulation and attached consent order. The other originals are for your files. It is my understanding from Mr. Rich Bray that the permits will be signed and issued today. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (850) 921 -9639. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Encs FMF:cg cc: Rich Bray, DEP M "Protect, Conserve and Manage Florida's Environment and Natural Resources" *ri ri Printed on recycled paper. 0 N ti N N e N U1 m M H H a N N N N •^i A �o December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Sq c i� n rd Special Session Statement of Findings presented byo ensTead Page 112 of 143 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REMINGTON AT BAY COLONY CONDOS ASSOC., INC., Petitioner, VS. COLLIER COUNTY (Pelican Bay Services Division), and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondents. OGC CASE NO. 98 -1923 STIPULATION Petitioner REMIlVGTON AT BAY COLONY CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., and Respondents COLLIER COUNTY - Pelican Bay Services Division and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (Department) stipulate as follows_ 1. The parties have agreed to settle the above captioned matter based on the consent order attached hereto as Exhibit A and Permit Nos. 0128463- 001 -IC and VE -11 -726 issued to Collier County. 2. Petitioner hereby voluntarily withdraws its petition for administrative hearing fled with the Department on June 22, 1998. 3. Each parry shall be responsible for its own costs and attorney's fees and waives any right that it may have against any other parry for costs and attorney's fees associated with this action. 4. All parties acknowledge that they have the right to seek judicial review under section 120.68 of the Florida Statutes by the filing of a notice of appeal under rules 9.110 and i m a CU. December 14, 2011 I AAAer Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 113 of 143 9.190 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. By executing this stipulation, each party waives its right to such an appeal and to any further notice of that right. Date: John G. Mac'Kie, III Attorney for Petitioner BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A. 3003 Tamiami Trail North, Ste. 210 _ Naples, Florida 34103 (941) 261 -9555 Date: Ted R Brown, Esq. AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. Attorneys for Collier County 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1700 Orlando, Florida 32801 (407) 843 -7860 Ln In m 2 ti *y 0 N N N N Date: —7 --tc. C1 9 Francine M Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 -3000 Mail Station 35 (850) 488 -9730 a ry ry M M O N N N N ell } 1612 2U.'. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 114 of 143 BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOUTH DISTRICT In the Matter of an Application for Joint Coastal Permit/Water Quality Certification, Request for Variance and Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands by: Collier County- Pelican Bay Services c/o Ted Brown, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Collier County - JAW DEP File No. 0128463 -001 JC CONSENT ORDER WHEREAS, Petitioner, The Remington at Bay Colony Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not - for - profit corporation has filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57 F.S. seeking a review of the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Joint Coastal Permit, Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, and Variance; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Permit Holder, the Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division and Petitioner have reached a settlement with regard to the matters raised in the referenced Petition; and WHEREAS, Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has reviewed the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement and finds the same to be in the public interest and consistent with the intent of the Permit No. 0128463-001-)C (previously 1 1 304991 9) & VE -11 -726. OR09%69;1 m In M M O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 115 of 143 1612 A20 NOW THEREFORE, without admission of the allegations of the Petition, and before the taking of any testimony and without adjudication of any issues of fact or law, and upon the consent of the parties hereto, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: 1. That portion of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (Attachment "A" to the referenced Permit) designated as Section 4.5.5.1(c) shall be stricken in its entirety and in its place shall be substituted the following: OR040"3.1 'The' Permit Holder shall assume the benefit and burden of the permits previously issued by both the US Army Corps of Engineers under Permit No. 199602789(LP -CC) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) under Permit No. CO -578. Both Permits allowed the installation and operation of two portable hydraulic dewatering pumps and associated piping to facilitate the draining of the Clam Bay mangrove estuary in the event that excess stormwater did not drain sufficiently by natural measures and the prolonged presence of excess water within the estuary might contribute to additional stress or die-off of mangroves within the same. The Corps Permit is active on this date. The FDEP Permit has expired, but upon issuance of this Permit will be deemed reinstated consistent with the terms and conditions of the Management Plan. It is the intent of the Management Plan to authorize the Permit Holder to utilize both permits as a contingency response in those circumstances where the m m ni ry ti a N N N N .y OR090668;1 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 116 of 143 � I 1612 A eU agencies, in concurrence with the Permit Holder, conclude that existing water elevations within the mangrove estuary are sufficiently high, and the natural systems for timely discharge and tidal exchange sufficiently impaired, that extraordinary measures are required to assist in draining the estuary. While it is anticipated that the need for this contingency will be minimal, it is necessary to have this protocol available as one of the tools to use to help insure the system can be drained in appropriate circumstances is important to the integrity of the Plan. Pursuant to the previously approved Permits referenced above, the Permit Holder has installed two pipes and located two pads for placement of the required pumps. In order to improve the operational flexibility of the contingency system provide for here, the Permit Holder will, within ten days following turtle nesting season (i.e. by November 10, 1998), remove the existing pipes. In the event that circumstances require the Permit Holder to use the contingency provided for here, the Permit Holder will utilize flexible discharge pipe that can be rolled up, relocated and removed from the beach area upon completion of the drainage effort. The Permit Holder will be entitled to pump, consistent with the requirements and limitations, as provided for in the referenced Permits, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated here by December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 117 of 143 ti f 161 A 26 reference. Further, the pumps required to conduct the dewatering operation contemplated here shall be located with the advice and consent of the agencies for each dewatering event giving appropriate consideration to (1) the ecological needs of the system, (2) the costs of temporary installation and maintenance during operation (3) the probable duration of the pumping and (4) the impact on the human environment by way of noise and proximity to housing. Every effort will be made to minimize adverse impacts on both the ecology of Clam Bay and the human environment adjacent to the estuary, consistent with accomplishing the fundamental purpose of draining excess water from the estuary." 2. Each of the undersigned representative of a party to this Consent Order certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Consent Order and to execute and legally bind such party to this document. The parties enteF iRtO this Dated: 7 I Iq Y OR09W8; f h N ry +V BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioner 3003 Tamiami Trail North, Ste. 210 Naples, Florida 34103 (941)261 -9555 By: CL Jo G. Mac`Kie, III' FI rida Bar No. 0549568 Dated: 'U710b December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 118 of 143 iv. A 0 1 AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. Attorneys for Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division; Permit Holder 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1700 Orlando, Florida 32801 (407)843 -7860 By: Ted . Brown Florida Bar No. 0110484 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Dated: �� !� By: • pAf�Nc�.r.?t= �L. rc ��' DONE AND ORDERED this day of July, 1998. OR090668;1 zc U) M M O N N N N Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3060 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1998. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 119 of 143 ` t 1612 A 20 BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION In re: Petition Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Div. c/o Ted Brown, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A. 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 DEP Variance No. VE -11 -726 Collier County FINAL ORDER BY THE DEPARTMENT On December 9, 1997, the Department received from Ted Brown, acting on behalf of Collier County Government- Pelican Bay Services Division, a Petition for Variance, pursuant to Section 403.201 (1), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 62- 103.100, Florida Administrative code (F.A.C.). The Petitioner requested relief from Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., to allow up to a 1,000 meter mixing zone to extend in radius beyond the point of discharge of the dredged material in the intertidal zone as associated with the activities authorized by Permit No. 0 128436-00 1 -JC. Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., states that in no case shall the boundary of a dredge and till mixing zone be more than 150 meters in radius from the point of generation of turbidity or other pollutants (the point of discharge for this project). This variance is sought in conjunction with Permit No. 0128436 - 001 -JC to maintain and manage Clam Pass and the associated ecosystem in an open, flowing condition. After reviewing the Petition for Variance, Department staff concluded that it satisfied the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 403.201, F.S. and Rule 62- 103.100, F.A.C., provided conditions were included to protect the significant natural resources (live hardbottom communities) beginning —200 feet offshore. A copy of the Department's Intent of June 1, 1998, setting forth its findings is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. The Department's Intent notified the Petitioner of the Department's proposed agency action and advised it of its right to a hearing or mediation pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. On June 12, 1998, notice was given in the Naples Daily News and in the May 22, 1998, Volume 24, Number 21, Florida Administrative Weekly (F.A.W.) informing the public of the Department's intended action and offering an opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. A copy of the F.A.W. notice is attached as Exhibit B. M M .-v tq Q N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 120 of 143 16.1 ZA 2U F44al 4rdrkf y2 r iane* C7illier Cool ity]D File No: VE 11 -726 Page 2 The Petitioner and interested parties having been advised of their rights under Chapter 120, F.S.,.and having failed or declined to file a Petition pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., are hereby deemed to have waived those rights. Acceptance of the variance constitutes notice and agreement that the Department will periodically review this variance for compliance, including site inspections where applicable, and may initiate enforcement action for violation of the conditions and requirements thereof. It is therefore: ORDERED by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, that the Petition of the Collier County Government- Pelican Bay Services Division requesting a variance be and is hereby granted, subject to the conditions recommended by Department staff in Exhibit A and the conditions of Permit No. 0128436- 001 -JC. Any Party to this Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order Pursuant to Section 120.68, F.S. by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of the Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this � t+ day of �v� 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. �� STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION "C rVirginia . Wetherell Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2400 Final Order of Variancto Collier County- PBSD Fite No: VE I1 -726 Page 3 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 121 of 143 1610 2 A 2U FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to 120.52(9), Florida Statutes, with the designated Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Clerk Date N N co M M H ry O N ry N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 122 of 143 1612 A �`» L EXHIBIT A DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE OF FLORIDA In the Matter of an Application for Joint Coastal Petmit/Water Quality Certification, Request for Variance, and Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands by: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Clam Bay Restoration and Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Div. Lone -Term Management c/o Ted Brown, Esq. Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A. File No: 0128463 - 001 -JC 255 Orange Avenue County: Collier Orlando, Florida 32801 CONSOLIDATED NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE JOINT COASTAL PERMIT, CONSENT OF USE TO USE SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS, AND VARIANCE The Department of Environmental Protection gives consolidated notice of its intent to: (a) issue a joint coastal permit under Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Title-62, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) (draft copy of permit attached). Issuance of the joint coastal permit also constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344: (b) grant a consent to use sovereign submerged lands for the proposed activity, under Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, Chapter 253, F.S., Title 18, F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees, as described, below subject to any fees or special conditions in the attached draft permit; and, (c) issue a variance (FDEP Variance No. VE -11 -726) from Rule 62- 4.244(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), which requires that a dredge and fill mixing zone be no more than 150 meters in radius from the point of discharge or source of pollution. Issuance of the joint coastal permit also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Management Act. N ti in C N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 123 of 143 .: b1 e A ZO Consolidate Naiicaef Iitent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Day Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 2 of 14 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY The applicant, Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division, applied on April 21, 1997, to the Department of Environmental Protection for a 10 year permit/water quality certification/ authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund_ (Board of Trustees) to implement the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP) to restore approximately 568 acres of mangrove estuarine ecosystem (known as the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area). The project consists of enhancing the hydrology of the system by periodically dredging sediments (up to 22,000 cubic yards) constricting the pass and interior waterbodies, placing the beach quality material on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass, disposing the fine material on the uplands, replacing the three existing culverts on Seagate Drive with new, one -way flow to the north culverts, removing nuisance exotic vegetation, performing minor mangrove trimming, conducting small charge blasting to open the restricted interior channels, and implementing studies and programs to identify and reduce the amount of stormwater discharge into the Natural Resource Protection Area. The beach quality material will be placed onto the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass between DEP monuments R -35 south to R -50. The applicant has also requested a variance from Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., which stipulates that dredge and fill mixing zones shall not exceed 150 meters in radius from the point of generation of turbidity (the dredge site and discharge site for this project). The applicant has applied for a variance from this provision to allow up to a 1,000 meter mixing zone parallel to shore for the disposal of the beach quality material in the intertidal zone. The project is located in -the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area and surrounding developments in Collier County, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, & 33 of Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Class II waters, not approved for shellfish harvesting . The activity includes consideration of an application for a Consent of Use to conduct dredge and fill activities in sovereignty submerged lands of the State of Florida, and to replace three existing culverts in the same location within a City of Naples public easement (Seagate Drive culverts). II. AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Department has permitting authority under Part IV of Chapter 373 and Chapter 161, F.S., and Chapters 62B -41, 6213-49, 62 -330, 62 -341 and 62 -343, F.A.C. The activity is not exempt from the requirement to obtain a joint coastal permit. Pursuant to Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62 -113, F.A.C., the Department is responsible for reviewing this application. N .y m ni ry O N N N N *`i December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 124 of 143 S Consolidated Notice of Intent to.Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 3 of 14 p "z� 1612 The activity also requires a proprietary authorization, as it is located on sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The activity is not exempt from the need to obtain a proprietary authorization. Pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, Sections 253.002 and 253.77, F.S., Sections 18- 21.040, 18- 21.0051, and 62- 343.075, F.A.C., the policies of the Board of Trustees, and the Operating Agreements executed between the Department and the water management districts, as referenced in Chapter 62 -113, F.A.C., the Department has the responsibility to review and take final action on this request for proprietary authorization. The applicant has requested a variance from Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., to allow up to a 1,000 meter mixing zone from the point of discharge of the dredged material into the intertidal disposal zone. The Department has the responsibility to review and take final action on this variance request per Chapters 403.201 and 403.938, Florida Statutes. III. BACKGROUND Previous permits have been issued by the Department to maintain Clam Pass in an open condition, to control elevated water levels within Upper and Inner Clam Bays, and to attempt to stop the abnormally high mortality rate of mangroves occurring in the estuarine system (DEP Permit Numbers CO -578, 112870025, and 112859039). Permit Number CO -578, a two -year permit issued in 1996, authorized the temporary usage of two portable pumps to control water elevations within Upper and Inner Clam Bays. Permit number 112870025, issued May 1, 1996, authorized the shallow dredging (using blasting and hand - digging) of 1,312 linear feet of main tidal channels and 356 feet of minor tidal channels in Upper Clam Bay to enhance the tidal prism/ hydrology in areas where mangroves are dying. This work was completed on December 6, 1996, and according to the February 1997 Monitoring Report, appears to have enhanced the tidal prism/ hydrology within the immediate vicinity. Permit no. 112859039 was issued in 1995 and modified by the Department in 1996, 1997, and 1998 to allow maintenance dredging of up to 9,000 cu. yds. of material within the main pass in a continual effort to keep the pass open. The applicant, Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division, applied on April 21, 1997, to consolidate all the authorized and pending activities into the CBRMP and one joint coastal permit to authorize the restoration and management of the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area over the life of a 10 year permit. The proposal to install the overflow structures was dropped as part of the current submittal, which proposes to conduct activities to improve the hydrodynamics of, and thus restore, the Clam Bay system by: dredging approximately 22,000 cubic yards of material from restricted channels within the system; conducting periodic maintenance dredging of the main pass and interior channels; replacing three 24 inch diameter culverts along Seagate Drive with similar sized one -way flow to the north culverts; depositing December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 125 of 143 161*2 A020 Consolidated Notice of Intent to. Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -dC (Previously 113049919) Page 4 of 14 the beach quality material (approximately 10,000 - 14,000 cubic yards) on the beaches adjacent to Clam Pass and disposing the fines on the uplands; removing or killing nuisance exotic vegetation within the system; conducting studies to determine the sources of and corrective actions for the excess freshwater discharge into the system; developing an Upland Water Discharge Reduction Plan; and, implementing the plan based on the recommendations of the studies to reduce the volume of water being discharged into the system from developed areas on the contiguous uplands. The Clam Bay watershed covers approximately 3,000 acres, of which approximately 2,000 acres is developed. Historically, there was a natural connection to Vanderbilt Lagoon at the northern end of Upper Clam Bay. This connection was blocked in the 1950's with the construction of Vanderbilt Beach Road. A single culvert installed here ceased to function in the 70's. Also, historically, there was a natural connection at the southern reaches of the system linking Venetian Bay to Outer Clam Bay. This connection was blocked in the 60's by the construction of Seagate Drive. Three culverts were installed here in 1976. These culverts are functioning today with limited capacity. Pelican Bay, a resort coastal community, was permitted and constructed in the late 70's. These blockages of the historic, natural connections and conversions of natural areas to developed areas have contributed to the increased rate of shoaling and frequent need for dredging to keep Clam Pass in an open condition. The hydrological characteristics of the Clam Bay system include an average annual rainfall of 53 inches for the region. An additional estimated equivalent of 26 inches is being discharged into the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area via treated stormwater discharge from the developed uplands. Natural surface and groundwater drainage is towards the Clam Pass system, connected bays, and the Gulf of Mexico. The water levels within Upper and Inner Clam Bays are usually 3 -12 inches higher than the Gulf of Mexico (even at ordinary high tides) due to several restrictions that have developed in the form of sedimentation, shoaling, and deposition of organic debris combined with the additional discharge of freshwater into the system from the stormwater management systems of the developed uplands. The typical tidal range is less than 5 inches in Upper and Inner Clam Bays compared to the greater than 2 feet tidal range normally occurring in Clam Pass. Clam Pass is so constricted that Outer Clam Bay, which is only 3,000 feet away from the pass, has a tidal range of less than 1 foot. Only 20 -25 % of the tidal exchange for Outer Clam Bay is provided by the Seagate culverts with the majority of water flowing through the culverts remaining in the upper reaches just sloshing back and forth between Outer Clam Bay and Venetian Bay. Clam Pass has most recently been dredged in April of 1996, in February of 1997, and again in April of 1998 (DEP Permit Number 112870025) . The trend over the past few years has been the need to dredge Clam Pass at least on a yearly basis to keep it in an open, free - flowing condition. This need for frequent, costly dredging is expected to continue unless activities are conducted to improve the tidal flow needed to keep the pass open ( Tackney, 1996). December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 126 of 143 Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 5 of 14 161 2AZU A In the Gulf of Mexico, the surf zone adjacent to Clam Pass can be characterized as an unvegetated, sandy substrate to approximately 200 feet offshore (from the mean high water line). Very productive hardbottom with up to 5 ft. relief is reported to begin between 200 -300 feet offshore and extends Gulfward. This zone consists of large areas of hardbottom that are covered by many species of sponges, soft corals, tunicates, gorgonians, and marine macro - algae. The hardbottom provides a very important foundation for a biologically productive marine ecosystem as evidenced by the numerous species of living organisms observed in this zone (Turrell & Associates, Inc., July 1995). The Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection Area is characterized as a coastal mangrove estuarine ecosystem vegetated by all three species of mangroves native to Florida, white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) with black mangroves being the most prevalent. The Clam Bay system has approximately 568 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, of which approximately 443 acres are mangroves, 124 acres are open water, and about 1 acre is cattail (Typha spp.) marsh. There are approximately 7 acres of seagrasses (Cuban shoal grass- Kalodule wrightii) in Outer Clam Bay and some small isolated patches near the mouth of the pass. Small patches of remnant oyster beds can be observed in the bays. There are a few small patches of nuisance exotic vegetation throughout the system including, approximately 1 acre of Australian Pine (Casuarina equistifolia) and approximately 3 acres of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) according to a report from Collier County Environmental Services Division, 1994, and as verified by field observations of the site from Department staff in 1996 and 1997. Collier County is currently implementing a nuisance exotic vegetation removal program to eradicate Australian pine. There is an increasing rate of mangrove mortality within the Clam Bay system as indicated by aerial photos and numerous field observations. Aerial photos indicate that prior to the development of the uplands in the late 70's, large -scale areas of dead mangroves were virtually non - existent. In 1978, a study conducted by Tropical BioIndustries Co. and Gee and Jenson found that 8.8 acres of the trees were dead within the black mangrove dominated forests in the interior of the system. By 1996, that figure had increased to approximately 50 acres of dead mangroves with an additional 50 acres stressed and/ or dying. The majority of the dead or dying mangroves are black mangroves which are most susceptible to actually drowning by excessive inundation of their roots (pneumatophores) that protrude from the soils surrounding the tree. The tree begins to die when the pneumatophores are completely submerged with stagnant water for periods longer than 24 hours (Scholander, 1955; Mckee, 1993 & 1995). The pneumatophores of the mangroves were submerged for up to a month in the early 90's due to above average rainfall amounts and freshwater discharges into the system from the upland development coupled with restricted tidal flow in the interior channels and Clam Pass. Additionally, chemical analysis of the soils in the mangrove die -off areas indicate high levels of hydrogen sulfide and low dissolved oxygen levels, two conditions indicative of stagnant water December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 127 of 143 Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 00I -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 6 of 14 161 E A 20' U accumulating toxins and contributing to the stressing and killing of the mangroves ( McKee, 1995). On -going water quality monitoring data submitted by Collier County Environmental Services and Pelican Bay Services District does not indicate the presence of excessive chemicals or nutrients in concentrations high enough to solely cause the mangrove mortality. Rather, the data shows that the death of the mangroves is attributable to a combination of factors, including excessive freshwater input into the system from the developed uplands and inadequate drainage/ tidal exchange from constricted channels resulting in water becoming elevated and stagnated above the pneumatophores of the mangroves for lethally long periods of time ( McKee, 1995 and Hatcher, 1994). Sediment grain -size analysis conducted by Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. in February 1997, and historical data generated from previous dredging activities to keep Clam Pass open indicate that approximately two - thirds (10,000 - 14,000 cubic yards) of the total material proposed to be dredged (22,000 cubic yards) is beach quality in size, texture, and color. The material that is not beach compatible is primarily found in the bays and interior channels of the mangroves. This material consists largely of mangrove detritus and other organics in a fine, dark sediment matrix. The material that is not beach compatible will be deposited on the uplands landward of the marine turtle nesting beach. Unvegetated areas and areas with nuisance exotic vegetation have been targeted for this disposal. An unvegetated area immediately south of the pass has been determined by Department staff to be suitable to bury the non -beach compatible material provided the area is capped with at least 2 feet of the native soil and any remaining beach quality material from the area of excavation is placed on the adjacent beaches. The Clam Bay area was subjected to a cultural resources assessment survey in 1989. Seventeen archaeologically significant sites were identified in the region with three located within the area of the activities proposed by this project. These three areas are listed as 8CR476, 8CR547, and 8CR576. The Florida Department of State (DOS)- Division of Historical Resources has indicated no objections to the project provided the three archaeologically significant areas are avoided (DOS letter dated June 23, 1997). IV. BASIS OF ISSUANCE A. General Basis for Issuance The primary benefit expected from the proposed project is the enhancement/restoration of the ecosystem by improving the tidal flow /hydrology of the estuarine system. Approximately 568 acres of wetlands, including 443 acres of mangroves are expected to benefit from the project through,enhanced/restored tidal flow /hydrology. By conducting the proposed activities, it is N ^I M M ry •y O N N N N ey December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 128 of 143 1612 A 4u, Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 7 of 14 estimated that the super - elevated water levels within Inner and Upper CIam Bays will be lowered to acceptable levels to support mangrove recolonization. An additional benefit of the project includes the contribution of beach quality sand to an eroding public beach. This will improve the recreational beach that is currently available to the public in Southwest Florida and it will replace valuable beach needed by the endangered marine turtles known to nest in the area. The applicant has agreed to conduct the proposed activities seaward of the dune crest (the marine turtle nesting beach) outside of the marine turtle nesting season (May 151 to October 30) to avoid adverse impacts to marine turtles. Specific conditions will be included in the permit to provide protection to endangered marine turtles and manatees. An additional benefit expected from the project is an improvement in water quality throughout the Clam Bay ecosystem. By opening the constricted channels and tidal creeks, improved tidal flow and flushing of the entire system is expected, thus enhancing water quality. Additionally, by installing the one -way flow culverts at Seagate Drive, water quality of both Outer Clam Bay and Venetian Bay to the south is expected to be improved. Currently there is two -way flow between the bays and hydrographic studies indicate that this is contributing to a lengthy lag time in tidal flows as the water between these two lagoons simply sloshes back and forth through the existing culverts. By installing the one -way flow culverts, the incoming flood tide will flow north into Outer Clam Bay forcing cleaner saltwater into Venetian Bay. The tide - flex valves would then close on the outgoing ebb tide forcing the water to flow out of Outer Clam Bay and through Clam Pass improving the water quality in Outer Clam Bay and aiding in keeping Clam Pass in an open condition. Tidal calculations indicate that with the installation of the one -way flow culverts, Outer Clam Bay will flush in 7 -10 days and Clam Pass will need maintenance dredging less frequently to keep it in the open condition needed to sustain the biological vitality of the ecosystem and alleviate stressors upon living organisms within the ecosystem induced by encroaching development and lethally high water levels and freshwater input (Tackney, 1996). Additional engineering calculations were conducted to assess potential impacts to the Venetian Bay and Doctor's Pass systems to the south of the connecting culverts on Seagate Drive. These calculations show that installation of the one -way flow culverts will have minimal and insignificant effects on the existing hydrological characteristics of these waterbodies and installation of the culverts is not expected to contribute to adverse shoaling within or adjacent to Doctor's Pass ( Crawford, 1997). Specific Conditions and monitoring will also be included in the permit to provide protection to the existing natural resources within the Clam Bay system including the seagrasses, oyster beds, and mangroves. The channels, areas to be dredged, and spoil disposal sites have all been selected in areas to minimize adverse impacts to existing natural resources. Some minor unavoidable adverse impacts will occur during the dredging process including the loss of approximately 0.31 acre of seagrasses and some minor, non - lethal trimming of mangrove roots and branches. The seagrasses may recolonize and the minor trimming of the mangroves is not N H M M H rY H a N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 129 of 143 1612 Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 8 of 14 expected to have a major effect on the health of the trees or their biological productivity. To ensure that the health and productivity of the mangroves are not adversely impacted, specific conditions are included in the permit establishing guidelines for the mangrove trimming that are consistent with the requirements in Sections 403.9321 - 403.9333, Florida Statutes. The adverse impacts to the environment have been minimized. This project is a restoration project and it is expected that the benefits to the entire mangrove dominated ecosystem will far outweigh the minimal adverse impacts identified. Specifically, approximately 568 acres of wetlands, including 443 acres of mangroves, will be enhanced/restored by the project with only 0.31 of an acre of adverse impacts to seagrasses. Therefore, the project is considered to be self- mitigating and no further mitigation is required. The beach disposal of the beach quality material will be in the intertidal zone of the adjacent beaches, pursuant to Chapter 161, F.S. The mixing zone for dredge and fill activities in this area cannot exceed 150 meters, pursuant to Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C. The beach disposal could cause elevated turbidity beyond the edge of a 150 meter mixing zone originating from the point of discharge of the dredged material in the intertidal zone. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a variance from Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., to allow up to a 1,000 meter mixing zone parallel to shore in the intertidal zone. There is no practicable means known to further minimize the mixing zone and the potential for elevated turbidity given the grain -size analysis of the dredged material and considering hydrodynamic processes in the intertidal zone at the beach nourishment site. Since there are no significant natural resources within the intertidal zone and within 200 feet offshore, a variance from the mixing zone requirement will be granted to allow up to a 1,000 meter mixing zone parallel with the shoreline. There will be a restriction of the mixing zone to not extend beyond 200 feet offshore (from the mean low water line) to avoid adverse impacts to the biologically productive hardbottom areas existing beyond the nearshore zone. Turbidity will be monitored during the beach disposal work to ensure compliance within these limits and specific conditions will be included in the permit to ensure that turbidity will not be elevated above 29 nephelometric units outside the 1,000 meter mixing zone. The permit will not be valid until and unless the Department issues a final order authorizing a variance from the above - referenced rule. The variance is temporary and shall only be valid during the beach disposal of dredged material activities accomplished under the requirements of and during the term of the permit and shall be subject to all monitoring conditions required by the permit. N H Gl m ni �Y rvy N O N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 130 of 143 Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 9 of 14 B. Specific Regulatory Basis for Issuance 1612 t�0 Through the above and based on the general/limiting and specific conditions to the permit, the applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Chapter 161 and Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62 -330 and Sections 40D -4.301 and 40D- 4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62 -3, 62 -4, 62 -302, 62 -520, 62 -522 and 62 -550, F.A.C. The applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is not contrary to the public interest. C. Specific Proprietary Basis for Issuance Through the above and based on the general/limiting and specific conditions to the consent of use, the applicant has met all applicable requirements for proprietary authorizations to use sovereign submerged lands, pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution, Chapters 253, F.S., associated rule 18 -21 F.A.C., and the policies of the Board of Trustees. The applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the activity: (1) is not contrary to the public interest; (2) will maintain essentially natural conditions; (3) will not cause adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources or public recreation or navigation; and, (4) will not interfere with the riparian rights of adjacent property owners. In addition, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the "Conceptual State Lands Management Plan" adopted by the Board of Trustees on March 17, 1981. V. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE The Department has determined that the proposed activity, because of its size, potential effect on the environment or the public, controversial nature, or location, is likely to have a heightened public concern or likelihood of request for administrative proceedings. Therefore, pursuant to Section 62B- 49.005 (8), F.A.C., you (the applicant) are required to publish at your own expense the enclosed notice of this Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue. The notice shall be published one time only within 30 days, in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected. For the purpose of this rule, "publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected" means publication in a newspaper meeting the requirements of Sections 50.011 and 50.031, F.S., in the county where the activity is to take place. 0 m 0 v ni rq ry N N N N �r December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 131 of 143 1612 A 20 Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 10 of 14 The applicant shall provide proof of publication to: Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 The proof of publication shall be provided to the above address within seven days of publication. Failure to publish the notice and provide proof of publication within the allotted time shall be grounds for denial of the permit and easement to use sovereign submerged lands. VI. RIGHTS OF AFFECTED PARTIES The Department will issue the permit (draft permit attached) unless a timely petition for an administrative hearing is filed pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes, or all parties reach a written agreement on mediation as an alternative remedy under section 120.573 before the deadline for filing a petition. Choosing mediation will not adversely affect the right to a hearing if mediation does not result in a settlement The procedures for petitioning for a hearing are set forth below, followed by the procedures for pursuing mediation. A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's proposed permitting decision may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes. The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000. Petitions filed by the permit applicant or any of the parties listed below must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice of intent. Petitions filed by any other person must be filed within fourteen days of publication of the public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of this notice of intent of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition (or a request for mediation, as discussed below) within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes, or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with rule 28 -5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: (a) The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner, the applicant's name and address, the Department Permit File Number, and the county in which the project is proposed; m O c ni ry H N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay SereslTivision Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 132 of 143 x Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 11 of 14 (b) A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department's action or proposed action; (c) A statement of how each petitioner's substantial interest are affected by the Department's action or proposed action; (d) A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; (e) A statement of the facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; (f) A statement identifying the rules or statutes that the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and (g) A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take with respect to the action or proposed action addressed in this notice of intent. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this notice of intent Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the application have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirement set forth above. Any person may elect to pursue mediation by reaching a mediation agreement with all parties to the proceeding (which include the applicant, the Department, and any person who has filed a timely and sufficient petition for a hearing) and by showing how the substantial interests of each mediating party are affected by the Department's action or proposed action. The agreement must be filed in (received by) the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000, by the same deadline as set forth above for the filing of a petition. The agreement to mediate must include the following: (a) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any persons who may attend the mediation; (b) The name, address, and telephone number of the mediator selected by the parties, or a provision for selecting a mediator within a specified time; (c) The agreed allocation of the costs and fees associated with the mediation; (d) The agreement of the parties on the confidentiality of discussions and documents introduced during mediation; (e) The date, time and place of the first mediation session, or a deadline for holding the first session, if no mediator has yet been chosen; (f) The name of each party's representative who shall have authority to settle or recommend settlement; (g) Either an explanation of how the substantial interests of each mediating party will be affected by the action or proposed action addressed in this notice of intent or a N m .y 0 v ni N ry "i N N N N N December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 133 of 143 161 eA2. Consolidated Notice Sitent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 12 of 14 statement clearly identifying the petition for hearing that each party has alrea,., .., ., and 'incorporating it by reference; and (h) The signatures of all parties or their authorized representatives: As provided in section 120.573 of the Florida Statutes, the timely agreement of all parties to mediate will toll the time limitation imposed by sections 120.569 and 120.57 for requesting, - and holding an administrative hearing. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the mediation must be concluded within sixty days of the execution of the agreement. If mediation results in settlement of the administrative dispute, the Department must enter a final order incorporating the agreement of the parties. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by such a modified final decision of the Department have a right to petition for a hearing only in accordance with the requirements for such petitions set forth above, and must therefore file their petitions within fourteen days of receipt of this notice of intent. If mediation terminates without settlement of the dispute, the Department shall notify all parties in writing that the administrative hearing processes under sections 120.569 and 120.57 remain available for disposition of the dispute, and the notice will specify the deadlines that then will apply for challenging the agency action and electing remedies under those two statutes. A party to this proceeding has the right to request review of this order's consistency with section 161.041, F.S., by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Land and Water Adjudicaton, Commission, in accordance with Chapter 42 -2, F)orida Administrative Code, and specificallv Rule 42- 2.0131, Florida Administrative Code. To initiate such a review, your request must be filed within twenty (20) days of the date of this order with the Secretary of the Commission at Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, The Capitol, Room 2105, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0001. A copy of the request must also be served on both the Department of Environmental Protection, Agency Clerk, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, and on any person named in this order, within 20 days from the date of this order if the request for review is to be effective. Executed in Tallahassee, Florida. m m *y 0 M M 0 N N N N STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 4, Alfre:6 B. Devereaux, Jr., Chief` Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems a m 0 M N ry N N .y December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division rd Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hopp tea U Page 134 of 143 �° 161 Z ^�k,` yea «au{lk! � Ya.'.�a. �' J•. Cotlief Countx-"PeIa% day Services Division File No. 0128463- 001 -JC (Previo 113049919) Page 13 of 14 , Recommended and written by Rich Bray with valuable input from Ilene Barnett, Bob Brantly, Keith. Mille, and Karen Moody. Copies furnished to: Bob Brandy, Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems Jon Iglehart, DEP- South District Office- Ft. Myers Kalani Cairns, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service George Percy, Fl. Dept. of State Keri Akers, Fl. Dept. of Community Affairs Andreas Mager, U.S. Dept. of Commerce Susan Gray, SFWMD Stacey Cowley, DEP, Office of General Counsel Estus Whitfield, Governor's Office of Environmental Affairs Chip Clough, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mac Hatcher, Collier County Government Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division David Guggenheim, The Conservancy of SW Florida Dan Spina, Save the Bays, Association Kav Potter, Mangrove Action Group, Inc. Hilburn Hillestad. Environmental Consultant- Arvida Dorothea Zysko, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc. Karen Moody, DEP- Bureau of Protected Species Management John Iliff, National Marine Fisheries Service Eric Staats, Naples Daily News John Mac'kie, Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Permit Information Center FILING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED, on this date with the designated Department Clerk, pursuant to 120.52(1 I), Florida Statutes, ceipt of which is hereby acknowledged. Deputy Clerk D to Rn m p v H M H Q N N N N .y December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 135 of 143 161 2 p Zp Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Collier County- Pelican Bay Services Division File No. 0128463 - 001 -JC (Previously 113049919) Page 14 of 14 References 1. Crawford, Robert. 1997. Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Flow Control Valves of the Seagate Drive Culverts. 2. Hatcher, James. 1994, 1996, and 1997. Collier County Environmental Services Division Publication Number NR- SP- 94 -01. 3. McKee, Karen. 1993 and 1995. Soil Physicochemical Patterns and Mangrove Species Distribution. Ecology 81:477 -487. 4. Scholander, P.F. 1955. Gas Exchange in the Roots of Mangroves. American Journal.of Botany 42:92 -98. 5. Tackney, David. 1996. Studies conducted in association with the long -term management plan for the Clam Bay System. 6. Tropical Biolndustries Company and Gee & Jenson Engineering, Inc. 1978. Carbon Flows in Portions of the Clam Pass Estuarine System. 7. Turrell & Associates, Inc. 1995. Clam Pass Inlet Management Plan. December 14, 2011 Pelicala rJes Zion Board 4pecoial Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 136 of 143 P 't : OE.=BIT B ............ . Volume 24, Number 21, May 22, 1998 Section V Petition for Variances or Waivers Department of Environmental Protection The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a variance (File No. VE -11 -726) from Rule 62- 4.244(5), F.A.C., to Collier County Government — Pelican *Bays Services Division, c/o Ted Brown with Akerman, Senterfitt, & Edison, P.A., 255 Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, to allow a 1,000 meter mixing zone parallel with the shoreline and not to extend beyond 61 meters (200 feet) offshore for the disposal of beach quality material in the intertidal zone associated with the restoration and maintenance dredging of the Clam Pass system. The variance is associated with the Clam *Bays Restoration and Management Project, including the CIam 119-BayX Natural Resource Protection Area and surrounding areas, and is located in Collier County, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, & 33 of Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Class II waters, not approved for shellfish harvesting. 6/23/98 w Qi Q 0 �v N n 10:32:43 AM A c V �t O n N N N � h a k 6 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 137 of 143 1612 A 20 AKERMAN, SENTERFITT 8 EIDSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CITRUS CENTER 266 SOVTN ORANGE AVEN V E POST OFFICE 60% 231 RECEIVED ORLANDO. eoD2.DZ" AUG 0 % 9998 (.07)6.3.7 TELECOPY (407) 643.6610 USACE - REGULATORY FT MYERS. FL August 5, 1998 Chip Clough U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2301 McGregor Street, Suite 300 Ft. Myers, FL 33901 RE: Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan Dear Chip: Just a short note to thank you for your assistance in seeing the referenced plan become a permitted activity. Both Hilburn and 1 enjoyed working with you and we look forward to the next project. Thanks again and if I can be of any help to you, please don't hesitate to advise. Very truly yours, &R. n cc: Hilburn Hillestad ORLANDO . FORT LAUDERDALE • MIAMI . TALLAHASSEE TAMPA . WEST PALM BEACH M 'y Q C nj N ry H Q N N N N 11 22 December 14, 2011 llcakylervlCtS D Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 138 of 143 }Fria 17 1556 Regulatory Division West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office 199602789(IP -CC) Ted R. Brown Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Attorneys At Law 255 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 -0231 Dear Attorney Brown: Enclosed is a Department of the Army (DA) permit and a Notice of Authorization for application number 199602789(IP -CC), submitted on behalf of Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division. The authorized works included the implementation of, and works performed in accordance to the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP). The project is located within Clam Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 32, 33, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The placard should be prominently displayed at the construction site. You may begin the work authorized by this permit. This permit does not relieve you of your responsibilities for any other Federal, State of local permit. A map showing the field office addresses and telephone numbers is enclosed. In order to determine compliance with the permit, U.S. Army Corps personnel or a contractor may inspect the project site at any time. A copy of the enclosed permit and drawings, in addition to the placard, must be available at the site of work at all times. Please be aware that failure to comply with the permit limits or the conditions may result in enforcement actions to include civil penalties. 3 4- m M ,y H of M H rY H N N N M 1612AeU December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 139 of 143 i 2 If, in the future, you choose to modify your permitted work, this must be requested in writing and drawings showing the proposed changes must also be submitted. Any requests for extensions beyond the five year time limit must be requested, in writing, at least one month prior to the expiration date of the permit. Sincerely, John R. Hall Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures bcc (permit w /plans): DEP, Tallahassee (0128463- 001 -JCJ FWS, Vero Beach NMFS, St. Petersburg CESAJ -RD -E Clough /CESAJ -RD -WF Silver /CESAJ -RD -W 1612 A 2 December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 140 of 143 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION August 4, 1998 Mr. Chip Clough Department of the Army Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers Fort Myers Regulatory Office 2301 McGregor Boulevard, Suite 300 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 RE: Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 199602789 (IP -CC) Dear Mr. Clough: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 (941) 597 -1749 FAX (941) 597 -4502 A CERTIFIED BLUE CHIP COMMUNITY RECEIVED AUG 0 5 1998 USACE - REGULATORY FT. MYERS, FL Enclosed please find the Original and one copy of the above referenced Permit for signature by the Army Corps of Engineers. I have enclosed a pre - addressed Federal Express envelope for your use in returning a signed copy to my office once it has been executed. If you have any questions, please contact my office. Yours sincerely, PELICAN BAY E1 VICES 1 f ! James P. Ward Department Director JPW/bcs 0 v ry M ry H N ry N N �r 0 N N N ri Regulatory Division West Permits Branch Fort Myers Regulatory Office 199602789(IP -CC) �i A4U December 14 2011 Pelican Bay ervices Division Board Special Session Y p Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 141 of 143 Ted R. Brown Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Attorneys At Law 255 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 -0231 Dear Attorney Brown: We have completed the review of permit application number 199602789(IP -CC) submitted on behalf of Collier County, Pelican Bay Services Division. The proposal included the implementation of the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan (CBRMP). Our regulations require that you have an opportunity to review any special or general conditions prior to final signature by the Department of the Army (DA). Enclosed are an original and a copy of an unsigned DA permit instrument. Both copies must be signed by the applicant in the space provided on the last page of the instrument. In the case of corporations, acceptance must be by an officer of that corporation. Please type or print the name and title of the person signing below the signature and the date signed. Please read carefully the Special Conditions included on page 3 of the permit. These were developed to apply specifically for your project. Water Quality Certification (WQC) is also required prior to issuance of a DA permit. A copy of your certification has been received. In accordance with General Condition number 5 of the permit, the WQC specific conditions have been attached, and therefore, become a part of the DA permit. SIGN AND RETURN BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND THE COPY TO THIS OFFICE. ZU December 14, 216n b n lay Zices Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 142 of 143 0 E The original will be signed by the District Engineer and returned to you with a placard to be posted at the site. It is important to note that the permit is not valid until it is signed by the District Engineer. Sincerely, John R. Hall Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures Copy Furnished: (w /o encls) Mr. Jim Ward Collier County BOCC Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, Florida 33963 Mr. Timothy Durham Wilson, Miller, Barton, & Peek, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane Naples, Florida 33942 WCI Communities, Inc. 24820 Burnt Pine Drive Bonita Springs, FL 33923 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Resources Permitting Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard - Mail Station 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -3000 Honorable Porter Goss Representative in Congress Attention: Ms. Christy Hahn 2000 Main Street, Suite 303 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 bcc: CESAJ -RD -W h a Q Ai Q �v N N h Clough /CESAJ -RD -WF Silver /CESAJ-RD -W 11 A CU A December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Statement of Findings presented by J. Hoppensteadt Page 143 of 143 CA, AKERMAN. SENTERFITT S EIDSON. P. A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CITRUS CENTER 255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 231 OPLANOO. FLORIDA 32802.0231 NOT) 843.7660 TELECO— (a01) 6a3 -6610 June 15, 1998 Chip Clough U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2301 McGregor Street, Suite 300 Ft. Myers, FL 33901 RE: Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan Dear Chip: Enclosed are copies of the materials sent to you last week for your review. As noted, I am in Tallahassee today and conferring with the state relative to like kind adjustments and then will attempt to make the demands of both permits integrate one with the other. Look for may call and a copy of the proposed state permit for your review following my meeting of Tuesday, June 16, 1998. Thanks for your continued help ion bringing this matter to conclusion. Very ruly yours, Te R. Brown cc: Ron Silver, ACOE Jim Ward Susan Watts Al Varley m ORLANDO FORT LAUDERDALE M O N N N N MIAMI TALLAHASSEE TAMPA WEST PALM BEACH �. AleU December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services ion Board Special Session Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/3/2012; Page 1 of 9 r 1 ^ TIMELINE ESTABLISHING DESIGNATED USES FOR CLAM PASS /CLAM BAY PRIMARY DESIGNATED USE related to the purpose and function of the Clam Pass /Clam Bay. ^ area for Conservation, Preservation, and Protection of natural resources therein was A 1 , established by the followings 1) In the 1970s- Collier County enacted zoning ordinances for the Coastal Area Planning District. Ordinance 76 -30 recognized environmentally sensitive lands (including wetlands, estuaries and water areas) and zoned them as Sensitive Treatment (ST) with a process to discourage development by allowing increased development of uplands IF ST areas were converted to Conservation/ Preserve areas. The Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development/ Development of Regional Impact (PUD /DRI) proceeded pursuant to having obtained CONDITIONAL APPROVALS (1977) that allowed 98 acres of coastal mangroves wetlands to be filled for use in the development by a required conversion of the remaining 570 acres of ST lands into a Conservation Area. The requirement for the remaining 570 acres of undeveloped Clam Pass /Clam Bay coastal barrier segment to remain in its natural condition and prohibit it from further development resulted in the Pelican Bay Conservation Area being established by a Granted Deed with attached covenants and restrictions. It specified that 35 acres at the South end of the Conservation Area would become a public park (accessed through the preserve) that included a 3/4 acre public beach. Another five acres at the North end of the Conservation Area was also specified for a park to provides public beach access. 2) Between 1981 and 1982- Related to State and Federal approvals required for the Pelican Bay PUD /DRI, a Department of Army Permit (79K -0282) authorized fill of 98 acres of Clam Pass wetlands that was predicated on Special Conditions of the remaining undeveloped 570 acres being converted to conservation/ preservation in perpetuity. It specified inclusion of Upper, Inner and Outer Clam Bays, their connecting creeks, Clam Pass and surrounding mangroves forests. It also prohibited dredging of Clam Pass except to keep it open to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. 3) in 1988 - The undeveloped segment of the Clam Pass coastal barrier island (Conservation Area within Pelican Bay PUD's boundaries) was recommended to be added to the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as an Otherwise Protected Area. It was originally approved and recorded as FL -64P by the US Congress in 1988 and 1990. Additional related references in Items 11 -12 below. 4) In 1991 -The Collier County Natural Resources Department (NRD) Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP -1991) condensed a series of NRD Technical Reports into a comprehensive coastal zone planning guide. Various chapters of it report the need to protect natural resources in the Clam Pass /Clam Bay Conservation Area. The CZMP -1991 was adopted by the BCC as a resolution and later by ordinance during 1992 and 1993. Draft ordinances were recommended to the BCC by NRD staff to be consistent with specific CZMP -1991 sections. Several included environmental protections in Clam Bay. 5) Ordinance 91 -111 created the Pelican Bay Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (MSTBU) in conjunction with the Pelican Bay Services District (PBSD) and an Advisory Committee with dual role for the both entities. Among the Pelican Bay MSTBU /PBSD responsibilities and benefits is the maintenance (and funding for maintenance) of conservation and preserve areas within Pelican Bay boundaries. A boundary map was attached which included the Conservation Area of the Clam Bays, connecting creeks and surrounding mangroves forest. This ordinance was later repealed and replaced by successive ordinances that described the Pelican Bay MSTBU /PBSD having the same purpose as earlier ordinances, but that it was changed from an Independent District to a Dependent District. 6) in 1995- The BCC approved the NRD's recommendation to adopt Clam Bay as its first Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA). The BCC action stipulated that the Clam Bay NRPA had the same boundaries as the existing Conservation Area within the Pelican Bay PUD. 7) Consistent with item # 6 above, Collier County s Future Land Use Maps adopted the additional NRPA overlay onto the Conservation Area overlay established by Collier County's acceptance (as Grantee) of the 1982 Conservation Easement Deed from the developer /owners of the Pelican Bay PUD /DRI. 8) The Collier County 1995 Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) stated Clam Bay had the richest seagrass beds in Collier County (critical for manatee survival). Accordingly, the MPP recommended an Idle Speed /No Wake Zone throughout the Clam Pass waterway system. 9) In 1998, Joint Coastal ()C) permits by FDEP and the USACE authorized the County's Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) to begin long -term restoration of Clam Bay. The Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan was attached to the JC permits.. The permits, management plan and implementation of authorized projects were funded by voluntary Pelican Bay property assessments, an agreement by the WCI firm (successor to original Pelican Bay developer /owners) to contribute up to one million dollars for Clam Bay restoration, and included limited transfers of funds from the Collier County NRD Water Quality program and Exotic Vegetation Removal program (Fund 111). 10) in 1998, a Florida Administrative Court Case No. 98- 0324GM ruling byjudge Meale interpreted certain Conservation and Coastal Management Elements in Collier County's Growth Management Plan that NRPA's required unequivocal protection of habitats which supported existing and potential uses within NRPA areas by wildlife. f Lrs December 14, 2011 Pelican Balry es Division oard Special Session Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/3/2012) Page 2 of 9 11) in 2005 there was clarification of the boundaries of the Conservation Easement within the Pelican Bay PUD by the Collier County Natural Resources Department (NRD) Staff to US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) for the jrederai CBRS Clam Pass Unit fL 64 -P. 12) On October 15, 2008, Public Law 110 -419 adopted Florida Congressman Connie Mack's recommended corrected map for Clam Pass unit of FL -64P. The corrected USFWS map identified the CBRS Clam Pass unit FL 64 -P to be located entirely within the existing boundaries of the Clam Bay NRPA and Conservation Area as the Otherwise Protected Area (by Conservation Easement Deed) within the Pelican Bay PUD boundaries. SECONDARY DESIGNATED USE related to a purpose and function for Passive Recreation was established by the following: 1) The 1991 Coastal Zone Management Plan's (CZMP -1991) Inlet Management chapter had a substantial section describing Clam Pass and its bays, etc. It recommended no motorized boating as a protective measure for the natural resources within those waterways. 2) in 1995, the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan was adopted and sent to the State. It reported on Clam Bay's seagrass beds, canoe docks, very limited motorboat use, and conservation easement restrictions. The MPP recommended against any marina facilities ever being permitted in Clam Bay. 3) In 1995, "The Clam Pass Inlet Management Plan' was completed and Interim Report No. 1 was submitted to FDEP It stated Clam Pass was essentially non - navigable and small boat boats had limited use of it. 4) Joint Coastal OQ permits were approved in 1998 by FDEP and the USACE for the County's Pelican Bay Services Department (PBSD) to begin long -term restoration of the Clam Bay mangroves forest. The 1998 JC permits had an attached Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, by Collier County Commissioner Hancock's Mangrove Task Force. 4) In the year 2000, the Clam Pass Canoe Trail permit was approved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). PBSD records indicate that such markers were consistent with the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan tp mark the dredged drainage channels in a manner that benefited recreational use of the Clam Pass /Clam Bay waterways consistent with preservation and protection of the Preserve to not increase motorboat usage In it. 5) In 2010 a Consolidated Denial from Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and FDEP was issued that rescinded an earlier temporary approval of lateral aids to navigation because bathymetry data was recognized to show the waterways were too shallow for a motorboat navigation channel. INCIDENTAL USE of Clam Pass/ lam Bay for motorized boating is apparent by afore - mentioned items referencing . prjplicy and secondary established uses and additionally evidenced by the following: 1) On February 2, 2000, Collier County NRD Staff responded to Seagate property owner David Buser's inquiry on dredging and installation of navigational markers in the Clam Bay system. The NRD letter informed him that Clam Bay ranked low on all channel siting criteria, was not the type of area, had a conservation easement that prohibited pilings and signage except some warning signs, and that dredging is prohibited in Clam Bay except at the pass to maintain a connection to the Gulf of Mexico. 2) Collier County Boat surveys conducted periodically for the Parks and Recreation Dept, consistently reported few motorboats in Clam Bay (docked in Seagate subdivision) Less than ten boats were identified at Seagate docks in each survey. Mainly kayak and canoe use was consistently reported in Clam Bay. The 2010 boat survey identified no changed boat use in Clam Bay from prior reports. 161 e A G. v December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/3/2012) Page 3 of 9 From the Sierra Club, Calusa Group n of Lee and Collier Counties Submitted to the Clam Bay Marker Discussion Group on 2/17/11 and 3/155/2011 ;.. � u u ► � , • ► • : ' � >: u • ' u �i'l ���LZ'.�1��'Sul< \;�L�I� 1) Retain the Clam Pass Canoe /Kayak Trail. It benefits thousands of resident and visitors for passive recreation that is compatible with the Primary designated use of the Clam Pass/ Clam Bay creek and lagoon system for Conservation and Preservation of its shallow meandering condition with dense mangrove vegetation and other habitats that support listed and other wildlife especially but not exclusively aquatic and avian species. 2) Implementation of NEW Information Markers to better protect ALL Clam Pass /Clam Bay waterway users. EX: "Local Knowledge Required Due to Shallow Waters, Shoals, Tidal Flats, Mangroves and Seagrass" Similar Information Markers identify shoal and seagrass areas. 3) "Status Quo" remains for the Seagate residents', Pelican Bay residents' and general public use of the Clam Pass /Clam Bay backwaters. This includes historic limited access to the Gulf of Mexico through the small dynamic tidal exchange of Clam Pass. Backwater lagoon and creek access includes areas of naturally occurring tidal flats, sandy shoals, mangroves roots /branches and seagrass areas. 4) All permits authorizing activities within the Clam Pass /Clam Bay system are consistent with restoration and maintenance of the mangroves ecosystem. Past and Future activities are recognized by all that excavation /construction and maintenance of drainage channels within this system ARE NEVER done to improve navigation. *NRPA stands for Natural Resources Protection Area designation (applied to Clam Pass /Clam Bay Coastal Barrier Resources in 1995 by Collier County Commission). W .". December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Aio2 0 1 Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/312012) 1) Retain the Clam Pass Canoe /Kayak Trail. It benefits thousands of resident and visitors for passive recreatiob that is compatible with the Primary designated use of the Clam Pass/ Clam Bay creek and lagoon system for Conservation and Preservation of its shallow meandering condition with dense mangrove vegetation and other habitats that support listed and other wildlife especially but not exclusively aquatic and avian species. 2) Implementation of NEW Information Markers to better protect ALL Clam Pass /Clam Bay waterway users. EX: Lo cal Knowledge Required Due to Shallow Waters, Shoals, Tidal Flats, Mangroves and Seagtass Similar Information Markers identify shoal and seagrass areas. 3) "Status Quo" remains for the Seagate residents', Pelican Bay residents' and general public use of the Clam Pass /Clam Bay backwaters. This includes historic limited access to the Gulf of Mexico through the small dynamic tidal exchange of Clam Pass. Backwater lagoon and creek access includes areas of naturally occurring tidal flats, sandy shoals, mangroves roots /branches and �eagrass areas. 4) All permits authorizing activities within the Clam Pass /Clam Bay system are consistent with restoration and ?maintenance of the mangroves ecosystem. Past and Future activities are recognized by all that excavation /construction and maintenance of drainage channels within this system ARE NEVER done to improve navigation. *NRPA stands for Natural Resources Protection Area designation (applied to Clam Pass /Clam Bay Coastal Barrier Resources in 1995 by Collier County Commission). r A V December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Sery es I 'si s Correspondence No. 2 submitted by ardll le ceived 1/3/2012) Page 5of9 MEETING AGENDA CLAM BAY MARKER DISCUSSION GROUP TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011 — 9:30 A.M. TILL 11:30 P.M. RISK MANAGEMENT TRAINING ROOM 3311 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES L Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Changes and Approval Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes 1. March 15, 2011 Minutes V. Update Marker Discussion through Stakeholder Representatives • Discussion/Agreement of signage on Clam Pass bridge in Clam Pass County Park and at the Pelican Bay beach facility • Discussion of Seagate's proposed revision to the local knowledge sign • FWC participation • Next steps VI. Public Comments VII. Announcements with Follow -up VIII. Next Meeting Date /Location TBD IX. Adjournment • Public speakers are requested to do the following for any items presented to the Board. Display on each document the presenter's name and title of document. Provide a total of 7 copies of each handout, to be distributed as follows: 3 Board Members; I Minute Taker; 1 County Attorney, 2 CZM Staff members. • The following websites will provide information, agendas and dates for this subcommittee: htt.o: / /www.coUier oov.iietllyzdex.a i)x ?n(ime =l8 httn: / /)vww.collier -eov. tietllndex.a.sox ?Me =2390 All interested partied are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable. For more information, please contact Gail D. Hambright at (239) 252 -2966. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252 -8380. Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time_ Collier County Ordinance No. 99 -22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. December 14, 2011 Pelicanlay5rviles ion Board Special Session Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/3/2012) Page 6 of 9 March 15, 2011 MINUTES OF THE CLAM BAY DISCUSSION GROUP Human Resource Training Room #208 3309 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, FL March 15, 2011 I. Call to Order The Discussion began at 2:00 pm The following Stakeholders were represented: Honorable John Sorey, City of Naples; Mary Johnson, Mangrove Action Group; Steve Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation; Keith Dallas, Pelican Bay Services Division; Marcia Cravens, Sierra Club; Kathy Worley, Conservancy of Southwest Florida; Dr. Ernest Wu, Seagate Homeowners Assoc. Kathy Worley was not present. Ernest Wu arrived at 2:15 p. m., Rick Dykman represented Seagate Homeowners Assoc. until Mr. Wu arrived. Marcia Cravens arrived at 3:35 p.m. The following Collier County Staff members were present: Gail Hambright, Accountant; Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management; Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services. Georgia Hiller, Collier County Commissioner was also present. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Sorey moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Feldhaus. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. December 14, 2011 Pe1lican Sa6 y Je,ivision Board Special Session Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens /received 1/3/2012) Page 7 of 9 •. March 15, 2011 IV. App> otva of Minutes 1. February 17, 2011 minutes Mr. Sorey moved to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 1, Item V., paragraph 1, line 3 — from "of the system from Clam Bay south of Seagate..." to of the system from Outer Clam Bay north of Seagate..." • Page 2, Paragraph 2, #3 — from "Maintaining the historic navigational rights of the Seagate Community." to "Maintaining the historic navigational rights of boating access of the Seagate community." Second by Mr. Feldhaus. Carried unanimously S — 0. Mr. Wu arrived at 2:15 p. m. V. Update Marker Discussion through Stakeholder Representatives Gary McAlpin, Director of Coastal Zone Management, provided the following documents: • Copy of an email to him from Ryan Moreau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission dated March 2, 2011 — Subject "Clam Bay Discussion Group Material" • Document "Clam Pass — Marker Locations" and related examples of signs proposed for marking the system. • Document "Discussion with Ryan Moreau on 212312011 based on questions from the Clam Bay marker workshop held on 211712011 " Ryan Moreau, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, (FFWCC) arrived via telephone at 2:30 p.m. to answer questions on the permit application for marking the system with canoe markers. Sneakers Linda Roth, Pelican Bay Resident Selma Petker Arthur Chase, Pelican Bay Resident Ronnie Bellone, Pelican Bay Resident "Mr. Moreau, FFWCC, responded regarding permit. Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident Jim Pelton, Seagate Resident Len Rothman, Canoeist Rick Dykman, Seagate Resident "Mr. Moreau, FFWCC, responded on time frame. Len Rothman "Mr. Moreau, FFWCC, responded Mr. Moreau left the meeting at 3:30 p.m. 4 F � ` December 14, 2011 Pelican Bayer tarcla ession B Special Session Correspondence No. 2 subMitte y ravens / received 1/3/2012) Page 8 of 9 VI. Public Comments Speakers Ted Raia, Pelican Bay Resident Len Rothman Rick Dykman Jim Pelton Marcia Cravens arrived at 3: 35 p.m. March 15, 2011 16127) A 20 Ms. Cravens submitted the following documents: "Recommendations for the Clam Pass /Clam Bay Uniform Waterway Markers Benefitting Safe Recreation Compatible with NRPA designated uses" from the Sierra Club, Calusa Group of Lee and Collier County, submitted to the Clam Bay Marker Discussion Group on 2/17/11 and 3/15/2011. s Copy of an email from Ryan Moreau to Pamela Keyes dated March 2, 2011 — Subject: Follow up e -mail per their phone conversation. Gary McAlpin polled the Stakeholders on their position on the proposed Plan for Marking the Clam Bay System. Ms. Johnson, Mangrove Action Group, supports the Plan, and recommends a shared permitting arrangement (PBSD /Collier County, Coastal Zone Management, etc.) Mr. Feldhaus, Pelican Bay Foundation, supports the Plan as it meets the goals identified, and recommended that public education be increased to inform the public on the mixed used of the system. The permit should be "signed off on" by the various parties, however, issued to Collier County (Coastal Zone Management) Mr. Sorey (for himself) supports the Plan .Mr. Dallas (for himself) supports the Plan with the Pelican Bay Services Division "signing off" on the permit to ensure continuity. _- Mr. Wu, Seagate Homeowners Association, does not support the Plan, as the Associations members are opposed to the concept of canoe trail markers. Ms. Cravens, Sierra Club, supports the Plan, with the markers being integrated into the existing permit for the markers on the north end of the system. Mr. Sorey left the meeting at 3: 50 p.m. Gary McAlpin stated he would report back to the Coastal Advisory Committee and Board of County Commissioners on the findings, and seek direction from the BCC. Commissioner Hiller recommended that the findings be reported to the Pelican Bay Services Division as well. VII. Announcements with Follow up None 3 December 14, 2011 Pell L &JiceZision BoaApe2ai0n Correspondence No. 2 submitted by (Marcia Cravens / received 1/3/2012) Page 9 of 9 March 15, 2011 VIII. Next Meeting Date /Location TBD a• The Discussion ended at 4:00pm Clam Bay Discussion Group These minutes approved by the Discussion Group on as presented , or as amended rd PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 161 A 20 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 12/22/20114:03:22 PM AGENDA 3��91J O The agenda includes, but is not limited: J AN¢ o °? ?612 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call BY : ....................... 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Sessilgfhla ✓ 5. Administrator's Report Hiller a. Community Crosswalks Henning b. Community Landscaping Coyle c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways Coletta d. South Berm Restoration Permitting e. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach f. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Update b. Announcements Misc. Cones: 7. Committee Reports 112 Date: 8. Old Business 9. New Business 1f ^Z Z {� 2 is item # :� 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Cvt,)iesto: 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 12/22/20114:03:22 PM 161 E PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 A eu LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. G'l 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson absent JohnIaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association James Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation REVISED AGENDA 851 O'Brien) ij Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes December 7. 2011 ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron, Gibson, and Hansen all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL 161,2 A,20 '' IMr. Chandler made a motion seconded by Vice Chairman Cravens to amend the agenda to have Mr. Steve11 Feldhaus present a Clam Bay update first. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. CLAM BAY UPDATE Mr. Steve Feldhaus, Chairman, Pelican Bay Foundation's Clam Bay Ad Hoc Committee informed the Board that the Seagate Property Owners Association initiated a lawsuit under a Florida Statute that authorizes individuals and homeowners associations to seek enforcement of agency actions when agencies themselves refuse to act. Seagate has asked a Collier County Circuit Court Judge to enforce what they contend is a requirement of the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Seagate maintains that the 1998 permit requires marking the main channel from Seagate to Clam Pass with red and green lateral navigation markers. In the past, the County sought to do what Seagate is seeking to do, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) agreed, and FDEP was ready to issue a permit. However the Pelican Bay community actively fought the action and through a political compromise persuaded the County to work with the broader community to come up with an appropriate alternative marker system. With the exception of Seagate, there was agreement that canoe trail markers and informational signs were appropriate for Clam Bay. The Board of County Commissioners agreed and in June 2011, authorized the Coastal Zone Management department to apply for a canoe trail marker permit that was approved by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), FDEP, and ACOE. In November 2011, Seagate filed a complaint with Collier County Circuit Court requesting an administrative hearing in opposition of the FDEP action approving installation of canoe trail markers. In his opinion, the 1998 permit does not require red and green navigational markers, but the outcome will be determined by a judge. However, the 1998 permit authorized the Services Division to implement the CBRMP that contains one reference about marking the main channel in accordance with USCG standards, the sole basis for Seagate's argument. If this language is removed then there is no further mention of navigational markers. By its very terms, the CBRMP is a dynamic document that the Services Division continues to be responsible for implementing and it should be reviewed and revised as circumstances change. The County and r ory agencies agreed that canoe trail markers and informational signage are appropriate for Clam Bay. He strongly reco d that the Services Division work with County staff and County attorneys to propose an appropriate modification to to remove the sole basis that supports Seagate's lawsuit. Mr. Feldhaus clarified that the lawsuit only involves FDEP, not ACOE. The 1998 FDEP pe or' odification of the CMRMP with agency approval. However, FDEP and other agencies approved installation of it markers and informational signs, so there should be no objection. The judge would determine whether ther it vi used on the evidence provided by Seagate and language in the permit. The judge would also ask FDEP not enforce the requirement. As a former litigator, and after consulting several other attorneys and fo judg re , he advised that if the Services Division does not take the recommended and very specific action to CB en there is some risk that Seagate prevails and a judge orders installation of red and green navigational AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia made a presentation stressing red and gre ACOE and USCG, canoe trail markers satisfy the requirements of 851 have safe passage. According to Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 161 December 7, 2011 Mr. Bob Naegele was concerned if the Services Division takes the recommended action it might impede the Board of County Commissioners from returning control of Clam Bay to the Services Division. Mr. Tim Hall said that his firm was responsible for implementation of the Plan, not development of it. The firm did eventually address the statement in question through the canoe trail markers. He indicated the statement was in the Plan because dredging would place a channel to an operational structure, the drawbridge. The USCG requires the approach marked so that boats know where to go before the bridge. However considering the drawbridge was seldom used, in 1999, the USCG did not require red and green markers be installed and in 2000, the canoe trail markers were permitted. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed Mr. Feldhaus' recommendation. Members expressed concerns that a modification of the Plan could be seen by a judge as gratuitous. However, most members were concerned with not taking action to modify the Plan as recommended by Mr. Feldhaus. Language would be drafted and general consensus was to review, discuss further and vote on approval at the January 4 meeting. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to authorize the Chairman and Administrator to work with the Foundation and County to seek a modification of the 1998 permit as indicated toda . The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2011 CLAM BAY & LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the October 26, 2011 Clam Bay & Landscape Water Management Subcommittees Joint Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimous) in favor passing the motion. NOVEMBER 2, 2011 BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the November 2, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. installed to call attention to drivers of the new four -way stop. 851 �j L61 1, " Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes December 7, 2011 PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff obtained bids from two contractors on the County's list and the pricing for asphalt on both bids were more than $75,000 over the engineers' original estimate or alternatively, staff could explore whether Bateman contractors are interested in preparing a proposal. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PROJECT STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that a meeting is scheduled today at 4 p.m. with the consultants and Special Counsel Frank Matthews to discuss permit requirements in advance of the agencies pre - application meetings. Staff would provide an update January 4. PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD RESURFACING STATUS Mr. Dorrill reported that staff received a draft executive summary from County staff that states their intent to phase -in resurfacing work and repayment of eligible expenses in FY 15/16 and FY 16/17. Additional cost to protect the brick pavers is $20,000 and is not eligible for reimbursement. Mr. Chandler said the Chairman's article in the Pelican Bay Post committed the Board to holding public workshops in Season and he does not see a need to approve moving forward until the Board has an opportunity to review and comment on the backup material provided. He pointed out the vendor proposals show this project will cost $1.2 million vs. $1.5 million previously estimated. However, bicycle lane striping is an additional $70,000. Chairman Dallas said most comments he has heard regarding loaning the County funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard have been negative. Arguments against included the Services Division would set a precedent by paying for a project that is the County's responsibility; the County could default on repayment; funding deficit could defer implementation of Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects; project is for cosmetic, not structural purposes; and is frivolous spending. He suggested the Board discuss and decide whether to move forward or table this project. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Thomas Brown said the Services Division should not loan the County funds for public road maintenance. find out if the road is structurally sound by obtaining an independent engineering evaluation. Mr. Dorrill pointed out the reason the Board was having this conversation is because the County av plan to maintain roads in the foreseeable future and is also grossly underfunded. His underst oday Board's consensus is to wait until structural problems are exhibited. He did not recomme a use I Boulevard is a high - volume arterial road and it would wear -away quickly. If w d, h en ed an i engineering evaluation be done. For discussion January 4, comparison purp find whether an i evaluation is necessary, Mr. Dorrill would obtain additional information regar ocesses done at where the road is falling apart and Pelican Bay Boulevard where it appe e a tic issues vs. structural pr( obtain an updated list of Pelican Bay roads scheduled for resurfacing ance department. 8515 1612 A 20 Pelican Bay Services Division Bard Regular Session Minutes December 7. 2011 Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to table current negotiations with Collier County to loan the County the funds to resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard until some future date. The Board voted unanimous[ in favor assin the motion. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Dorrill reported that community landscaping projects are nearing completion. At the renovated areas, staff installed new pop -up stream irrigation heads that conserve water. Mr. Jerry Moffatt was concerned about when sod and plants would be replaced where removed to construct ADA ramps at the Hammock Oak and Oakmont crossings. Mr. Lukasz replied substantial landscaping work would be complete by the end of next week. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Dorrill reported that the County's does not have excess grant funds to remove exotics south of Clam Pass. He recommended the Board direct staff to obtain a bid from the County's contractor, Earth Balance to do additional work for the Services Division north of the Pass. Mr. James Hoppensteadt reported the Foundation has given the County approval to remove exotics on Foundation property. Mr. Tim Hall confirmed the Clam Bay channel maintenance permit requires exotic removal. However agencies recognize the impossibility of 100% removal and allow exotics to cover 2 -5% of the area. Ms. Marcia Cravens suggested the Board utilize Mr. Hall, already on board to remove exotics. Vice Chairman Cravens suggested the Board utilize trained volunteers to remove exotics and replant native plants. Staff would work with Mr. Hall to identify additional exotic removal areas and report back on January 4. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported that one -half of the annual assessment revenue was received. Of note, seasonal expenses for fertilizer and herbicide were within $400 of the year -to -date budget, but this was expected. Operating Fund payroll expenses are understated because it does not reflect recent activity. The street lighting fund shows an insurance payment to pay for damages to Chairman Dallas assigned Ms. O'Brien to the Budget Subcommittee. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced the Board of County Commissioners meet December 16; and next Services Division Board meeting is January 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Dr. Trecker reviewed the Board's November 2 discussion regarding i Board voted not to take any action. 8516 oard meets regulations and that the Services Division Board Pelican Bay Se Regular Session Minutes g December 7, 2011 Dr. Trecker reported that what is proposed in the County's permit application to dredge Clam Pass in his opinion should cause no harm. Rather than discuss at great length today, he suggested that after the Clam Bay annual monitoring report is issued scheduling a workshop that would involve presentations by Messrs. Tim Hall and Ken Humiston. Mr. Hall said that he expects the annual report complete by mid - December and available to the Board January 4. Ms. Cravens alleged the County withheld pertinent information when it submitted the permit application. Ms. O'Brien requested Dr. Trecker provide a copy of the permit application. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Ms. Womble reported the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee (SPQ met to discuss conceptual plans to improve The Commons and Community Center; including developing green space, tree canopies, communitywide fiber optic internet technology; and voted to recommend to the Foundation Board to engage the services of a civil engineer. Mr. Moffatt reported that the Facilities Committee recommended supporting Foundation staff opinion to not make changes the commissary kitchen at The Commons and explore expanding the Sandpiper kitchen instead. NEW BUSINESS OUR HEALTH IN PELICAN BAY Ms. Womble reported at the last Foundation Board meeting, Mr. Dave Ritger presented information regarding studies that concluded "tailpipe pollution" is the cause of health problems that might be prevented by constructing a barrier between the highway and residential area that would trap and reduce pollutants in adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Dave Ritger expressed frustration because no groups in Pelican Bay are studying whether a barrier is needed along U.S. 41 and requested the Board have a study done that focuses on health issues caused by tailpipe pollution. Mr. Hoppensteadt and the Board acknowledged the U.S. 41 barrier project is the Foundation's responsibility. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION OFFICE SPACE IN PROPOSED COMMUNITY CENTER ADDITION Ms. O'Brien reported that the Foundation is proposing Services Division office space at the Community Center and suggested the Board discuss and provide input. Mr. Hoppensteadt said the Foundation welcomed the Board's feedback and the space would be rent free. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Boa oted un ly in favor, nassini, the motion. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 851 by LRJ 12/29/20113:12:00 PM 1612 A eU 4^ P PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD SPECIAL SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Special Session on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at one o'clock in the afternoon at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson absent John Iaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator absent Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker absent Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Discussion of Proposed Resolution Regarding Pending Legal Action Concerning Markers in Clam Bay 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL With the exception of Dr. Trecker, and Messrs. Baron and Gibson, all members were present. INTRODUCTION Chairman Dallas explained the sole issue of the meeting was to discuss and decide whether to support the proposed resolution regarding pending legal action initiated by Seagate concerning markers in Clam Bay. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia supported the Pelican Bay Foundation defending the community against re& ' green markers. However the Board of County Commissioners is ex- officio governing body of the Pelie� I , eryices Division Board and sole authority to modify the 1998 permit. All regulatory agencies stated the 19 p t does not require red and green markers. He does not agree this Board should take swift action tha they urt coin ew as disingenuous and suggested postponing a vote to support the proposed resolution. �. Ms. Jane DeFalco, 16 -year resident of Pelican Bay supported Dr. Raia's asiton. Ms. Mary Johnson was concerned the Services Division's support £ �,,e tgWution would enshrine "sign pollution ". x No one else in the audience wished to speak and Chairman Dallas, closed audience comments session. CONCERNING MARKERS IN CLAM BAY Mr. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation presented the Foundation's position regarding the pending legal action concerning markers in Clam Bay. The Foundation recommended the Services Division support the proposed resolution that seeks to memorialize the Services Division's endorsement of the existing canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay authorized by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The issue is how to properly mark Clam Bay. Although all approving authorities recently authorized canoe trail markers and informational signs as appropriate markers in Clam Bay, the Board must recognize this position was not always universally held. Previously and despite the community's objections, the Board of County Commissioners, Clam Bay Advisory Committee, Coastal Advisory Committee, and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) agreed red and green lateral navigation markers were appropriate markers for Clam Bay, so there is ambiguity with how the language can be interpreted. As the Board discussed December 7, under a Florida Statute that authorizes individuals and homeowners associations to seek enforcement of agency actions, Seagate contends the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit issued by FDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP) requires red and green lateral navigation markers in Clam Bay. The CBRMP states that if the main channel is marked, it must be marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) standards. This language does not exist in the FDEP permit. This language does not exist in the CBRMP implementation section. This Board is the authority to implement the CBRMP. It is the Foundation's position that the Services Division has a duty to amend this language because it has caused confusion. He urged the Board not to waive its authority and opportunity to amend the CBRMP and support the proposed resolution. Chairman Dallas explained the deadline for the legal filing is December 19, so this issue must be dealt with today. There are two parts to the proposed resolution. One is that the Board supports the Foundation, and the other part is amending the CBRMP so that the language does not exist, remove any doubt, and render Seagate's argument moot. The Foundation would provide the Services Division with adequate representation vs. the County Attorney who does not have a vested interest. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the fesolution recommending to amend specific language in the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Managgmcnt Plan and to remove any Scriveners errors in the document. The Board voted unanimously in f or, passing the motion. ADJOURNMENT 'I Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjo So'ard voted'I unanimously in favor, Passim the motion. Aft Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 8519 by LR1 12/22/201110:55:43 AM 1612' k2U Pel n..ga Service�ivisi('n Bogard Special Session Minutes December 14, 2011 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING PENDING LEGAL ACTION CONCERNING MARKERS IN CLAM BAY Mr. James Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation presented the Foundation's position regarding the pending legal action concerning markers in Clam Bay. The Foundation recommended the Services Division support the proposed resolution that seeks to memorialize the Services Division's endorsement of the existing canoe trail markers and informational signs in Clam Bay authorized by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The issue is how to properly mark Clam Bay. Although all approving authorities recently authorized canoe trail markers and informational signs as appropriate markers in Clam Bay, the Board must recognize this position was not always universally held. Previously and despite the community's objections, the Board of County Commissioners, Clam Bay Advisory Committee, Coastal Advisory Committee, and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) agreed red and green lateral navigation markers were appropriate markers for Clam Bay, so there is ambiguity with how the language can be interpreted. As the Board discussed December 7, under a Florida Statute that authorizes individuals and homeowners associations to seek enforcement of agency actions, Seagate contends the 1998 Joint Coastal Permit issued by FDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan ( CBRMP) requires red and green lateral navigation markers in Clam Bay. The CBRMP states that if the main channel is marked, it must be marked in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) standards. This language does not exist in the FDEP permit. This language does not exist in the CBRMP implementation section. This Board is the authority to implement the CBRMP. It is the Foundation's position that the Services Division has a duty to amend this language because it has caused confusion. He urged the Board not to waive its authority and opportunity to amend the CBRMP and support the proposed resolution. Chairman Dallas explained the deadline for the legal filing is December 19, so this issue must be dealt with today. There are two parts to the proposed resolution. One is that the Board supports the Foundation, and the other part is amending the CBRMP so that the language does not exist, remove any doubt, and render Seagate's argument moot. The Foundation would provide the Services Division with adequate representation vs. the County Attorney who does not have a vested interest. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the fesolution recommending to amend specific language in the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Managgmcnt Plan and to remove any Scriveners errors in the document. The Board voted unanimously in f or, passing the motion. ADJOURNMENT 'I Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjo So'ard voted'I unanimously in favor, Passim the motion. Aft Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 8519 by LR1 12/22/201110:55:43 AM PELICAN BAY SERVICES ADVISORY MEETING 1612 A JANUARY4, 2012 Name: Elaine Daravingas (med5 @comcast.net) Chair, Landscaping and Grounds Committee for the Montenero Why here today: Over the busy holiday weekend, a committee member drew my attention to the article on p. 25 -26 of the Pelican Bay Post updating the current activities of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Of particular interest was the PATHWAYS WIDENING PROJECT of which there are many misconceptions using the term "pathways." [from bike paths on the street -4 ft. either side, to berm widening, etc.]. Also, rumors that concerned residents, of which there are many, do not need to worry since this project will require a vote to proceed and thus adds to the lack of immediate resident input to the PBSD. CONCERNS: Pelican Bay Improvement Projects had 3 main goals: safety, property values, and quality of life Property values: The Montenero is scheduled to lose the most trees in this project -6- [1/2 of the 12 oaks the stand in a line in front of our wall. Our front entrance will be compromised. The widening will remove some of the grass which frames our front boulevard gardens and will butt up against the ficus hedge on the south. Safety and quality of life: -- Montenero service entrance: Current plan moves the sidewalk closer to our wall and reduces the critical visibility buffer of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the walks especially with vehicles entering and exiting at the same time. The Montenero has about 133 units and considerable service traffic and use of this entrance by the residents and services vehicles. -- Widening the walks to 8 ft., while giving more room for bicycles and pedestrians to use the same walk, will also give more freedom to bicycles to move at a faster speed, encourage more bicycle traffic, and potentially create a more hazardous condition. -- Although the Wilson- Miller study justified the project with photos of use, does non - season use of the walks, which is most of the year when there is less traffic on the boulevard allowing for safe biking, justify the expenditure. REQUEST FOR ACTION: I. To put the project on hold until the Pelican Bay Services Division conducts a formal survey of residents to get their feedback. To listen to what the people want and not make decisions on studies done by companies that do not live here. There are many irate residents. 2. To not slip this project under the radar but to have the plans out on display at the Community Center to fill this information gap. 3. To consider abandoning the project altogether for now and to look at alternatives in a few years down the line to alleviate bike traffic when the paving of the boulevard will be undertaken. There is no urgency to undertake this project. 1612 A 2u ResnickUsa From: Helmut Simon [helmut @heimuthedi.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:26 AM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Widening of the path along PB Blvd. I am horrified to read that you plan to widen this path. It is absolutely not neccessary because usage is very low. Have you done a survey of how many people use this path at any given time ? 1 look down on the path from the 21 st floor, most of the time it is not used at al 1. Driving along PB Blvd. I count the number of people using it; the highest I have counted was 12 between my building and the end of the Blvd, and that is at peak time in the morning when people are exercising. Please do a survey and you will come to the conclusion that widening is totally unneccessary. H. Simon St. Laurent =j Q 04 qMMUM NO "q. Pelican Bay Beach Exotics Overview January 4, 2011 =•, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. -- marine & environmental consulting 1612 q 2U `J D .J cvi 9 W 0 cU Ott :v �o r-� 1611 q 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from. Property Appraiser Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Assets 2,821,541.21 161,2 A 20 $ 2,821,541.21 $ 2,821,541.21 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 392.50 85,899.33 1,292,615.54 1,442,633.84 $ 86,291.83 2,735,249.38 $ 2,821,541.21 161 & ,A Lu Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 30, 2011 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 666,300.00 553,029.00 555,424.10 2,395.10 Special Assessment- Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,583,474.00 1,590,176.45 6,702.45 Special Assessment Past Due 2,603.19 2,603.19 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - Surplus Property Sales - Insurance Payment for Damages - Interest 15,300.00 1,530.00 1,361.63 (168.37) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,260,333.00 $ 3,271,865.37 $ 11,532.37 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 6,653.57 $ 3,746.43 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 - - - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 1,200.00 1,100.00 100.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 100.00 - 100.00 Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 6,700.00 6,216.00 484.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,000.00 504.50 495.50 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 200.00 107.69 92.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 3,800.00 3,339.00 461.00 Insurance - General 1,200.00 300.00 - 300.00 Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 500.00 143.49 356.51 Training and Education 1,100.00 300.00 25.00 275.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 67,400.00 $ 60,339.25 $ 7,060.75 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 33,200.00 $ 22,686.80 $ 10,513.20 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 3,000.00 236.25 2,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 1,748.00 - 1,748.00 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 2,123.00 - 21123.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 5,700.00 - 5,700.00 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 300.00 286.42 13.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 13,600.00 14,623.00 (1,023.00) Telephone 500.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,200.00 1,609.87 1,590.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 23.00 - 23.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 90.00 - 90.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 1,400.00 356.79 1,043.21 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 2,200.00 621.81 1,578.19 Tree Triming 30,000.00 7,500.00 4,992.00 2,508.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 400.00 529.56 (129.56) Page 1 of 3 1.611Q A 2U Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 100.00 491.34 (391.34) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 22,700.00 16,115.11 6,584.89 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 400.00 161.75 238.25 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,100.00 2,258.45 (158.45) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 99,884.00 $ 65,041.23 $ 34,842.77 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 29,500.00 12,300.00 12,744.00 (444.00) Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 6,854.96 $ 3,845.04 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 - - - Office Automation 14,100.00 5,700.00 3,500.00 2,200.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 8,600.00 7,003.00 1,597.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,000.00 506.50 493.50 Postage 3,000.00 300.00 (92.28) 392.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 4,200.00 3,605.05 594.95 Insurance - General 500.00 - - - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 600.00 214.97 385.03 Training and Education 1,500.00 400.00 25.00 375.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 32,100.00 $ 21,617.20 $ 10,482.80 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 201,800.00 $ 120,780.05 $ 81,019.95 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 23,300.00 20,580.31 2,719.69 Pest Control 5,000.00 1,300.00 800.00 500.00 Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 600.00 112.62 487.38 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 12,300.00 12,744.00 (444.00) Temporary Labor 190,100.00 59,400.00 61,708.36 (2,308.36) Telephone 3,200.00 800.00 430.38 369.62 Electricity 3,400.00 900.00 411.21 488.79 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 3,000.00 3,448.01 (448.01) Rent Equipment 2,500.00 600.00 700.29 (100.29) Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 - 76.93 (76.93) Insurance - General 8,800.00 2,200.00 - 2,200.00 Insurance - Auto 10,000.00 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 400.00 - 400.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 6,300.00 6,923.48 (623.48) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 16,800.00 8,125.47 8,674.53 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 200.00 - 200.00 Tree Triming 63,600.00 57,200.00 49,759.25 7,440.75 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 1,900.00 1,969.32 (69.32) Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 800.00 644.34 155.66 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 21,900.00 22,342.37 (442.37) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 27,500.00 27,953.10 (453.10) Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 23,900.00 17,547.40 6,352.60 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 1,500.00 - 1,500.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 7,500.00 1,722.58 5,777.42 Painting Supplies 800.00 200.00 - 200.00 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 800.00 - 800.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 800.00 1,326.64 (526.64) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 2,300.00 1,714.64 585.36 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 478,700.00 $ 361,820.75 $ 116,879.25 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 678,084.00 $ 508,818.43 $ 169,265.57 Page 2 of 3 1612 A 2U Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ - $ $ General Improvements - - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ - $ $ - Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ $ Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ - $ - $ - Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ - $ - $ Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 678,084.00 $ 508,818.43 $ 169,265.57 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 43,780.00 42,912.01 867.99 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 37,554.54 2,760.46 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,123,995.00 $ 1,120,366.55 $ 3,628.45 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 1,802,079.00 $ 1,629,184.98 $ 172,894.02 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 1,458,254.00 $ 1,642,680.39 $ 184,426.39 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 30, 2011 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenue (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets $ 500,895.30 1612 A Gu $ 500,895.30 $ 500,895.30 Liabilities and Fund Balance 2,118.27 $ 2,118.27 194,157.20 304,619.83 498,777.03 $ 500,895.30 1612 N cu Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Pelican Bay Services 15,600.00 10,649.56 4,950.44 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Municipal Services Taxing Unit - - - Income Statement w/ Budget - December 30, 2011 800.00 200.00 - Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2011 400.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 (Unaudited) 44,200.00 11,100.00 8,769.00 2,331.00 Insurance - General Annual - YTD YTD Insurance - Auto 900.00 - Budget - Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,300.00 1,100.00 605.02 494.98 Fuel and Lubricants Carryforward $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 436,800.00 Personal Safety Equipment 355,992.00 356,844.56 $ 852.56 Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax 64.40 15.36 $ 15.36 Insurance Claim 3,899.00 (199.00) 10,366.50 $ 10,366.50 Interest 4,500.00 180.00 178.47 $ (1.53) Total Operating Revenues 598,900.00 513,772.00 525,004.89 11,232.89 Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 10,400.00 $ 6,653.51 $ 3,746.49 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 6,725.00 6,216.00 $ 509.00 Telephone 3,900.00 $ 1,000.00 389.04 $ 610.96 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 100.00 107.69 $ (7.69) Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 121100.00 $ 4,000.00 3,489.65 $ 510.35 Insurance - General 300.00 $ - - $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 200.00 15.39 $ 184.61 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 300.00 - $ 300.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 93,700.00 25,375.00 19,521.28 5,853.72 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 62,500.00 15,600.00 10,649.56 4,950.44 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 200.00 - 200.00 Telephone 400.00 100.00 72.08 27.92 Electricity 44,200.00 11,100.00 8,769.00 2,331.00 Insurance - General 800.00 - - Insurance - Auto 900.00 - - Building Maintenace & Repairs 1,700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,300.00 1,100.00 605.02 494.98 Fuel and Lubricants 1,200.00 300.00 106.80 193.20 Other Equipment Repairs 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 Other Operating Supplies 64.40 (64.40) Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) Page 1 of 2 1612 A 20 . Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 2,500.00 1,312.18 1,187.82 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 34,800.00 25,478.04 9,321.96 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 60,175.00 44,999.32 15,175.68 Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures Total Operating Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Future Construction Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 60,375.00 44,999.32 15,375.68 13,500.00 7,155.00 7,179.74 (24.74) 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - 22,000.00 - - 357,400.00 325,050.00 320,179.74 4,870.26 598,900.00 385,425.00 365,179.06 20,245.94 - 128,347.00 159,825.83 31,478.83 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services 161 Z feu Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 30, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 399,258.48 399,258.48 $ 399,258.48 Liabilities and Fund Balance 16,384.75 303,213.58 79,660.15 16,384.75 382,873.73 $ 399,258.48 1612' A 20 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 30, 2011 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: $ 163,368.75 $ Other Contractural Services Carry Forward $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ Special Assessment 127,100.00 105,493.00 105,927.50 Special Assessment Past Due 42,079.17 7,500.00 496.47 Fund 111 34,000.00 - - Transfer from Tax Collector Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 939.67 Interest 700.00 200.00 320.74 Total Operating Revenues $ 451,311.88 $ 395,204.88 $ 397,196.26 $ Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees $ 163,368.75 $ Other Contractural Services 45,000.00 70,151.60 Tree Trimming 22,421.75 29,000.00 Other Equipment Repairs 451,311.88 $ 349.77 Aerial Photography 42,079.17 7,500.00 Minor Operating Net Profit /(Loss) 588.01 Other Operating Supplies 330,601.88 1,000.00 Total Clam Bay Restoration $ 271,958.13 $ Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees $ 7,253.75 $ Other Contractual Services 143,000.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 27,200.00 $ 17,586.25 $ 11,700.00 4,992.00 4,800.00 - 43,700.00 $ 22,578.25 $ 100.00 $ - 1,200.00 - 434.50 496.47 939.67 120.74 1,991.38 9,613.75 6,708.00 4,800.00 21,121.75 100.00 1,200.00 1,300.00 $ - $ 1,300.00 45,000.00 $ 22,578.25 $ 22,421.75 2,145.00 $ 2,118.55 $ 26.45 1,558.00 1,482.37 75.63 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 19,603.00 $ 19,500.92 $ 102.08 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 64,603.00 $ 42,079.17 $ 22,523.83 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 330,601.88 $ 355,117.09 $ 24,515.21 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - December 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets 1612 A Zu $ 2,738,952.05 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 20,934.03 188,354.50 2,682,848.52 (53,185.00) 2,738,952.05 $ 2,738,952.05 209,288.53 2,529,663.52 $ 2,738,952.05 1612 A +20 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - December 30, 2011 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2011 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Lake Bank Restoration Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Licenses and Permits Traffic Signs Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 275,477.00 276,574.45 1,097.45 19,500.00 2,145.00 2,205.76 60.76 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,267,506.04 $ 3,322,151.25 $ 54,645.21 $ 132,154.37 $ 33,038.59 $ 8,844.65 $ 24,193.94 85,000.00 - - - 2,978,637.97 496,439.66 340,147.47 156,292.19 4,034.04 (4,034.04) 29,606.00 (29,606.00) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 50,000.00 - - - 7,004.18 (7,004.18) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,326.10 1,242.60 21,323.00 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 569,046.95 $ 428,962.44 $ 140,084.51 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,800.00 17,500.00 $ 34,600.00 $ 6,180.00 $ 5,531.53 $ 648.47 4,080.00 3,896.51 183.49 10,260.00 $ 9,428.04 $ 831.96 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 579,306.95 $ 438,390.48 $ $ - $ 2,688,199.09 $ 2,883,760.77 $ Page 1 of 1 140,916.47 195,561.68 t' 1612 /42U Discussion Of Potential 2013 PBSD CIP Projects The following are my thoughts about potential fiscal year 2013 CIP projects for PBSD. This is being written to begin our Budget discussions and to encourage members to think about their own CIP priorities. Crosswalks • If we build more crosswalks, we should do them in conjunction with any being done by the Foundation. • Since the Foundation is only starting to consider the redesign of the Commons, and since they will do that work after any work on the Community Center, I don't expect the Foundation to be ready to build a crosswalk at the Commons before 2013, if then. • When we do decide to build PBSD crosswalks, I personally would do: • Myra Daniels & PBB based on its high traffic. • North Pointe Drive & PBB, for consistency with others on PBB. ■ I also think this location should include the granite cobbles, to be consistent with other crosswalks where there are not stop signs. • I personally would NOT do: • The two more proposed on Gulf Park Drive, since we have heard little from residents encouraging these 2 crosswalks. • Crayton Road & PBB, since it is very close to Myra Daniels and I think redundant. Widening Pathways • We are scheduled to widen to 8 feet the first segment on the west side of PBB from the Commons to North Tram Station. • I would wait for resident and Board reactions in the 2012/2013 Season before formally deciding to do additional areas. • Nonetheless I would include the widening of the remainder of the west side of PBB into the 2013 PBSD Budget, with the final decision to be made during the 2012/2013 Season and scheduled for spring /summer 2013. e U Landscaping 1612 A • I think we should continue rebuilding our PBB landscaping as resources and staff time allow. • Staff should be asked for their recommendations regarding: • Potential locations, & • Possible timing. • If possible, more rebuilding should occur in spring /summer 2012 (this year's budget). • And each year thereafter. 2012 PBSD Budget Combining all the thoughts above, I think we should build the following CIP items into the 2013 PBSD Budget. • Two crosswalks at Myra Daniels /PBB and North Pointe Drive /PBB, assuming the Foundation is ready to do their crosswalk(s). • Widening the remainder of the pathways on the west side of PBB to 8 feet. • Continuing rebuilding PBB landscaping, as recommended by staff. • And continuing funding for the Street Light replacements at the same level as 2012. It is my hope that this discussion will trigger further discussions about possible CIP priorities first among Budget Committee members, and then among the full PBSD Board. 1612 A eU PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent o &I C LIN 3 FEB(,, 6 1_Ujil' BY........................ ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as presentedThe Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. 8520 Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. / Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Fiala I/ Hiller AGENDA Henning. —�-� 1. Pledge of Allegiance Coyle 2. Roll Call Coletta J� 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 7, 2011 Regular Session b. December 14, 2011 Special Session 5. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Permitting e. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach f. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Update b. Announcements Misc. Comes; 7. Committee Reports 8. Old Business Date: (I b 12 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments Item; Le T Z>A 2O 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjourn Copies t0: ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were present. AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as presentedThe Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. 8520 161 e A eU Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes January 4, 2012 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2011 BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the December 7, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor assin the motion. DECEMBER 14, 2011 BOARD SPECIAL SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the December 14, 2011 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Special Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor assin the motion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported he was very pleased overall with the contractor (Bateman). The project was substantially complete prior to the end of the year, but this does not mean it is complete. There are minor issues that the contractor is addressing including making adjustments to align the cobble paver rumble strips. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident reported several residents have complained about how noisy the crosswalks are and asked if a decibel reading was done. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt responded that the sound is unusual and decibel readings were done in November but did not register as increasing decibel levels. Another reading is planned for February. Mr. Dorrill noted the rumble sound is intentional and meant to create a "subconscious impression" that there are midblock crossings, but not necessarily what engineers define as traffic calming, for example speed bumps. Ms. Mary Bolen, Sanctuary resident observed the signage at the Glenview crossing causes confusion. Mr. Lukasz explained the signage that is installed is required by the state. Mr. Bruce Beauchamp, who worked at a paving company for 43 years inspected the Oakmont crossing and reported some of the bricks have broken edges. He stressed the importance of checking installed bricks for damage and recommended before final payment is made that the contractor replaces the bricks that are not intact. Chairman Dallas said the Budget Subcommittee will discuss his document regarding potential Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Community Improvement Plan (CIP) projects January 17 and encouraged the audience to attend. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING With the exception of the North Tram station crossing where stream irrigation improvements are in- process, Mr. Dorrill reported that the landscaping associated with the crosswalks project is complete. Work was performed in- house, saving considerably on labor costs vs. outsourcing. Based on invoices received, materials cost $29,400. Mr. Lukasz estimated the total cost for materials at all seven crossings would be closer to $60,000. Ms. Elaine Daravingas, Montenero resident observed white flags in the ground at the North Tram station. Mr. Lukasz explained the white flags mark the irrigation line. Ms. Mollie Moffatt conveyed by way of Mr. Gerald Moffatt her concerns regarding non - removal of "tall and woody" landscaping, and the lack of color and high maintenance of some new landscaping. 8521 - N eU Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 161 January 4, 2012 Mr. Gerald Moffatt said noise from the midblock crosswalks was expected and as a tie -in, the CIP recommended installing brick pavers at the three community entrances on U.S. 41. Ms. Mary Johnson, St. Marissa resident favored Xeriscape -type landscaping. Mr. Dave Ritger, Oakmont resident recommended doing a survey before moving forward with more crosswalk projects and does not favor the colors chosen for landscaping. Chairman Dallas directed staff to look for funds that could be used for future landscaping projects. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported staff explored the possibility of obtaining a third proposal for the pathways project. Due to an increase in the cost of asphalt, the first two proposals received were priced almost double of the original estimate. Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB) engineers are preparing a more refined set of pathways specifications and schematic plans to obtain formal sealed bids and this process could take approximately 90 days. Mr. Bruce Beauchamp suggested the engineers consider root barriers and edging along the pathways. Mr. Lukasz explained the pathway plans call for installation of rigid root barriers with slow release herbicide which work better than flexible root barriers. Mr. Dorrill added that the pathways are the property of the Board of County Commissioners and responsibility for maintenance lies with the County. However the County does not have the funds. Ms. Daravingas said many residents do not understand what the pathways widening project is and need to be better educated about it. On behalf of Montenero residents, she expressed several concerns: 1) the six trees scheduled for removal will affect property values; 2) plans reduce visibility at the service entrance and encourage more bicycle traffic; and 3) traffic volume does not justify the expenditure. She recommended putting the project on hold until the Board does a survey. Mr. Andy Thomas, Montenero resident was concerned the crosswalks would not have flashing lights installed, favored a survey, but did not favor spending money on a project that is the County's responsibility. Chairman Dallas explained should a decision be made in the future to install flashing lights, conduits were installed at all crossings at the time of initial construction. Ms. Noreen Murray cautioned against implementing a survey because surveys must be designed to obtain proper feedback. Transparency is very important and residents are aware of the proposed project, so the Board should receive plenty of input and this is what the Board should evaluate. Ms. Marcia Cravens said surveys reach people who would not otherwise voice their sentiment. Dr. Ted Raia said reducing the travel lanes from 12 -10 feet and installing 4 feet wide bicycle lanes would reduce speeding, prefers bicycling in the roadway and installing "share the road" signs may be helpful. In addition, the Board should address Montenero residents concerns regarding tree removal and suggested curving the pathways to dodge the trees. Ms. O'Brien suggested placing Mr. Dorrill's recommendation to have civil engineers ABB prepare refined pathways specifications and plans for formal bids and until the Board can attain feedback by those directly affected. Dr. Trecker agreed and suggested forming a pathways subcommittee, or having staff visit individual associations affected by the pathways project. Chairman Dallas did not favor forming a pathways subcommittee, but liked the idea of having staff visit individual associations affected, adding that publishing informative articles in the Pelican Bay Post have been effective in obtaining feedback. Mr. Dorrill clarified there is no effort underway by staff to perform a survey and would move forward with having ABB refine the pathways specifications and schematic plans to obtain formal sealed bids. 8522 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 A 2U January 4, 2012 Mr. Lukasz would visit individual associations adjacent to the pathways to review the plans and hear residents concerns. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING Mr. Dorrill reported the Army Corps of Engineers determined the south berm restoration project is eligible for a nationwide permit. This is a simple process for this maintenance /restoration project to reestablish the side slope and improve the toe with rip rap within a private and platted drainage easement. Over time, mangroves have encroached on this area. Further staking and surveying will be done to determine the extent of mangrove encroachment and establish how much silt has filled in the swale prior to contacting Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) whether a letter of exemption is needed to trim mangroves; and South Florida Water management District (SFWMD) whether there are dredge and fill obligations. Mr. Tim Hall confirmed there is no public comment period for this type of permit. Ms. Cravens was concerned about the use of a nationwide permit in a National Resource Protection Area (NRPA) or conservation area, and made a public records request for all documents related to the south berm permit. Mr. Dorrill clarified the south berm maintenance and restoration work would be performed in a drainage easement not the conservation area; and recommended Ms. Cravens make a public records request in accordance with Florida Statue. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported on the conditions of exotic invasive vegetation along the beach and estimated cost for removal. He presented an aerial map that divides about fifteen acres of beach into five sections from the north marked R36 to the south marked R40. From the north end, Scaevola is prevalent covering 35 -40% of the area denoted by markers R36 to R38; and 15 -20% of the area denoted by markers R39 to R40. Overall estimated Brazilian Pepper coverage was 2% and there are 15 Australian pines. Estimated costs for removal of exotics were dependent upon method used. The Exotic debris removal method was estimated to cost up to $1,000 /acre per treatment. Exotics "sprayed in place" with herbicide method was estimated to cost approximately $400 /acre per treatment. He recommended several treatments to bring exotics under control then one maintenance treatment annually, to replace exotic invasive vegetation with native, noninvasive sea oats and sea grape to maintain continuity, and clarified Coastal Zone Management does have sufficient grant funds to remove exotics in remaining areas along the beach. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to direct the Budget Committee to include $5,000 in future budgets for maintenance and removal of exotic invasive plants along the beach. The Board voted unanimous) in favor passing the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported the monthly financial report ending December 2011 was also the end of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. The Services Division received 85% of assessment revenue including a delinquent tax payment with penalties. Total operating expenses are $169,000 below budget because 2011 final pay period and health insurance expenses have not posted. Staff would report the average monthly pay period expenses February 1. Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the December monthly financial report. The Board voted unanimouslv in favor Passing the motion. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CLAM BAY UPDATE Mr. James Hoppensteadt reported on January 10 the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider approving the Services Division's Clam Bay resolution recommending a modification of the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Regarding the Seagate lawsuit, there was no news and the dredging permit is still under environmental review. 8523 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612 A ?u January 4, 2012 Mr. Dorrill would attend the January 10 BCC meeting to represent the Services Division Board. Ms. Cravens recommended the Board provide support for the canoe trail markers, and an administrative modification of the 1998 Clam Bay permit._ Chairman Dallas said this Board's Clam Bay resolution provides support for Clam Bay issues. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meets January 10 at 1 p.m.; Commissioner Hiller will attend the January 11 Pelican Bay Property Owners Association meeting; Coastal Advisory Committee meets January 12; Budget Subcommittee meets January 17 at 3 p.m.; Strategic Planning Committee meets January 20 at 9 a.m.; Foundation Board meets January 27; and next Services Division meeting is February 1. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Dr. Trecker reported conservation groups have challenged proposed water quality regulations and administrative hearings are pending that could potentially delay the legislation from being enacted. February 21 at 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. the Clam Bay Subcommittee will meet and Tim Hall and Ken Humiston will make presentations of the most recent Clam Bay data regarding mangrove maintenance and dredging. Mr. Hall would prepare a draft of the Clam Bay annual report to distribute to the Board on February 1. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens reported Mr. Lukasz would make a presentation at the January 10 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting about the Pelican Bay water management system. The Subcommittee will also have a discussion about exotic invasive plants. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Ms. Womble reported the Strategic Planning Committee met January 10 and discussed schematic plans and estimated cost of the next step project to construct overlook areas along the berm; fiber optics; and The Commons reconfiguration. BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Levy reported the Budget Subcommittee will meet January 17 at 3 p.m. to kickoff the Fiscal Year 2013 budgeting process and schedule. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Dallas recapped the Board's December 7 decision to table the proposal to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard. NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Raia was concerned about Ms. Cravens' comments made about the 1998 permit and asked Mr. Hoppensteadt to relay the information to Mr. Feldhaus. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board review historical Pelican Bay documents regarding the surface water management permit. Ms. Mary Johnson suggested before moving forward with the pathways project the Board should get more feedback and consider other options that might affect less trees. 8524 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1 6 1 2 A eU January 4, 2012 Mary Bolen observed children disturbing the migratory birds on the beach and suggested installing informational signage to discourage such behavior. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, assin the motion and the meeting adjourned at 3:22 p.m. Keith f. D las, ChairtVn 8525 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 1/27/2012 1:59:08 PM 161 2 A eU 44 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 THE LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET TUESDAY, JANUARY 10 AT 1:00 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. Fiala Hiller !� Henning 4' W AGENDA Coyle Coletta The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Roll Call 2. Presentation by Kyle Lukasz on Pelican Bay's Water Management System 3. Discussion on Exotic Invasive Plants 4. Audience Comments Mist Corres: 5. Adjournment Date: 31 l 3 111 Item #: I L, -X z Al is Copies to: ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. 1/4/2012 10:55:43 AM Florida Exotic 2011 List of r— { s: 161 Pest Plant Council's Invasive Plant Species Purpose of the List: To focus attention on — ► the adverse effects exotic pest plants have on Florida's biodiversity and native plant communities, ► the habitat losses in natural areas from exotic pest plant infestations, ► the impacts on endangered species via habitat loss and alteration, ► the need for pest -plant management, ► the socio- economic impacts of these plants (e.g., increased wildfires or flooding in certain areas), ► changes in the severity of different pest plant infestations over time, ► providing information to help managers set priorities for research and control programs. CATEGORY I Invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives. This definition does not rely on the economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological damage caused. A eU FLEPPC List Definitions: Exotic – a species introduced to Florida, purposefully or accidentally, from a natural range outside of Florida. Native – a species whose natural range includes Florida. Naturalized exotic – an exotic that sustains itself outside cultivation (it is still exotic; it has not "become" native). 'Does not include Ficus microcarpa subsp. fuyuensis, which is sold as "Green Island Ficus" FLEPPC 2011 List of Invasive Plant Species — Summer/Fall 2011 FLEPPC Gov. Reg. Invasive exotic — an exotic Scientific Name Common Name Cat. List Dist. that not only has naturalized, Abrus precatorius rosary pea I N C, S Acacia auriculiformis earleaf acacia I C, S but is expanding on its Albizia julibrissin mimosa, silk tree t N, C own in Florida native plant Albizia lebbech woman's tongue I C, S communities. Addisia crenata (A. crenulata misapplied) coral ardisia I N, C, S Ardisia elliptica (A. humilis misapplied) shoebutton ardisia I N C, S Abbreviations: Asparagus aethiopicus (A. sprengeri; asparagus -fern I N, C, S A. densii lorus misapplied) Government List (Gov. List): Bauhinia variegata orchid tree I C, S P = Prohibited aquatic plant Bischofia javanica bishopwood I C, S by the Florida Department of Calophyllum antillanum Santa maria, mast wood, Alexandrian laurel I S Agriculture and Consumer (C. calaba and C. inophyllum misapplied) Casuarina equisetifolia Australian -pine, beach sheoak I P, N N, C, S Services; Casuarina glauca suckering Australian -pine, gray sheoak I P, N C, S N = Noxious weed listed Cinnamomum camphora camphor tree I N, C, S by Florida Department of Colocasia esculenta wild taro I N, C, S Agriculture & Consumer Colubrina asiatica lather leaf I N s Cupaniopsis anacardioides carrotwood I N C, S Services; Deparia petersenii Japanese false spleenwort I N, C U = Noxious weed listed by Dioscorea alata winged yam I N N, C, S U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dioscorea bulbifera air - potato I N N, C, S Eichhornia crassipes water- hyacinth I P N, C, S Regional Distribution (Reg. Dist.: Eugenia uniflora Surinam cherry 1 C, S N = north, C = central, Ficus microcarpa (F. nitida and laurel fig I C, S S = south, referring to each E retusa var. nitida misapplied)' species' current distribution in Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla I P, U N, C, S Hygrophila polysperma green hygro I P, U N, C, 5 general regions of Florida (not Hymenachne amplexicaulis West Indian marsh grass I N, C, S its potential range in the state). Imperatacylindrica (I. brasiliensis misapplied) cogon grass I N, U N, C, S Please refer to the map below. Ipomoea aquatica water- spinach I P, U C Jasminum dichotomum Gold Coast jasmine I C, S Jasminum fluminense Brazilian jasmine I C, S Lantana camara (= L. strigocamara) lantana, shrub verbena 1 N, C, S Ligustrum lucidum glossy privet I N, C Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet, hedge privet I N, C, S north Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle I N, C, S Ludwigiaperuviana Peruvian primrosewillow I N, C, S central Lumnitzera racemosa kripa; white - flowered mangrove; black mangrove I S Luziola subintegra Tropical American water grass I S Lygodiumjaponicum Japanese climbing fern I N N, C, S south Lygodium microphyllum Old World climbing fern I N, U C, S 'Does not include Ficus microcarpa subsp. fuyuensis, which is sold as "Green Island Ficus" FLEPPC 2011 List of Invasive Plant Species — Summer/Fall 2011 Changes to the 2011 List: New Listings to Category I: Deparia petersenii (Japanese false spleenwort) Documented in numerous near exotic -free ravines in the central panhandle, it is displacing native flora and likely insect populations because it forms extremely dense colonies. Documented in seven Florida counties. Lumnitzera racemosa (black mangrove) This Asian mangrove has spread abundantly following plantings at Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden in Miami -Dade County between 1966 and 1971. The species subsequently spread into mangrove forests at Fairchild and the adjacent Matheson Hammock Park, infesting 19 acres with stem densities exceeding that of native mangrove species. Looks very similar to the protected native white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Phymatosorus scolopendria (serpent fern, wart fern) This fern, native to tropical Asia, Africa, and Polynesia, has been documented naturalizing in three south Florida counties. It is invading rockland hammocks and forested wetlands where it displaces native understory species including endangered ferns. New Listings to Category II: Ardisia japonica (Japanese ardisia) Ardisia japonica is a plant species from Japan. Thirteen populations have been located in San Felasco Hammock in Alachua County, two more at the Loblolly Nature Center in Gainesville, and another one containing 3,000 to 4,000 plants in Florida Caverns State Park in the Florida panhandle. All of the infestations are in undisturbed mature upland hardwood forest with healthy, diverse ground cover that is displaced as it spreads by underground rhizomes. Fruits collected from these populations produced viable seedlings. Scientific Name Macfadyena unguis -cati Manilkara zapota Melaleuca quinquenervia Melinis repens (= Rhynchelytrum repens) Mimosa pigra Nandina domestica Nephrolepis brownii (= N. multi flora) Nephrolepis cordifolia Neyraudia reynaudiana Nymphoides cristata Paederia cruddasiana Paederiafoetida Panicum repens Pennisetum purpureum Phymatosorus scolopendria Pistia stratiotes Psidium cattlefanum (= P littorale) Psidium guajava Pueraria montana var. lobata (= P. lobata) Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Rhynchelytrum repens (See Melinis repens) Ruellia simplex' Salvinia minima Sapium sebiferum (= Triadica sebifera) Scaevola taccada (= Scaevola sericea, S.frutescens) Schefflera actinophylla (= Brassaia actinophylla) Schinus terebinthifolius Scleria lacustris Senna pendula var. glabrata (= Cassia coluteoides) Solanum tampicense (= S. houstonii) Solanum viarum Syngonium podophyllum Syzygium cumin Tectaria incisa Thespesia populnea Tradescantia fluminensis Urena lobata Urochloa mutica (= Brachiaria mutica) 161 2 Common Name cat's claw vine sapodilla melaleuca, paper bark Natal grass catclaw mimosa nandina, heavenly bamboo Asian sword fern sword fern Burma reed, cane grass snowflake sewer vine, onion vine skunk vine torpedo grass Napier grass serpent fern, wart fern water - lettuce strawberry guava guava kudzu downy rose - myrtle FLEPPC Gov. Cat. List I I I P,N,U I I P,N,U I I I I N I I N I N I I I I P I I I N I N Reg. Dist. N, C, S S C,S N,C,S C,S N, C C,S N, C, S S C,S S N, C, S N, C, S N, C, S S N, C, S C,S C,S N, C, S C,S Mexican petunia I N, C, S water spangles I N, C, S popcorn tree, Chinese tallow tree I N N, C, S Scaevola, half- flower, beach naupaka I N C, S schefflera, Queensland umbrella tree Brazilian - pepper Wright's nutrush climbing cassia, Christmas cassia, Christmas senna wetland nightshade, aquatic soda apple tropical soda apple arrowhead vine jambolan plum, Java plum incised halberd fern seaside mahoe small -leaf spiderwort Caesar's weed Para grass I C,S I P,N N,C,S I C, S I C, S I I I I I I I I I N,U N, U C,S N,C,S N, C, S C,S S C, S N, C N, C, S C,S CATEGORY II Invasive exotics that have increased in abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent shown by Category I species. These species may become ranked Category I, if ecological damage is demonstrated. FLEPPC Gov. Reg. Scientific Name Common Name Cat. List Dist Adenanthera pavonina red sandalwood II S Agave sisalana sisal hemp II C, S Aleurites fordii (= Vernicia fordii) tung oil tree lI N, C Alstonia macrophylla devil tree II S Alternanthera philoxeroides alligator weed II P N, C, S Antigonon leptopus coral vine 11 N, C, S Ardisia japonica Japanese ardisia II N Aristolochia littoralis calico flower II N, C, S Asystasia gangetica Ganges primrose II C, S Begonia cucullata wax begonia II N, C, S 'Many names are applied to this species in Florida because of a complicated taxonomic and nomenclatural history. Plants cultivated in Florida, all representing the same invasive species, have in the past been referred to as Ruellia brittoniana, R. tweediana, R. caerulea, and R. simplex. FLEPPC 2011 List of Invasive Plant Species — Summer/Fall 2011 � A eu FLEPPC Gov. R6 r Scientific Name Common Name Cat. List Dist. Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Blechum pyramidatum (see Ruellia blechum) (large- leaved mangrove) This mangrove from the Old World Broussonetia papyrifera paper mulberry II N, C, S tropics Is established at the Kampong, a Bruguieragymnorrhiza large- leaved mangrove II S botanical garden in Miami -Dade County Cailisia fragrans inch plant, spironema II C, S where It was planted In 1940. The Callistemon viminalis (= Melaleuca viminaiis) bottlebrush, weeping bottlebrush II C, S leaves and propagules of this species bear a strong resemblance to the native Casuarina cunninghamiana river sheoak, Australian -pine II P C, S red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). In Cecropiapaimata trumpet tree II S a 2008 survey it was found naturalized Cestrum diurnum day jessamine lI C, S in mangrove forest on the property, Chamaedorea seifrizii bamboo palm II S where 86 individuals were observed and recruitment rates were higher than for Clematis ternii fora Japanese clematis II N, C native species. There is a strong chance Cocos nucifera coconut palm 11 S that it will disperse to other nearby Cryptostegia madagascariensis rubber vine II C, S mangrove rove forests. Cyperus involucratus umbrella plant II C, S Cocos nucifera (coconut palm) (C. alternifolius misapplied) Coconut palm, ubiquitous along Florida's Cyperus prolifer dwarf papyrus II C, S coastlines, is thought to be native to the Dactyloctenium aegyptium Durban crowfootgrass I1 N, C, S Malay Peninsula or the South Pacific. This species has been found invading Dalbergia sissoo Indian rosewood, sissoo 11 C, S beach dune and coastal grassland Elaeagnus pungens silverthorn, thorny olive 11 N, C communities in extreme south Florida Elaeagnus umbellata silverberry, autumn olive tI N and the Florida Keys. Plants form thick clusters and shed leaves that form Epipremnum pinnatum cv. Aureum pothos II C, 5 dense layers on the ground, displacing Ficus altissima false banyan, council tree II S native species. Impacted species Flacourtia indica governor's plum 11 S include the federally threatened Garber's Hemarthria altissima limpo grass II C, S spurge (Chamaesyce garberi) in the Cape Sable area of Everglades National Hibiscus [iliaceus (See Talipariti tiliaceum) Park and niekerbean (Caesalpinia Hyparrhenia rufa jaragua It 1, C. "I bonduc), the host plant for the Ipomoea carnea ssp. fisudosa ( =1. fistulosa) shrub morning -glory P C, S endangered Miami Blue butterfly at Kalanchoepinnata ( =Bryophyllumpinnatum) life plant II C, 5 Bahia Honda State Park. Koelreuteria elegans ssp. formosana flamegold tree II C, ti Mikania micrantha (= K. formosana; K. paniculata misapplied) (mile -a- minute vine) Landoltiapunctata (= Spirodela punctata) Spotted duckweed II N, C, S This vine of the American tropics is Leucaena leucocephala lead tree 11 N N, C, S listed on the Federal Noxious Weed List because of invasiveness in other Limnophila sessilora Asian marshweed II P, U N, C, S tropical regions. M. micrantha was first Livistona chinensis Chinese fan palm 11 C, S observed in Florida in 2008 in Miami - Melia azedarach Chinaberry II N, C, S Dade County. It has since been observed Me[inis minutiflora Molassesgrass II C'S at over two dozen sites throughout the Redland area of Miami -Dade County. It Merremia tuberosa wood -rose II C, S is primarily associated with agricultural Mihania micrantha mile -a- minute vine II N, U S sites, particularly container nurseries Murraya paniculata orange - jessamine 11 S and tree farms, but has been found Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water - milfoil 11 P N, C, S within the interiors of two rockland hammock fragments. It is a threat to Panicum maximum (= Urochloa maxima, Guinea grass II N, C, S other natural areas in Miami -Dade Megathyrsus maximus) County, and poses a very high risk of Passii fora bii fora two- flowered passion vine II S dispersing to other counties. Pennisetum setaceum green fountain grass II S Syzygium jambos Phoenix reclinata Senegal date palm II C, S (Malabar plum, rose apple) Phyllostachys aurea golden bamboo II N, C This species was downgraded from the Pittosporum pentandrum Philippine pittosporum, Taiwanese cheesewood II S Category II list in 2009 because of a Pteris vittata Chinese brake fern II N, C, S lack of data in EDDMapS, herbaria, and observations of committee members. Ptychosperma elegans solitaire palm II S However, data compiled by FNAI shows Rhoeo spathacea (see Tradescantia spathacea) 62 records in 9 counties in mesie and Ricinus communis castor bean II N, C, S wet flatwoods, basin and floodplain Rotala rotundifolia roundleaf toothcup, dwarf Rotala, redweed II S wetlands. It has been reinstated as a Category II. Ruellia blechum green shrimp plant, Brown's blechum 11 N, C, S Sansevieria hyacinthoides bowstring hemp II C, s Category Changes Sesbania punicea purple sesban, rattlebox II N, C, S Jasminum sambas and Solanum Solanum diphyllum two -leaf nightshade 11 N, C, S %amaicense removed from Category II based on lack of data in natural areas. Urena lobata moved from Category II to FLEPPC 2011 List of Invasive Plant Species — Summer/Fall 2011 Category I. Use of the FLEPPC List The FLEPPC List of Invasive Plant Species is not a regulatory list. Only those plants listed as Federal Noxious Weeds, Florida Noxious Weeds or in local ordinances are regulated by law. FLEPPC encourages use of the Invasive Species List for prioritizing and implementing management efforts in natural areas, for educating lay audiences about environmental issues, and for supporting voluntary invasive plant removal programs. For more information on using the FLEPPC List of Invasive Plant Species, see Wildland Weeds Summer 2002 issue (Vol. 5, No. 3), pp. 16 -17, or http://www.fleppc.orgAistAist.htm NOTE: Not all exotic plants brought into Florida become pest plants in natural areas. The FLEPPC List of Invasive Plant Species represents only about 11% of more than 1,400 exotic species that have been introduced into Florida and have subsequently established outside of cultivation. Most escaped exotics usually present only minor problems in highly disturbed areas (such as roadsides). And there are other exotics cultivated in Florida that are "well- behaved " — that is, they don't escape cultivation at all. EP P��` C www.fleppc.org 1 c3 I Scientific Name Solanum torvum - Sphagneticola trilobata (= Wedelia trilobata) Stachytarpheta cayennensis (= S. urticifolia) Syagrus romanzof liana (= Arecastrum romanzoffianum) Syzygium jambos Talipariti tiliaceum (= Hibiscus tiliaceus) Terminalia catappa Terminalia muelleri Tradescantia spathacea (= Rhoeo spathacea, Rhoeo discolor) Tribulus cistoides Vitex trifolia Washingtonia robusta Wedelia (see Sphagneticola above) Wisteria smensis Xanthosoma sagittifolium 1614LEPPC Common Name Cat. susumber, turkey berry II wedelia nettle -leaf porterweed queen palm Malabar plum, rose -apple mahoe, sea hibiscus tropical - almond Australian- almond oyster plant puncture vine, burr -nut simple -leaf chaste tree Washington fan palm Chinese wisteria malanga, elephant ear d 9 I I A euv5: Gov. Reg. List Dist. N,U N,C,S N, C, S S C, S N, C, S C,S C,S C,S S N,C,S C,S C,S N,C N, C, S Citation example: FLEPPC. 2011. List of Invasive Plant Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Internet: http: / /www.fleppc.orgflisdl Ilist. htm or Wildland Weeds Vol. 14(3- 4):11 -14. Summer/Fall 2011. The 2011 list was prepared by the FLEPPC Plant List Committee: Keith A. Bradley — Chair (2006- present), The Institute for Regional Conservation, 22601 SW 152" Ave., Miami, FL 33170, (305) 247 -6547, bradley@regionalconservation.org Janice A. Duquesnel, Florida Park Service, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, PO. Box 1052, Islamorada, FL 33036, (305) 664-8455,janice.l)uquesnel@dep.state.fl.us David W. Hall, Private Consulting Botanist, 3666 NW 13'' Place, Gainesville, FL 32605, (352) 375 -1370 Roger L. Hammer, Retired Naturalist and Author, 17360 Avocado Drive, Homestead, FL 33030, kaskazi44 @comcast.net Patricia L. Howell, Broward County Parks, Environmental Section, 950 NW 38' St., Oakland Park, FL 33309, (954) 357 -8137, phowell @broward.org Colette C. Jacono, USDA/APHIS/PPQ, 1911 SW 34th Street, Gainesville, FL 32608, (352) 258 -4458, Colette.C.Jacono @aphis.usda.gov Kenneth A. Langeland, University of Florida -IFAS, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 711 St., Gainesville, FL 32653, (352) 392 -9614, gator8 @ufl.edu Chris Lockhart, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, c/o P.O. Box 243116, Boynton Beach, FL 33424 -3116, (561) 738 -1179, Chris @lockharts.org Gil Nelson, Gil Nelson Associates, 157 Leonard's Dr., Thomasville, GA 31792, gil @gilnelson.com Robert W. Pemberton, Research Associate, Florida Museum of Natural History and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, 2121 SW 28th Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312, rpemberton5 @gmail.com Jimi L. Sadle, Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034, (305) 242 -7806, Jimi —Sadie @nps.gov Robert W. Simons, 1122 SW I I' Ave., Gainesville, FL 32601 -7816 Daniel B. Ward, Department of Botany, University of Florida, 220 Bantam Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 Richard P. Wunderlin, Institute for Systematic Botany, Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, (813) 974 -2359, rwunder @cas.usf.edu FLEPPC Database — The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Database contains over 211,000 sight records of infestations of FLEPPC Category I and Category II species in Florida public lands and waters. 143 species are recorded. Nearly all of the records are from local, state, and federal parks and preserves; a few records document infestations in regularly disturbed public lands such as highways or utility rights -of -way. Natural area managers and other veteran observers of Florida's natural landscapes submit these records, with many supported further by voucher specimens housed in local or regional herbaria for future reference and verification. New and updated observations can be submitted online at www.eddmaps. org/florida/. This database, along with other plant data resources such as the University of South Florida Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants at www.plantatlas.usf.edu, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory database at www.fnai.org, and The Institute for Regional Conservation Floristic Inventory of South Florida database at www.regionalconservation.org, provides important basic supporting information for the FLEPPC List of Invasive Plant Species. Images of FLEPPC- listed species may be found at one or more of the following websites: University of South Florida Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants, www.plantatlas.usf.edu; the University of Florida Herbarium collection catalog, http: / /www.flmnh.ufl.edulherbarium/cat/, and image gallery, http:// www. flmnh. ufl. edu /herbarium/cat/imagesearch.asp; at Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden's Virtual Herbarium, www.virtualherbarium .org/vhportal.html, The Robert K. Godfrey Herbarium at Florida State University, http: // herbarium .bio.fsu.edu /index.php; the University of Florida's IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, http: / /plants.ifas.ufl.edu, and the USDA PLANTS database, http: / /plants.usda.gov /. Please note that greater success and accuracy in searching for plant information is likely if you search by scientific name rather than common name. Common names often vary in cultivation and across regions. FLEPPC 2011 List of Invasive Plant Species — Summer/Fall 2011 Municode yg Page 1 of 20 • �� �,, t �i 1612 A 20 F llier County, Florida, Land Development Code >> - CHAPTER 3 RESOURCE PROTECTION >> 3.05.00 - VEGETATION MOVAL, PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION >> 3.05.00 - VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION 3.05.01 -Generally 3.05.02 - Exemotions from Reauirements for Veaetation Protection and Preservation 3.05.03 - Procedures 3.05.04 - Vegetation Removal and Protection Standards 3.05.05 - Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 3.05.06 - Management Plan Required 3.05.07 - Preservation Standards 3.05.08 - Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation 3.05.09 - Designation of Specimen Tree 3.05. 10 - Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA) 3.05.01 - Generally A. The purpose of this section is the protection of vegetation within the County by regulating its removal; to assist in the control of flooding, soil erosion, dust, heat, air pollution, and noise; and to maintain property, aesthetic, and health values within the County; to limit the use of irrigation water in open space areas by promoting the preservation of existing plant communities; to limit the removal of existing viable vegetation in advance of the approval of land development plans; and to limit the removal of existing viable vegetation when no landscape plan has been prepared for the site. It is not the intent of this section to restrict the mowing of nonprotected vegetation in order to meet the requirements of other sections of this LDC. B. It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, association, joint venture, partnership, estate, trust, syndicate, fiduciary, corporation, group, or unit of federal, state, County, or municipal government to remove, or otherwise destroy, vegetation, which includes placing of additional fill, without first obtaining a vegetation removal or vegetation removal and fill permit from the County Manager or designee, except as hereinafter exempted. 3.05.02 - Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation A. NBMO exemption. Development in NBMO Receiving Lands are exempt from the provisions of this section. B. Seminole and Miccosukee tribe exception. In accordance with § 581.187, F.S., vegetation removal permits shall not be required for members of either the Seminole Tribe of Florida or the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida Indians, subject to the following conditions. Said permit exemption shall be for the sole purpose of harvesting select vegetation, including, but not limited to, palm fronds and cypress, for use in chickee but construction, or for cultural or religious purposes Tribal member identification and written permission from the property owner must be in possession at the time of vegetation removal. This exemption shall not apply to general land clearing, or to agricultural land clearing, including silviculture. C. Agricultural exemption. Agricultural operations that fall within the scope of sections 163.3162(4) and 823.14(6), Florida Statutes, are exempt from the provisions of section 3.05.03 through 3.05.09, provided that any new clearing of land for agriculture outside of the RLSA District shall not be converted to non - agricultural development for 25 years, unless the applicable provisions set forth in section 3.05.04 through 3.05.07 G. are adhered to at the time of the conversion. The percentage of native vegetation preserved shall be calculated on the amount of vegetation occurring at the time of the agricultural clearing, and if found to be deficient, a native plant community shall be restored to re- create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re- create the lost mature vegetation. D. Pre - existing uses. Exemptions from the requirements of section 3.05.07F through 3.05.09 shall not apply to, affect or limit the continuation of uses within the RFMUD which existed prior to June 19, 2002. 1. Such existing uses shall include: those uses for which all required permits were issued prior to June 19 2002; or projects for which a conditional use or Rezone petition has been approved by the County prior to June 19, 2002; or, land use petitions for which a completed application has been submitted and which have been determined to be vested from the requirements of the Final Order prior to June 19, 2002. The continuation of existing uses shall include expansions of those uses if such expansions are consistent with or clearly ancillary to the existing uses. 2. Such previously approved development shall be deemed to be consistent with the GMP Goals, Policies and Objectives for the RFMU district, and they may be built out in accordance with their previously approved plans. Changes to these previous approvals shall also be deemed to be consistent with the GMP Goals, Objectives and Policies for the RFMU district as long as they do not result in an increase in development density or intensity.. E. Exempt mangrove alteration projects. Mangrove alteration projects that are exempted from Florida Department of Environmental Protection permit requirements by Florida Administrative Code 17- 321.060 are exempt from preservation standards for the mangrove trees, unless they are a part of a preserve. This exemption shall not apply to mangrove alterations or removal in any preserve or in any area where the mangroves have been retained in satisfaction of section 3.05.07. The http: // library. municode. com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2I%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 20 Page 2 of 20 Cty En Imm�tdvory Council (EAC) may grant aan�e to the provisions of this section if compliance with Qo,$Ir eang "rove tree preservation standards of this Division would impose a unique and unnecessary hardship on the owner or any other person in control of affected property. Mangrove trimming or removal for a view shall not be considered a hardship. Relief shall be granted only upon demonstration by the landowner or affected party that such hardship is peculiar to the affected property and not self- imposed, and that the grant of a variance will be consistent with the intent of this division and the growth management plan. F. Except for lots on undeveloped coastal barrier islands, and any project proposing to alter mangrove trees, a vegetation removal permit for clearing 1 acre or less of land is not required for the removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree on a parcel of land zoned residential, -RSF, VR, A or E, or other nonagricultural, non - sending lands, non -NRPA, noncommercial zoning districts in which single - family lots have been subdivided for single - family use only, where the following conditions have been met: 1. A building permit has been issued for the permitted principal structure (the building permit serves as the clearing permit); or 2. The permitted principal structure has been constructed, and the property owner or authorized agent is conducting the removal, and the total area that will be cleared on site does not exceed on acre. 3. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed species protection. 4. Where greater vegetation protection is required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, a higher native vegetation protection requirement may not allow for the full one acre of clearing. G. A vegetation removal permit is not required for the following situations: 1. Removal of protected vegetation other than a specimen tree, when a site plan and vegetation protection plans have been reviewed and approved by the County Manager or designee as part of the final development order. 2. Removal of protected vegetation from the property of a Florida licensed tree farm /nursery, where such vegetation is j intended for sale in the ordinary course of the licensee's business and was planted for the described purpose. i 3. Removal of protected vegetation, other than a specimen tree, by a Florida licensed land surveyor in the performance of his /her duties, provided such removal is for individual trees within a swath that is less than three (3) feet in width. 4. Removal of protected vegetation prior to building permit issuance if the conditions set forth in section 4.06.04 A.1. 5. Hand removal of prohibited exotic vegetation. Mechanical clearing of prohibited exotic vegetation shall require a vegetation removal permit. Mechanical clearing is defined as clearing that would impact or disturb the soil or sub -soil layers or disturb the root systems of plants below the ground. 6. After a right -of -way for an electrical transmission line or public utility distribution line has been established and constructed, a local government may not require any clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance, tree pruning or trimming within the established and constructed right -of -way. Trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the Code. All needed environmental permits must be obtained from the appropriate agencies and management plans must comply with agency regulations and guidelines. These may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts and management plans for listed species protection. ( 7. After a publicly owned road right -of -way has been legally secured, a local government may not require any clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance, tree pruning or trimming within the established road right -of -way. I Trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with subsection 4.06.05 J.1. of the Code. All needed environmental permits or management plans have been obtained from the appropriate local, state and federal agencies. These permits may include but are not limited to permits for wetland impacts or for listed species protection. (Ord. No. 05-27, § 3.K; Ord. No. 06-63, § 3.N) 3.05.03 - Procedures Requirements for submittals, documentation of assessments and evaluations, and application and review procedures are set forth in Chapter 10. 3.05.04 - Vegetation Removal and Protection Standards A. During construction, all reasonable steps necessary to prevent the destruction or damaging of vegetation shall be taken, including the installation of protective barriers. Vegetation destroyed or receiving major damage must be replaced by vegetation of equal environmental value, as specified by the County Manager or designee, before occupancy or use, unless approval for their removal has been granted under permit. B. During construction, unless otherwise authorized by a vegetation removal permit, no excess soil, additional fill, equipment, liquids, or construction debris shall be placed within the dripline of any vegetation that is required to be preserved in its present location. C. Unless otherwise authorized by a vegetation removal permit, no attachments or wires, other than those of a protective or nondamaging nature, shall be attached to any vegetation during construction. D. Unless otherwise authorized by a vegetation removal permit, no soil is to be removed from within the drip line of any vegetation that is to remain in its original location. E. Areas to be preserved shall be protected during land alteration and construction activities by placing a continuous barrier around the perimeter of the area of vegetation to be preserved. This barrier shall be highly visible and constructed of wood stakes set a maximum of ten (10) feet apart, at a height range of two (2) to four (4) feet, all covered continuously with brightly colored, all- weather mesh material or equal type barrier method. An equivalent method may be substituted with the approval of the County Manager or designee. http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode F G. H. 1612 A'20 Page 3 of 20 When the retention of single trees is required by this LDC, a protective barrier, similar to that required in section 3.05.04 E., shall be placed around the tree at a distance from the trunk of six (6) feet or beyond the drip line, whichever is greater, or as otherwise approved by the County Manager or designee. Protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning with the commencement of any phase of land clearing or building operations, and ending with the completion of that phase of the construction work on the site, unless otherwise approved to be removed by the County Manger or designee. All protective barriers shall be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers, Division of Forestry, State of Florida or other methods approved by the County Manager or designee. Signage shall be placed around the preserve areas to identify and protect the preserve during construction. The boundary of the Preserve shall be posted with appropriate signage denoting the area as a Preserve. Sign(s) should note that the posted area is a protected area. The signs shall be no closer than ten feet from residential property lines; be limited to a maximum height of four feet and a maximum size of two square feet; and otherwise comply with section 5.06.00. Maximum sign spacing shall be 300 feet. The applicant for a vegetation removal permit shall, at the time of application, designate representative(s), who shall be responsible for the installation and the maintenance of all tree protection barriers, and for supervising the removal of all existing vegetation permitted to be removed or altered. 3.05.05 - Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation The County Manager or designee may approve an application for vegetation removal permit if it is determined that reasonable efforts have been undertaken in the layout and design of the proposed development to preserve existing vegetation and to otherwise enhance the aesthetic appearance of the development by the incorporation of existing vegetation in the design process. Relocation or replacement of vegetation may be required as a condition to the issuance of an approval in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. In addition, a vegetation removal permit may be issued under the following conditions: A. Protected vegetation is a safety hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, public services, utilities, or to an existing structure. B. Diseased or otherwise unhealthy vegetation, as determined by standard horticultural practices, and, if required, a site inspection by the County Manager or designee. C. A final local development order has been issued which allows removal of the protected vegetation. D. Compliance with other codes and /or ordinances may involve protected vegetation removal. E. Replacement of non - native vegetation shall be with native vegetation and shall be subject to the approval of the County Manager or designee. Replacement vegetation shall comply with the standards of section 4.06.05 and shall include the following minimum sizes: one gallon ground cover; seven (7) gallon shrubs; fourteen (14) foot high trees with seven foot crown spread and dbh (diameter at breast height) of three inches. Replacement native vegetation shall be planted within fourteen (14) calendar days of removal. F. On a parcel of land zoned RSF, VR, E, or other nonagricultural, noncommercial zoning district in which single - family lots have been subdivided for single - family use only, a vegetation removal permit may be issued for any permitted accessory use to that zoning. G. The proposed mangrove alteration has a DEP permit, or meets the permitting standards in the Florida Administrative Code. However, mangrove removal or trimming shall be prohibited in all preserves or areas used to fulfill the native vegetation preservation requirements. H. Removal of vegetation for approved mitigation bank sites (as defined by the Florida Administrative Code); state, federal or county approved or endorsed environmental preservation, enhancement, or restoration projects, shall be permitted. Vegetation removal permits issued under these criteria are valid for the period of time authorized by such agency permits. I. Vegetation relocation plan. If vegetation relocation is proposed by the applicant prior to site development plan, construction plan or other final approvals, a vegetation relocation permit (vegetation removal permit) may be issued by the County Manager or his designee provided that it can be demonstrated that early transplantation will enhance the survival of the relocated vegetation. The vegetation relocation plan shall document methods of relocation, timing of relocation, watering provisions, maintenance and other information as required by the County Manager or his designee. J. Landscape plant removal or replacement. The removal or replacement of approved landscaping shall be done in accordance with the regulations that guide the landscape plans reviews and approvals in section 4.06.00. A vegetation removal permit will not be issued for the removal or replacement of landscape plants. That approval must be obtained through an amendment process to the landscape plan or as otherwise authorized by permit by the Collier County Landscape Architect. K. Removal of vegetation for firebreaks approved by the State of Florida, Division of Forestry, shall be permitted. The width of the approved clearing shall be limited to the minimum width determined necessary by the Division of Forestry. L. A State or Federal permit issuance depends on data that cannot be obtained without preliminary removal of some protected vegetation. The clearing shall be minimized and shall not allow any greater impacts to the native vegetation on site than is absolutely necessary. Clearing shall be limited to areas that are outside any on -site preserves, as identified on the PUD master plan, Plat/Construction Plans or Site Development Plan. M. In conjunction with a Collier County approved Preserve Management Plan, native vegetation clearing may be approved only when it is to improve the native habitat or to improve listed species habitat. N. Conservation Collier projects which may need minimal clearing for parking, pathways for walking, or structures that may not require site plan approvals. O. Early clearing will be allowed as part of a final review of an SDP or PPL, after the Environmental Services Review Staff approves the necessary components of the project to ensure the appropriate environmental protection and preservation on site. This can only be allowed after the following are completed and approved: 1) final configuration and protection of the preserve is complete, 2) the conservation easements are completed and approved by both the environmental review http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode Page 4 of 20 16k2 staff and the county attorney's office, 3) the environmental review staff has approved the clearing of the site through the site clearing /preservation plan, 4) copies of all applicable Federal, State, and Local permits must be submitted and reviewed against the site clearing /preservation plan. This early clearing does not authorize approval for excavation, spreading fill, and grading. That must be approved through a preliminary work authorization process in accordance with section 10.02.04.4.f. If for any reason the underlying SDP or PPL is not approved, the property owner will be responsible for revegetation of the site in accordance with Section 4.06.04.A.1.a.vii. P. Removal of living or dead standing vegetation with a bald eagle nest. Permits, if required, shall be provided from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authorizing the removal of the nest, in accordance with state and federal permit requirements, prior to issuance of a County permit. Removal of vegetation containing an active, inactive or abandoned nest may be allowed when: 1. The vegetation is located on a single - family lot, and is located in such a manner that either: a. the principal structure cannot be constructed, or b. access to the property is impeded. 2. The protected vegetation poses an imminent threat to human safety or an adjacent principal or accessory building. 3. The vegetation is located outside of a preserve or an area used to fulfill the native vegetation preservation requirements of this Code. (Ord. No. 05-27, § 31; Ord. No. 08 -63, § 3.G) 3.05.06 - Management Plan Required For all individual areas of mangrove trees and areas of preserved plant communities larger than one -half ( %) acre in area, the owner shall submit, for the approval of the County Manager or designee, a narrative management plan indicating the manner in which the owner will preserve the native plant communities. The narrative shall include: j A. Whether the existing vegetation is to be preserved in the existing species composition. B. The manner in which the composition of existing plant material is to be preserved (hand removal of invasive species, prescribed burning, etc.), if applicable. C. The maintenance schedule for the removal of invasive species. D. The maintenance schedule for the removal of debris. E. Other information that may be required by the County Manager or his designee that is reasonable and necessary to determine if the management plan meets the requirements of this LDC. F. The County Manager or designee may conduct an on -site inspection to determine if the proposed vegetation removal meets the criteria in section 3.05.05 and conforms to the preservation standards in section 3.05.07 below. 3.05.07 - Preservation Standards All development not specifically exempted by this ordinance shall incorporate, at a minimum, the preservation standards contained within this section. A. General standards and criteria. The following criteria shall be used to administer the preservation standards in all unincorporated areas of the County: 1. Native vegetative communities. The preservation of native vegetation shall include all naturally occurring strata including canopy, understory and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, except as otherwise provided in section 3.05.07 H.1.e. The term native vegetation is further defined as a vegetative community having 25 percent or more canopy coverage or highest existing vegetative strata of native plant species. In the absence of other native strata, herbaceous vegetation not typically associated with the re- growth of native vegetative communities, commonly known as weeds, shall not be considered native vegetation for the purpose of preservation. 2. Native trees. Where a property has been legally cleared and only native trees remain and the native ground cover replaced with lawn or pasture, then only the native trees shall be retained. The percent requirement of native trees required to be retained shall be by tree count based on the percent requirement for native vegetation pursuant to 3.05.07 B. Only slash pine trees with an 8 inch DBH or greater, hardwood trees with a 18 inch DBH or greater, or palms with a minimum of 8 foot of clear trunk, shall be used for calculating this requirement. For hardwood trees, every 6 inches or fraction thereof over 18 inch DBH shall count as an additional tree (18 inch DBH = 1 tree, 24 inch DBH = 2 trees, 26 inch DBH = 3 trees, etc.). Slash pine trees and cabbage palms shall only be retained on portions of the property with a density of 8 or more trees per acre. Trees which are unhealthy or dying, as determined by a certified arborist or any individual meeting the qualifications in 3.05.07 H.1.g.iii, shall not be retained or used for calculation. Native slash pine trees shall be retained in clusters, if the trees occur in clusters, with no encroachment (soil disturbance) within the drip line or within 30 feet of the trunk, whichever is greater, of any slash pine or hardwood tree. Encroachment may occur within these distances where evaluation by a certified arborist determines that it will not affect the health of the trees. Trees which die shall be replaced with 10 foot high native canopy trees on a one for one basis. Native trees with a DBH of two feet or more shall be replaced with three 10 -foot high native canopy trees. Areas of retained trees shall not be subject to the requirements of 3.05.07 H. Where trees cannot be retained, the percent requirement of trees shall be made up elsewhere on -site with trees planted in clusters utilizing 10 foot high native canopy trees planted on a one for one basis. Where native trees with a DBH of two feet or more cannot be retained, a minimum of three 10 -foot high native canopy trees shall be http:// library. municode. com /print.aspx ?cl ientID= 13992 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2M2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 ro` Municode , 161i2 A20 Page 5 of 20 planted per tree removed of this size. Trees planted to satisfy this requirement shall be planted in open space areas equivalent in size to the area of canopy of the trees removed. This planted open space shall be in addition to the area used to satisfy the minimum landscape requirements pursuant to 4.06.00. In lieu of using actual canopy coverage, the following average diameter for tree canopies may be used to calculate canopy coverage of existing trees: slash pine 40 feet, cypress 25 feet, live oak 60 feet and cabbage palm 10 feet. Open space areas not normally planted with trees, such as stormwater retention areas or lake banks not planted to meet the LSPA requirement, may be used to satisfy this requirement. Trees planted to satisfy this requirement shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet from principal structures and impervious parking areas. 3. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria for native vegetative communities of this section shall be set aside as preserve areas, subject to the requirements of section 3.05.07 H. 4. Native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall be selected in such manner as to preserve the following, in descending order of priority, except to the extent that preservation is made mandatory in sections 3.05.07 F.3 and 3.05.07 G.3.c: a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife; b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks; C. Onsite wetlands having an accepted functionality WRAP score of at least 0.65 or a Uniform Wetland Mitigation Assessment Score of at least 0.7; d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area as defined in section 3.05.07 A.3.c above; e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods; and f. All other native habitats. S. Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off -site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. 6. Where vegetation has been illegally cleared, the amount of native vegetation used to calculate the preservation requirement will be that amount present at the time prior to the illegal clearing. Criteria to determine the process and criteria for the clearing are found in sections 10.02.06 and 3.05.05 a. Re- creation of native vegetation shall not be required when any one of the following criteria is met: i. The parcel was issued a County permit to clear vegetation and remains cleared of native vegetation. ii. The parcel was issued a County permit to clear vegetation for agricultural purposes prior to July 1993 (the date at which the 10 year agricultural clearing rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP is achieved) and which remains cleared of native vegetation. iii. If no clearing permit can be found, demonstrations of continuous bona fide agricultural operation along with issuance of an after - the -fact agricultural clearing permit from the County will be evidence of legal clearing. Demonstrations of continuous bona fide agricultural activities may include, but are not limited to, agricultural classification records from the property appraiser's office; dated aerial photographs; occupational license for agricultural operation; SFWMD consumptive use permits for the ongoing agricultural use or other information such as sworn testimony from previous owners which establishes the commencement date and the location of the agricultural operation. The rezone limitation pursuant to 10.02.06 shall apply. 7. Unless otherwise required in the RFMU District, single - family residences shall be exempt from the native vegetation retention requirements and from having on site preserves. Setbacks to preserves shall be in accordance with 3.05.07 H. 8. Development standards pursuant to section 4.02.14 shall apply to all development, including single - family, within the ACSC. 9. Created preserves are allowed subject to the criteria in 3.05.07 H. 10. Fire and fuel breaks within preserves, kept to the minimum necessary in accordance with standard forestry practice, shall count toward the minimum native vegetation retention requirement. B. Specific standards applicable outside the RFMU and RLSA districts. Outside the RFMU and RLSA Districts, native vegetation shall be preserved on site, except for single family residences, through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria. The single family exception is not to be used as an exception from any calculations regarding total preserve area for a development containing single family lots. 1. Required preservation. Development Type Coastal High Hazard Area Non - Coastal High Hazard Area Residential Less 10% Less than 5 acres 10% and Mixed than Use 2.5 development acres Equal 25 Equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than 15% to or 20 acres greate than 2.5 http:// library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2P%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode`, 161,2 p20 Page 6 of 20 2. Exceptions. An exception from the vegetation retention standards above shall be granted in the following circumstances: a. Where the parcel was legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 and remains cleared of native vegetation; b. Where the parcel cannot reasonably accommodate both the application of the native vegetation retention standards and the proposed uses allowed under this Code, subject to the criteria set forth in section 3.05.07 H.1.e. C. Right -of -way acquisitions by any governmental entity for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area. d. Existing utility easements and easements for ingress or egress required for neighboring properties. e. Previously cleared parcels for support of public infrastructure, and which remain cleared of native vegetation. f. Trees and other vegetation planted for landscaping and which have not been used to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement. g. Previously cleared fallow farm fields and pastures, with no canopy trees (other than slash pine trees with less than an 8 inch DBH or palms with less than 8 foot of clear trunk) and less than 75 percent aerial coverage of native vegetation. Marshes and similar type environments (640 FLUCFCS Codes) shall not be included in this exception. C. Specific standards for the RFMU district. For Lands within the RFMU district, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, in addition to the generally applicable standards and criteria set forth in 3.05.07 A. above: 1. RFMU receiving lands outside the NBMO. a. A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. L Off -site preservation shall be allowed at a ratio of 1:1 if such off -site preservation is located within RFMU sending lands. ii. Off -site preservation shall be allowed at a ratio of 1.5:1 if such off -site preservation is located outside of Sending Lands. iii. Like for like preservation shall be required for Tropical Hardwood and Oak Hammock vegetative communities. b. Where schools and other public facilities are co- located on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. 2. Neutral lands. a. In neutral lands, a minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Exceptions. L In those neutral lands located in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in the NBMO, native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in section 2.03.08 D.5.b. ii. Where schools and other public facilities are co- located on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. 3. RFMU sending lands. a. In RFMU sending lands that are not within a NRPA, 80% of the native vegetation present on site shall be preserved, or as otherwise permitted under the Density Blending provisions of section 2.05.02. Off -site preservation shall be allowed in satisfaction of up to 25% of the site preservation or vegetative retention requirement, at a ratio of 3:1, if such off -site preservation is located within or contiguous to Sending Lands. b, In RFMU sending lands that are within a NRPA, 90% of the native vegetation present shall be preserved or such other amount as may be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of section 2.05.02. Off- http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2P' /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 acres Equal to or greater than 20 acres 25% Golf Course 35% 35% Commercial Less 10% Less than 5 acres 10% and than 5 Industrial acres development Equal 15% Equal to or greater than 5 acres 15 and all other to or non - greater specified than 5 development acres types Industrial 50 %, not to 50%, not to exceed 25% of the project site. development exceed (Rural- 25% of the Industrial project District onl site 2. Exceptions. An exception from the vegetation retention standards above shall be granted in the following circumstances: a. Where the parcel was legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 and remains cleared of native vegetation; b. Where the parcel cannot reasonably accommodate both the application of the native vegetation retention standards and the proposed uses allowed under this Code, subject to the criteria set forth in section 3.05.07 H.1.e. C. Right -of -way acquisitions by any governmental entity for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area. d. Existing utility easements and easements for ingress or egress required for neighboring properties. e. Previously cleared parcels for support of public infrastructure, and which remain cleared of native vegetation. f. Trees and other vegetation planted for landscaping and which have not been used to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement. g. Previously cleared fallow farm fields and pastures, with no canopy trees (other than slash pine trees with less than an 8 inch DBH or palms with less than 8 foot of clear trunk) and less than 75 percent aerial coverage of native vegetation. Marshes and similar type environments (640 FLUCFCS Codes) shall not be included in this exception. C. Specific standards for the RFMU district. For Lands within the RFMU district, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, in addition to the generally applicable standards and criteria set forth in 3.05.07 A. above: 1. RFMU receiving lands outside the NBMO. a. A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. L Off -site preservation shall be allowed at a ratio of 1:1 if such off -site preservation is located within RFMU sending lands. ii. Off -site preservation shall be allowed at a ratio of 1.5:1 if such off -site preservation is located outside of Sending Lands. iii. Like for like preservation shall be required for Tropical Hardwood and Oak Hammock vegetative communities. b. Where schools and other public facilities are co- located on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. 2. Neutral lands. a. In neutral lands, a minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Exceptions. L In those neutral lands located in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in the NBMO, native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in section 2.03.08 D.5.b. ii. Where schools and other public facilities are co- located on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. 3. RFMU sending lands. a. In RFMU sending lands that are not within a NRPA, 80% of the native vegetation present on site shall be preserved, or as otherwise permitted under the Density Blending provisions of section 2.05.02. Off -site preservation shall be allowed in satisfaction of up to 25% of the site preservation or vegetative retention requirement, at a ratio of 3:1, if such off -site preservation is located within or contiguous to Sending Lands. b, In RFMU sending lands that are within a NRPA, 90% of the native vegetation present shall be preserved or such other amount as may be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of section 2.05.02. Off- http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2P' /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 161 % A 20 Page 7 of 20 (. 0 E. site preservation shall not be credited toward satisfaction of any of the vegetative retention requirement applicable in such NRPAs. 4. General exceptions. a. Non - conforming, Pre - existing parcels. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within the RFMU district, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under -story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. b. Specific County -owned Land. On County -owned land located in Section 25, Township 26 E, Range 49 S ( +/ -360 acres), the native vegetation retention and site preservation requirements may be reduced to 50% if the permitted uses are restricted to the portions of the property that are contiguous to the existing land fill operations; exotic removal will be required on the entire +/- 360 acres. C. Discretionary Exception for Essential Public Services. The County Manager or his designee may grant written exemptions to the above preservation requirements on agriculturally zoned property for essential public services (as defined in section 2.01.03), where it can be demonstrated that the preservation requirements and the Essential Public Services cannot both be reasonably accommodated on the site and it is in the best interest of the general public to allow a reduction in all or part from the requirements for preservation of existing native vegetation. Specific standards for RLSA district. For lands within the RLSA District, native vegetation shall be preserved pursuant to the RLSA District Regulations set forth in section 4.08.00 of this Code. Density bonus incentives. Density Bonus Incentives shall be granted to encourage preservation. 1. Outside rural villages. In RFMU receiving lands not designated as a rural village, a density bonus of 0.1 dwelling unit per acre shall be granted for each acre of native vegetation preserved on -site that exceeds the requirements set forth in section 3.05.07C., once a density of 1 unit per acre is achieved through the use of TDR credits. 2. Inside rural villages. In RFMU receiving lands designated as a rural village, a density bonus of 0.3 dwelling units per acre shall be granted for each acre of native vegetation preserved on -site that exceeds the requirements set forth in section 3.05.07C., once a density of 2 units per acre is achieved through the use of TDR and bonus credits. Wetland preservation and conservation. 1. Purpose. The following standards are intended to protect and conserve Collier County's valuable wetlands and their natural functions, including marine wetlands. These standards apply to all of Collier County, except for lands within the RLSA District. RLSA District lands are regulated in section 4.08.00. wetlands shall be protected as follows, with total site preservation not to exceed those amounts of vegetation retention set forth in section 3.05.07(C), unless otherwise required. 2. Urban lands. In the case of wetlands located within the Urban designated areas of the County, the County will rely on the jurisdictional determinations made by the applicable state or federal agency in accordance with the following provisions: a. Where permits issued by such jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within this designated area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. b. The County shall require the appropriate jurisdictional permit prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements, except in the case of any single - family residence that is not part of an approved development or platted subdivision. C. Within the Immokalee Urban Designated Area, there exists high quality wetland system connected to the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais system. These wetlands require greater protection measures and therefore the wetland protection standards set forth in 3.05.07 (F)(3) below shall apply in this area. 3. RFMU district. Direct impacts of development within wetlands shall be limited by directing such impacts away from high quality wetlands. This shall be accomplished by adherence to the vegetation retention requirements of section 3.05 .07 (C) above and the following standards: a. In order to assess the values and functions of wetlands at the time of project review, applicants shall rate the functionality of wetlands using the Unified Wetland Mitigation Assessment Method set forth in F.A.C. 62 -345. For projects that have already been issued an Environmental Resource Permit by the state, the County will accept wetlands functionality assessments that are based upon the South Florida Water Management District's Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedures (WRAP), as described in Technical Publication Reg 001 (September 1997, as update August 1999). The applicant shall submit to County staff these respective assessments and the scores accepted by either the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection. b. Wetlands documented as being utilized by listed species or serving as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved on site, regardless of whether the preservation of these wetlands exceeds the acreage required in section 3.05.07(B). C. Existing wetland flowways through the project shall be maintained, regardless of whether the preservation of these flowways exceeds the acreage required in section 3.05.07(C). d. http: / /library.municode.com/ print. aspx ?clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode tf 1411- IS t,�:t. 6' Z N �0 Page 8 of 20 Drawdowns or diversion of the ground water table shall not adversely change the hydroperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. e. Single family residences shall follow the requirements contained within Section 3.05.07(F)(5). f. Preserved wetlands shall be buffered from other land uses as follows: i. A minimum 50 -foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to a natural water body. ii. For other wetlands a minimum 25 -foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the wetland. ill. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50 %. A structural buffer shall be required adjacent to wetlands where direct impacts are allowed. A structural buffer may consist of a stem -wall, berm, or vegetative hedge with suitable fencing. iv. The buffer shall be measured landward from the approved jurisdictional line. V. The buffer zone shall consist of preserved native vegetation. Where native vegetation does not exist, native vegetation compatible with the existing soils and expected hydrologic conditions shall be planted. vi. The buffer shall be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Vii. The following land uses are considered to be compatible with wetland functions and are allowed within the buffer: (1) Passive recreational areas, boardwalks and recreational shelters; (2) Pervious nature trails; (3) Water management structures; (4) Mitigation areas; (5) Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. 4. Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required for direct impacts to wetlands in order to result in no net loss of wetland functions, in adherence with the following requirements and conditions: a. Mitigation Requirements: L Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or adjacent to the impacted wetland. ii. Prior to issuance of any final development order that authorizes site alteration, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with a and b above. If agency permits have not provided mitigation consistent with this Section, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. ill. Mitigation requirements for single - family lots shall be determined by the State and Federal agencies during their permitting process, pursuant to the requirements of Section (5) below. b. Mitigation Incentives: A density bonus of 10% of the maximum allowable residential density, a 20% reduction in the required open space acreage, a 10% reduction in the required native vegetation, or a 50% reduction in required littoral zone requirements may be granted for projects that do any of the following: i. Increase wetland habitat through recreation or restoration of wetland functions, of the same type found on -site, on an amount of off -site acres within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, equal to, or greater than 50% of the on -site native vegetation preservation acreage required, or 20% of the overall project size, whichever is greater; ii. Create, enhance or restore wading bird habitat to be located near wood stork, and /or other wading bird colonies, in an amount that is equal to, or greater than 50% of the on -site native vegetation preservation acreage required, or 20% of the overall project size, whichever is greater; or ill. Create, enhance or restore habitat for other listed species, in a location and amount mutually agreeable to the applicant and Collier County after consultation with the applicable jurisdictional agencies. C. EIS Provisions. When mitigation is proposed, the EIS shall demonstrate that there is no net loss in wetland functions as prescribed above. d. Exotic vegetation Removal. exotic vegetation removal shall not constitute mitigation. 5. Estates, rural - settlement areas, and ACSC. In the case of lands located within Estates Designated Area, the Rural Settlement Area, and the ACSC, the County shall rely on the wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency, in accordance with the following: a. For single - family residences within Southern Golden Gate Estates or within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, the County shall require the appropriate federal and state wetland - related permits before Collier County issues a building permit. b. Outside of Southern Golden Gate Estates and the Area of Critical State Concern, Collier County shall inform applicants for individual single - family building permits that federal and state wetland permits may be required prior to construction. The County shall also notify the applicable federal and state agencies of single family building permits applications in these areas. 6. http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http% 3a %2f" /`2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode I O Page 9 of 20 5. 1612 e /_1 RLSA district. Within the hSA District, wetlands shall be preserved pursuant to section 4.08.00 7. Submerged marine habitats. The County shall protect and conserve submerged marine habitats as provided in section 5.03.06 I. G. Natural reservation protection and conservation. 1. Purpose and applicability. a. The purpose of this Section is to protect natural reservations from the impact of surrounding development. For the purpose of this section, natural reservations shall include only NRPAs and designated Conservation Lands on the Future Land Use Map. b. For the purposes of this Section, development shall include all projects single - family dwelling units situated on individual lots or parcels. 2. Review process. All requests for development contiguous to natural reservations shall be reviewed as part of the County's development review process. 3. RFMU district requirements. The following criteria shall apply within the RFMU district only. a. Open space. Open space shall be required to provide a buffer between the project and the natural reservation. L Open space allowed between the project's non -open space uses and the boundary of the natural reservation may include natural preserves, natural or man -made lakes, golf courses, recreational areas, required yard set -back areas, and other natural or man -made open space requirements. ii. The following open space uses are considered acceptable uses contiguous to the natural reservation boundary: (a) preservation areas; (b) golf course roughs maintained in a natural state; (c) stormwater management areas; (d) pervious nature trails and hiking trails limited to use by nonmotorized vehicles. b. Open spaces as buffers. L The uses in paragraph (a)(ii) above are encouraged to be located as to provide a buffer between the natural reservation and more intensive open space uses, including playgrounds, tennis courts, golf courses (excluding roughs maintained in a natural state), and other recreational uses and yards for individual lots or parcels, or open space uses that are impervious in nature. These more intensive open space uses may not be located closer than 300 feet to the boundary of the natural reservation. ii. In addition, where woodstork (Mycteria americana) rookeries, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests, and wading bird roosts are found in the adjacent natural reservation, the open space uses identified in (a) - (c) below are considered acceptable for placement within a buffer as specified below: (a) Woodstork (Mycteria americana) rookeries, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests - 1,500 feet; (b) Wading bird roost - 300 feet; (c) These buffer distances shall only apply to the identified entity within the natural reservations. iii. These requirements shall be modified on a case by case basis, if such modifications are based upon the review and recommendations from the USFWS and the FFWCC. Any such changes shall be deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. C. Contiguous native vegetation. Existing native vegetation that is located contiguous to the natural reservation shall be preserved as part of the preservation requirements specified in Section 3.05.07 d. Wildlife corridors. Where wildlife corridors exist for listed species, provision shall be made to accommodate the movement of the listed species through the project to the natural reservation. The County shall consider the recommendations from the USFWS. H. Preserve standards. 1. Design standards. a. Identification. Native vegetation that is required to be preserved or mitigated pursuant to 3.05.07 A. through F. shall be set -aside in a Preserve and shall be identified in the following manner: L The Preserve shall be labeled as "Preserve" on all site plans. ii. If the development is a PUD, the Preserve shall be identified on the PUD Master Plan, if possible. If this is not possible, a minimum of 75% of the preserves shall be set -aside on the PUD Master Plan with the remaining 25% identified at the time of the next development order submittal. iii. The Preserve shall be identified at the time of the first development order submittal. b. Minimum dimensions. Thin linear and perimeter "picture frame - shaped" preserves are discouraged, unless such preserve shapes are dictated by environmental or environmental regulatory considerations. Connections to other preserves, conservation areas, natural flowways, natural water bodies, water management lakes, estuaries, government owned or targeted lands for preservation purposes or existing listed wildlife habitat, when present, are encouraged to establish the largest contiguous natural area possible. The following minimum widths shall apply: L Twenty feet, for property less than 10 acres. ii. An average of 30 feet in width but not less than 20 feet in width, for property equal to 10 acres and http: // library. municode. com / print.aspx ?clientlD = 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f /`2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 161 ZAZQ Page 10 of 20 less than twenty acres. iii. An average of 50 feet in width but not less than 20 feet for property of twenty acres and greater. iv. If the existing native vegetation does not meet the minimum dimensions specified above and is required to be preserved pursuant to the preserve selection criteria in section 3.05.07, then the existing native vegetation may be used to satisfy the preservation requirement. C. Protection of wetland hydroperiods. Drawdowns or diversion of the ground water table shall not adversely change the hydroperiod of preserved wetlands on or offsite. Detention and control elevations shall be set to protect surrounding wetlands and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. In order to meet these requirements, projects shall be designed in accordance with Sections 4.2.2.4, 6.11 and 6.12 of SFWMD's Basis of Review, January 2001. d. Preserve mechanisms. All preserve areas shall be designated as preserves on all site plans. On -site County required preserves shall be dedicated to the County as non - exclusive conservation easements without placing on the County the responsibility for maintenance of the preserve area, and the easement conveyance to the County shall include the right of access from existing road right -of -way. The easement shall dedicate the responsibility of maintenance to a property owners association or similar entity, and it shall contain allowable uses and limitations to protect the preserve. All preserve areas shall be shown on the preliminary and final plats in accordance with section 10.02.04, with language similar to Section 704.06 F.S. No individual residential or commercial lot, parcel lines, or other easements including, but not limited to, utility or access easements that are not compatible with allowable uses in preserve areas, may project into a preserve area. State and federal parks and preserves shall not be required to place their preserves in a conservation easement. Any conservation easement or other document restricting uses in a preserve area shall contain the following statement (consistent with CCME GMP Policy 1.1.6): "Oil extraction and related processing operations are uses which are exempt from the restrictions herein and shall remain allowed uses on the lands described herein." e. Created preserves. Although the primary intent of GMP CCME Policy 6. 1.1 is to retain and protect existing native vegetation, there are situations where the application of the retention requirements of this Policy is not possible. In these cases, creation or restoration of vegetation to satisfy all or a portion of the native vegetation retention requirements may be allowed. In keeping with the intent of this policy, the preservation of native vegetation off site is preferable over creation of preserves. Created Preserves shall be allowed for parcels that cannot reasonably accommodate both the required on -site preserve area and the proposed activity. i. Applicability. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot reasonably accommodate both the required on -site preserve area and the proposed activity include: (a) Where site elevations or conditions requires placement or removal of fill thereby harming or reducing the survivability of the native vegetation in its existing locations; (b) Where the existing vegetation required by this policy is located where proposed site improvements are to be located and such improvements cannot be relocated as to protect the existing native vegetation; (c) To provide for flood plain compensation as required by the LDC. (d) When a State or Federal permit requires creation of native habitat on site. The created preserve acreage may fulfill all or part of the native vegetation requirement when preserves are planted with the appropriate strata; using the criteria set forth in Created Preserves. This exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the project. (e) When small isolated areas (of less than 1/2 acre in size) of native vegetation exist on site. In cases where retention of native vegetation results in small isolated areas of 1/2 acre or less, preserves may be planted with all three strata; using the criteria set forth in Created Preserves and shall be created adjacent existing native vegetation areas on site or contiguous to preserves on adjacent properties. This exception may be granted, regardless of the size of the project. (f) When an access point to a project cannot be relocated. To comply with obligatory health and safety mandates such as road alignments required by the State, preserves may be impacted and created elsewhere on site. (g) To provide for connections to on or off site preserves. (h) In the RFMU District where upland buffers required by the LDC, lack native vegetative communities. ii. Approved created preserves may be used to recreate: a) not more than one acre of the required preserves if the property has less than twenty acres of existing native vegetation. b) not more than two acres of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than twenty acres and less than eighty acres of existing native vegetation. c) not more than 10% of the required preserves if the property has equal to or greater than eighty acres of existing native vegetation. iii. The minimum dimensions shall apply as set forth in 3.05.07 H. 1.b. iv. All perimeter landscaping areas that are requested to be approved to fulfill the native vegetation http: // library. municode. com / print. aspx ?clientlD = 13992 &HTMRequest = http %3a %2f /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode o 161 eil. A 2U Page 11 of 20 preserve requirements shall be labeled as preserves and shall comply with all preserve setbacks. V. Preparation of required planting plans for preserves. Preserve planting plans shall be designed by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. vi. Planting requirements for created preserves. Soils compatible with the habitat to be created shall be used to create the preserve. Where compatible soils are not present, a minimum of 6 to 8 inches of compatible soil shall be used. Where created preserves are approved, the planting plan shall re- create a native plant community in all three strata (ground cover, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials to more quickly re- create the lost mature vegetation. Environments which do not normally contain all three strata shall only be required to plant the strata found in the habitat to be created. Plant material shall be planted in a manner that mimics a natural plant community and shall not be maintained as landscaping. Such re- vegetation shall include the following minimum sizes: one gallon ground cover; 7 gallon shrubs; canopy trees in the following sizes: 25 percent at 10 feet, 50 percent at 8 feet and 25 percent at 6 feet. Spacing requirements for calculating the number of plants shall be as follows: 20 to 30 foot on center for trees with a small canopy (less than 30 feet mature spread) and 40 to 50 foot on center for trees with a large canopy (greater than 30 feet mature spread), 10 foot on center for shrubs, 3 foot on center for ground covers which spread by rhizomes or creeping stems or which have a mature height of 2 feet or more, excluding the bloom, and 2 foot on center for ground covers with a mature height of less than 2 feet, excluding the bloom, and which reproduce primarily by seed. Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric habitats in order to promote diversity or where smaller size plant material is better suited for re- establishment of the native plant community. Coverage of pine and hardwoods in scrub habitats shall occupy no more than 70% of the area of a scrub preserve, in order to create natural open areas for wildlife and native ground covers. In south Florida slash pine dominated environments, where fire is a concern, the amount of mid -story vegetation planted may be reduced to promote the growth of native ground covers, reduce the threat of wildfire and to promote use of the preserve by listed species. Three gallon container saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) may be used in lieu of seven gallon containers. South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) trees may be planted in the following sizes: 25 percent at 6 feet and 75 percent at 4 feet, with a spacing requirement of 40 feet on center for calculating the number of slash pines to be planted. Mangrove trees may be planted as three gallon size containers but must be planted a minimum of five to seven foot on center for calculating the number of mangroves to be planted, if planted at this size. Ground covers in estuarine and other aquatic environments may be planted as liners or bare root plants. Upland or seasonally wet preserves with extended dry periods shall detail a method of providing water until the plants are established. vii. Supplemental planting requirements within preserves. Supplemental plantings in the strata required to restore the habitat to its natural condition shall be added to preserves where prior clearing or disturbance, or the removal of non - native and /or nuisance vegetation has created open areas with little or no native vegetation. Plant material shall be planted in a manner that mimics a natural plant community and shall not be maintained as landscaping. Supplemental plantings must be of the species typical of the native habitats being restored and take into consideration the requirements of any listed species using the preserve. Areas defined as "native vegetation" pursuant to this section and required to be retained as preserves, shall only be required to plant material in the sizes specified in this subsection and not in the sizes required for created preserves. Supplemental plantings within preserves shall be in accordance with requirements specified in approved state and federal permits for a project. Where not specified in the State and Federal permits for a project, supplemental plantings within County required preserves shall adhere to the following minimum standards: one gallon or liner ground covers, three gallon shrubs and four foot high trees. Ground covers in aquatic environments may be planted as bare root plants. Natural recruitment of native groundcovers may be used in areas where native groundcovers would be expected to regenerate on their own. If within a two -year period the coverage of ground covers is less than that typically found in environments containing these species, then supplemental planting with native ground covers or distribution of native seed shall be required. A planting plan with schedule for planting or distributing native seed shall be included as part of the preserve management plan, in case sufficient natural recruitment of groundcovers has not occurred. Natural recruitment of south Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) may be used where south Florida slash pine would be expected to regenerate on their own. If within a two -year period the number of pine seedlings is less than that needed to regenerate the habitat type, then supplemental planting with south Florida slash pine or distribution of south Florida slash pine seed shall be required. A backup planting plan with schedule for planting or distributing seed shall be included as part of the preserve management plan, in case sufficient natural recruitment has not occurred. South Florida slash pine trees may be planted as seedlings in lieu of planting four foot high trees, for individual preserves 100 or more acres in size. Restoration of mangroves shall be with one- to three - gallon container mangroves, unless otherwise http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2t %2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode aq 12 of 20 16 2AZQP permitted by State and Federal permitting agencies. Minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric habitats in order to promote diversity or where smaller size plant material is better suited for re- establishment of the native plant community. Coverage of pine and hardwoods in scrub habitats shall occupy no more than the 70% of the area of a scrub preserve, in order to create natural open areas for wildlife and indigenous ground covers. viii. Success criteria. Success shall be demonstrated for created preserves and supplemental planting within preserves, 5 years after installation of plant material and shall be included with the monitoring report. Before and after photos taken from specific or permanent field markers to identify the locations within the preserve shall be included in the above mentioned monitoring report. Demonstration of success shall include the following: a) 80% vegetative coverage has been attained within the preserve. b) Native vegetation is within the range of species diversity, density and distribution documented within either reference sites or from literature references for the specific habitat types. c) Native vegetation characteristic of the habitat are reproducing in the vegetative or seeding manner typical of the species. d) When permitted through the Water Management District using UMAM, overall UMAM scores must indicate that the preserves have attained or are clearly trending toward the "with - mitigation" scores used to determine success. Off -site vegetation retention. L Applicability. A property owner may request that all or a portion of the Collier County on -site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied offsite for only the following situations and subject to restrictions listed below. a) Properties zoned commercial or industrial where the on -site preserve requirement is less than 2 acres in size. b) Park sites where the on -site preserve requirement is less than one acre in size. c) Essential service facilities other than parks, for any size preserves. d) Preserves less than one acre in size. e) Affordable housing projects. The maximum percent of native vegetation retention allowed offsite shall be equal to the percent of affordable housing units, without limitation as to size of the preserve. f) Existing or proposed preserves with 75 percent or more coverage with exotic vegetation. Existing preserves not previously overrun with this type vegetation and which arrive at this state due to lack of management of the preserve shall mitigate off site at a ratio of 2 to 1. g) Created preserves which do not meet the success criteria in 3.05.07 H.1.e.viii or where preserves have not been planted in a manner which mimics a natural plant community. h) Preserves which do not meet the minimum dimensional requirements of this section. i) Portions of preserves located within platted single - family lots. j) Right of Way acquisitions to be conveyed or in the process of being conveyed to the County by non - governmental entities for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities, and including utilities within the right of way acquisition area. k) All criteria listed for created preserves. ii. Restrictions, when one or more of the following situations occur. a) Xeric scrub and hardwood hammocks which are one acre or more in size, mangrove (excluding mangrove fringes less than 40 feet in width on artificially created shorelines), coastal dune and strand environments, and listed species habitat or corridors per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS, shall not be allowed to have the on -site native vegetation preservation retention requirement provided offsite. b) Preserves shall remain onsite if located contiguous to natural flowways required to be retained per the requirements of the SFWMD, natural water bodies, estuaries, government required preserves (not meeting the offsite preservation criteria herein), NRPAs, or contiguous to property designated for purchase by Conservation Collier or purchased by Conservation Collier, or contiguous to properties containing listed species nests, buffers, corridors and foraging habitat per the requirements or recommendations of the FFWCC or USFWS. For the purpose of this section, natural flowways shall also include those identified during wetland permitting with applicable State and Federal agencies, regional drainage studies, or surface water management permits. c) Remaining portions of on -site preserves must be a minimum of one acre in size and shall not meet the offsite criteria of sub - section 3.05.07 H.1.f.i.(f) and (g) above, unless preserved with higher quality habitat not qualifying for the off -site native vegetation retention alternative. iii. Off -site Alternatives. Off -site native vegetation retention requirements may be met by monetary payment or by land donation. a) Applicants shall make monetary payment to Collier County. Such funds will be used by the County for the purchase and management of off -site conservation lands within the county. The monetary payment shall be based on the location of the land to be impacted and be equal to 125 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 125 percent of http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 16 1 'j A 2 ('�Page 13 of 20 the average cost for all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through the Conservation Collier program. This monetary payment shall be made prior to the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. b) In lieu of monetary payment, applicants may choose to donate land for conservation purposes to Collier County or to another government agency. In the event of donation to Collier County, the applicant may acquire and subsequently donate land within the project boundaries of Winchester Head, North Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, another multi - parcel project or any other land designated by Conservation Collier donation acceptance procedures. Applicants who choose to donate land shall be required to demonstrate that the land to be donated contains native vegetation communities equal to or of higher priority (as described in subsection 3.05.07 A.) than the land required to be preserved onsite. In no case shall the acreage of land donated be less than the acreage of land required to be preserved onsite. Land donated to satisfy the off -site vegetation retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County. Donations of land for preservation shall be made to a federal, state or local government agency established or authorized to accept lands for the conservation and management of land in perpetuity, subject to the policies and procedures of the receiving entity. Lands donated to Collier County must include a cash payment for management of the land. The amount of this payment shall be equal to 25 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 25 percent of the average cost in all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through the Conservation Collier program. Applicants shall provide evidence that donations of land for preservation and endowments for management have been accepted by and donated to the entity stated above, at the time of the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. Exotics shall be removed in accordance with the time frames provided in 3.05.07 H.2. State and Federal agency requirements for mitigation, remediation and monitoring for the donated land shall be the responsibility of the applicant. iv. PUD zoning. Where the off -site native vegetation retention alternative is used for portions of preserves not identified on a PUD master plan, a PUD amendment is not required. Preserves or portions of preserves identified on a PUD master plan shall require an amendment to the PUD master plan to use the native vegetation retention alternative, subject to 10.02.13 E, unless the option to use the off -site native vegetation retention alternative is included in the PUD. g. Preserve management plans. Criteria i, ii, vii and viii below are required for all preserves whether a management plan for the preserve is required or not. Preserve Management Plans shall be required for all properties with 5 acres or more of preserve or where listed species are utilizing the preserve or where the preserve contains habitat which requires management for fire (such as Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto Prairie or Scrub). The Preserve Management Plan shall identify actions that must be taken to ensure that the preserved areas will maintain natural diversity and function as proposed. A Preserve Management Plan shall include the following elements: i. General Maintenance. Preserves shall be maintained in their natural state and must be kept free of refuse and debris. ii. Exotic Vegetation Removal, Non - native Vegetation, and Nuisance or Invasive Plant Control. Exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plans shall require that Category I Exotics be eradicated from all preserves. All exotics within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve shall be physically removed, or the vegetation cut down to grade, cut debris removed and the stump treated. Exotics within the interior of the preserve may be approved to be treated in place if it is determined that physical removal might cause more damage to the native vegetation in the preserve. When exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. Any person who supervises up to eight people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required retained native vegetation areas, wetlands, or LSPA shall maintain the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services certifications for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators dependent upon the specific area to be treated. Control of exotics shall be implemented on a yearly basis or more frequently when required, and shall describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. Nuisance or invasive plants and non - native ornamental vegetation shall be eradicated from all preserves. iii. Designation of a Preserve Manager. A Preserve Manager shall be responsible for providing the developer /property owner with technical assistance regarding management needs for the preserve and compliance with the Preserve Management Plan. At a minimum the Preserve Manager shall have academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. The individual's name, address and phone number shall be listed on the Preserve Management Plan. The same contact information shall be provided regarding the developer /property owner. Changes in the Preserve Manager hired to manage the preserve shall be documented in the monitoring report for the preserve. iv. Wildlife Habitat Management. Where habitats must be managed with regards to the species utilizing them, Wildlife Habitat Management strategies may be required to provide for specialized treatment http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2P/`2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 � 1 � 16 1 'j A 2 ('�Page 13 of 20 the average cost for all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through the Conservation Collier program. This monetary payment shall be made prior to the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. b) In lieu of monetary payment, applicants may choose to donate land for conservation purposes to Collier County or to another government agency. In the event of donation to Collier County, the applicant may acquire and subsequently donate land within the project boundaries of Winchester Head, North Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, another multi - parcel project or any other land designated by Conservation Collier donation acceptance procedures. Applicants who choose to donate land shall be required to demonstrate that the land to be donated contains native vegetation communities equal to or of higher priority (as described in subsection 3.05.07 A.) than the land required to be preserved onsite. In no case shall the acreage of land donated be less than the acreage of land required to be preserved onsite. Land donated to satisfy the off -site vegetation retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County. Donations of land for preservation shall be made to a federal, state or local government agency established or authorized to accept lands for the conservation and management of land in perpetuity, subject to the policies and procedures of the receiving entity. Lands donated to Collier County must include a cash payment for management of the land. The amount of this payment shall be equal to 25 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 25 percent of the average cost in all other Designations, as applicable, as defined by the FLUE, purchased by Collier County, through the Conservation Collier program. Applicants shall provide evidence that donations of land for preservation and endowments for management have been accepted by and donated to the entity stated above, at the time of the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. Exotics shall be removed in accordance with the time frames provided in 3.05.07 H.2. State and Federal agency requirements for mitigation, remediation and monitoring for the donated land shall be the responsibility of the applicant. iv. PUD zoning. Where the off -site native vegetation retention alternative is used for portions of preserves not identified on a PUD master plan, a PUD amendment is not required. Preserves or portions of preserves identified on a PUD master plan shall require an amendment to the PUD master plan to use the native vegetation retention alternative, subject to 10.02.13 E, unless the option to use the off -site native vegetation retention alternative is included in the PUD. g. Preserve management plans. Criteria i, ii, vii and viii below are required for all preserves whether a management plan for the preserve is required or not. Preserve Management Plans shall be required for all properties with 5 acres or more of preserve or where listed species are utilizing the preserve or where the preserve contains habitat which requires management for fire (such as Pine Flatwoods, Palmetto Prairie or Scrub). The Preserve Management Plan shall identify actions that must be taken to ensure that the preserved areas will maintain natural diversity and function as proposed. A Preserve Management Plan shall include the following elements: i. General Maintenance. Preserves shall be maintained in their natural state and must be kept free of refuse and debris. ii. Exotic Vegetation Removal, Non - native Vegetation, and Nuisance or Invasive Plant Control. Exotic vegetation removal and maintenance plans shall require that Category I Exotics be eradicated from all preserves. All exotics within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve shall be physically removed, or the vegetation cut down to grade, cut debris removed and the stump treated. Exotics within the interior of the preserve may be approved to be treated in place if it is determined that physical removal might cause more damage to the native vegetation in the preserve. When exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. Any person who supervises up to eight people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required retained native vegetation areas, wetlands, or LSPA shall maintain the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services certifications for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators dependent upon the specific area to be treated. Control of exotics shall be implemented on a yearly basis or more frequently when required, and shall describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. Nuisance or invasive plants and non - native ornamental vegetation shall be eradicated from all preserves. iii. Designation of a Preserve Manager. A Preserve Manager shall be responsible for providing the developer /property owner with technical assistance regarding management needs for the preserve and compliance with the Preserve Management Plan. At a minimum the Preserve Manager shall have academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. The individual's name, address and phone number shall be listed on the Preserve Management Plan. The same contact information shall be provided regarding the developer /property owner. Changes in the Preserve Manager hired to manage the preserve shall be documented in the monitoring report for the preserve. iv. Wildlife Habitat Management. Where habitats must be managed with regards to the species utilizing them, Wildlife Habitat Management strategies may be required to provide for specialized treatment http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2P/`2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode OS 1612.- Page 14 of 20 of the preserve. Where protected species are identified, management strategies shall be developed and implemented in accordance with section 3.04.00. The County will accept state and federal management plans that are consistent with the requirements of the LDC. Hunting is permissible in preserves where expressly approved by the Board of County Commissioners. V. Fire Management. Special land management practices to control fire or to maintain species diversity in the absence of fire must be included as part of the Preserve Management Plan, for those habitats requiring these practices. Fire Management plans may include removal of dead vegetation or periodic thinning of living vegetation, to improve forest health and mimic the natural effects of fire, as appropriate for the habitat type and surrounding land uses. Fuel and fire breaks shall be kept to a minimum necessary to control fire and should be coordinated with the State of Florida, Division of Forestry, as part of a fire suppression plan. The annual inspection monitoring report required pursuant to ix (below) shall document, with photographs, the coverage and types of vegetation to be cleared for fuel management, prior to clearing. Where listed species have been documented within the preserve, the annual inspection monitoring report shall require surveys for the nests, burrows or cavities of listed species that may be affected by the land management practices, no more than six months prior to clearing, if gopher tortoises occur in the area, or within the time frames recommended by the FFWCC and USFWS. Fire Management plans shall be consistent with wildlife habitat management plans approved by Collier County. vi. Vegetation Removal Permits. Vegetation Removal Permits shall not be required to implement Preserve Management Plans and firewise safety plans that specify land management practices for clearing for fuel management or fire lines in accordance with normal forestry practices and which have been approved pursuant to this section. State and Federal agency permits or approvals shall be required, where applicable, prior to clearing. Vegetation Removal Permits shall not be required to remove dead, dying or leaning trees which pose a safety concern, unless they contain a nest or cavity of a listed animal species or bald eagle. The annual inspection monitoring report required pursuant to ix (below) shall document, with photographs, trees to be removed for safety concerns. vii. Protection During Construction and Signage After Construction. The Preserve Management Plan shall address protective measures during construction and signage during and after construction that are consistent with section 3.05.04 viii. Monitoring for Preserves Receiving Treated Stormwater. A monitoring program must be implemented for preserves that will receive stormwater pursuant to the requirements of section 3.05.07. The monitoring program must include protocols to conduct vegetation surveys and monitoring for ground and surface water levels. The Preserve Management Plan shall include a schedule requiring a baseline monitoring report followed by 5 annual monitoring reports. Monitoring reports for stormwater within preserves shall be included as part of the annual inspection monitoring reports pursuant to ix. (below). The County will accept wetland monitoring reports submitted to the South Florida Water Management District as long as the reports conform to the minimum requirements provided herein and includes all of the Preserves receiving stormwater. Compatible vegetation must be planted to replace upland vegetation that may be lost as a direct result of the introduction of stormwater into the preserve. ix. Inspections and Monitoring. The property owner shall provide for inspections of all on -site preserves by the Preserve Manager on an annual basis, at a minimum, or more frequently when required to ensure the preserve functions as intended. The results of the inspections, and recommendations of the Preserve Manager, must be included in a monitoring report on an annual basis, at a minimum. The property owner shall retain copies of the five most recent years of monitoring reports and make them available to Collier County upon request. X. Preserve Site Plan. A Preserve Site Plan with FLUCFCS Codes for each of the habitat types within the preserve must be included as part of the Preserve Management Plan. The location of pathways and other approved uses within the preserve must be included on the Preserve Site Plan. Xi. The requirements of criteria v, vi, viii, ix, and x shall not apply to projects with County permits or approvals including approved Preserve Management Plans issued prior to June 8, 2010. h. Allowable uses within County required preserves. Passive uses are allowed within preserves to provide for access to the preserve, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required native vegetation or cause loss of function to the preserve. Loss of function to the preserve includes unacceptable changes in vegetation within the preserve or harming any listed species present in the preserve. Unacceptable changes in vegetation within preserves include replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native species, changes in vegetative composition which are inconsistent with target plant communities or die -offs of vegetation which are inconsistent with target plant communities. Determinations of harm to listed species shall be made by FFWCC or USFWS, and pathways, structures or improvements within preserves containing listed species shall be in accordance with permits or authorizations from these agencies. L The following passive uses are allowed within preserves. a) Pervious and impervious pathways and boardwalks, subject to the following criteria: i) Recommended widths for pedestrian pathways is 5 feet. Widths greater than 8 feet may be allowed where pathways serve as fire breaks in accordance with a fire suppression plan approved by the State of Florida, Division of Forestry. ii) Minimum widths for shared use paths for use by golf carts, trams, bicycles, joggers, etc. is 10 feet. Widths greater than 12 feet may be allowed where pathways serve as fire breaks in accordance with a fire suppression plan approved by the State of Florida, http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3a %2f %2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode "' �► 1612 A Page 15 of 20 Division of Forestry. Golf cart paths for golf course use shall be designed for golf course access only. iii) Impervious pathways shall be limited to no more than one percent of the area of the preserve. Pathways over this amount shall be either pervious pathways or boardwalks. iv) Where feasible, pathways shall be designed to maintain existing vegetation and larger trees. Pathways in scrub habitat lacking canopy should be avoided. v) Where a minimum preserve width of 20 feet cannot be maintained on either side of pathways, the pathway shall be located along the side of the preserve. vi) Pathways shall not interfere with the nests, dens, burrows or roosts of listed species or the nests of bald eagle, unless permitted or authorized by the FFWCC or USFWS. vii) Pathways, other than boardwalks, shall be at or on natural grade unless constructed on berms for the stormwater management system. Slopes for stormwater management berms in or adjacent to preserves shall be stabilized and planted with 100% South Florida native species compatible with the habitat present in the preserve. b) Shelters without walls. C) Educational signage and bulletin boards located on or immediately adjacent to the pathway. d) Benches for seating e) Viewing platforms f) Wildlife sanctuaries for indigenous free roaming wildlife. Wildlife parks, wildlife rehabilitation centers and similar type uses, with non - indigenous wildlife, or caged or enclosed wildlife, shall not be allowed within preserves. g) Conservation- related and recreational activities comparable in nature with the aforementioned uses, as determined by the County Manager or designee. h) The requirements of this subsection (3.05.07 H.1.h.i) shall not apply to preserve pathways, structures or improvements that had permits prior to June 8, 2010. Existing pathways, structures or improvements that had permits may be repaired, maintained and replaced within the existing footprint of the pathway, structure or improvement. ii. Stormwater subject to the following criteria. a) Nothing in this section shall exempt any system from complying with the stormwater management design standards as set forth by the South Florida Water Management District. b) Preserve areas shall not be used to meet water quality requirements as set forth in Section 5.2.1(a) of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications for the South Florida Water Management District or the Watershed Management regulations of Section 3.07.00 C) Discharge of stormwater into a preserve shall be in a controlled manner to prevent erosion, scour, and to promote even distribution. d) Stormwater may be discharged into preserves comprised of: i) Jurisdictional wetlands and the minimum required upland buffer around these wetlands in accordance with an approved SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP); Uplands comprised primarily (greater than 50 percent by area) of hydric soils as mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or as determined by in situ hydric indicators; iii) Non - jurisdictional areas dominated by hydrophytic (Obligate (OBL) & Facultative Wet (FACW)) vegetation; iv) Or a combination thereof. e) Where preserves include uplands comprised of greater than 50% by area of non - hydric soils and not addressed in subsection 3.05.07 H.1.h.ii.d (above), stormwater may be discharged into said preserves provided the following criteria are met: i) If gopher tortoise, red - cockaded woodpecker, Big Cypress fox squirrel, scrub jay or the nests of bald eagle are present, technical assistance from the FFWCC or USFWS shall be provided indicating that no harm to these species or their habitat will occur due to discharge of stormwater into the preserve. Technical assistance must be site specific; ii) Demonstration that the upland portion of the preserve is not inundated for more than 30 consecutive days during a reference wet season, as demonstrated through stormwater modeling. For the purpose of this subsection, the reference wet season is May 1996 through October 1996. In this context, inundation means water levels averaging greater than 2" above the average ground surface of the preserve; or, if on -site groundwater data exists during a normal wet season, the applicant must demonstrate that the addition of stormwater to the preserve will not cause the groundwater elevation in the preserve to exceed the existing recorded peak groundwater elevation. A wet season typically spans June through November, and rainfall is considered normal if the monthly totals during a given wet - season fall within 25 percent of the average rainfall volume per month, as computed using nearby long- term regional rainfall data; http: // library. municode. com / print. aspx? clientID = 13992 &HTMRequest = http %3a %2f /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 16 A 2 U Page 16 of 20 Stormwater shall not be directly discharged into land designated as 322, 413, or 421 FLUCFCS Codes. f) When stormwater discharges are allowed in preserves, the associated stormwater facilities such as berms, swales, or outfall structures, may be located within the preserve, but the area of such facilities cannot count towards the native vegetation preservation requirement pursuant to section 3.05.07. These facilities are not subject to setback requirements as found in subsection 3.05.07 H.3. These facilities may be placed in a drainage easement. g) Where stormwater discharges are allowed in preserves, the Preserve Management Plan as required in 3.05.07 must include a monitoring program. In the event stormwater introduced into a preserve results in unacceptable changes in vegetation within the preserve, then a remediation plan must be provided and the Preserve Management Plan revised accordingly. Unacceptable changes in vegetation within preserves include replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native species, changes in vegetative composition which are inconsistent with target plant communities or die -offs of vegetation which are inconsistent with target plant communities. h) Stormwater shall be allowed in preserves in the RLSA - WRA areas in accordance with section 4.08.00 Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District standards and procedures. i) A property owner may request deviations from the above regulations, 3.05.07 H.1.h.ii. Staff shall review the plans and proposed deviations to ensure that uplands in the preserve will suffer no adverse impact resulting from the proposed deviations. The process for obtaining deviations shall follow the procedure as set forth in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances; appeal before the EAC, and shall be heard at a public hearing of the EAC. No deviations shall be granted for 322, 413, or 421 FLUCFCS Codes. j) The requirements of this subsection (3.05.07 H.1.h.ii) shall not apply to discharge of stormwater into preserves pursuant to South Florida Water Management District or County permits or approvals issued prior to June 11, 2010. iii. No setback from preserves is required for fences, or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system. Decorative walls must be set back a minimum of five feet from the boundary of preserves. Permanent fences and walls are prohibited within preserves unless approved by the FFWCC or USFWS as part of an approved wildlife management plan in accordance with 3.04.00. Where construction of such structures impacts native vegetation in the preserve, a restoration plan shall be provided and included as part of the preserve management plan. No trenching for wall /fence installation is allowed within 10 feet from preserve boundary, unless adjacent to a fire break in the preserve. Trenching is allowed for installation of gopher tortoise fencing pursuant to FFWCC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines and for retaining walls designed to minimize impacts to native habitat and wetlands, such as those permitted as part of the stormwater management system. iv. No setback from preserves is required for impervious or pervious pathways, or other structures allowed within preserves pursuant to this section. V. In those areas of Collier County where oil extraction and related processing is an allowable use, such use is subject to applicable State and Federal oil and gas permits and Collier County non - environmental site development plan review procedures. Directional - drilling and /or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized in order to minimize impacts to native habitats, where determined to be practicable. This requirement shall be deemed satisfied upon issuance of a State permit in compliance with the criteria established in Chapter 62C -25 through 62C -30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13, 2005, regardless of whether the activity occurs within the Big Cypress Watershed, as defined in Rule 62C- 30.001(2), F.A.C. All applicable Collier County environmental permitting requirements shall be considered satisfied by evidence of the issuance of all applicable Federal and /or State oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County, so long as the state permits comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C -25 through 62C- 30, F.A.C. For those areas of Collier County outside the boundary of the Big Cypress Watershed, the applicant shall be responsible for convening the Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee as set forth in Section 377.42, F.S., to assure compliance with Chapter 62C -25 through 62C -30, F.A.C. even if outside the defined Big Cypress Watershed. All access roads to oil and gas uses shall be constructed and protected from unauthorized uses according to the standards established in Rule 62C- 30.005(2)(a)(1) through (12), F.A.C. 2. Inspections and maintenance. a. Inspections shall be required for all preserves. The preserve areas shall be completed and approved by inspections conducted in accordance with the following schedule: L Prior to preliminary acceptance of the phase of the required subdivision improvements; ii. Within the associated phase of the final site development plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. iii. As required with golf courses, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first permitted structure associated with the golf course facility; iv. Eighty percent vegetative coverage, of the created preserves and supplemental plantings in preserves, is required within a two -year period following the initial planting and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Native plants that recruit on their own within the preserve will be counted towards this coverage requirement. b. Annual maintenance. Annual maintenance shall be required according to the Preserve Management Plan. http: //l ibrary.municode.com/ print. aspx? clientID = 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 49�. Municode {j L O Page 17 of 20 3. Required setbacks to preserves. a. All principal structures shall have a minimum 25 -foot setback from the boundary of any preserve. accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10 -foot setback from the boundary of any preserve. There shall be no site alterations within the first 10 feet adjacent to any preserve unless it can be demonstrated that it will not adversely impact the integrity of that preserve. (i.e. Fill may be approved to be placed within 10 feet of the upland preserve but may not be approved to be placed within 10 feet of a wetland preserve, unless it can be demonstrated that it will not negatively impact that wetland. b. Additional preserve buffers shall be applied to wetlands pursuant to section 3.05.07 F.M. 4. Exemptions. a. Single family residences are subject only to the applicable vegetation retention standards found in 3.05.07 b. Applications for development orders authorizing site improvements, such as an SDP or FSP and, on a case by case basis, a PSP, that are submitted and deemed sufficient prior to June 19, 2003 are not required to comply with the provisions of this section 3.05.07 H., which were adopted on or after June 19, 2003. (Ord. No. 05-27, § 3.M; Ord. No. 08 -08, § 3.F; Ord. No. 08 -63, § 3.H; Ord. No. 10 -23, § 3.0) 3.05.08 - Requirement for Removal of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation Prohibited exotic vegetation specifically includes the following: Earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) Australian pine (Casuarina spp.) Melaleuca ( Melaleuca spp.) Catclaw mimose (Minosa pigra) Downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) Java plum (Syzygium cumini) Women's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Climbing fern (Lygodium spp.) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Lather leaf (Colubrina asiatica) Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) A. General. 1. Prohibited exotic vegetation removal and methods of removal shall be conducted in accordance with the specific provisions of each local development order. 2. Native vegetation shall be protected during the process of removing prohibited exotic vegetation, in accord with the provisions of section 3.05.04 3. Prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the following locations, and within the following timeframes: a. From all rights -of -way, common area tracts not proposed for development, and easements prior to preliminary acceptance of each phase of the required subdivision improvements. b. From each phase of a site development plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for that phase. C. From all golf course fairways, roughs, and adjacent open space /natural preserve areas prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first permitted structure associated with the golf course facility. d. From property proposing any enlargement of existing interior floor space, paved parking area, or substantial site improvement prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 4. In the case of the discontinuance of use or occupation of land or water or structure for a period of 90 consecutive days or more, property owners shall, prior to subsequent use of such land or water or structure, conform to the regulations specified by this section. 5. Verification of prohibited exotic vegetation removal shall be performed by the development services director's field representative. 6. Herbicides utilized in the removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall have been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any person who supervises up to eight (8) people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required retained native vegetation areas, wetlands, or LSPA shall maintain the Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services certifications for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators dependent upon the specific area to be treated. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. B. Exotic vegetation maintenance plan. A maintenance plan shall be submitted to the development services director for review on sites which require prohibited exotic vegetation removal prior to the issuance of the local development order. This maintenance plan shall describe specific techniques to prevent reinvasion by prohibited exotic vegetation of the site in perpetuity. This maintenance plan shall be implemented on a yearly basis at a minimum. Issuance of the local development order shall be contingent upon approval of the maintenance plan. Noncompliance with this plan shall http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2t%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode us _A Page 18 of 20 �b12 Aeu constitute violation of this section. The development services director's field representative shall inspect sites periodically after issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or other final acceptance, for compliance with this section. j C. Applicability to new structures and to additions on single - family and two- family lots. In addition to the other requirements of this section, the applicant shall be required to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation before a certificate of occupancy is granted on any new principal or accessory structure and any additions to the square footage of the principal or accessory structures on single - family or two- family lots. This shall not apply to tents, awnings, cabanas, utility storage sheds, or screened enclosures not having a roof impervious to weather. This shall not apply to interior remodeling of any existing structure. The removal of prohibited exotic vegetation shall be required in perpetuity. Upon issuance of a vegetation removal permit, prohibited exotic vegetation may be removed from lots which are zoned residential single - family (RSF), estates (E), village residential (VR), and mobile home (MH), prior to issuance of a building permit. (Ord. No. 05-27, § 3. N; Ord. No. 08 -63, § 3./) T 3.05.09 - Designation of Specimen Tree By resolution of the BCC, a plant may be designated a specimen tree because of its historical significance, rarity in the County, age, or extraordinary size. 3.0 5.10 - Littoral Shelf Planting Area (LSPA) The purpose and intent of a littoral shelf planting area (LSPA) is to establish a planted area within an excavated lake serving as a wet detention pond as part of a stormwater management system that will support wetland plants, improves the water quality within the lake and provides habitat for a variety of aquatic species including wading birds and other waterfowl. Contained within such a lake, , this area will typically function as a freshwater marsh. Accordingly, the following requirements have been established in order for the LSPA to be designed and maintained to accomplish this stated purpose and function. I A. Design requirements. 1. Area requirements. The total area of the LSPA shall be calculated as a percentage of the total area of the lake at control elevation. Area requirements vary within the County and are as follows: a. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - 30 percent. This requirement may be reduced subject to the incentives identified in section 3.05.07 F.4.b.; b. All other areas - 7 percent. 2. Location criteria. Unless otherwise allowed for, the LSPA shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area, in order to maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. Multiple locations for meeting the LSPA area requirement within a single lake shall be allowed as long as a single LSPA is no smaller than 1,000 square feet. Whenever possible, the LSPA should be located away from residential lots in order to avoid maintenance and aesthetic conflicts with residential users, and the LSPA shall be located adjacent to control structures or pipe outlets or inlets in order to maximize water quality benefits. However, the LSPA shall be located no closer than 20 feet from any discharge structure or pipe intake so as to not impede flow. If the LSPA is located around a discharge structure, the 20 -foot setback shall extend waterward of the discharge structure to a point in the center of the lake. For interconnected lake systems, the total required area of the LSPA for all lakes may be configured within a single lake and at one location. 3. Shelf elevation. The design elevation(s) of the LSPA shall be determined based on the ability of the LSPA to function as a marsh community and on the ability of selected plants to tolerate the expected range of water level fluctuations. Generally, marsh communities in this area have a hydroperiod of between 6 and 10 months. Wet seasonal water levels range from 12 to 24 inches above ground elevation. Dry seasonal water levels are six inches below ground elevation for an average year and 46 inches below ground elevation for a one in ten year drought. The design of the shelf may deviate from these reference values if site - specific data and information is presented that supports the proposed elevations. 4. Shelf configuration. The LSPA shall be designed so that the slope of the shelf is as flat as possible. An undulating bottom allowing for shallow pooling during the dry season is encouraged. Shelves may be terraced to provide for varying elevations for different plant species. The area requirements specified in 3.05.10 A.1 shall only be satisfied by those areas planted on a shelf that has an average slope of 8:1 or flatter. Shelves having undulating bottoms and terraced configurations shall be deemed to meet the slope requirements if the average slope across the shelf is 8:1 or flatter. 5. Plant selection and specifications. Plants shall be selected based on the expected flooding durations and maximum water depths for which the selected plants can survive. The LSPA shall be initially planted with at least 3 different species of native, nursery grown or otherwise legally obtained vegetation. No species shall constitute more than 50 percent of coverage, and at least 1 species shall be herbaceous. Spacing shall be no more than: 20 feet for trees; 5 feet for shrubs; and 36 inches on center for herbaceous plants. At the time of planting, minimum size shall be: 3 gallon (minimum 4 feet high) for trees; 1 gallon for shrubs and 12 inches for herbaceous plants. Clustering of plants shall be allowed to provide for scattered open areas as long as the open areas do not constitute more than 20 percent of the required shelf area and the elevations of the open areas are at least a foot deeper than the surrounding planted area. 6. Posted area. The boundary of the LSPA shall be posted with appropriate signage denoting the area as a LSPA. sign(s) should note that the posted area is a Littoral Shelf Planting Area and contain specific instructions to ensure that the planted area will not be subjected to herbicidal treatments or other activities that will kill the vegetation. The signs shall be no closer than 10 feet from residential property lines; be limited to a maximum http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2t%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 1 { Page 19 of 20 � S 16U A20 .J height of 4 feet and a maximum size of 2 square feet; and, otherwise comply with section 5.06.00. A minimum of two signs shall be provided to mark the extent of the LSPA. Maximum sign spacing shall be 150 feet. 7. Required information. The planting plan for the LSPA shall provide the following information: a. Calculation table showing the required area (square feet) for the LSPA and its percentage of the total area at control elevation; b. Control elevation and dry season water table; C. Maximum water depth (feet) and estimated number of months of flooding for the range of planted elevations within the LSPA; d. A plant list to include the appropriate range of elevations for each specified plant species, spacing requirements, and plant size; e. Planting locations of selected plants. B. Operational requirements. Littoral shelf planting areas shall be maintained according to the following requirements: 1. Eighty percent vegetative coverage of the LSPA is required within a 2 -year period following the initial planting and shall be maintained in perpetuity. Native plants that recruit within the LSPA will be counted towards this coverage requirement except as required per section 3.05. 10 B.2 below. The LSPA must be kept free of refuse and debris. 2. Prohibited exotics and nuisance species shall be removed as they occur, manually or with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicides. Prohibited exotics are those species as listed in this section 3.05.08. For the purpose of this section, nuisance species include those species listed as Class I and Class II Prohibited Aquatic Plants specified in Chapter 62C- 52.011, Florida Administrative Code. Cattails shall be removed manually or with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicides when they exceed ten percent coverage of the required LSPA area. C. Application to existing lakes. All previously approved projects requiring littoral plantings shall meet the operational requirements set out in 3.05.10 B. above. 1. Projects with previously approved littoral planting requirements constructed according to standards required at the time of approval, that do not meet the operational requirements of 3.05.10 B., shall meet the current standards subject to the following criteria: a. The amount of planted area shall be the same as that required in the original approval; b. The property owner shall assess the existing slopes and elevations in order to determine the appropriate location of the plantings subject to the criteria found in section 3,05. 10 A.3. The planted area shall be consolidated as much as possible subject to the criteria found in 3.05. 10 A.2. C. Subject to the assessment described in b., the existing planting slopes should be as flat as possible but the 8:1 requirement of 3.05. 10 A.4. shall not be required. Re- grading of existing slopes will not be required; d. Plant selection and specifications shall conform to section 3.05.10 A.5; e. Signage of the planted littoral areas shall be required subject to 3.05.10 A.6.; and f. A written assessment and site plan shall be required if it is determined by the assessment of the lakes that the new littoral shelf planting area will differ from the approved plan of record. 2. For amendments to approved excavations where the proposed amendments will modify the previously approved lake shoreline or increase the previously approved lake area, signage of the planted littoral areas shall be required subject to section 3.05.10 A.6. a. For amendments that modify less than 20 percent of the previously approved shoreline but increase the previously approved lake area, only the additional portion of the lake shall be used to calculate the additional LSPA area using the percentage requirements of 3.05. 10 A.1. (See figure 1 below) This additional LSPA shall conform to the design requirements of 3.05. 10 A. b. For amendments that modify 20 percent or more of the previously approved shoreline, the total lake area shall be used to calculate the LSPA area using the percentage requirements of 3.05.10 A.1. (See figure 1 below) The LSPA shall conform to the design requirements of 3.05. 10 A. http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 13992& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode� 1612 A2U Page 20 of 20 {M l I_ Figure 3.5.11.3.2 existing lake — — — — lake addition For amendments that modify the existing lake area by adding an addition, only the new portion of the lake shall be used to calculate the LSPA area using the percentage requirements of 3.5.11.1.1. � 1 1 existing shoreline — — — — modified lake shoreline For amendments that modify the existing shoreline by greater than 20 percent, the total lake area shall be used to calculate the LSPA area using the percentage requirements of 3.5.11.1.1. :Mk!O h (31flC. M � MLC3 NSA tfi CtxgCK?4�K'QS 11.1 ff CE114 lvl !MR+f+x;v4Faftti�t sFaYSCES bSYSS3: T.i�hn tttEUX.2dCaayw[, I D. Exemptions. Lake excavations activities which are lawfully permitted and used for aquaculture shall be exempt from the LSPA requirements. Lake excavation activities subject to the Resource Extraction Reclamation Act (Ch. 378, Part IV, Fla. Stat.) shall be exempt from the LSPA requirements but shall otherwise be required to follow the mine reclamation requirements required in the Code of Laws of Collier County. Exempted lake excavations that are modified to allow the lake to function as a wet detention pond as part of a stormwater management system shall no longer be exempted from this section and shall meet the standards contained herein at the time of modification. (Ord Nc0 04 -72 § 3 t: Ord No 06 -63 § 3 0 Ord No 07 -67, § 3.N) http: // library. municode .com /priilt.aspx ?clientlD= 13992& I -ITMRequest= http %3a %2 f%2 f1ibrary.m Lin icode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 0 1612 2U Page 1 of 10 Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances >> PART I - CODE >> Chapter 54 - ENVIRONMENT >> ARTICLE VI. - LITTER, WEED AND EXOTICS CONTROL >> ARTICLE VI. - LITTER, WEED AND EXOTICS CONTROL Sec. 54 -175. - Purpose and intent. Sec. 54 -176. - Title. Sec. 54 -177. - Applicability. Sec. 54 -178. - Definitions. Sec. 54 -179. - Litter declared to be a public nuisance. Sec. 54 -180. - Unlawful to litter. Sec. 54 -181. - Unauthorized accumulation of litter. Sec. 54 -182. - Dumping or depositing of abandoned property prohibited. Sec. 54 -183. - Storage of litter. Sec. 54 -184. - Waste materials management. Sec. 54 -185. - Declaration of public nuisance. Sec. 54 -186. - Exemptions. Sec. 54 -187. - Notice of violation. Sec. 54 -188. -Assessment for abating nuisance. Sec. 54 -189. - Assessment right to hearings on declaration of public nuisance and assessment. Sec. 54 -190. - Enforcement procedures. Sec. 54 -191. - Immediate corrective action. Sec. 54 -192. - Procedures for and effect of mailed notices. Sec. 54 -193. - Procedures for mandatory lot mowing program. Sec. 54 -194. - Penalties. Secs. 54- 195 -54 -225. - Reserved. Sec. 54 -175. - Purpose and intent. This Ordinance is hereby considered to be remedial and shall be construed and interpreted to secure the public safety, health and general welfare through clean and sanitary property, free from wind -blown debris and materials. (1) The accumulation of Litter and Abandoned Property on public and private property constitutes a hazard and is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Collier County. (2) The accumulation of weeds, grass or Exotics or similar growth on, or in close proximity to, residentially, commercially, or industrially -zoned land is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Collier County.' (Ord. No. 09 -08, § 1) Sec. 54 -176. Title. This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Collier County Litter, Weed and Exotics Control Ordinance ". (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 2) Sec. 54 -177. - Applicability. This article shall apply to, and be enforced in, all unincorporated areas of Collier County. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 3) Sec. 54 -178. - Definitions. When used in this Ordinance, the following words, phrases or terms shall have the following meanings, unless the content clearly indicates otherwise: Abandoned property. Any wrecked, inoperative, derelict or partially dismantled property having little, if any, value other than nominal salvage value, which has been left unattended and unprotected from the elements, which shall include, but not be limited to, motor vehicles, trailers, boats, machinery, appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, plumbing fixtures, furniture and any other similar articles. http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientlD= 10578& HTMRequest = http% 3a %2P' /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode Page 2 of 10 r i o A 20 Abate. To mow a able Lot to';a height..of less than six (6) inches, or to remove Exotic Plants to a height of equal to surrounding na'tu'ral elev itiown and to poison any stumps, if remaining, with an EPA approved herbicide containing a visual tracer dye; or to remove Litter; or to remove Abandoned Property, in accordance with this Ordinance. Mulching of Exotic Plants is allowed as long as the mulching occurs in an Enclosed Container and is removed from the site. Construction and demolotion debris. Discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and nonhazardous in nature, including but not limited to; steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project, clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in F.S. § 403.707(12)0), unpainted, nontreated wood scraps from facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, nontreated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de minimis amounts of other nonhazardous wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris. Exotics or exotics plants. Australian pine (Casuarina, all species), Melaleuca (all species), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), downy rose myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosus) earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), Java plum (Syzygium cumini), Woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck), catclaw mimose (Mimosa pigra), and any prohibited exotic species that may be added to County Ordinance No. 04 -41, as amended, (Section 3.05.08, Collier County Land Development Code). Enclosed container. Any container having a physical structure which prevents materials from falling out, spilling, blowing out by wind action, or coming out by other accidental means during transport or on -site storage, and shall include, but not be limited to, garbage cans, truck bodies capable of being enclosed for transit purposes only, rolloff containers, and any other container sufficient to prevent the accidental scattering or leaking of said materials on surrounding properties and on public roads. A dumpster enclosure is not an enclosed container. Improved property. Real property that contains buildings, streets (or paved areas) or other structural improvements. Inert waste materials. Brick, block, concrete, rock, stone, earth and sand, free from contamination or other types of waste, free from protruding rebar and /or other metals, and capable of serving as fill material without harm to, or pollution of, ground or surface waters. Litter. Any discarded, used, or unconsumed substances or wastes. Litter shall include, but shall not be limited to, garbage, trash, refuse, debris, paper product (including newspapers and magazines), glass, metal, plastic or other containers, cloth, wood and wood products, sweepings, liquids (other than uncontaminated water), sludge, grass clippings, tree limbs, trunks and roots, undergrowth and materials produced by clearing and grubbing and other horticulture wastes, motor vehicle parts and tires, furniture, oil or grease, hazardous wastes (including gasoline, paint thinners and other similar types), the carcass of a dead animal, any obnoxious or offensive matter of any kind, any object likely to injure any person or create a traffic or pedestrian hazard, or any other condition of any unsightly nature, which may have been discarded, abandoned or otherwise disposed of improperly. Litter shall not include horticultural wastes, such as palm fronds, that have accumulated on public or private property as the result of natural conditions. Natural conditions means accumulation that occurs as a result of an increase by natural growth rather than manmade. Mowable lot. (1) Any portion, piece, division, or parcel of land in any Recorded or Unrecorded Subdivision of this County, of which fifty percent (50 %) or more of unimproved property, can be mowed with bushhog -type or smaller mowing equipment, without damage to the lot or equipment. For purposes of determining lot size, rights -of -way, alleys, and all easements shall be included in the calculation of the Mowable Lot; or (2) Any portion of Improved Property, which can be mowed with bushhog -type, or smaller, mowing equipment without damage to the lot or equipment. Prohibited accumulation of exotics. Any accumulation of Exotics, which is located on improved or unimproved property. Recorded subdivision. Land subdivided into three (3) or more lots, parcels, sites, units, or any other division of land for which a plat has been filed with Clerk of Courts of Collier County. Receptacle. A container made of material that will protect the property and environment from leakage, spillage and overflow of any type of litter, waste or debris. A dumpster enclosure is not a receptacle. Storage of litter. The interim containment of Litter in a manner approved by the Board of County Commissioners, after generation of such Litter and prior to proper and final disposal. Unauthorized accumulation of litter. The accumulation of litter in or upon any public or private property or body of water, which is not contained within proper containers or receptacles provided for control of Litter, or is not otherwise permitted or authorized, by any other Collier County Ordinance. This term shall not include building materials used in construction or repair of a building or structure which materials are properly stored at the site of such activity, so long as: (1) The subject building is being constructed, remodeled, repaired, or demolished under the authority of an active, valid Collier County building permit and for which the materials are to be used; and (2) http: // library. municode .com / print. asps? clientID = 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 1 ;k °. t 6 12 20 .4 Page 3 of 10 The building materials are secured during construction, remodel, repair, or building demolition, to prevent the material from falling out, spilling, blowing out by wind action, or coming out by other accidental means so that it trespasses on adjacent properties, or creates a negative visual impact to surrounding properties. Unauthorized accumulation of Litter shall also include, but not be limited to, the accumulation or storage of Litter or containerized Litter or Abandoned Property adjacent to public right -of -way if such materials are placed upon a right -of -way earlier than 6:00 (6) p.m. of the night prior to the regularly scheduled pickup for that location by the County solid waste collection contractor, or allowing said accumulation, or container to remain adjacent to the public right -of -way after 6:00 (6) p.m. of the day of the scheduled pickup. Unlawful accumulation of weeds, grass or similar nonprotected overgrowth. Any accumulation of weeds, grass or similar nonprotected overgrowth if any part of such accumulation is in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height and located on a Mowable Lot, in any Recorded or Unrecorded subdivision of Collier County. Unrecorded subdivision. Any land which for the purpose of sale or transfer has been subdivided for the purpose of sale or transfer, prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 76 -6, as amended, or any other division of land for which a plat has not been filed with the Clerk of Courts of Collier County. Written corrective notice. A written statement issued to the violator or his /her agent identifying and which states the violation, date of the violation, location of the violation, the corrective measures required to be taken, and the date by which the corrective measures are to be completed. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 4; Ord. No. 09-08,§4) Sec. 54 -179. - Litter declared to be a public nuisance. The Unauthorized Accumulation of Litter or Improper Storage of Litter or improper dumping of Abandoned Property or Litter as described in this Ordinance, in or upon public or private property, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 5; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 5) Sec. 54 -180. - Unlawful to litter. It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, discard, place, drop, or deposit litter in any manner or amount in or upon any public property, private property, highway, street, right -of -way or body of water within the unincorporated areas of Collier County, Florida, except in such areas and enclosed containers specifically provided and appropriately designated for the disposal of litter. In any case where litter is ejected or discarded from a motor vehicle, except at approved and permitted disposal sites, the operator of the motor vehicle shall be deemed in violation of this article. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 6) Sec. 54 -181. - Unauthorized accumulation of litter. Any unauthorized accumulation of litter in or upon any property, vacant or improved, or on or upon any public street, alley or other public or private place is a violation of this article. Any property owner, tenant, occupant, agent, manager, or other person who owns, maintains, or controls private property, whether improved or unimproved, is hereby declared to be in violation of this article where any such unauthorized accumulation of litter is maintained or is allowed to remain on such property. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 7) Sec. 54 -182. - Dumping or depositing of abandoned property prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in or permit the dumping, storing, placing, or depositing of abandoned property on any public or private real property, street, or highway. However, abandoned property kept in a completely enclosed building or a business enterprise, which is lawfully licensed and zoned for receipt and storage of abandoned property, shall be an exception to this provision. If abandoned property is kept or stored in connection with a lawfully licensed business enterprise, all abandoned property shall be screened so that it is not visible from any public right(s) -of -way or from any property used for residential purposes. It shall be unlawful to engage in or permit the dumping, storing, placing, or depositing of abandoned property in any residential area, unless such abandoned property is kept in a completely enclosed building. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 8) Sec. 54 -183. - Storage of litter. (a) All commercial establishments shall store litter in containers so as to eliminate wind- driven debris and litter in or about their establishments. The number and size of containers necessary for each commercial establishment shall be that number required to maintain clean, neat, and sanitary premises. Spillage and overflow around containers regardless of whether located within an enclosure, will constitute an unlawful accumulation of litter and must be immediately cleaned up as it occurs. (b) All loading and unloading zones at commercial establishments shall be provided with litter receptacles by the owner of the business to store litter. (c) Each person owning or operating any establishment open to the public shall provide receptacles adequate to contain litter generated from such establishment. http: / /library.municode.com/ print.aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode O Page 4 of 10 .4 161 �. 2 (d) Any and every person in possession, or in charge or in control of any place, public or private where litter is accumulated or generated, at all times shall provide and maintain adequate and suitable receptacles and /or containers capable of holding such materials, until proper final disposal is accomplished. (e) All construction and demolition contractors, whether owners or agents, shall provide on -site receptacles for litter sufficient to prevent wind- driven scattering of such materials if the materials are otherwise not properly disposed of on a daily basis. Receptacles placed or erected on construction sites are limited to the deposit of construction and demolition debris. Food, drink and food wrappers must be removed from the construction site daily. Spillage and overflow around containers or secured building material shall constitute an unlawful accumulation of litter and shall be immediately cleaned up as it occurs. (1) Should a violation of subsection (e) of this section occur, the construction /demolition contractor, whether owner or agent, will be required to secure a roll -off container with cover, for containment of construction debris on the site with collection scheduled necessary to prevent spillage and overflow around the containers. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 9) Sec. 54 -184. - Waste materials management. (a) Inert waste materials may be buried on a site after a valid building permit for such site has been obtained and posted and provided that such disposal is in conformance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Inert waste materials, which have not been properly buried or disposed of, will be deemed as litter. On -site containment of downed trees and other vegetative growth shall be permitted on residentially -zoned lots exceeding one acre in size and in the Estates zoned areas and only for vegetative growth which has been cut, cleared or removed on the same property of the permitted construction, providing all of the following conditions are met: (1) A valid building permit for construction of a single - family residence on the applicable lot has been obtained and is posted before removal and containment of such growth; and (2) The site plan shall identify the location of the containment area; and (3) The containment area is subject to the following restrictions: a. The downed trees and vegetative growth are placed into an excavated earthen depression which does not exceed three feet in depth from the surrounding natural elevation and does not cover a horizontal surface area greater than 10,000 square feet; and b. All such excavated earthen depressions containing downed trees and vegetative growth shall not be closer than 15 feet from the side and rear property lines or within a public or private easement or right -of -way; and I C. The nearest point of such excavated earthen depression for containment of on -site downed trees and vegetative growth shall not be closer than 75 feet to any structure, 100 feet from private and /or potable wells, and no closer than 100 feet to any public or private right -of -way; and d. All downed trees and vegetative growth contained in such excavated earthen depression shall be so contained to prevent the protrusion of any such growth more than 24 inches above the surrounding natural elevation including earthen cover; and e. All cleared vegetation four inches and less in diameter shall either be chipped /shredded, or removed from the site. No chipped or shredded material shall be placed in the containment area. Stumps, root balls, tree trunks and other cleared vegetation four inches and larger in diameter may be placed in containment areas; and (4) No excavated material shall be removed from the site. (5) Failure to either remove downed trees or downed vegetative growth from residentially -zoned lots exceeding one acre in size, or estates zoned properties, or to properly contain such material as required by this article, shall result in such downed trees and /or downed vegetative growth being classified as litter and thereby subject to property owner, agent, and /or other responsible parties to any and all penalties provided under this article; and (6) Clearing within wetlands will require a department of environmental protection permit. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 10) j Sec. 54 -185. - Declaration of public nuisance. (a) The accumulation of weeds, grass or other similar nonprotected overgrowth in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height is hereby prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance when located upon any Mowable Lot, and which lot has been specifically described by legal description and which condition has been determined by the County Manager or his designee, to be a public nuisance pursuant to this Ordinance. Such Mowable Lot is, or may reasonably be expected to become, infested or inhabited by nonprotected rodents, vermin or wild animals, or may furnish a breeding place for mosquitoes, or threaten or endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or may reasonably be expected to cause disease, or adversely affect and impair the aesthetic integrity or economic welfare of adjacent or surrounding property. (b) In the area zoned Estates, the accumulation of weeds, grass or other similar nonprotected overgrowth in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height is hereby prohibited and declared a public nuisance when located upon any improved lot within 30 feet of any residential structure up to any lot line. Such improved mowable lots may reasonably be deemed to become fire hazards. (c) The accumulation of Exotics, weeds, grass or other similar nonprotected overgrowth is hereby prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance when located upon any unimproved property in this County, which condition is adjacent to a private or public right -of -way and is not within a Recorded or Urecorded Subdivision. However, the requirements for abatement of the public nuisance as described in this Ordinance shall only apply to that portion of the property to a depth of twenty (20) feet from the property line or lines running adjacent and parallel to a private or public right(s) -of -way. (d) The accumulation of Exotics is hereby prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance when located upon any unimproved property in Collier County when the Exotics are located within a two hundred (200) foot radius of any improved property located in a Recorded or Unrecorded Subdivision. However, the requirements for abatement of the public nuisance as described in this Ordinance shall only apply to that portion of the unimproved property where the Exotics exist within a two hundred (200) foot http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2P%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 1612 A 20 Page 5 of 10 radius of any abutting, improved property. Furthermore, the requirements for abatement of the public nuisance as described in this Ordinance shall only apply when the County receives a complaint. (e) The accumulation of Exotics, weeds, grass or other similar nonprotected overgrowth in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height, is hereby prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance when such condition is located on any unimproved property in Collier County which is within five hundred (500) feet of Improved Property when such accumulation has aided any person to conceal or facilitate the commission of criminal acts against passers -by and the public and is likely to continue to aid in the concealment or commission of future criminal acts if such accumulation is not abated. A report from the Collier County Sheriffs Office identifying such unimproved property, which was allegedly utilized by any person to conceal or facilitate the commission of criminal acts against passersby or the public shall constitute sufficient evidence. However, the requirements for abatement of the public nuisance as described in this Ordinance shall only apply to that portion of the unimproved property where the accumulation exists within a five hundred (500) foot radius of Improved Property. (f) Exotic plants located in right(s) -of -way, alley(s), canal(s), and easements(s) on improved property within Recorded or Unrecorded Subdivisions are prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance. (g) The accumulation of weeds, grass or similar nonprotected overgrowth in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height is hereby prohibited and declared to be a public nuisance when located upon any unimproved property in unincorporated Collier County, which is not within a Recorded or Unrecorded Subdivision, when the weeds, grass or similar growth are located within one hundred (100) feet of the property line or lines of Recorded or Unrecorded Subdivision(S). (Ord. No. 2005-44, § 11; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 11) Sec. 54 -186. - Exemptions. (a) The area zoned Estates shall be exempt from the weed and Exotic plant public nuisance declarations provided in this Ordinance, except for the accumulation of weeds, grass or similar nonprotected overgrowth in excess of eighteen (18) inches in height located upon any improved lot within thirty (30) feet of any residential structure up to any lot line. (b) Properties that are unimproved and that are located within an area with an Estates zoning designation shall be exempt from the weed public nuisance declarations provided in this Ordinance. (c) Nonresidential structures located on improved properties with an Estates zoning designation shall be exempt from the thirty (30) foot mowing requirements of this Ordinance. (d) Accumulations of protected vegetation such as coastal strands, scrub, tropical hammocks, dune vegetation and property officially declared "protected" by any federal, state or local ordinance (such as wetlands), are hereby exempted from being considered public nuisances under this Ordinance. (e) The lands zoned Agricultural that are located outside of the Urban Boundary as described on the Collier County Future Land Use Map shall be exempt from the weed and Exotic plant public nuisance declarations in this Ordinance. (f) All lands zoned agricultural that are not being used for an essential service as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code and /or a bona fide agricultural use shall be exempt from the weed and Exotic plant public nuisance declarations provided in this Ordinance. (g) Horticultural waste, such as palm fronds, that have accumulated on public or private property as the result of natural conditions shall be exempt from the enforcement provisions of this Ordinance. Natural conditions is defined as an accumulation that occurs as a result of an increase by natural means rather than manmade. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 12; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 12) Sec. 54 -187. - Notice of violation. (a) Annual published notice. Annually, the County Manager, or his designee(s) will publish, or cause to be published, a public Notice, in substantially the following form, which details the abatement procedures for violations described in this Ordinance. This Notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation for a minimum of four Sundays beginning with the first Sunday in January of each year, and on every other Sunday thereafter. A PUBLIC NOTICE FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTICE ABOUT WEEDS OR GRASSES OVER 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT - ORDINANCE 2005 - The Collier County Litter, Weed and Exotics Control Ordinance requires that all owners of developed and undeveloped lots shall control all excessive growth of grasses or weeds over 18 inches by mowing. All lots with such vegetation over 18 inches in height will be identified by a Code Enforcement Investigator and a Notice of Violation and Order to Correct may, at the County's option, be mailed to the property owner(s) or posted on the lot. If posted, a copy of this notice will also be posted at the Collier County Courthouse at 3301 Tamiami Trail E., Naples FL 34112 or the Immokalee Courthouse at 106 1st Street S. Immokalee FL, 34142, as applicable. A posted notice may, at the option of the County, be used in lieu of mailing individual letters to property owners. After ten (10) days from the date of posting or mailing, if no action is taken, the County will abate the violation by contracting for the lot to be mowed by a mowing contractor. A bill will then be sent to the lot's owner of record for the mowing fees plus an administrative fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00). Additional charges can be assessed for oversized lots or extremely overgrown lots. Repeat violators may be subject to additional fees or charges, or after three violations may be included in a mandatory lot mowing program instituted by the County. The owner must remit payment for the amounts billed within twenty (20) days from the mailing of the County's invoice. If the invoiced bill is not paid within this twenty -day period a Determination Order assessing a lien will be imposed by the Special Magistrate. If certified and recorded, this Order may constitute a lien on ALL of the violator's real and personal property in Collier County. This lien may be paid without further costs, within twenty (20) days from the date of determination by the Special Magistrate for Collier County. If the lien remains unpaid after one (1) year from the date of the recording of the lien, Collier http: / /library.municode.com/ print.aspx ?clientID = 10578 &HTMRequest= http %3 a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode . " Y Pa e 6 of 10 6 t ZU g i 1 County may bring suit to foreclose the lien as set for in Chapter 173, Florida Statutes. All property owners are requested to make arrangements for the proper maintenance of their land as the practice of sending mailed Notices of Violation to owners, in particular absentee owners, will be at the option of the County. The cooperation of all affected property owners will assist in reducing the large number of complaints about such nuisances received each year by the Code Enforcement Department. Compliance with this requirement will also help to control vermin and improve the appearance of the affected areas of the unincorporated County. Any questions regarding these procedures can be addressed to the Code Enforcement Department. Phone number (239) 252- 2440; located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. (1) Annual publication of this Notice is intended to provide continuing constructive notice to all affected property owners in Collier County of the procedures for abatement of the specified violations, and of the consequences of failing to timely abate cited violations. (2) Failure of the county to timely, or fully, publish the Annual Notice will not be a grounds for challenging any enforcement action brought under this article. (b) Whenever the County Manager or his designee determines that a public nuisance exists as described in this Ordinance, he will cause one or more of the following forms of notice of violation to be provided to the record owner or owners of said property informing the owner(s) of said property of the existence of the nuisance and the corresponding violations(s). The form and manner of the notice provided will be determined by the Director of Code Enforcement and will depend on the number of violations issued to a particular property owner(s), the number of and frequency of any prior violations at the property owned by the violator(s), the timeliness of any prior abatement(s) of similar violation(s), the existence of other code violations, and of any previously satisfied, foreclosed, or outstanding code enforcement liens. As a general rule, certified mail, return receipt requested, should be provided to all first time violators as set forth in the corresponding procedures below. Posted notices are generally considered appropriate for repeat violations at the same location or for the same violator(s) especially when there is a pattern of certified mail sent to property owners who are not Collier County residents being returned unclaimed or being refused. (1) A Notice of Violation may be served on a violator, i.e., the record owner(s) of the cited property, either by: a. Certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying the record owner(s) of the cited violations via a Notice in substantially the following form: Code Enforcement Department Notice of Violation and Order to Correct To: Date: Ordinance Property Insert address where violation occurred]: Violation/Case No. Property: Folio #: Dear Property Owner: According to the official records of this County, you are the owner of the above - described property. As such, you are hereby notified that the Code Enforcement Director, on [date] determined that a public nuisance exists on your property pursuant to County Ordinance No. 2005- (as amended) caused by: (describe violation] You are further notified that you shall abate this nuisance within ten (10) days of the date of this notice by [describe how to abate] . Failing this action on your part, the Board of County Commissioners will cause the nuisance to be abated. YOUR FAILURE TO ABATE THE NUISANCE MAY RESULT IN THE RECORDING OF A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY. The lien shall include the direct cost plus an administrative fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00) and will be levied as an assessment against all of the property you own. IN THE EVENT YOU RECEIVE THREE NOTICES OF VIOLATION DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP OF THE REFERENCED PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH YOU ABATE EACH VIOLATION, YOU MAY BE CHARGED A PENALTY OF FIFTY DOLLARS AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. You may contest this determination of the existence of a public nuisance by applying in writing, for a hearing before the Special Magistrate within fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice of violation. Or: b. by posting a notice in a substantially the following form in a clearly visible location on the cited property, and at the Collier County Courthouse, or Immokalee Courthouse. The posted notices must be in substantially the following form: POSTED Collier County Code Enforcement Department Notice of Violation of Section of Ordinance 2005- (as amended) and Order to Correct To: Owners of Record Date Posted: Violation/Case No. Property Insert address where violation occurred]: Folio #: As the official record owner(s) of the above - described property, you are hereby notified that a public nuisance exists on this property as of [insert date] in the form of: [describe violation] on the subject property. You are further notified that you must immediately abate this nuisance within ten (10) days of the date of posting of this Notice by causing the above - described property to be: [mowed /exotics removed, or otherwise describe how to abate] . If the violation is not abated within the time required, the County may act to cause the nuisance to be abated. http: // library. municode .com / print. aspx? clientID = 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode U Page 7 of 10 16 ' Z A FAILURE TO ABA"IT' THIS NUISANC14 MW RriSULT IN THE RECORDING OF A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY YOU OWN IN COLLIER COUNTY. Such liens may include the County's costs to abate the violation plus an administrative fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00), all of which may be levied as an assessment against your property(s). You may contest this Notice of Violation and determination of the existence of a public nuisance by applying in writing, for a hearing before the Special Magistrate within fifteen (15) days from the date of posting this Notice of Violation. (2) If the same violator(s) receives three or more Notices of Violation of this article during their ownership of any property in I Collier County, even though the violations may have been timely abated, a penalty of fifty ($50.00) dollars will be charged for each notice received thereafter. An administrative fee of one hundred ($100.00) dollars will also be assessed for each invoice processed for the payment of said penalty. In addition, all cited property(s), may at the discretion of the County Manager or his designee, become subject to the county's mandatory lot mowing program provisions in this i Ordinance. (3) If the property owner or his agent has not abated the identified nuisance as described in said notice within ten (10) days from the date of the Notice of Violation, the County will abate the condition and shall, through its employees, servants, agents, or contractors, be authorized to enter upon the property and take such steps as are reasonably required to abate the nuisance. However, the County Manager, in his discretion may extend the time allowed for taking corrective action up to 180 days for natural disasters as determined by the State or Federal government. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 13; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 13) Sec. 54 -188. - Assessment for abating nuisance. (a) After abatement by the County or its agent, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be calculated and reported to the Collier County Manager or his /her designee. An invoice shall be mailed to the property owner(s) for the cost of abatement. The invoice shall also include an administrative fee of one - hundred ($100.00) dollars per parcel of property. (b) In the event the property owner abates the violation, but has received a total of three notices of violation for separate violations during the property owners ownership of the referenced property, the County shall mail an invoice to the property owner including a penalty of fifty ($50.00) dollars per parcel, plus an administrative fee of one hundred ($100.00) dollars for the repeat violation invoice. Each notice of violation thereafter to the same property owner, shall be processed in the same manner. (c) If the invoice sent by the County Manager or his /her designee is not paid at the expiration of the twenty (20) days of the date of the invoice, the Special Magistrate and may impose a lien against the property. The Special Magistrate, by determination order, shall assess such cost against such parcel. Said determination order shall: (1) Describe the land and show the cost of abatement, and shall include the initial administrative fee of one hundred ($100.00) dollars per parcel as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this section, plus an additional administrative fee of one hundred ($100.00) dollars for lien processing; or (2) Describe the land and shall include the penalty and initial administrative fee per parcel as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this section. Such determination Order shall constitute a lien, which shall run with the property until paid. The determination Order shall also specify that interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date the Order is recorded at the rate of twelve (12) percent per annum. (d) A legal notice of assessment of lien shall be sent to the property owner. This Notice shall be substantially in the following form: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH ITS CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN Insert Property Owner's Name and Address DATE: EF. INV.# JFOLIO# ILIEN NUMBER: EGAL DESCRIPTION: You, as the owner of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did on [date] 20 , order the abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance 2005- , as amended) and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: [describe the nuisance] You failed to abate such nuisance, whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ , and an administrative cost of two- hundred ($200.00) dollars for a total of $ [or, You abated the nuisance but failed to pay the $ penalty imposed and caused the County to incur an administrative cost of two Hundred ($200.00) dollars. Such cost, by determination order of a Special Magistrate for Collier County, Florida, will become a lien on your property within twenty (20) days of determination by the Special Magistrate when recorded. You may request a hearing before the Special Magistrate to show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County under County Ordinance No. 2005- , (as amended) are excessive or unwarranted or why such expenses should not constitute a lien against the property. Said request for hearing shall be made to the Secretary to the Special Magistrate, Collier County Government Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this notice. FAILURE TO PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE WILL RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. (e) After the expiration of one year from the date of the Lien, as provided herein, a suit may be filed to foreclose said lien. Such foreclosure proceedings shall be instituted, conducted and enforced in conformity with the procedures for the foreclosure of municipal special assessment liens, as set forth in F.S. ch. 173, which provisions are hereby incorporated herein in their entirety to the same extent as if such provisions were set forth herein verbatim. http: // library. municode .com / print.aspx ?clientlD = 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode dam, ,.� Page 8 of 10 The liens for delinquent assessments imposed hereunder shall rel Ibis, L4 with the lien for all state, county, district (fl and municipal taxes, superior in dignity to all other filed liens and claims, until paid as provided herein. i (g) After recording of the Lien, the County Manager or his designee may accept partial payment and recommend satisfaction of the Lien to the Board if he /she determines an error has been made based upon his /her judgment. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 14; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 14) I Sec. 54 -189. - Assessment right to hearings on declaration of public nuisance and assessment. (a) Any property owner receiving the Notice of Violation pursuant to this ordinance may contest this determination by filing an application for a hearing before the Special Magistrate within fifteen (15) days from the date affixed on the Notice of Violation, dependent upon the notice and type of proceeding. (b) Every owner of real property within unincorporated Collier County is required to maintain such property in a manner so as not to violate the provisions of this ordinance, and such owner remains liable for violations thereof regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party regarding such property. s (c) If, after said hearing, the Special Magistrate determines that the assessment is fair, reasonable, and warranted, the assessment determination order shall be recorded forthwith. If the Special Magistrate determines that the charges are excessive or unwarranted, it shall direct the County Manager to re- compute the charges and the Special Magistrate shall hold a further hearing after notice to the owner upon the recomputed charges. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 15; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 15) Sec. 54 -190. - Enforcement procedures. Collier County Investigators are hereby empowered to issue Written Corrective Notices and /or notices to appear in County court or before the Special Magistrate to any person violating the provisions of this Ordinance. All such notices issued, shall be maintained by the issuing authority for public inspections, during normal office hours. Written Corrective Notices issued by County Investigators acting pursuant to this Ordinance shall state the date observed, nature of the offense committed, corrective measures to be taken and the date on or before which such corrections shall be made. Any person who has been served with such notice in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, and who neglects or refuses or fails to fully comply with the corrective notices so ordered and /or to comply within the time frame so ordered therein, shall be in violation of this Ordinance. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 16; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 16) Sec. 54 -191. - Immediate corrective action. In the event the County Manager, or his designee, determines or has reason to believe that a violation including, but not limited to, accumulation of weeds or litter presents a serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare of the public or that the violation is of such a nature as to require immediate correction, the violator may be required by notice to effectuate immediate corrective measures upon receipt of the notice. The notice, substantially in the form set forth in this Ordinance, shall advise the owner that the County will remedy the hazardous condition as soon as possible. To be effective, the notice shall be served upon the occupant if the property is occupied or physically posted on the property and sent by certified mail to the owner as his /her name appears on the records of the property appraiser. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 17; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 17) Sec. 54 -192. - Procedures for and effect of mailed notices. Notices shall be mailed to the violator's address indicated on the records of the Collier County Property Appraiser of such lot or parcel of land for ad valorem taxation purposes, whether mailed by regular U.S. Postal Service upon the person, for the purpose of this article. A property owner is deemed to have received a mailed notice on the 10th day after the notice is placed in the United States mail. Evidence that the proper notice has been mailed is sufficient to demonstrate that the notice requirements of this article have been met, without regard to whether the property owner actually received such notice. Refusal to accept service of such notices by a property owner or its agent will not defeat this personal service, nor bar the county from proceeding with enforcement, creating lawful liens, and performing the necessary abatement under this article. It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain a current address with the Collier County Property Appraiser's office at all times. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 18) Sec. 54 -193. - Procedures for mandatory lot mowing program. (a) Inclusion in mandatory lot mowing program. If a public nuisance is determined to exist three or more times after July 15, 2001, on a particular lot or parcel of unimproved property while under the same ownership, then at the discretion of the County Manager, or his designee, such property will be placed in the Mandatory Lot Mowing Program, as set forth below. (b) Exemption from lot mowing program. Individual property owners of record whose real property is included in the County's mandatory lot mowing program, may request an exemption from inclusion in the program by submitting to the County Manager, or his designee, a signed written agreement, acceptable to the County, covenanting that the property owner will maintain the property so that the height of any grass, weeds, or otherwise regulated vegetative matter will not constitute a public nuisance or http: // library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientlD= 10578& HTMRequest= http %3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode Page 9 of 10 161 2 A 2(1 (c) (d) (e) exceed eighteen inches in height. In addition, the property owner must provide a letter of credit, contract agreement, escrow agreement, or some other surety with a mowing company that is acceptable to the County. The surety provided may vary, but must remain in effect throughout the property owner's ownership of the property(s). The agreement must also include a provision of understanding by the owner that should he /she fail to keep the contract agreement and ensure no violation to this Ordinance exists on the property(s), the agreement approved by the County will become null and void. In that event, the property owner would be provided written notice that the lot mowing program exemption would be revoked by a date certain and the property would be placed in the Mandatory Lot Mowing Program, and not be entitled to any further exemptions so long as the property is owned by the same property owner(s). Mandatory Lot Mowing Invoice Billing. The County Manager, or his designee, will mail an invoice to the owner(s) of property(s) included in the Mandatory Lot Mowing Program. Invoice billing amounts will include actual costs incurred for mowing, plus an administrative fee. The invoice will be mailed to the address listed with the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office as the tax roll address of record. Notice to owner(s) of account balance requirements is accomplished in this Section, and receipt of the invoice will not defeat this personal service, nor bar the County from proceeding with enforcement, creating lawful liens, and performing the necessary abatement under this Ordinance. Failure to comply with payment of a Mandatory Lot Mowing invoice, as set forth in Subsection (3) above, will constitute a violation of this Ordinance. If, after thirty (30) days of mailing, the invoice has not been paid, the County Manager, or his designee, will proceed with enforcement procedures to file a lien. The Legal Notice of Assessment of Lien will be submitted to the Special Magistrate who shall impose a lien against the property. The Special Magistrate shall assess all applicable costs and fees against such parcel and all other properties owned by the violator in Collier County. Said action shall: A) describe the land that has been included in the Mandatory Lot Mowing Program and show the cost of abatement, which shall include the initial administrative expense of one hundred ($100.00) dollars plus one hundred ($100.00) dollars per parcel for lien processing. Such action, when recorded, shall constitute a lien on all personal and real property located in Collier County, which runs with the owner's real property until paid. The action will also specify that interest will accrue on the unpaid balance beginning on the date the order of the Special Magistrate is recorded at the statutory interest rate per annum. Legal notice of assessment of lien. The Legal Notice of Assessment of Lien will substantially be in the following form: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH IT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: [Insert Property Owner's Name and Address] DATE: REFERENCE INVOICE #: VIOLATION FOLIO #: VIOLATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: You, as the owner of the property above - described, as recorded in the records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the Code Enforcement Director, did determine a public nuisance existed and constituted a violation of county regulation on 200 and ordered the abatement of certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance No. 2005- as amended, and served a notice of violation upon you. The nuisance is: [describe the nuisance] You have failed to timely abate such nuisance: whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ .00 and an administrative cost of $ .00 for a total of $ Such costs, by order of the Special Magistrate, will become a lien on your property when recorded. FAILURE TO TIMELY PAY THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THIS NOTICE WILL RESULT IN A LIEN AGAINST ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY IN COLLIER COUNTY. Upon issuance of an order by the Special Magistrate, the Secretary to the Special Magistrate will immediately mail a copy of each approved Order and Notice Assessment of Lien via regular U.S. mail. If full payment for the assessed amount, is not made by the property owner within twenty (20) days from the date of signature of the determination order by the Special Magistrate, then the Secretary to the Special Magistrate will automatically and without further direction record both the Order and Notice of Assessment of Lien in the public records of Collier County. Recording said determination order will act to impose a lien on the violator's property. (f) Limitation on time to contest imposition of lien. Any person aggrieved by the imposition of the lien must commence an action in circuit court within thirty (30) days from the date the order is rendered. Unless such action is begun within this thirty (30) day period, all objections of that person to the imposition of the lien will be deemed to have been waived. (g) Prepayment and recording of lien. For a period of twenty (20) days after the date of the order of the Special Magistrate imposing the delinquent lot- mowing lien, the lien may be paid without additional interest. Properties, for which payments are received or postmarked within twenty (20) days from the date the order is signed, will stay the recording of the lien. If, after expiration of the prepayment period expires payment is not received, a certified copy of the order will be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Collier County. (h) Release of lien. Owners who have paid the delinquent lien in full after the recording of the lien are entitled to a release and satisfaction of lien from the County. The recording of the release and satisfaction of lien and any charges therefore are the responsibility of the property owner. (1) Foreclosure. Liens associated with this Section may be foreclosed in the same manner as liens for property taxes or special assessments. In the event the County prevails, owners of property(s) against whom a foreclosure action is commenced will be liable for all fees, costs and expenses incurred by the County or its agents, including reasonable attorney's fees and the same may be assessed as a cost in the foreclosure action. 0) Validity of liens not affected by irregularities. Any informality or irregularity in the proceedings to impose a lien for delinquent lot mowing fees will not affect the validity of the same after the order imposing the lien has been adopted, and no deviation from the procedures prescribed above will affect the validity of the lien unless it can be clearly shown that the party objecting was materially injured thereby. (k) Alternate methods of collection permitted. Nothing herein prohibits the County from utilizing other means to collect delinquent http: // library. municode .com / print.aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest = http %3a %2P /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 Municode 4 1612 Z Page 10 of 10 lot mowing fees including, but not limited to, an action for damages filed in the appropriate court in Collier County, Florida. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 19; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 19) Sec. 54 -194. - Penalties. If any person fails or refuses to obey or comply with or violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance, such person upon an order by the Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate may be fined as authorized by the Ordinances establishing the Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate. Each violation or noncompliance shall be considered a separate and distinct offense. Further, each day of continued violation or noncompliance shall constitute a separate offense. Nothing herein contained shall prevent or restrict the County from taking such other lawful action in any court of competent jurisdiction as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation or noncompliance. Any person convicted of such offense, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred ($500.00) dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed sixty (60) days in the County jail, or both, in the discretion of the Court. Further, nothing is this Section shall be construed to prohibit the County from prosecuting any violation of this Ordinance by means of a Code Enforcement Board, or Special Magistrate proceeding, established pursuant to the authority of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. All remedies and penalties provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and independently available to the County and the County shall be authorized to pursue any and all remedies set forth in this Section to the full extent allowed by law. (Ord. No. 2005 -44, § 20; Ord. No. 09 -08, § 20) Secs. 54- 195 -54 -225. - Reserved. FOOTNOTE(S): (72) Editor's note— Ord. No. 2005 -44, §§ 2 -20, adopted Sept. 13, 2005, amended art. Vi in its entirety to read as herein set out Formerly, said article pertained to similar subject matter. See the Code Comparative Table for a detailed analysis of inclusion. Back (72) Cross reference— Litter control, § 118 -56 at seq.; vegetation, ch. 138. Back http:// library. municode .com /print.aspx ?clientID= 10578& HTMRequest = http% 3a %2f' /o2flibrary.municode.co... 1/4/2012 E. 1b 1 A 2U I 1n 3 0VIE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION FEB f c 1 t f D ! � I Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 AT 3:00 P.M. AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108. 1. Roll Call 2. Audience Participation 3. Summary Update of FY 2011 Actual vs. Estimated Actuals contained in FY 2012 Budget; Impact on Capital Funds 4. Status of FY 2013 County guidelines regarding salaries, benefits, and tax rates 5. Initial Discussion of Capital Funds for FY 2013 Budget and beyond a) CIP; and Fiala b) Other Hiller ✓'' 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Henning 7. Schedule for preparation of FY 2013 Budget Coyle ._ 8. Discussion of current format for the Monthly Financial lQ08W 9. Audience Comments 10. Adjourn ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749. Misc. corrm Date: S i t I i 2 Item #: ►- 1/9/2012 2:53:47 PM Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 3. Summary Update of FY 2011 Actual vs. Estimated Actuals Contained in FY 2012 Budget; Impact on Capital Funds Page 1 of 1 FY 2011 Forecasted Vs. (Unaudited) Actual Expenditures 16 I " Variance is due to Foundation contribution and CIP project expenses. Variance Forecasted Budget Forecasted Actual VS. Actual Water Management Reveune $ 733,400.00 $ 706,365.00 $ 702,260.00 $ (4,105.00) Operating Exp. $ 654,640.00 $ 613,758.00 $ 593,834.00 $ 19,924.00 Other Fees & Chrgs. $ 89,450.00 $ 29,700.00 $ 28,820.00 $ 880.00 $ 16,699.00 Community Beautification Reveune $ 1,946,800.00 $ 1,879,300.00 $ 1,889,407.00 $ 10,107.00 Operating Exp. $ 1,736,978.00 $ 1,632,494.00 $ 1,535,493.00 $ 97,001.00 Other Fees & Chrgs. $ 208,650.00 $ 69,300.00 $ 67,250.00 $ 2,050.00 $ 109,158.00 Street Lighting Reveune $ 274,400.00 $ 263,614.00 $ 283,889.00 $ 20,275.00 Operating Exp. $ 245,980.00 $ 216,330.00 $ 209,997.00 $ 6,333.00 Other Fees & Chrgs. $ 28,300.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 5,292.00 $ 1,108.00 $ 27,716.00 Rolled Capital Project Balances - Forecasted Vs. Actual Forecasted Actual Rolled Rolled Budget Budget Variance Clam Bay - Fund 320 $25,080 $152,700 $127,620 Capital - Fund 322 $2,464,000 $2,544,600 $80,600 " " Variance is due to Foundation contribution and CIP project expenses. 161 ?A ?Q, .* January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Ba eS rvices Dro'isloard Y 5. Initial Discussion of Capital Funds for FY 2013 Budget and Beyond. a. CIP (K. Dallas) Page 1 of 2 Discussion Of Potential 2013 PBSD CIP Projects The following are my thoughts about potential fiscal year 2013 CIP projects for PBSD. This is being written to begin our Budget discussions and to encourage members to think about their own CIP priorities. Crosswalks • If we build more crosswalks, we should do them in conjunction with any being done by the Foundation. • Since the Foundation is only starting to consider the redesign of the Commons, and since they will do that work after any work on the Community Center, I don't expect the Foundation to be ready to build a crosswalk at the Commons before 2013, if then. • When we do decide to build PBSD crosswalks, I personally would do: • Myra Daniels & PBB based on its high traffic. • North Pointe Drive & PBB, for consistency with others on PBB. ■ I also think this location should include the granite cobbles, to be consistent with other crosswalks where there are not stop signs. • I personally would NOT do: • The two more proposed on Gulf Park Drive, since we have heard little from residents encouraging these 2 crosswalks. • Crayton Road & PBB, since it is very close to Myra Daniels and I think redundant. Widening Pathways • We are scheduled to widen to 8 feet the first segment on the west side of PBB from the Commons to North Tram Station. • I would wait for resident and Board reactions in the 2012/2013 Season before formally deciding to do additional areas. • Nonetheless I would include the widening of the remainder of the west side of PBB into the 2013 PBSD Budget, with the final decision to be made during the 2012/2013 Season and scheduled for spring /summer 2013. Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 1 of 10 161 ,E A 20 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Assessments Interest Income Developer Plan Reviews Miscellaneous Income Prior Year Expenditures Carryforward Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries and Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cast Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Information Tech Automation A Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment Fi Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance /Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar./Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $728,400 $702,260 $666,300 $555,424 $41,800 $597,224 $3,500 $4,460 $4,600 $613 $3,950 $4,563 $1,500 $ $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $188,831 $ $187,527 $0 $0 $0 $922,231 $706,720 $859,927 $556,037 $45,750 $601,787 $0 $28,000 $28,106 $28,000 $7,015 $20,985 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,142 $2,096 $2,200 $519 $1,681 $2,200 $3,304 $2,554 $1,600 $345 $1,255 $1,600 $7,504 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,200 $8,406 $76 $76 $100 $39 $39 $78 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $41,200 $40,436 $41,400 $12,174 $29,210 $41,384 $0 $108,200 $108,200 $84,500 $42,250 $42,250 $84,500 $30,800 $28,011 $26,900 $6,216 $20,600 $26,816 $600 $336 $400 $106 $294 $400 $3,500 $2,417 1 $3,500 $559 $2,900 $3,459 $3,000 $14 $3,000 $282 $2,700 $2,982 $11,100 $10,293 $9,500 $3,168 $6,332 $9,500 $8,200 $8,100 $5,200 $1,200 $4,000 $5,200 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $14,600 $14,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $1,240 $1,800 $254 $1,550 $1,804 $2,300 $595 $2,300 $0 $2,300 $2,300 $2,000 $677 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 $453 $2,000 $178 $1,800 $1,978 $1,100 $143 $1,100 $25 $1,000 $1,025 $195,700 $176,379 $145,400 $54,838 $90,326 $145,164 $0 $8,800 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $204,500 $176,379 $154,200 $54,838 190,326 1145,164 10 $245,700 $216,815 $195,600 $67,012 $119,536 $186,548 L $0 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 2 of 10 1612 A 20 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: FY 2011 Budget FY 2011 Actual FY 2012 Budget Received Expended Year -To -Date Anticipated Mar./Sept. 2012 Total Received Expended Proposed FY 2013 Budget $1,500 $0 $1,500 Regular Salaries $79,400 $79,655 $79,400 $19,878 $59,500 $79,378 $286 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $10 $660 $670 $25,000 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $59 $0 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $42,372 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) Overtime $15,500 $15,587 $15,400 $4,017 $11,300 $15,317 $500 Social Security Matching $7,300 $6,886 $7,500 $1,709 $5,800 $7,509 $4,519 Regular Retirement $11,300 $8,896 $5,300 $1,140 $4,160 $5,300 $2,300 Health Insurance $17,400 $17,396 $19,500 $9,750 $9,750 $19,500 $450 Life Insurance $217 $217 $200 $110 $110 $220 $1,700 Worker's Compensation $2,500 $2,500 $2,200 $1,100 $1,100 $2,200 $900 $132,800 $37,714 $94,980 $132,694 $0 Sub - total: $1.34,341 $131,302 Engineering Fees $1.6,400 $7,706 $16,400 $236 $16,000 $16,236 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $286 $700 $986 Tree Trimming $30,000 $29,952 $30,000 $4,992 $25,000 $29,992 Temporary Labor $42,400 $53,077 $42,400 $16,572 $25,800 $42,372 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,745 $14,000 $813 $13,180 $13,993 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $22,600 $29,198 1 $22,600 $0 $22,600 $22,600 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $432 $500 $108 $392 $500 Trash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $4,519 $5,700 $1,435 $4,250 $5,685 Insurance - General $2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $1,150 $1,150 $2,300 Insurance- Auto $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $900 $900 Motor Pool $200 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $1,000 $996 $1,900 $316 $1,585 $1,901 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $329 $1,600 $0 $1,600 $1,600 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $1,500 $0 $500 $41 $450 $491 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 Other Equip. R &M $1,500 $3,821 $1,500 $269 $1,200 $1,469 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,100 $913 $1,100 $548 $552 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $80,693 $98,400 $21,608 $76,800 $98,408 Replanting Program $8,500 $11,141 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,200 $2,525 $8,900 $622 $8,200 $8,822 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,870 $2,500 $2,583 $0 $2,583 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $500 $500 $491 $10 $501 $265,900 $52,520 $211,619 $264,139 Sub - total: $260,400 $245,717 2 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 3 of 10 1 o 12 A420 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Water Management Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2011 & Fiscal Year 2010 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay Building Improvements Improvements General (Mnt. Fa Other /Off. Mach. & Equip./Trw Sub- total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/11) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10!01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost �V Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 G Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $408,941 $377,019 $399,700 $90,234 $306,599 $396,833 $0 $24,750 $15,425 $23,900 $12,900 $1,700 $14,600 $22,600 $13,395 $22,000 $11,400 $450 $11,850 $42,100 $ $38,800 $0 $0 $0 $89,450 $28,820 $84,700 $24,300 $2,150 $26,450 $0 L. $744,091 $622,654 $680,000 $181,546 $428,285 $609,831 $0 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/11) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10!01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Total Equipment Replacement Cost �V Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 G Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 4 of 10 $1,938,600 16 1.?, Aieu Collier County $241,325 Pelican Bay Services Division Interest Income Operating Budget $10,400 Fiscal Year 2013 $1,430 Community Beautification Operating Department $10,680 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance $0 For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures $0 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dati 2012 Expended Budget Revenue Assessments $1,938,600 $1,869,030 $1,907,800 $1,590,176 $241,325 $1,831,501 Interest Income $8,200 $10,400 $10,700 $1,430 $9,250 $10,680 Miscellaneous $0 $9,977 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimburse P/Y Expend. $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 Carryfonvard $495,070 $ $498,338 $0 $0 $0 $2,416,838 $1,591,606 $250,575 $1,842,181 Total Revenue: $2,441,870 $1,889,407 11 Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries $28,850 $28,959 $28,900 $7,230 $21,670 $28,900 ER 457 Contributions $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Salaries & Wages $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tennination Pay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reserve For Salary Adjust. $32 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 Social Security $2,200 $2,160 $2,300 $534 $1,766 $2,300 Retirement $3,400 $2,631 $1,600 $355 $1,245 $1,600 Health Insurance $7,740 $7,732 $8,700 $4,334 $4,366 $8,700 Life Insurance $78 $78 $100 $41 $40 $81 Worker's Compensation $100 $100, $100 $50 $50 $l00 $42,700 $12,544 $30,137 $42,681 $0 Sub - total: $42,400 $41,660 IT Automation Allocation & Capil $7,000 $4,20 $147500 $3,600 $10,900 $14,500 Other Contractual Serv. $37,500 $21,784 $34,300 $7,000 $27,300 $34,300 Storage Contractor $0 $ $800 $150 $650 $800 Telephone- Service Contract $400 $392 $400 $108 $292 $400 Telephone - Direct Line $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $560 $2,940 $3,500 Postage, Freight, UPS $3,000 $4 $3,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 Rent - Buildings $11,400 $11,877 $9,800 $3,264 $6,536 $9,800 Rent - Equipment $2,600 $2,187 $1,900 $275 $1,625 $1,900 Insurance - General $500 $50 $500 $250 $250 $500 Data Proc. Eq. R &M $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 Printing & Binding $2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 Legal Advertising $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 Reimb. For Prior Year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clerk Recording Fees $4,000 $ $2,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 Office Supplies $3,000 $2,639 $2,500 $285 $2,215 $2,500 Copying Charges $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 Minor Office Eqpt. $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Operating Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Training & Education $1,500 $0 $1,500 $25 $800 $825 $79,300 $15,517 $62,108 $77,625 $0 Sub - total: $79,000 $47,737 Emergency Mntc. /Repair $7,400 $0 $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $86,700 $15,517 $62,108 $77,625 $0 Sub - total: $86,400 $47,73711 Total Administrative: $128,800 $89,39711 $129,400 $28,061 $92,245 $120,306 r- $0 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 5 of 10 16l 2 A2u' Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve For Salary Adjust. Reserve For Salary Attrition Social Security Retirement - Regular Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Other Contractual Services Tree Trimming Pest Control Temporary Labor Motor Pool Rental Cellular Telephone Electricity /Utilities Trash & Garbage Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Insurance - Vehicle Bldg. Repairs /Mntc. Sprinkler System Maint. Landscaping Maint. Auto & Truck R &M Fleet Maint ISF Labor Fleet Maint ISF Parts Fleet Maint Non -ISF Parts Other Equip. R &M Licenses & Permits Uniform Purchases & Rental Fert. Herbicides & Chem. Fuel & Lubricants - Outside Fuel & Lubricants - ISF Road & Bike Path Repairs Minor Operating Equip. Other Operating Supplies Landscape Incidentals Personal Safety Equipment Paint Supplies Traffic Signs Sub - total: Emergency Mntc. /Repair Sub - total: Total Field Services: -5- Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To-Dati 2012 Ex ended Budget $442,400 $382,516 $430,700 $97,200 $333,500 $430,700 $2,200 $1,170 $1,700 $160 $1,540 $1,700 $103,000 $82,227 $99,200 $24,500 $74,700 $99,200 $100 $ $15,300 $0 $15,300 $15,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,900 $33,105 $41,900 $8,800 $33,100 $41,900 $64,600 $42,100 $29,200 $6,100 $23,100 $29,200 $133,500 $133,500 $149,600 $74,800 $74,800 $149,600 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $38,800 $38,800 $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 $38,500 $827,700 $714,618 $807,300 $231,410 $5751890 $807,300 $0 $83.800 $78,415 $89,900 $20,580 $68,400 $88,980 $53,100 $40,406 $53,100 $22,000 $31,100 $53,100 $29,500 $35,890 $29,500 $12,750 $16,750 $29,500 $35,900 $48,713 $63,600 $49,760 $13,840 $63,600 $5,000 $4,475 $5,000 $800 $4,200 $5,000 $204,500 $197,787 $190,100 $70,260 $119,740 $190,000 $700 $48 $300 $77 $223 $300 $3,200 $3,026 $3,200 $660 $2,540 $3,200 $3,400 $2,502 $3,400 $400 $3,000 $3,400 $24,900 $7,960 $17,000 $3,450 $13,550 $17,000 $5,500 $1,000 $2,500 $710 $1,790 $2,500 $9.000 $9.000 $8,800 $4.400 $4,400 $8,800 $9,900 $9,900 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $0 $ $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $30,000 $31,318 $30,000 $1,740 $28,260 $30,000 $60,200 $53,273 $46,000 $27,950 $18,050 $46,000 $100 $1,811 $100 $270 $0 $270 $8,500 S8,496 $10,600 $1,766 $8,800 $10,566 $9,600 $7,661 $11,400 $2,970 $8,400 $11,370 $1,000 $1,038 $1,000 $150 $850 $1,000 $2,000 $16,572 $2,000 $2,125 $0 $2,125 $800 $0 $800 $o $800 $800 $9,400 $7,084 $9,400 $2,100 $7,300 $9,400 $62,000 $621782 $62,000 $22,340 $39,660 $62,000 $100 $0 $loo $0 $100 $100 544,100 $46,403 $67,200 $8,125 $59,000 $67,125 $0 $ $6,000 $0 $6,000 56,000 $3,000 $6,023 $3,000 $1,325 $1,675 $3,000 $11,500 $8,898 $9,000 $1,900 $7,100 $9,000 $0 $ $2,500 $130 $2,370 $2,500 $3,000 $793 $3,000 $640 $2,360 $3,000 $800 $ $800 $0 $800 $800 $3,000 $3,620 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $717,500 $695,326 $746,000 $264,378 $480,758 $745,136 $0 0 01 $3,300 $0 $o $0 $717,500 $695,326 1 $749,300 $264,378 $480,758 $745,136 $0 $1,545,200 $1,409,944 11 $1,556,600 $495,788 $1,056,648 $1,552,436 1 $0 -5- Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 6 of 10 1612 A 2U Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Community Beautification Operating Department Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements General Autos & Trucks Other Mach. & Equip. Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges Property Appraiser Tax Collector Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $0 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (1(1,'01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $0 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance W01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 9 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Dad 2012 Expended Budget $13,600 $355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $23,597 $102,000 $0 $102,000 $102,000 $17,000 $12,20 $1,000 $0 SO $0 $58,600 $36,152 $103,000 $0 $102,000 $102,000 $0 $52,700 $31,255 $51,300 $26,700 $24,600 $51,300 $57,750 $35,994 $55,700 $30,000 53,914 $33,914 $98,000 $0 $90,700 $0 $0 $0 $208,450 S67,24911 $197,700 $56,700 $28,514 $85,21411 $0 $1,941,050 $160 74211 $1,986,700 $580,549 $1,279.407 $1,859,956 F$0 Fiscal Year 2011 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2010 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2011 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2011 (Projected) $0 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2012 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (1(1,'01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Carryforward Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $0 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance W01 /11) Fiscal Year 2012 Additions Fiscal Year 2012 Transfers to Carryforward Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $0 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2012 (Projected) $0 9 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 7 of 10 1612 Aeu Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Revenue Current Ad valorem Taxes Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Carryfonvard Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Ilealth Insurance Life Insurance Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimb. Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Building Rent - Equipment Reimburse P/Y Expend. Insurance - General Info Technology Automation Allc Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub- total: Emergency Mntc. /Repairs Sub - total: Total Administrative: A Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Bud et 1 "ear -7'o Date 2012 Expended Budget $273,200 $275,688 $436,800 $356,845 $62,485 $419,330 $1,200 $1,623 $4,500 $283 $4,200 $4.483 $0 $6,578 $0 510,366 $0 $10,366 $0 $0 $157,684 $0 $0 $0 $274,400 $283,889 $598,984 $367,494 $66,685 $434.179 $0 $28,000 $28,107 $28,000 $7,015 $20,985 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $75 $ $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1.000 $2,140 $2.096 $2,300 $519 $1,781 $2,300 $3,300 $2.554 $1,500 $345 $1,155 $1,500 $100 $10 $100 $50 $50 $100 $7,500 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,200 $8,406 $100 $7 $100 $39 $39 $78 $41,215 $40,437 $41,400 $12,174 $29,210 $41.384 $0 $6300 $6.300 $5,300 $2,650 $2,650 $5.300 $20,800 $25,654 $26,900 $6.216 $20,600 $26,816 $0 $ $800 $151 $650 $801 $600 $325 $400 $132 $268 $400 $3,500 $1,663 $3,500 $400 $3,100 $3,500 $2,000 $15 $2,000 $108 $1,500 $1,608 $11,100 $10.010 $9,500 $3,168 $6,332 $9,500 $2,500 $1,958 $1,800 $314 $1,490 $1.804 $0 $0 $0 $15 S0 $15 $400 $40 $300 $150 $150 $300 $0 so $0 $0 $o $0 $800 $t $800 $0 $800 $800 $0 so 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 so $1,000 $0 $1,000 $IAOO $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $13,304 $38,540 $51,844 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $13.304 $38,540 $51,844 $0 [�$O $90.215 $86,762 $91700 $25.478 $67.750 $93.228 A Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 8 of 10 1612 Ae'u Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Street Lighting Fund Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 & Fiscal Year 2011 Budget to Actual Expenditures Field Services: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Overtime Reserve for Salary Adj. Social Security Matching Retirement Regular I ealth Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Vehicle Allowance Sub- total: Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Cellular Phones Electricity Auto Insurance Insurance Bldg. RepairstMntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Other Supplies Equipment Repair Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Emergency Electricl Repair Servi, Sub - total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sul?- total: Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges: "fax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: 1*1 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FV 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $40,400 $40,585 $40,500 $10,128 $30,370 $40,498 $165 $165 $200 $10 $190 $200 $4.000 $3,745 $4,000 $1,164 $2,836 $4,000 $100 $ $1,400 $a $1,400 $1,400 $3,400 $3.200 $3,500 $805 $2,695 $3,500 $5,300 $4,270 $2,600 $522 $2,000 $2,522 $8.300 S8.300 $9.300 $4,652 $4,650 $9,302 $100 $11 $100 $56 $50 $106 $1,100 $1,100 $900 $450 $450 $900 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,865 $61,475 $62,500 $17.787 $44,641 $62,428 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 so $800 $0 $800 $800 $500 $432 $400 $108 $292 $400 $44,200 $35,100 $44,200 $8.769 $35,400 544,169 $900 $9 $900 $450 $450 $900 $800 $80 $800 $400 $400 $800 $0 $0 $1.700 $0 $1,700 $L700 $1.500 $1,011 $5,500 $712 $4,780 $5,492 $7,300 S13,567 $7,300 $3,899 $3,400 $7,299 $12,400 $9,95 $12,400 $1,313 $11,000 $12,313 $200 so $200 $65 $135 $200 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $69,100 $61,760 $74.700 $15,716 $58,857 $74.573 $0 $9,600 $ $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $78,700 $61,760 $84,300 $15,716 $58,857 $74,573 $0 $14 1,565 $123,235 11 $1 46,800 $33,503 $101498 $137,001 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $ $1.000 $0 $0 $0 $14.200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,200 $0 $1.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.400 $5,295 $13,500 $7.180 $6,320 $13,500 $5.500 $ $8,900 $0 $8,900 $8,900 $14.400 $0 $22,000 $0 $0 $0 $28300 $5,295 $44,400 $7,180 $15,220 $22,400 $0 $28.300 $5,295 $44.400 $7,180 $15.220 $22,400 $0 $274.280 $215,29211 $285.900 $66,161 $186,468 $252.629 $0 1*1 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 9 of 10 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Ctrn forward Assessment Levy I ransfer from Fund 322 Interest Income 7 DC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund 111) Cam forward of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing Water Quality Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Eqpt. Computer Software Other Operating Supplies Total Operations Ecosystem Enhancements (183805) Engineering Other Contractual (Amended Budget) Other Contractual Total Capital Projects Other Fees & Charges Fax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations 161, [ A [u Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed Ft' 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Nlar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $209,458.00 $0.00 $301,300 $35.000 $31744 $127,100 $105.928 $1,500 $107.428 s0 s0 so s0 $0 $1.300 $1200 $700 $459 $1.377 $1.836 so $O s0 $O $0 $35,000 $35,000 $34,000 s0 $35,000 $35,000 $0 50 $o s0 so $280,758 $7(,944 $463,100 $106,387 $37,877 $144,264 $0 $102,944 $51,175 $163,363 $17,586 $94,000 $111,586 $137390 $67.238 $70,151 $4.992 $40.000 $44,992 so $7.500 s0 $7,500 $7.500 s0 s0 s0 so $0 $0 $29,000 SO $29,000 $2900 5485 $842 $350 s0 $350 $350 $4.800 $4,005 $580 SO $580 $580 50 $0 s0 so $0 $1,000 $1,000 so $LOOO $1.000 $246,619 $123,260 1 $271,945 $22,578 $172,430 $195,008 $0 $11.300 $4.046 $7,254 s0 $0 s0 $143.000 s0 5143,000 $0 $o s0 50 so $O so $25,000 $25,000 $154,300 IF $4,046 $150,254 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $1.100 $675 $3,900 $1119 $1,781 $3.900 $700 s0 $27600 $1.482 $1,118 $2,600 $1,800 51,800 so so s0 $3600 $6751 $8,300 53,601 $2,899 $6,500 SO - S4- 041,5,lfl S1�27 -,98J1 5430,499 526,179 $200,329 $226,_508 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 6. Review format for Budget Preparation Page 10 of 10 161 c A 2U Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2012 Revenue: Assessment Levy Interest Income Miscellaneous Income Foundation Contribution Carryforward of Rolled Pr, Carrvforward Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape Engineering Fees Other Contractual Scrvice; Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Road Materials Licenses and Permits Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancement Engineering Fees Other Contractual Scrvice� Sprinkler System Mainten: Swale Maintenance Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expenses Renovations (500661) $75,000 $131,654 $9,387 $66,000 $75,387 $549,700 $2.956,362 $340,147 $209,600 $549,747 $4,034 $1,500 $5,534 $o $o $38,546 $86,000 $123,546 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $21.323 $21.323 $21,323 $1,000 s0 $1,000 $7,004 $16,200 $23,204 $0 $39,569 $38.326 $1,200 $39,526 $624.700 $3,148,908 $438,444 $401,823 $840,267 $(1 (510261) $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $0 $22,275 $o $4,800 $4,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $85,000 $85,000 s0 $85,000 $85,000 $o $o $0 so $o $o $0 $0 $o $0 $85,000 $107.775 $o $90,300 $90.300 s0 Renovation (50103) $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $0 7 $o $759,700 $3,306,683 $438,444 $492,123 $930,567 so 10 Received A Anticipated T Total P Proposed Budget A Amended E Expended M Mar./Sept. R Received F FV 2013 FY 2012 B Budget y year -To -Date 2 2012 E Expended B Budget $331,90(1 $ $331,900 $ $276,575 $ $5.300 $ $281,875 $19,500 $ $19,500 $ $3,202 $ $1,000 $ $4.202 $o $ $0 $ $o $ $0 $ $o so s s0 $ $53,487 $ $0 $ $53.487 $0 $ $2,080,626 $ $o $ $(1 $ $0 $442,900 $ $0 $ $0 $ $0 $ $o $794,300 $ $2,432,026 $ $333,264 $ $6,300 $ $339,564 $ $0 10 K Tuesday, January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 7. Schedule for Preparation of FY 2013 Budget D.— 1 of 1 1612 A ZU FY 2013 BUDGET PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE Feb. 13, 2012 Monday— meeting at 3 p.m. Discuss CIP Funds spent and available for future projects. Late February Budget Policy approved by BCC (2/21/12). March 12, 2012 Monday— meeting at 3 p.m. Staff to provide tentative budget and committee to decide whether to increase assessment and give staff final direction. Early March Final Budget Policy Documents with guidelines regarding salaries, benefits, tax rates, etc. and CM budget review schedule. April 16, 2012 Monday — meeting at 3 p.m. Committee should approve proposed FY 2012 budget to recommend approval by the full board at their May 2nd meeting. May 14, 2012 Monday — meeting at 3 p.m. Final review for submission to CM office. Late May Review Session with CM, our budget due one week prior. Late June BCC Budget Workshop & Wrap -up Late July BCC release of tentative budget and set proposed millage rates Early September Public Hearing 5:05 p.m. January 7, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board John Chandler's comments re: FY 2013 Budget Page 1 of 1 1612 A20 Pelican Bay Services Division 2013 Fiscal Year Budget Comments I still believe that the most significant item that needs to be addressed to maintain property values in our community is to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. This main artery is particularly worn at the Gulf Park Drive intersection and near the Phil. Other than that item, I am largely in agreement with Keith Dallas' comments that were included as part of the January 4 Board Meeting packet. The few areas where I disagree with Keith are: • I'm not convinced that the cobbles at the new crosswalks really improve safety. However, to be conservative, I would include their cost in our budget. • To provide a consistent appearance throughout our community, I would either brick in the crosswalk at Crayton Road or eliminate it. I suggest that we take a count of actual pedestrian crossings at this point to determine whether a crosswalk is warranted. • Although I think that we should budget for further landscape revisions, I'm not totally "sold" on what we've done. This is because a lot of what has been planted hasn't bloomed yet and I don't know enough about plants to envision how things will look afterwards. I defer to the wisdom of our Landscape Committee on this issue. John Chandler 1 -12 -12 0 � N L N O = N N GO) c N N N O C7 N y W =r C TI�p N C Q n 00 m 3 3 CD. m O m n N Co v `G CO CD CD <. N O m W O N Q m m 7 161 -A 2U n� N N N N N N N N N N -< j rt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N N r r r r r r r r p� rt v (p r O '0 w V M Ln � W N n —0 (D VF V? Aft -(!VF V}V ?Vi VF V} 07 N N N r r r r r N N 0 O W O N N N N O O O O w (n N k0 m w N V m w r 0 0 0 0 r V U9 r r r r .p�pv�ppO� W O�ON O O O ul W N O V W 000t04N0 00 0 0 0 O t0 t0 O O 00 4 w 4 00 V In V W N W r r (1 0) (D v r (n 00 n (t) r o 0 3 n x W n r•r n V} V} :� V} rt O O O-0 — N V r In rt m= 0< v 0 0< 4 m � to v 03 v 0 Co 00 x ID o o Vr o ,3 a V} m -0 d> W V} V� V> V) Vr -(ft Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul O N o 0 0 Lrl Oj V, 0) W w v C C C O O OJ O 0 0 + O . . O V} VF J.", V1 V? VF V) V4- VF V} 3 3 fD O ,� O + o o+ r r r r r r r r r r C] o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n (n V rt .OVr o CL + m + v 0OOOOOOOOOo o 00 00 00 00 00 Oo 00 00 °o Cu r rt r Ul r W 0000000000 o r �j < M a) rt -°-•7 OZ(D V)m u a (D < flr + S CL N n Vf r = 3 M o VT V> Vi Vr VF V) V: V) VF VT r r r r r r r r r r — N rjt O o7 v aao w w w w w m m n .11 14 li 0Z Z o m o0 00 Co � � 0 � V� VVVVVVV � 3 n o �3 O M �O O n O O oO Ul V7 U1 Ln Ul V7 kn In Ul Ul 7 M < m ~C) + O 0 a 0 Ol O O cn Ln Ort ort W 7 CD 0 C: a 1 C (n o t O VF VF V1 V� -V VF VF m r W U'1 rrrrrV�VI -b4 w O N W 0 3 O+ 3 S 0(n w4mwo W W 0 m. In. N ��Onl o F� VT N N %0 w V w O N 4 V 4 W V w t0 V? N U9 N Ln N w + to T 3. r 0 O m C N n� 7 N = V?VFfV ? FT Q o fD O w N N N 0a � n T. ri < + r w m N k0 m W N V m W d n y �o a v w N r 0 0 0 0 r V In N C' 'D fD '0 r*. j o 4 %o V 0 w O t0 W M of O O V W w 0 ko 4 N O n V, rt r0-r p� 4O �o to o O w -E oo 42 �D' p y O �,- - .Ep. 4 V m V w N w r r m �. r 00 of v) m Vl x O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ') 0 0 0 O o i I W 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn( Q( O U + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \o \° \° \° \o \° \° \o \o \o n 0 + O- r- a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (Mn 0 O CL 77 o ' o W (A a (D v V} rr W 4 O N O p� ;n— 77 w w w w w w w w w w� p C) `^ 0000000E 0 0 0 '0 O V} OOOOOOOOOOr_t Ol O 00 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 7 rD O n O O 520 + n 00000000000 V) (D O 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O, 0000000000-1 N 0 o Io 0 0 Io 0 0 0 o j h � N L N O = N N GO) c N N N O C7 N y W =r C TI�p N C Q n 00 m 3 3 CD. m O m n N Co v `G CO CD CD <. N O m W O N Q m m 7 0 CU r) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 rOy O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O (D rt a N w W N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r W rt r 0 -.0 O V M Ul 4�h W N r 0 %0 O V M Ul J�- W N p N CD 7 rr X X ;u (D (D (D n '0 '0 '0 0) Ol Ol OJ n n n } -Hr (D O (D O ul 00 00 rT 01 V fll -0 70 -0 O 00 rn rn x W �. 07 +ur �r � fur fur W +ur +ur +Pr fur V fPr fur O fur +�} fir fPr +ur fPr Sz°1 Szo 00000r0000000w000000 G') rt C W O1 r F) rt O v r +fr ffr ffr ffr +fr Jb r +sr +�r +sr +ur -.r +Vr +�r fsr fur fur +fr +sr fur fur rt O ip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X (1) C r* D yr (p M +{r -Yl, fur +fr +fr +ur +ur fur +ur +ur ffr +R +F� +fr +q- +F� +4 +i- +ur ffr Q W V) X N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r N rt 0) Ul A W W N r r 0 0 t0 00 00 V V 0) M U'I U9 4�k- r 90 r W 01 o N Ul t0 N 01 O P oo w oo N V N oo W o n -0 N Ul "O Ul W W m O m p A 01 o .p r l0 -co l0 N 01 r j O O N (. I W W Ul CO r d 0) V U9 r Ln A O r 00 1.0 -N W O rt O CD O N .A co V 0) V O 0) N O 0 r V 4 V O r W-N 0� i--. (n =; + rn m x ffr +fr +rr +fr ffr fur fsr +Pr ffr +Fr +sr +4 +fr +vr ffr +Er -0% m 'o 7 r L0 W M VI W (n 4 N r N-N W 4 M U9 4r% W N r N p 0 0 W V r M r N W O V Ul �o W r M N r r r r N 7 0-0 W r A W V U9 V 4 m r O N V 00 r 4 N w V 4 O W V t.0 V r t0 t0 (M CO � W t0 N O N V + m m _. +A. +Lr +fr ftr +rr u + f 0 -6'r .-u V 1.0 m- r 0 m O N +A V w W O w V Ul W N rr r .p V 0LM0mwrowmulm V V z Ulww W N W O 1 N O, 07 O V O 9) W O r O r O W 4 O r r (n 4 o W O r V-N M4�-, W W r O 0ai ' O Ul m N 4 U1 z 4 N O V O 4 m W Ln N O O r O n O N Z -P r O O V N t0 0) O r U1 Z t0 Z O V4�, V (p o0000000000000000000� -* 0) 0) m 0) m o) 0 0) 0) o% 0) m 0) m 0) m o� m � o0000000000000000000� r+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° -R \° \° a \° \° \° \° \° \° O, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h W W_ Q O W 7 +ur +ur fur Q n rt rr T (D 3 C N N N r r r -6-,-6-,-6-,-6-, +ur +fr fur -br ~ fur fur fu} +ur -U:r < W W O O O O m-N �- t0 M kO V-N N O V Ul W O O V (.9 w N +fr p7 O O O) N N r V O Ln O m W r 0 w Ul 0) V V t0 r In O W W O N 01 00 aD V 00 O� w 0) O r O rk.0� W W O O O 01 r O A O r r UI -N O W O V 00 4r,� W W r O O 01 7 0 0 0 O N 4 U'I i0 -r�. N O V O A Ol W Ln N O O r 0 0 n t0 .p r 0 0 V N t0 M O r Ui 1.0 10 t0 O V V O O X X ;u (D (D (D n '0 '0 '0 0) Ol Ol OJ n n n } -Hr (D O (D O ul 00 00 rT 01 V fll -0 70 -0 O 00 rn rn x W �. 07 +ur �r � fur fur W +ur +ur +Pr fur V fPr fur O fur +�} fir fPr +ur fPr Sz°1 Szo 00000r0000000w000000 G') rt C W O1 r F) rt O v r +fr ffr ffr ffr +fr Jb r +sr +�r +sr +ur -.r +Vr +�r fsr fur fur +fr +sr fur fur rt O ip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X (1) C r* D yr (p M +{r -Yl, fur +fr +fr +ur +ur fur +ur +ur ffr +R +F� +fr +q- +F� +4 +i- +ur ffr Q W V) X N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r N rt 0) Ul A W W N r r 0 0 t0 00 00 V V 0) M U'I U9 4�k- r 90 r W 01 o N Ul t0 N 01 O P oo w oo N V N oo W o n -0 N Ul "O Ul W W m O m p A 01 o .p r l0 -co l0 N 01 r j O O N (. I W W Ul CO r d 0) V U9 r Ln A O r 00 1.0 -N W O rt O CD O N .A co V 0) V O 0) N O 0 r V 4 V O r W-N 0� i--. (n =; + rn m x ffr +fr +rr +fr ffr fur fsr +Pr ffr +Fr +sr +4 +fr +vr ffr +Er -0% m 'o 7 r L0 W M VI W (n 4 N r N-N W 4 M U9 4r% W N r N p 0 0 W V r M r N W O V Ul �o W r M N r r r r N 7 0-0 W r A W V U9 V 4 m r O N V 00 r 4 N w V 4 O W V t.0 V r t0 t0 (M CO � W t0 N O N V + m m _. +A. +Lr +fr ftr +rr u + f 0 -6'r .-u V 1.0 m- r 0 m O N +A V w W O w V Ul W N rr r .p V 0LM0mwrowmulm V V z Ulww W N W O 1 N O, 07 O V O 9) W O r O r O W 4 O r r (n 4 o W O r V-N M4�-, W W r O 0ai ' O Ul m N 4 U1 z 4 N O V O 4 m W Ln N O O r O n O N Z -P r O O V N t0 0) O r U1 Z t0 Z O V4�, V (p o0000000000000000000� -* 0) 0) m 0) m o) 0 0) 0) o% 0) m 0) m 0) m o� m � o0000000000000000000� r+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° \° -R \° \° a \° \° \° \° \° \° O, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w o 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h Ln U-) O Ln V O C C rt 3 3 n lD (D rt (!I V1 O D D n a M. 0- v < O 010 N O O � Ln — 3 w �+ 3 3 to Mini w' O S to `G T (D rr O v n `D, V) Q C II p n C < n (D (D O cn r �. z O Ul o :P�- -< n O .O ID O p d rt O N Ln n V O n� N O CD =3 oni .� X r0r n (� 2- () 0 'O O D °1 0 (D N $, O X (D Ln (D (D ry N ED a D--4 m o O N CD 3 W �a v� 0 y o 3 �3 06 m m v o 4� =r CD CD v W v cn m Z m m 0 0 0 v a 9 co CD O W_ Q O W 7 < a N CL � tfl• O_ (D r" 90 n rt rr T (D 3 C O n (D N O N Ln U-) O Ln V O C C rt 3 3 n lD (D rt (!I V1 O D D n a M. 0- v < O 010 N O O � Ln — 3 w �+ 3 3 to Mini w' O S to `G T (D rr O v n `D, V) Q C II p n C < n (D (D O cn r �. z O Ul o :P�- -< n O .O ID O p d rt O N Ln n V O n� N O CD =3 oni .� X r0r n (� 2- () 0 'O O D °1 0 (D N $, O X (D Ln (D (D ry N ED a D--4 m o O N CD 3 W �a v� 0 y o 3 �3 06 m m v o 4� =r CD CD v W v cn m Z m m 0 0 0 v a 9 co CD ResnickLisa 16 12 A 2U From: MARCIA CRAVENS [goldandrose @me.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:47 PM To: Keith J. Dallas Cc: McCaughtryMary; ResnickLisa Subject: http:// pelicanbayservicesdivision .net/documents/ 2012 / 20120117 -B udget/20120117_budget_ 3. actuals_vs_ estimated. pdf I'm interested in today's Budget meeting agenda items but am likely not going to make it to the meeting due to prior commitments. Please provide an explanation of what is actually included in the 2011 Water Management portion of the budget... Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the South Berm improvements are not identified to be paid out of this fund, but are apparently identified to be paid out of the Clam Bay Fund. There is no rationale for this project to not be identified in the budget as a Water Management project as the berm is a mainstay / lynchpin of the Pelican Bay - Surface Water Management for PB drainage subbasins (operational permit and maintenance). Also, the berm is only remotely associated with environmental restoration of Clam Bay. I am concerned that a water management project is possibly being mistakenly budgeted as an environmental restoration project. The Clam Bay Conservation Area and NRPA were not included in the Pelican Bay surface water permit as being a part of the water management system. If you want proof of this, I can provide the original report with its recommendations and the Initial Surface Water Management Permit that was issued to the PBID. This is consistent across other records for Pelican Bay. Rather, the overwhelming requirement for Pelican Bay to have an effective "uplands" surface water management system -- was to prevent the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development (developed uplands which has the berm as its western boundary) from causing harmful impacts to the Clam Pass /Clam Bay coastal estuarine waterbodies. The conditional approvals for PB that had required inclusion of a surface water management system for runoff expected from construction of impervious surfaces and reduction of pervious surfaces prompted the drainage basin planning for the PB PUD. The earthen dam we call the berm is a major component of the water management for the developed uplands of Pelican Bay. The berm has not been an environmental restoration project in any ERP for Clam Bay and rightly so, because it is a feature of PB water management. http://pelicanbUservicesdivision.net/documents/2012/20120117- Budget/20120117 budget lactuals vs estimated.pdf Please clarify exactly what part of the PB MSTBU assessments and PBSD budget (2011 or 2012 FY budget) are being referenced for the South Berm improvements ... Which funds numbers are being used to pay for this project ? Is the Clam Bay Fund 320 being used to pay for all or any part of the South Berm improvement project ? Thank you for your assistance in clarifying this issue. Marcia Cravens 16 12 A 2 $no3 ���W �� PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION `" Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1 AT 1:00 PM, AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY, LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA The agenda includes, but is not limited: 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of January 4, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 5. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. Pathways i. Presentations to Adjacent Associations Update ii. Bicycle /Motor Vehicle Incident Statistics for Pelican Bay Blvd. RoadwaLr/Pathways (Chandler) d. South Berm Restoration Permitting Update Fiala �_ e. Monthly Financial Report Hiller 6. Chairman's Report Hennin a. Clam Bay Update Coyle b. Announcements Coletta�� 7. Committee Reports a. Clam Bay (Trecker) b. Landscape Water Management (Cravens) i. Use of Invasive Exotics in Landscaping in Pelican Bay c. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble) Misc. CORes: 8. Old Business Data: 9. New Business a. Clam Bay Restoration Plan Annual Report Update (O'Brien) item #. LL—T -2- i b. East of Berm Water Samples Results Update (O'Brien) 10. Audience Comments copies to: 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjournment ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER ITEM TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS NOT ON THIS AGENDA AND ANY PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES. THE BOARD ENCOURAGES YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS AN ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION AT (239) 597 -1749 OR VISIT PELICAN BAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 1/26/2012 4:39:33 PM 1662 A eu PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida. The following members were present: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John P. Chandler Geoffrey S. Gibson JohnIaizzo Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron absent Hunter H. Hansen absent Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 7, 2011 Regular Session b. December 14, 2011 Special Session 5. Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathways d. South Berm Restoration Permitting e. Update on Removing Exotics from Clam Pass Park & Along Beach f. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Update b. Announcements 7. Committee Reports 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence 12. Adjourn ROLL CALL With the exception of Messrs. Baron and Hansen, all members were AGENDA APPROVAL Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. 8520 as presented. The Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes January 4, 2012 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2011 BOARD REGULAR SESSION 161 A ZU, [n Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the December 7, 2011 Pelican Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor otion. DECEMBER 14, 2011 B OARD SPECIAL SESSION 7LViceChairman Cravens made a motion, second by Ms. Womble to approve the December 14, 2011 Pelican Division Board Special Session minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor otion. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported he was very pleased overall with the contractor (Bateman). The project was substantially complete prior to the end of the year, but this does not mean it is complete. There are minor issues that the contractor is addressing including making adjustments to align the cobble paver rumble strips. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel, San Marino resident reported several residents have complained about how noisy the crosswalks are and asked if a decibel reading was done. Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt responded that the sound is unusual and decibel readings were done in November but did not register as increasing decibel levels. Another reading is planned for February. Mr. Dorrill noted the rumble sound is intentional and meant to create a "subconscious impression" that there are midblock crossings, but not necessarily what engineers define as traffic calming, for example speed bumps. Ms. Mary Bolen, Sanctuary resident observed the signage at the Glenview crossing causes confusion. Mr. Lukasz explained the signage that is installed is required by the state. Mr. Bruce Beauchamp, who worked at a paving company for 43 years inspected the Oakmont crossing and re of the bricks have broken edges. He stressed the importance of checking installed bricks for damage and recommended payment is made that the contractor replaces the bricks that are not intact. some Mr. Dorrill saving station. Mr. Lukasz Ms. Mollie Moffatt conveyed by way of Mr. Gerald Moffatt s g non - removal of "tall and woody" landscaping, and the lack of color and high maintenance of some ne caps 8521 a Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes January 4, 2012 A Zu Mr. Gerald Moffatt said noise from the midblock crosswalks was expected and as a tie -in, the CIP recommended installing brick pavers at the three community entrances on U.S. 41. Ms. Mary Johnson, St. Marissa resident favored Xeriscape -type landscaping. Mr. Dave Ritger, Oakmont resident recommended doing a survey before moving forward with more crosswalk projects and does not favor the colors chosen for landscaping. Chairman Dallas directed staff to look for funds that could be used for future landscaping projects. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill reported staff explored the possibility of obtaining a third proposal for the pathways project. Due to an increase in the cost of asphalt, the first two proposals received were priced almost double of the original estimate. Agnoli Barber and Brundage (ABB) engineers are preparing a more refined set of pathways specifications and schematic plans to obtain formal sealed bids and this process could take approximately 90 days. Mr. Bruce Beauchamp suggested the engineers consider root barriers and edging along the pathways. Mr. Lukasz explained the pathway plans call for installation of rigid root barriers with slow release herbicide which work better than flexible root barriers. Mr. Dorrill added that the pathways are the property of the Board of County Commissioners and responsibility for maintenance lies with the County. However the County does not have the funds. Ms. Daravingas said many residents do not understand what the pathways widening project is and need to be better educated about it. On behalf of Montenero residents, she expressed several concerns: 1) the six trees scheduled for removal will affect property values; 2) plans reduce visibility at the service entrance and encourage more bicycle traffic; and 3) traffic volume does not justify the expenditure. She recommended putting the project on hold until the Board does a survey. Mr. Andy Thomas, Montenero resident was concerned the crosswalks would not have flashing lights installed, favored a survey, but did not favor spending money on a project that is the County's responsibility. Chairman Dallas explained should a decision be made in the future to install flashing lights, conduits were installed at all crossings at the time of initial construction. address Montenero residents concerns regarding tree removal and suggested curving the pathways Ms. O'Brien suggested placing Mr. Dorrill's recommendation to have civil engine specifications and plans for formal bids and until the Board can attain feedback by those directly d Dr. Trecker agreed and suggested forming a pathways subcommittee, or by the pathways project. Chairman Dallas did not favor forming a pathways subcommittee, associations affected, adding that publishing informative articles in the Mr. Dorrill clarified there is no effort underway by staff to refine the pathways specifications and schematic plans to obtain 8522 pathways associations affected having staff visit individual effective in obtaining feedback. move forward with having ABB 1612 420- t r Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes January 4, 2012 Mr. Lukasz would visit individual associations adjacent to the pathways to review the plans and hear residents concerns. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING Mr. Dorrill reported the Army Corps of Engineers determined the south berm restoration project is eligible for a nationwide permit. This is a simple process for this maintenance /restoration project to reestablish the side slope and improve the toe with rip rap within a private and platted drainage easement. Over time, mangroves have encroached on this area. Further - staking and surveying will be done to determine the extent of mangrove encroachment and establish how much silt has filled in the swale prior to contacting Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) whether a letter of exemption is needed to trim # mangroves; and South Florida Water management District (SFWMD) whether there are dredge and fill obligations. Mr. Tim Hall confirmed there is no public comment period for this type of permit. Ms. Cravens was concerned about the use of a nationwide permit in a National Resource Protection Area (NRPA) or conservation area, and made a public records request for all documents related to the south berm permit. Mr. Dorrill clarified the south berm maintenance and restoration work would be performed in a drainage easement not the conservation area; and recommended Ms. Cravens make a public records request in accordance with Florida Statue. UPDATE ON REMOVING EXOTICS FROM CLAM PASS PARK AND ALONG BEACH Mr. Hall reported on the conditions of exotic invasive vegetation along the beach and estimated cost for removal. He presented an aerial map that divides about fifteen acres of beach into five sections from the north marked R36 to the south marked R40. From the north end, Scaevola is prevalent covering 35 -40% of the area denoted by markers R36 to R38; and 15 -20% of the area denoted by markers R39 to R40. Overall estimated Brazilian Pepper coverage was 2% and there are 15 Australian pines. Estimated costs for removal of exotics were dependent upon method used. The Exotic debris removal method was estimated to cost up to $1,000 /acre per treatment. Exotics "sprayed in place" with herbicide method was estimated to cost approximately $400 /acre per treatment. He recommended several treatments to bring exotics under control then one maintenance treatment annually, to replace exotic invasive vegetation with native, noninvasive sea oats and sea grape to maintain continuity, and clarified Coastal Zone Management does have sufficient grant funds to remove exotics in remaining areas along the beach. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to direct the Budget Committee to include $5,000 in future budgets for maintenance and removal of exotic invasive plants along the beach. The Board voted unanimously in favor passing the motion. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Dorrill reported the monthly financial report ending December 2011 was also the end of the arter of Year 2012. The Services Division received 85% of assessment revenue including a delinquent tax pay - rth _ lties. T Services Division's Clam Bay resolution recommending a modifica the 1 )am Bay Restoration and Management Plan. Regarding the Seagate lawsuit, there was no news and the dredging per r environmental review. 85233 1614 A 2U P lican Bay SeKids Division Board Regular Session Minutes ' January 4, 2012 Mr. Dorrill would attend the January 10 BCC meeting to represent the Services Division Board. Ms. Cravens recommended the Board provide support for the canoe trail markers, and an administrative modification of the 1998 Clam Bay permit. Chairman Dallas said this Board's Clam Bay resolution provides support for Clam Bay issues. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meets January 10 at 1 p.m.; Commissioner Hiller will attend the January 11 Pelican Bay Property Owners Association meeting; Coastal Advisory Committee meets January 12; Budget Subcommittee meets January 17 at 3 p.m.; Strategic Planning Committee meets January 20 at 9 a.m.; Foundation Board meets January 27; and next Services Division meeting is February 1. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE Dr. Trecker reported conservation groups have challenged proposed water quality regulations and administrative hearings are pending that could potentially delay the legislation from being enacted. February 21 at 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. the Clam Bay Subcommittee will meet and Tim Hall and Ken Humiston will make presentations of the most recent Clam Bay data regarding NEW BUSINESS None MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Raia was concerned about Ms. Cravens' comments made about the 1 the information to Mr. Feldhaus. Ms. Cravens suggested the Board review historical Pelican Bay permit. Ms. Mary Johnson suggested before moving forward with consider other options that might affect less trees. 852 Hoppensteadt to relay surface water management Board should get more feedback and Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 161�Z AA 4, January 4, 2012 ir Mary Bolen observed children disturbing the migratory birds on the beach and suggested installing informational signage to discourage such behavior. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor, passing the motion and the meetin ad'ourned at 3:22 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman 852! Minutes by Lisa Resnick 1/27/2012 1:59:08 PM 0. # ca \ § § k \ ) ) \ Ea \/ \U) /\ )\ S$ k) )m \j ƒƒ \� / \� �£ » cc 2CL ƒ2£ k Cl) & 0 § \� � /U) U) CL$ � j3 co \LU LU o< m »-j mt 2w «> U� wo a0 � 0 z LU « U » v m 16 & A 120 'A /\ ƒ) \\£ oG �a242 0 - ja )} \ /)) \/ 2q aL cm �0 L.) �) \ -0 m22 ±\ w �/ ®�j %� �6 ® ®2 {/ as a§� ,m §£ /f\ o CD \s E m S 2 �7' °0 j// _> °`- Cc §\k // > Em� > a )\\ ®° ®b$ \\\ ¥E2 7Qk k2� °®2 ±\® § 3E7�/E« $f 2]e ecD =a } \�/2 \ \ \7� ci m- cf {)5 & ® 2 S , ¥ \ / cc �§ ) 7] /\k m ) � «\ƒ\ -0 a) 0) 9 ;¥ 9]e .0 s2 {5§ {_/ \�]k\ )\\ w >0> >2a a25, *> U) )/) -6E k)\ Z0 o 2mE 2a» >J£zE Zoe k \ 0 0 $ §$ )a / 2f \0 =o \ ) / En CD & m ) \� 0 �§ JCL 0 ) a § /_ /# $ »� /7 / a /00 ®§ sa= z _ §_ \ § § j } a L� z \ \ \ \ \ _ w § j j j z = o = 2 m \ § m 0 j w w < W< �< j-i j§ /\ 0wz w�< w§ �ƒ /ƒ v/\ Ig r �5 q(ƒ §/ §2 §G a < < CL k Lp ? \ § w - & w E d 2 § < \ \ r- f < d G G § 16 & A 120 'A February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways. J. Chandler's Pathway Walk Comments (by J. Chandler) and (by D. Trecker) Page 1 of 2 S � V From: Jogn 01indler [ mailto :johnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,'January 25, 2012 11:42 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: PBB Pathway Walk Notes Lisa, Please forward this email to all Board members as a one way communication. I think it would be useful if other Board members took the same walk, at a different time, and took similar notes. The more data that we have, the better decision that we will make. John Chandler Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway Walk Notes • Walked from the Commons to the North Tram Station and back. Took paper and pen and stopped and made notes along the way. • Started my walk at 8:30 AM on Wednesday, January 25 and ended it at 9:21 AM • Counted the number of pedestrians that I encountered during this 2.6 mile walk. There were 16. This equals six per mile. • Counted the number of bikes that passed me on the pathway. There were three. This equals a little over one per mile. • Although I did not make an exact count of the number of bikes on Pelican Bay Blvd, I would estimate that about three dozen passed by on the west side of the boulevard. About eight of these were in a pack. • 1 encountered no baby strollers or rollerbladers • 1 encountered congestion just once. A walker and a jogger were headed toward me and I could see that all three of us were going to arrive at the same spot at the same time. I paused on the pathway for about five seconds. Problem solved. • Pavement quality is good, overall, although there is some root upheaval in those few areas where there are trees • Several cars went in or out of the driveways that I crossed during my walk. Only one car had to wait for me to cross in front of it. • Observed one traffic infraction. An SUV exited the main entrance of Montenero and did not obey the STOP sign. The driver looked only to the left as she approached and crossed the pathway. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways. J. Chandler's Pathway Walk Comments (by J. Chandler) and (by D. Trecker) Page 2 of 2 k 1612 A-ZO From: david trecker [mailto:djtrecker @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:52 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Sidewalks Lisa - Please distribute this to the other directors as a one -way communication. John Chandler suggested we walk the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. between the Commons and the North Tram Station so we have some feel for the sidewalk- widening issue. I did so -- up and back -- on Saturday, January 28 between 3:30 and 4:20 p.m. Here are my observations. There are cracks and upheavals along much of the sidewalk. I passed only 12 walkers -- no joggers, skaters or carriages. I passed 8 bikers (5 in one group) on the sidewalk -- tight quarters. During the walk, I counted 25 bikers on the street. No problems. Cars slowed and passed them. Car traffic was light, but steady. No problems with cars turning onto or off of PB Blvd. Good behavior all around. Maybe this is atypical. Anyway, that's what I saw. Dave C r J February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incid�t �ort� Page 1 of 12 eA 26 7IA- _S A 0?-AG J f-LVK1UA I KAI-1-1G GKA,CI KCfaUKI NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE IDO LONG FORM MAIL TO DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY d MOTOR VEHICLES, TRAFFIC CRASH RECORDS. NEIL KIRKMAN BUILDING. TALLAHASSEE FL 32399.0537 Z DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED JINVEST, AGENCY REPORT P HSMV CRASH REPORT s 0 2/4/08 11:55 ® AM [3 PM 11:56 ®AM (:J PM 12:02 [:] AM ®PM 08- 00003823 72642641 Q COUNTY/CRY CODE FEET or MILE(S) N S E W CITYOR TOWN (check T in city or town) COUNTY 64/54 7.5 ® [] Q (3 NAPLES [� COLLIER "I AT NOOE It or FEET Or MILES) FROM NODE At NEXT NODE : X OF LANES MO 1. OED ON STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY w 4 Q Z. UNDNIOED PELICAN BAY BLVD AT THE INTERSECTION OF fstreel roes« atgh -ay) FEET MILE(S) N 5 E W AT THE INTERSECTION OF (sirnti, roses ngnway) F 30 ❑ Q ® 0 GLENVIEW PL i. Phantom DRIVER YEAR MAKE TYPE USE VEH. LICENSE s STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBEK 2 3 4 $ 6 is. tktddcarnape 7 ACTION 2. HitbRun 3 3. N/A 94 MERZ 01 01 0302YX FL WDBKK47FSXF133051 lR grMV„ to wlrESMekI 1 1$ 16 17 8 2L Troia Snow Ant pdtt TRAILER OR TOWED VEHICLE TRAILER TYPE ! INFORMATION �" -- '-- -"- -'- 14 13 12 11 10 9 ,.eMf Est. Trailer Damage d"nage VEHICLE TRAVELING ON AT Est. MPH Posted Speed Est. Vehicle Damage 2. isa gonna 2 ®Q PELICAN BAY BLYO 10 30 $200.00 3. no Damne ----- -- mac' demaped s) MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POUCY NUMBEK VEHICLE REMOVED BY: I. Ton Rotation List 3. Orivw a 3 t PACIFIC INDEMNITY CO. 001201428804 CLAIRE SCIFREI5 zrewoe a sera wsl 4.ottwr > NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Sa,eeas Vm ) ® CURRENT ADDRESS (Number ano Stned) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE SAME AS DRIVER NAME OF OWNER (T niW w -ra-ee Vd+c1a) CURRENT ADDRESS (Ni-ter aw Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER (CommeCialVlNTleOnlY) CURRENT ADDRESS (manteraogstrxA) CITY. STATEANQZIPl700E U3DOTwICCMCIDENTIFICATiON"INERS p NAME OF DRIVE R (Take aromOdratic"t) CURRENTAOORESS tnuneerard6treet) CITY. STATE AND ZIPC)ODE DATE OF BIRTH a CLAIRE AGNES SCIFRES 2310 SILVER PALM PL NAPLES, FL 34105 04/21/27 DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE DI TYPE RED. ENO ALC/ORWTL5TTY S RStK75 ALCXPU0 R,YSAf. P S. PACE 5ER W. 5. W,um PJEfT. 5162101276410 FL 5 3 1.8kyR11Une z. breath.. aenrsee s rto.ie --'-' _ 1 1 1 1 2 1 2/5 1 HAZARDOUS FUTFAtAlS PtACAR0E0 IFLTy vaate rome «aeiyt naeRta Malmda ban WAS HAZAR Us RoCO DRIVEN AM, tMl SPlq BEINGTRAN6P0R pn pfaCJ/ d aM ldieil rMnitM llaAl lNttdN WQlimOrld MATBIIALS Y 1f YE5 EXPLAIN IN NARRA 2 —r -• 2 2 239-593 -8184 t.v4s 2. ro L. z.-12 t._ x ro "I's 2. m DRIVER L. Phantom YEAR MAKE TYPE USE VEH. LICENSE # STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER Is. Urdertarrlape 2 7 Actlav i N/ RNn UN FILA 10 01 - ---- ---- CHROME30412 is w m le e �l. TbIWr W41 TRAILER T 1 TRAILER OR TOWED VEHICLE i SMw srst DOW INFORMATION—'- --- - «" -"-" -' -- " "- ---- -- - - -�� - -- 1st Al. 9 OI B Trailer Damage dsmege VEHICLE N S ERAw LING AT Est. MPM St. rc mage 1. Disati 1 Est. 2. ® ❑ ❑ ® ❑ PELICAN BAY BLVD 7 30 $200.00 No Rama 3. No Damage ^ armarcd eaXtwgae arvals) u MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER VEHICLE REMOVED BY: 1. Tips, R&AWmLW 1 other (I E NONE - BICYCLE - --- ---- -- CCSO 1 x Tae Owrwes ReeAest 4. otter > NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Sameas Orval ® CURRENT ADDRESS (FAmoxawst, -at) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE SAME AS DRIVER NAMEOFOWNER (Yalkrs Tm.er)Veracle) CURRENT ADDRESS (Mnlb&asWSreet) CITY AND STATE' ZIP CODE El -- r— C M NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER (Commercial Vehicle CURRENT ADDRESS <trwnev and Strtd) CITY. STATE AND 21PCODE PS DOTWtCCMC 10RIFIFICATtp01 NUMBER v NAME OF OR EVER (Take Fro nC*iwLlciX") CURRENT ADDRESS (N,sntKraorlShee) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH a MARVIN 3AFFE 81 SEAGATE OR UNIT 702 NAPLES, FL34108 07 -16 -1936 DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE OL TYPE REO.. END ALC/ORIJGIESTTYPE 5 RESULTS ALC/ORUG PHS•OFT RFS. RACE SE1X tPD. S. EQUIP, ELECT, 1OOS85362560 FL E 3 I• &W 2, ereatn 1 urn,e A. RW a4e S. )lo,te - -�� 1 1 2 1 1 2 6 7 j 2 gACANOW 6Y4. kxacate trmCMl�git,Ym.etr itom aanwM«ms WAS FbYZARDOU5 6NEINGTRANSPORTED Dgcatd ■d l0ppt ron6«satR adtamddtarelpd 914AZLAWL'tD7 R OMM90ORIY6X ere -prAM, DRIVER'S PtgNE NO. 1F YES EXPLAIN W NAItUri E 1.Yrs 2. rq 2 I.Yea 2. ro 2 `� l.ra x ro 2 LYa x ro 2 23'9 -261 -9122 VEHICLE TYPE VEHICLE USE TRAILER TYPE RESIDENCE Drivel /Ped, PHYSICAL oeFECTS ALCDHWDRUG USE LOCATION 01 Alawoowe t I+er tta Tra +soarta[,m 1 sw4le Sen, Traits I CowA, 01c"sh 1 M Os is Known I Nd o6wrq«Uew00rup IN VEHICLE 02 Van rAmmen:wl tbsmvw Yardam Sari Trailer 2 [htwliL+e in State 2Ey6ight VgAp t 2Alcow - tnkler trelXenct IFrom Let C OT LI9MThcWP. U. 2 w 4 rest I'm 30oninwirclal Cargo 03TanlTJW 3/bhRetkknROLLdState watowJAssw 30npc•w,eu hWrwYa 0 04 Me*Lon TrKk•4 near tim MOk Ira,sWAion C4 Satksa 14t*Flatbtd 4FOnd4s StA*', . 4H6annp DkW iAkdDla 0n¢ • UrKIWr nrlun 2 Fr«R Caro RA 611aM}s ro OS wary Ynek - 2 «m feat axles 051L IR scncd a. Sant Troller 5 M Baan Onnklrq 3 Fret Right E 06 T,mk Trace «(L b.5obtel) O6wrvata Scholl aye 06 Utility Trails 1A 26 3c IWNte 64dx,re, t'ar1!{#Y. 61acWd 6 Aend,g ALCIORUG'rest Atin RS 41teartdt (7MaIN,n C t« (KV) 07AmMAaree 07"_.11-1. AO'Ch.XAar 291ack 7DtM al DOW tar SRCenter INJURY SEVERITY SAFETY EQUIPMENT IN USE OSSm(ewv +statttbr9-15) Law FrMcemex Oo Pde Tralier S1d0Deratw 3ltspw+c 6Rearplute .C. Deans( «,Yarrtees fore IS) D9 Fnemaciw 09T-- Vehicle 6FJOprs.AM, 7Nann 40th& INero 2PClsRie 741 IMMIRmit /OBlcyck 1D Miktary 10A,te Trnext i shat t/StWddtreta Passer -!, REQUIRED SE 3Ndrlrxaliw4atlrq Il OrAw tiou Ent 770trw 3Cni1.. !rent A 90ttWr X2D-V En MENTS IMAM 4UCaPaceaUnp SAW"g- Detiamid E E EO tl AN THreln Vt4wae I3C«ecrett Mher IYes 2FeTlaie 5 Farm(WitMm 3O Drys) SAir Bap• Pmt Dedoy 14 train 14110dalxwa RIAM 2Ne 6 NOrrTraMC Fatality 65arev t"Met No ISten Sp dvagkla 1SC&WWn 3 N FIXIMWtent 7EYa Protection 2YEs 770rw 770tbs, Rl snw 3PaR411 HSMV -90005 (Rev. 1/02) page 1 LIT 4 -400 iT'z`9 1201 I February 1 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses ' t�. 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident RLports Page 2 of 12 e 1. Phantten YEAR MAKE TYPE I1SE vEH. LICENSE # STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 2 g 3 •5 g 7 `n• Uovt�rltvanlade DR Mit6Run ACTION 3. 1 15 16 17 9. Tn1 erdw0 Snow Rot cant i TRAILER OR TO HKtE TRAILER TYPE INFORMATION 14 13 12 11 10 9 pr Trailer Damage Damage VEHICLE TRAVELING ON AT Est. MPH Posted Speed Est. vehicle Damage 1. Disab6nq Est. 2. f0nctb'A, And cwck ❑ D o o � 3. NO Damage danss0edarea(s) 1 MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE a"PAN (LIABfLITYOR PIP) POLICY NUMBER VEHICIE REMOVED BY: 1. row Rotation use ]. Mver ❑ Tj Z TOw Ow,ier s Request e. 01her L ? NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Safneatt]mKrl ❑ ENT ADDRESS (reanb!rard5tnaet) CITY AND 570.7E ZIP CODE NAMEOFOWNER (TrNieror TowedVeniCk) CURRENT ACI&64S paanlerands/rcet) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE R NAME OF MOTOR CARRIER W— h,d0ai VehkW Or2Y) CURRENT ADDRESS (NntOer M refl) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE US 00Tsi KC HC 10111TiFICATtON NUMSMS on 'O NAME OF DRIVER ITake From Omer LlCOae) CURRENT ADDRESS (MAwIWard SUtat) CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH 0) d DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE DL TYPE REO. END. ALC/OR 7 7 ryK RESULTS AtCjORUG PPS. RACE SEX IN). S. EpU1P. E7FC.T. f. :food a urine 2 Broth a. luhsN 5. Nae ZAROO MAIERIALS RACAAIXD Ives, �Mkate name oramgle nsnner hornp qr OOa WAS IIAZAROOUS ABCOMNEtOORNFR M. ORIYtlt' 71E IIO. aEiN(iTAANSNR On placard And t dOR nearloer ran UWA=si d4r NA7fltIAL SP r If vB Bf W A7N iN NARRA t.l'es Z no 1.Ta 2. 1.vez . ro 1.Yts Z. ro # PROPERTY DAMAGED - OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST. AMOUNT OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE Z11r 1 ¢ DAMAGED -OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST. AMOUNT OWNERS NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE Z 2 1PROPERTY f CONTRIBUTING CAUSES - DRIVERIPEDESTRIAN VEHICLE DEFECT VEHICLE MOVEMENT VEHICLE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS 0t AW Imaow W OMWACtker � ❑ 07 Np o.kLta ❑1 E 015tragit Ateed a a O 2Faml a ❑3 02 CLINKS Orivintp(fsplaln in Narrative) mFaued TOHeldalgl ; - or - WRY 02 01 ��� 02 VN.:rtket 0]v7wnrsnlophTlns 01 Ol OLL �� 025bYriny$tgipadl5falkd O]MAkug4lRtr�h 05 Ol OL eackiog � ED 31MkePVauR 1 1 CRecreatiprol W lmp'oOer llatYl,g 05 trni"per tare ChMge 06 Improper Tun �QQ stlwJlmprary 05 RrictvmJWUwart 05 Mknrq Riga Teen osclwvngl.arres SEmergercv ODeratbr 6CgRRtne:tblVMMrt!'eenrC! SOURCE OF CAR IFR INFORMATtON 07 Akohol - Under tnflonote 06DMP - U.6m instence 065tterni; MCCn' 07 WlydshkW wpm 07 EKerkiyLeaviM Pagkirq SpOCe 06 ProOet/r PMSed Klima Opkade Q o 0 OS Akphde Under lrAtAwtct 000 06 Toauvltere/Ydvcb 77Ao,#t e)Taplain in OetKt NartatwU 0timaii u-Turaned 10Maktg U -Turn ll PxSlrg 25Nppinp Papers Qo� 10 Fa1bwM Tao CbzNY Too CIO$ f i dlSregarrR.d'TraRK Signal 12 Eadeelled sits speed uma lt)mprdperl.00 l2 DNeerteSS W Rwrrav Vd kk 77 All Other feaOirVl l0 AlWatnel COnKkSIK SOtler L SI O! Uri o 0 0 A � LOCATION 13 psrtgnrdM SlouSgn MOkrepaNed Otter Trams[ Crxerai DS Not On ROed 01 Cmirphg Nat at intersection 07 Wan o a 02 Crossing at MM-derk CreStwaat inROaO IPrirnaNh/ 2 N Faritd 10 Ili, eptipMtleCk 21 Driving Wrong SigkVWaY ►asstrq 01 d]5lgfeds �Qa MMed.M 15 Urpopa 22 fhetrg Polka 16 Draw Let of Career 05 Turn Lars 03 Crossing at lrtentctbn E6 Standing! �QQ 2pimzss 21MmaNly W AREA L7 Exceeded Stated Speed Limit 23 Velkie ModMed MWalbrg Al0,g Ad►d W1thTraic AayagtnRad ReStdeMbl /60tatruCtirg TrNlk 24 Us DKtractWn(eraaln oS WaNUg AIarC ROW Against Traa 09 Standing lnPeOd[nu Island ]OprnGdutY Infpnatwe) Ownan vec IROad 77 AN Othis (Expwn to Narxrve) T7 A6Other ktn ] 68 unkgten Warren") FIRST /SUBSEQUENT HARMFUL EVENT(S) ROAD SYSTEM IDENTIFIER LIGHTING,CONDITIOF 01Cta1Knal with MV k transpolt(RCdr, end) Ls CoIR3brwithanoW 1 2 J 1 29MV ran NOtdtcNclivM ❑ ❑ ❑ 02 nasfaa P U.S. OB I7rW.Ye RdedwaY 05 01 pYIiaR 02 Dusk 01 02 cWISMnwih My In trarspat(FeW 0) 16MVIttsWYZgnirost o3 Co"ien with MV in transoort(Arpe1 17 MV rat rsltlRY poleAtSAs pole 300aloomwktowarer 11 OS1 0)State 77 All sites atom Oa CotiS,en :Rh MV In transport(LER turn) 16 MV fit lowd as 310 veRartd 04L� v w �n Ot OarktSneet LlpR) oscoRislonwuhMV intransoon (Right two) 19 MV lit NrYe 32 OmVaW fell tan ,,rick O6TurnPkeJtoA 05 Dark (NNosttmthpit) ' Qa Couisron wuh MV ktrarsowt(seMwNle) 20"V lvt toncrete toner *A 33TraelorhraMSpckkrsa{�� ROAD SURFACE CONDITION WEATHER ROAD SURFACE TYPE or Cndwwn on MV In lrar sPnrt(Racked lrsc) 21 MV Nt n.ldq?0401auemwe 1ra1 ]titre u 35 b Dimoo•. 01D'Y oLCkar 01 slawlaravWStene 06 Collision wAli parted tar 22 MV nit treefShntAtPery 09C.lwonwrth MV ern RVadwrr, 23 CgYnonrnh Carwtnetbn OenKAOe ego ]6 oowrivR nrOrav �a RZ 2t Ca6nknwRn tralRt 37 Cargo loss Or fftR IDwot Wit 0l 02CkNM/ Rs' o]Wen 01 02alackap 03 iNYYJBIack 02 to CoilnM .Ithpedestdan Odle II CaN411 -with H0rce 25 Cosklar with trees attdualM 3e Ssoo— ionduNts oa 77 ICY AR OlIter 77 AN other OACaealt! 05pR t2CaRklnwilh W.1k(eau kola) 26COa4ion.11hR— ItAlectatioceroad #J 7eeaanertasova 77Aa lltNer (t }oUlnm FIDE tFar/ain In NSnatnel (EarrotnM <eANn L. 13 COiRSion wRhrrroped 27MVNlolher"=01deet n blott Ivrratnel, NMratns) Nar*OtiveJ Namur") ROAD CONDITION CONDITION5 AT TIME OF CRASH VISION OBSTRUCTED TRAFFIC CONTROL SiTE LOCATION TkAFFICWAYCHARACTER. 01 No ndeets uolNl tetra lwnh ram) g 01 of w1larnot o"COnd 02 rntlemeru sewular 01 of Ito Gadrol 01 o2 Speor speed tare 06 02 Nit at lrtersectlonvaR X..Wbrdge 01 st'A At kttrsetekr, O24trs t • lewll yt- upp side/ 03 0Ontructbn with rxrino a M Parked(Stopped rtlatk 0] speed catnal sgn a] Uetualced try tnterserdal Ol gbargade 03 M ROattuder ltpalHtnxO[nxtbn el TreWCs0W/Ousrws 04Sch.0 lone Oe OS OrlvewaY ACCMS 03CrYYe-kvet Aakrd2d Private of Cl ae Vgr.W 03 LOOS# uefect matawak tKlLWonwitatle 051trafsCS19rW It Potted no U-tlerr 11 PrOPerlY downgrade OnSMrAOtrs •saR/brrilWJil 068Jksrq�RAetl diet o65tapsign 121Id Passim,om 06Rritip 12 Toll booth SHOULDER D7 Moles /nAVUntaie pared edge 07 51grs /0ilIbUnts 07 vkld slpl 72 An Oil- (9paln to 07 Entrance ramo 13 Pto k Orrt slap 01 OSSiar3Prgwater 09 worNiSYl Ford, rOTd ziAate Ofi roll 7"NoUer(EapaAt O) Srinkt to nit —twe) 06 Fm," )girt Narrated) O6Edtremo W Raenwd Skim. Q OS role Ot Paved Parking lot - pVaOC 77 AN Other (EAptak D2 Una 77 An other(rtvalnln Nanatisa) to Glare SO011ker /gu+nYdeppason j0pamnpbt- prorate In Nartatlwl 03Cwb NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER v SECTION# NAME OF VI FL STATUTE NUMBEN CHARGE CITATION NUMBER w SECTION# NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBET CHARGE CITATION NUMBER o_ SECT 1011 NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE I CITATION NUMBER MSoiv -90005 (Rev. 1/02) Page 2 of 4 February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board RegujS66nj 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office IncidenRe orts U Page 3 of 12 FLORIDA TRAFFIC CRASH REPORT pp NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ' NARRATIVE /DIAGRAM ' MAIL TO DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, TRAFFIC CRASH .RECORDS NEILKIRKMANBUILDIN TALLAHASSEE' FL 2 T tine EMS Naafild (Fatalities Orly Time EMS Anivfd (FatatR2s Only) Date of Crash County /City Code Invest. Agency Report Number XSMV Crash Repoli Number ❑ AM C] PH ❑ AM ❑PM 2/4/08 641S4 08- 00003823 72642641 NARRATIVE ' Vehicle # 1 was travelling east on Pelican Bay Blvdin the southern -most lane. Bicycle #2 was travelling east on Pelican Bay Blvd in the same lane. Vehicle # 1 had just completing making a right hand turn. The passenger -side front of vehicle #1 struck the rear tire of bicycle #2. Bicyclist #2 had abrasions on his upper body and head. Driver #1 was not injuded. Bicyclist #2 was transported to Physican's Regional Hospitai.The bicycle was transported by CCSO to the owner's residence. Driver #1 was able to remove her vehicle. 7;AS 5/ PAS SENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth R Sex LOC INS S. Equip• Eject. ASS pA55ENGE E CURRENT ADDRESS CITY &STATE ZIP CODE Oat! of 87tth Race Sex LOC 1147 S. Equ Eject. SECO PASSa PASSENGERS NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Berth Race Sea LOC INj S. Equip. Eject. SECA PASS1 PASSENGER'S NAME CURRE ESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Bhth Uu Sea UX mi S Equip. Eject. SEC * PASSI PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CRY & STATE ZIP CODE Date of Birth Race Sex LOC IN3 S. Equ' Eject. SEC/ PASS PASSENGER'S NAME CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & ZCP CODE Date of Birth Race Sex UDC IN] I S. Equip. Eject. N SECTION# NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHAR CITATION NUMBER SECT(ONA NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER Weness Name (1) Current Address City & State Zip Code Witness Name (2) Current Address city & State Zi0 Code First Aid Given try - Name 1, physician or Nurse 2. Paramedic or EMT 3. Polite Officer IPjufed Taken TO. By Name a. Cerbiled Ist alder S. Other [D Physican's Regional Hospital Collier County EMS 7vas H no, then where? B If no, then why? Date of Report Photos if yes, by whom? lnvestfga[0 1. Yes nvestlgahim j, yes o Q O 214108 Taken 1. yes 1. Imrestigating Agency O ❑ Made at Scenes 2* Camplete7 2. Nd 2. No 2. Other tnvesogator - Rank & Signatures (D ea ge Number Depattment FHP 50 PO OTHER Cpl M. Varaly 0-'>, 2928 Collier County SO ❑ ® ❑ ❑ HSMV -!ODDS (Rev. 1/02) Page 3 or 4 i „• February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports , r O Page 4 of 12 ,1 1612 N.T.S. Page 4 of 4 #08- 000038 Glenview PI �I CL Vehicle 1 .1-t�: cle 1 1picle lb1 C February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A'26, 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports S s Page 5 of 12 LAW ENFORCEMENT SHORT FORM REPORT PI/7 LS� 00 NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ❑ DRIVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH ORIGINAL ❑ DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION REV. 04194 U YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE INSIRUCTIONS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM, 9LNO FURTHER ACTION REOUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLETED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY rI I DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRA&H TINE OFRCER NOTIFIED TINE OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST AGENCY AEPORT NUMBER - -MV CRASH REPORT NUMBER O Q Qa /J' O AN PIM V, q1 AM RPM �• AN PM N9 -(, 9v O U COUNTY/ CODE FEET or MILES) N 2 E W CITY OR TOWN (CINct I n City a To j COUNTY � ,S'�l ❑ ❑ ❑ a ii/ PLC ❑ �'1 /C''t AT MODE MIO. v FEET a MAE(S) FROM NODE NCI. NEXT NDOE N0, NO, OF LANEB ON STREET CA NIOkWAY a 2. QED •r9 m /^'47 c AT THE INTERSECTgN OF v FEET _ ABLER S FROM INTERSECT" OF I GO ❑ ❑ ❑ P` YEAR MAKE (dVX•lore.ek.) TYPE tuck. o1c .))) vot LICENSE AILmom STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NURSER c o !''I��',V, S Z5Kt FL z S A2 Ch&*All florin A /fram LlTram RJSIde L /Sid[ Rear R /Rev L /Rear E�S2V9#CLEDAMAGE V,E,I,tDCIEREMOVEDBY; 1. Tar RWalarUY S.Od+w U e 011drfi Dupe T< IV0�±.4M.Ae,& PII KVW%& 1 2. Tow AwNfeRgrel L. OT. C ; MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY 4LIA81UTY OR RP) POLICY NUMBER t NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER O.ISaeeASDrser)❑ CURRENT ADDRESS IN~ &d Sirs) CRYANDSTATE DPOODE ' ❑ r— Rd.,,cl6`1.+�F zs 5w- -SLJ to z r► Fc. LCp NAME OF WiER (TW FMM DOW UDW*0I PEDESTRIAN CuRRe"MORESS (MWeO ad" CfiYANC STATE DP CODE N I' gv"Twq '%VLF 1115 )'Z$4•Sr.SLJ Zoi G'veazarl- 4j.4 79 N ORNER UCEM MU MBER DRIVER / PEDESTRAN HDAE PHONE DRIVER /PEDESTRIAN BUSINESS ROW RACE SEX DATE OF RPM m POP Uy4 ISTATEIT&I W4 AMRCode' I ;V,etode) I w I CL -1240T NUMBER OF AAPDMRSj NAME OF PASSENGER CURRENT ADDRESS (MMxrber and SNred) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE YEAR MAXE (der Yard, pc.! HYPE (tat, Imldr• 6kTcY, sk) YEH LICENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 5 I I I e UC Fmre R1FW* LlFMnI R /SW0 L /Side Rnr R /Rear L /Rar EST. VEHICLE MAUGE VEHICLE REMOVED BY: 1. Tar Rdadm Uat S.DMr ❑ Of Von" Oww'TA 4'"L. Doer NLCECOMPANY)ILABARYORPIP) POLICY NUMBS t .7' MOTORVENICLEINSUR i NAME OF VEHICLE 0.11011* .ES"A. 0101 CGRMWADDRESS (Neater eM SNeO CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE T NAME OF DRIVER (TW From &iwr Lmovo TRI CUARENTADORESS Oh-ber rd S MQ CTYAND STATE aP OOOE (U Y 9,m- s �xG -�t, -� $� ae *-Mw l t1410 Rc 3v10 i y . DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE Ol t/ Ty% PEDESTIIN/NO►E PHONE DRIVER / PFDESTRAN PHONE PACE SET( DATE OF BIRTH - I AFMI ' 791-91 NNGbde' till N'j c3 /� 9z =q d NUNM9EROF 5SSEMSEIA NAIEOFFASSENOER CURRENT ADDRESS PAabtr and SoaQ CRY AND STATE ZIP CODE YEAR MM(E (dt" fad, ft) TYPE (cIU ►trill bky*. et) YEH. LICENSE NUMBS STATE VEHICLE KIENTIFICAT10N NUMBER M O I I G) ChOdt Arent From R /Rohl LIEl" R /Side LUSide Rev ReRev L /Rev ESL VEHICLE DAMAGE VEHICLE REMOVED BY: 7, iorNv+iorl u9 3. Drbv U Of V111two Daimpe I .C..NY.Re*"COIW ❑ MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LABKITY OR TIP) POUCY NUMBER NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER pock Box I Same N Od.en ❑ CURRENT ADDRESS (Reba ON %W CRY AND STATE DP CODE I ❑ NAME OF DRIVER (T" Frye COW Um of PEDESTRIAN CURRENT ADDRESS (N rbwad Siset) CITY AND STATE DPCDDE <O V DRIVER LICENSE NUTAVA STATE IYVE dWER I PEDESTRIWI iIDME PYHDAE �IYEA I PEDESTRIAN BUSK PHDIE RACE SEX DATE OF BNRH Ala CodM Area Code d NLAABER OF PIL4SE NAVE OF PASSENGER CURRENTAOORESS(Nmbv and SOUT) CTTYAFOSTATE DP CODE 1 A O TOR FL TATUTE N1MWA CHARGE CITATION NUMBER i SECTION a NAME OF VIWTOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBS I R 0 SECTION a NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CRATION NUMBER I # .PROPERTY DAMAGED- OTH@HTHAN VEHICLES ESL AMOUNT OWNERS NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE LP S CITY &STATE ZP DDOE WITNESS NAME (1) CURIENTADDLIESrS�y WITNESS NAME 0 CURRENT ADDRESS CITY 6STATE ZP CODE INYESTIGA.OR - RAMC B.$la '• ,�P� .J 'P' 0 PO OTHER �:.W.* M 7-, Z414 ,� "o% 111000 REV. 04194 U YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY WITH THE INSIRUCTIONS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM, 9LNO FURTHER ACTION REOUIRED BY YOU, REPORT COMPLETED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY rI I February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 6 of 12 161- 2 A.ZU DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW �t ..'- -rw 7a14mw ACL4&s To �2s P01-1 'O" . WAmwlCr TO wll-nA &-a MmkAv SAV &TGD, PaTPa .Pr% l,ri *_1 W4i 1z ON Kx ?A "� A F ..._ 1 3 ON 4 ii$SR L.A.�L C11. n5c l eV 1G4av7 closc VOW, kA Y -, =t Cx73tlAsd *,1— N -Me i 3'1' 486' -. Fn�5 lZaSA -Wa m RJD •p.JOr p 2f 4VJ /vB7 r7vi3 f2 &UaTfiGr J.6Cr.4 #-b /M. %A? iaS AedD 2$gM Vow AJ B' ma" /34 7N Wt0�1'i.i. THLr�K,v o!= NE:iiGt�3'�2 s�rom 4-ma grAcraz 7T07.4K6 V �G t'i::s" CAF+= 77/reC•u394kir (,) ►tJJTMtput�r t'cae 01 NO WIVWM DO"IAaeln nj Q 02 C '*0 DWV0 (EVW h Noma") 04 Fe1'eUOPaV8selft ©O• ❑ 05lmprspa umch w 06 TM ��❑ 07 AEdd - LkdM trdhnro 0a Drug -11rdwhlmo 04 AkdiolR ! h'Aua1w ❑❑❑ 10 rdlored Too 11 DengrdW TnBe Signs 12 Eum"Sale SpMd line 10 hpiow Land 13 OimrOMdtl Slap Sp 20 Dsogrdd OnMTrelk Control 11 Fa4ed b—P-kv EOUp.! V4rwA4 21 F16 Poke Side 7 Wry 15 OWN ►of C41 22 FbeingU 16 01are Isa dCwxr 23 Nd1rti MoOAM 17 E—eded Sbeed SPaed Lima 24 D&V DIWM64m 10 Obsiutig TWk 2S AN ON, (E1(Fain M Neww*) 01 No Draoa a O 3 02 Or. Baae1 W D4leden ® ❑� Lipee 00 PUSOref Bosa, ❑ ❑❑ 06 S^M�- 07 WrgNNq W4en 06 EquipwewlYelieb 77M001M Wad (EepMM in Na7aRwl 01 sd:gs Mleed �11F Q 0 02 6bNq J SYppW ! SlaeW 04 �lM Tan ❑ 05 Pow%P44 TM i11'0" 00 CArgep L.erse 12 D1iwrAewa W Eldesg/Leea:4plPbOSSpecs RWMVPYMidn 08 PXWIR prbd 17 MOVW(Elobin 00 M 10 UTUn 9 2 Falm 1Nar t�lm 4R 4oelffalr iEmrgre.T �M OC CARRIER TIOIi CARRIER" -metr 1 2 3 3 Vatiae 5de 4OMM PaPew a ❑❑ sow- ION 01 MRand 1 2 3 02 Not 00 Rod O4 MoU. as Toot LAee N TM C' e1 LAd d Gmolk OT � 1 2 8 Mcoamg M ndMMCim 0l Stardrpf P6y0p �i ❑❑ 01 WeOipllmq Rudd WAe TrAc h Road VdBae2 Abng RndAWA Tryk 09 904'. h Pedeeann Irerld 00 WaR(Iq on V4h* In Reno 77 AN C4M (EMW In N&UM) as Unlwwn 1 Bu4ifeew 2 Resdr.Od� 3 Opm Goal 1 Nor t 2 12 Ill" W E'Q d d a FIRST/ E AR N 01 Coision Will MY III Twldpal(ReM E1w) ,S C)"M Wit A7drs1 29 MV Ran ido Okh /C~ M O¢ Coihisn Wlh MV A1Tnrupod (Held pI) I6 MV W tI" *n I de L# JO Pbn Q Road M1V waN1 a 03 CcNdm TVNI W h Tnrpod(Aeq* 17 Wtta UGBry pre /l"qM Aare 31 OuNumd 04 eoRelon Wen MV h T1MWW Raft I-) 10 MV HO Ourdes 32 Oonpvi FN Frae Wide �,} 05 cof sm 1V-e1 MV If Twneprt (Engle TUn) 10 MV Ne Foes 333 Tf%W1T(dWJerJ V M OS CofmWMMV'elTruspm {Sde4wip4} 20 MV set Cardre BMdr WeR 0T Coesim W0 W in Tnnpat p&dsod Inb) 21 MV 1R "r ) Pia lAbsoM 1R.I 35 ERAadm OB CotSSm Weh PMRMCM 22 MY tM TM /Sb1sbN7 96 CLau aslMl 09 Coa®n W6 ell m r-ft" 23 C.11d. WMConetmdon Benlode S 34 CW I r Lk* 10 Coisim WOI pWestran 24 COMM WNtTwRC Dre ❑ It Caadm Wa16e.Tde 25 Callon Well Craft AOaesbrs 3S Medan ev"INM ,T coloom With IXigd (B'dw Lend) 2e COaisian VYM Fwd *WAbm ROed 17 AN Omer (F>71a1n 1n a ❑ 15 Coirm Vib Mod 27 MV HA Cd1M F. W 0014a New' 14 CoUsim Vladl Train 29 C40o1WV of INwWlt 07 Foess Row ® 02 U.S. 0I P. Rpaala7 03 SOOb T7 A10Na(Ex*h 04 Coomq• e1 Namew) Oa T� f TM 01 DaRi04 U DISV 03 Dawn kil 04 0" (Strew Ugh4 ea 05 Datt Da��Stied LOM SUIT A 0 W TNER ROAD SURFACE Tft Ot Dry OI VYM 03 S"" ® 044 77 Al 00m (Eeptall h tiMraiaej O/ CW 02 Cloudy 03 Rant � 04 Fop 77 AR Ctmr (Eplsin h 01 SleptGweellSawr 02 Bwdeop 03 8rid/ MoCk O 04 Caemb 05 Dirt iT A9 Otlw tExOwi1 N Ne"t a) ROAD CONDITIONS AT Tffft OF CRA311 TRAFFIC CO SITE LOCATION TRAFFICWAY CHARACTER 01 No Deists 02 Obox N W1II Wslinp 03 Obskedlm WOW Rameg ® 04 RaidUda Wepeir1CmeoV0lon 05 Lm se OmLwwea OS Sh V"*Sd1 /IOamo 07 Holes I Ied J UaNle Paved Edgd ce sLwdfv WSW fA Wan/Pakhed Road Srhw ❑ 0t VON.01nanW 02 kKkaM warned 03 PeliW I flopped Whole l9, 04 Tne41 C1opfBushes OS toed of VMib 0/ Buifmg f F.ad Obod 07 Sips / Baeoade 06 Fog 00 Sacea T7 A000m(E 4kM ❑ of No 02 spedd speed zone m S"W W" Sign 04 Sdasl bony OS Tralc541d 11 PpMed Noubm 0/ SsopSig" 12 No Pa "Zas 07 YmM Sign 77 M OM ftab h Ds Rirdnp UP NMweN) 09 Ralned Si al ❑ 01 KMAI4Vgm90ml RRxep7 02 At Rao aon 03 lotm Oed 01 RU Ma1o11 04 Worm AMM Lo 05 Rallow 11 prioate Propel M BacipF 12 TOR Sao 07 E71Ya¢e RMrp 13 Ppok iw Sap t 0a Ed Rewp 77 M 0h+(6petll in 09 Poo"Lr-ANe NMra1M) 01 SrtipMM -Lars 02 SV*p . Lwrede f Do %n de m Wyk -L"M 04 Gres- UpgntleI Y DER 1 ' 02 Unyrad �3 Ji M do In N 10 h Ne 10 I ! 1 . P&Me HSMV -90006 Rev. 04/04 Page 2 0 I" Z J February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session '' eu ` 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 7 of 12 I.r t- LVKIUA IKAt'1-IL;LKA%)MKLrVK1 OO NOT VFRITEMTNtSSPACE LONG FORM 'AUT&OEPT. OF INCiFMrBAFETYaMMDTaF11 ,TPAFMCRAGN ORIGINIA1 REOOROS. NFU.1GMdAN &XLOINO. TAUAIMA86EE. Fta WM? C DATE oP CRABN TIME OF CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED THE OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST. AGENCY REPORT NREER TISM/VCRA81r REPORT NUMBER ❑AM W. 08-00010728 0 04 07 08 135 lw 1.40 AN RM 1:43 91 TO COUNTY I CT1T cam FEET Mm N S CITY OR TOO" IChN*1f*«TMTwp COUNT' 0 64 2 aR Naples Collier AT NODE MD. a fEET OIL" FROMNOOE NO. NEXT NODE tQ I10 OF LANES t aY� dMBITEET, ROAD OR NOWAY m -- — — I zwnwm 16075 Pelican Bay Blvd E AT THE MIERSECnON OF p«d. NRd W W*N" a FEET '066) N S E FROM )I ERSECSRON OF (Wk road a Nplgl F I 75 pelicall ft Blvd and Gulf Park Blvd OWNER t. PARd— YEAR M XE TYPE LNE VFX LxxWW I&XWER STATE VFNICIU IDENTM7r:AIM 10MMM KT 21"'" aNM 04 Merz 01 01 R GD697 FI WDBUF70144R437158 _ =Utl TRAX" OR TOVYEO VE IOZ IRFBFR TYPE OFORMAIM — tR :nnlolaQ VE•IXE TRAVELL O 04 At EM MPN PRSt d EDT. VEYCIE WW= 1.OINSMq EST. WAGER DA'AOE _ twrdE ❑ Wvc"y Access at 6075 Pelican B OS N/ $750.00 egTdtYEOQENiSPMCECOMPANY pIA{XITY OR iY7 POLICY NNEEIt 11E•CTi REf10YFDSY: t,TSRaM-u- -D& o State Farm Ins 66 1477 -59 4 Driver/Owner z Taw, owsrs Re3PM1 a. D{Rx 3 O NNE OF VE)CIE ONEER tON% m 06rrAS 6lm)® am ADDRESS rRAMdNa m st"O CTTT NO STATE WOODS NNE OF OWNER (7rWaw To.d v.Nds) CIRREaT ADOEU3 flM*WM SVNQ OTT NO STATE 21PCODE El C MME OF UMOR W WIER IFatlde OLIN CrARENTADDRESS O'ARa0r Yd 81-0 CITY. STATE AM PP CODE U• OOT M KC'C EEFRPICATION Ntl1189T8 A O faANe WORR�r RAeS PrwR R1Mr tbNRw)a1'EDlUr1UAN CIRRENT ADDRESS ft.". Rd am") 0rf.STATH2PCQOE WE OF B0TM IL Peter Aird Kill 4451 Gulf Slane Blvd #703 N lies, F134103 03 -26 36 DIWHMt LI[YARIE MraAOE]I NTA70 MORIg7HTTYR R{•ULT• ALOORLMM .SIDS RE•. RACE Sax MMl •.60Yr. rs.n. TYTE OIn. IOI a. =1Rwr•Naia 5 K400661361060 FI 5 1 b4eM.RNARd tNtaaRets PtAeAloEe rtv,6mRtWE « +Maer RlRifRf101aatm «oE tNd RITNOdO R , 1A RTfRRTeR cf OPAMpo. o W'Vr.1k MllfF N0RWtMQNARfN8RV44 739 72631 E7 /T.T1fr tnw:r tr�ar aFRnT!.B YEAR TYR VS YtK UICM+M61AJrRRA •TAK VttIRE{R Op4rFEn1RY1 rANRMt aNarR`R Rrt ��t.A„,4r, A TR« a. wee RR 3 x N M — Sun C4Aala ser i ru 10 01 — C14300589 t 1 = , 3 { T b ti V { ffi tTrere r tRr 7RAO" OR TONED YE{aE TRA6HF TYPE OFCRYATION — VSHNXE TTMVDJJMQ ON AT BIIRiN PosNd SMNd W VBOREOAMA0E T.DMMR4 EST.IRAB.ET DA'AC1� W10I'fMIQ ❑ Pelican Bay Blvd Sidewalk OS 30 0 :wF.� 0 4 MOTOR VE NXE SCKRN6l COMPANY DAA6EITY OR PP) POLICY NUMM 1. Ter RMlrNtm 3.0*— ID r N/A Relative =. TS OwR RRpwd 4. o{II 4 ❑ NNE OF VEHICLE OWNER "M m XSIMM ASMiM) CAMNWf ADDREW40MIO. Md SO") QTY AM STATE LPCODE NAME OF OVO4M(T WR aT— W VMWd.) CURRENT ADDRESS (PIdeM NO TMSd) CITY AM STATE IP CODE C NNE of Noun CARRIER CC—d d WYde 0" COMM ADDRESS 04=6T .0 BhRt) COY. STATE AND nP COOK Far MC R]FNT1FiCA7fON HUMMERS a NAME OFOWtER(T4b Frain DAtar L )PRNS)IPeDEaTRIAN CuralERr ADDRESS rMrf{Ar ntd BURR) CRY. {TALES 2P 000E 011EOF9RRN Devora Fladcn 808 47th St NE Cant, Oh, 44714 12 -14-86 OAWGRt.ICS,RS NUawFn HATE D� RN. Atcr«ua tFSr rrFd RnanTS ALCAFB)O OH REB. ItACt eIX ql E.ECT. r.rc t twr a tAa.: N... 5 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 N/A =Ba.r +Rr+.a wawRaowwrtuN faArwws@ rraw wRCa,e tNWa «anwamRwNtnear wTworoawlR@ nwsRVANaaN AreorRnlRMroRE{]I4Y, ortEwa nrarR: A%I. �a y «ttAGINlARO1AMIawRRIfAARCN •RTrwa•Iet1oIID. RITMMfLMR1fD a 2 Fnpf9tA•1MMAIMAtIVE T 11 239 5947655 twTR an„ R, 2 t>tae=r rn.=r R NCE ) PRd. 1 3 LOCATION st Ar.�+r M Rrr,TaRnwPeaNis Oa R►Oa R�ITaar i GRq rGrA 1 woMrr RwaRn t tMl OeMeAy r 1Yly QRS MN VEFKXE @Van «GMwYPrM'Ma. @TrwMiNRRITwRR =RYrnMwin iRM aFTwaYR Orm1 aAbrW 4YRMrMMrr t�Rr art C myrR TrtwRr P.U: =w..M RS roCwiwiaeM CrRO @TMR T•4Rwr aMRrRRRMRROrraRr aP,wyR /AWp ]OrtP �aaNMlwwW p NAM TNd -4EVm OFPUMTSpMMr ORSNM AMmfFbInd 4i 6 4MDdad .AkANdiO16R•tWMlaSelta IRed CasdN as fft" A- =m NSM WP1R/Bmd&A Oa OW ThW sTRNp Sled Mrl OlYiMp IRNM RpM UOtrod TnaMr(OdfSSMS1) MPAdSS MdSM DSUNNYTnA. to 28 aC WOft FOMS,fA6eINT,6Mraetd 6P4Rdsp ALCAIRJO TM RUSib .i .2R- -LO of Mob. Ilwsr lRV) OlMbdro @NRr T0M4 4NCWMR ItIMd SM —Cawfr EO ENT IN USE w 0m1aWw •RRMaO -ri) Do L.Frar.ewR a rft T.A. sFjcpr aFlPNde •MN,1gm C OSaf ONM'•4R4 Mt Nr4f 13) gRtY RaOd WTOwM VWAM 0 OpN.MR 401Nr 1Nona 1MAMMW 7In"ORTNd t0{iga/f tOMiry 1ObMT.NNR4 7#&- PYaSg0wM =. SI+r M dYwdR N N. — k4A1alSeRn Pr w Ow R80UR6 O ,T= t on.N ORRRNnae n or.r CMMRrOdd RS R +e+ D-" ♦ i6 b eae EJECTED yQ y w =('W--.WW AVOft M #4 0-6— 2W T FYi S.A6 1W lRrw Np was v nkw s•o -Nov. =NFw Try. P1rMF aN ='R r&uw >lteanrP� #rtq ( n owr 1 R.IRr W-� t• ! February 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session IY Y 9 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 8 of 12 Df0Y84 i. tlalWn ❑ ALTgi 2FRi1M YEAR -_ SAKE TYPE USE _ - TRA6ER TYPE - VE11 Um45E RANER -� - -_ STATE - - VE3fOlE DEl4JiR'J1710N MiBBi 2 7 t M'". iS /9 55 20 r rn%.r 17)i2 ,w.eaa„veor &NN TRAJERORTOVEOV0=E s WMAA7 M - _ t e C 0 V I E FED �y-y7 ON AT EdWH Posted lJ iJ L! LJ - - - ESr..V9#WM1AAM 1.i7aElra 2. Fvo*awl i.w DniF 1T- 17LVLERMAKGE 1O°E°""a -CAM nv.aa ❑ It i 'D l3 W10RVQ*C1EO&K'NGEC01VANY0B M0RPIP) P4.ICY NItIEII VEHK EFSHOV®BY. x:7 Up ipMr 2 Tar O.a.ls ROWAN 4. 01W a AV.AIE OF VEHC1E OFNER(CA.tt Ba F Sa. Ad&NO aSiRENTA00RES.+TMOWN161" OTY AND STATE nPOWE - nWa - WV.Nds) 0- 04EWADORMObreaaTdS=d6 CMANCSTATE WCOOE 3 EJ NMEOF NOTOR 0 d ad U04 ON, STATE W us Dol a Olt AC DOUNCATION M&AM O .0 O NAME (Tdks Fwa0li.t t ADDRESS(IM -- CITY, STATES 23P CODE OATE OF 811M i)RfVER UCJ9JSE NU6Bt STATE DL B KC i E t PM'S. DEF. RES. RACE SQ 01J. EO4F. EJECT. TYPE fMD, tdodL3LliaSNea 20=.1,41 MANd - - - - - - - - _ Pt9CAPDFD liW4FORRD I Ya3. fYaTA O FYESRCMYENNEd14CWNUdE rnmmmxmoRo01t 4LNVI WTIAA/FJI QQY Of OY.100. � � O WT/JULSPAL®F tYat11 - VAWVW&O1%WH%K AAY. FYE7FAHMMaiYAT.ItA4: 17=311 ( ) * PROPEEMMLVED- OTHERD MVEHOCM EST. A110M OYIAHTS MME atY STATE ZIP I 3 PY40PERTYMNADEO -0 VEHICLES Est MADIM CYOERSMME ADCIESS CITY STATE DP 2 , _ 01MD(A011pdroJ"1Ad10 o a fl 02 Cain Mi iq 1E ,* 1`1 PAM" 03 FA01 To YWM K494** a 1•p•+w 8••++0 02 77 06%1w"Airt � Os PAW Di10 a. ROd.9.r1 031YarR /SATd%T.1 a 130Ye60 r 11p.1wr O 1 Ol OS LV06 ABblod 4"S1nOIRAIad Qt a t pZ�OJ3,,,�„(AS1.1tl 03 NMq LA Tun N B1dya O l O l CS Mika Fd011 Al 11 Paio0 MUrgipiaws t2pd.a1� v ,Man i 2 3 2F1r. 3 POId1 Pu.i ; Paalrfead 1 1 1 AI4id1rr11. 07Ak" -LMda M6ua.. 011ow- 11da1A11aua 0,AJddd i DnP- LVAK .ln 101AWbold T40O.iA 116n.pdd T# Spat 12Fio14ddSSabso ume a- Lad 1TA"Pa+d SfopSSP 70(YS01dd00MTAA1CoAd 4Fds171M.iMdeEqup /11Yids 21 WftW Vgft Vhp 15 1 11.)VNYp 22 MCI 16 D.. LA ofC MWV 23 W%idr NO6id 17fiT1.dd S1 dd S1;AWL" K DA.a QA4114.1(EWW 180616udivTWFc "L.10 j "NO1%ufz Yi 1NHWd..a 06 S1riv U0dl OTYOid.Y.MYIfDus arArp.r1o1A4eld. "NONW M o7 rd, , Jta.ilq APaltlp Spo WltrwPVatddo 06 PYep4rq Pa%d 77 AM 00. fqi& 0011p1�.lP P'rl.l krJmYwj 1011.140 LLTa1 flip Appia610 1 : s 2 SNP" Pon �U,N�Sb 1 1 S 000 POM COLI�ION In on Rood Ell O a mIMARood 44 N"All Oi OI as Tom PEDE tAM L TYPE w Q sO Q 03 P, -1111210111110110 wSLldrpNYIYV 77 77 01 p0Y0A MWF1lrTQft Is R.d NV - *- ft" PAW ApA = Tntut: 00 S11111pM Pad/Wiln fird o6 MMftmVNEdo%IRod 77NODWOF3 dalaft n6..9 $111 tA1a11 iP6-* = ' Q lY1(1+dd 3Cp=C -" 01110110 1 2 a 02 M.AP 03E+ad ERE] F TI SYSTEM VENTFER D1 1JIOWJnrtarpA(T4N fad1 is 11MAPOW Q O Q 02C4W =VnWt.Haap"(HW0d xOW wspA /Sfp4P4d >D RnOFRaf %%ewrr 03 Whim VM Win Tompe(PIG* /7Wlfldq P0*1LIdf FEY 31 OaA.otl 04r. i0. law tfWlOGwlkal 320a.p.d7dF10aWMd. tH 06Cdi1+W0WMTr.lpod(Rb11Ta.) A W1YFaa ATtMIatlRSiM.AdOHod 20W1iC;"W.1WBnitrWA1 NPo1 MMda1 07 Tt1NUAN 02 U.S. 06PVnd+R.Oar 03 sub 77NOOR� 04 CO.* MNSnOy 05 tad 067 Td of AYW 0200% 03 O.a O1 0404P"41LW4 0SD11tTM.Pd(Sdaip.J 06 07Cafoi. VftWie T� .Pot(dn4dk" 21 Wii� 35EgftAw O6CAi=VOAPatad Ca 22WtOTw11S1w6/11P >e Ooldi R.Aaq 09CANd.VOW=R0961Y 23 C0Y11T71AO1a. a - , so 37 Cay+ll.aSNO 1 A 1 1 10Cdi.n VVOPSdWW 24 rAgdN VE0 Ta16e Gi 36 T..pa . dtH4 L_._L__I_1 "CAialdee8111" 25CONAM WAR 0.4A=ai..s 30N.bCAaror 12C'AAW-- rrgd.t>�� 26CA MVWA.F*W0tj6dAA.aR.d 7?A100-f1g1&M 13 Cntlia Va Ndpdd 27 W It 06a NOW C1*d NW** u0labc=ld+ 26udawuw..N.0NWftR d O, Dry "' 03 S600a► 044 o1 "Neer. lE0"Im plrliwi Ot CWI 02 doudT O3 R1M 04Fdo Ol 77N01a1 (min 013Y6AOn.d13Ta1 02 Modu1P W9idA1Kk 02 aCaa4. NUVI 77AROOa(E060i.i1 AT TIM OF CRASH MMO 77tAFF Y gNARAMR In H1 DdKk 0206.Y1A=FM 1bN.g 03 n- - .FMadVllwlp Ol 04 RNd LAIdri4Pi• JC0011.91 OS Loo. S.11a Ndodi 06S4u0Nas- Sdftaa11b11 07H041RdS1D.1MP0dT9p 00 sumbg Vpa wwlnAPddadRalSnOa ❑ 01 Y4ion Not @i.cf..lald 111aMa O3P111dASappdW60 a 04TnO100PIB.hM 05L11100V.lioi 1XB4Gf 1F4wd D%I.d 07$Dain - as Fog 00Soafn 7JN01a(E*& 0 No Catd @SpMiS4rd 7A.a 03 SP.dC wSip a 64 SdadZ411 OST ftso l 11 P4.4d Me LLTl.l 06613p61p 12 N.Paa4p 2a. Or You Sep "N Orr apOYM 06Fi.`lpusid Mm4f.q 0111011105`10 12A11dr.An DLSY1idd- A4diased B7Yda1oc0an (� O+wq+a 04 CAW="Aoa. W.C.+1 05R 11 111 P.4* h" 04.CV 01801dip. t2Td B.0 07F bell aPWe an slop 7101 of Ed RNO "NOOrO0&h OI.PWW 01P1AUgL0- PUWWW*A) OLtA1po10 -lain LIFF-61 OI -11.i --%, I (tl a 77NOdw - M to CM MIA $GO11iM1GWd1 12 Ld -PtiaY 163. Co0 SeCTIONS m SECPIONe TOR RSU7IRE CKVIGE 0 10 SECTION# $VM0FVMxATCR CMIKE MAT NUME t O _ �- SEC"0 ~OFVWTM R STATUTEMAM CHAIM (7TA"14.0111 Fl � pr y February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re ulals6n t I rY Y 9 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 9 of 12 r -LUMIL A I KAPI'It- LrCii7t I KCI"VK I NARRATNE/DIAGRAM IW. TO: D�ARTLExroF IaOf WlY SAFETYa YOIDR �@aClfa.TRA/FICCRASH RECORDS SECTK*L MM arRIM" wXLDIrrD. TAW WWI, R iTJMCSOG DO NOT VmrTE IN THIS SPACE TIYEEAC NDTRIEO(FATAUflESOIaYI ❑ Aa ❑ TUR? EMS ARRM.(FAWTIES ONLY) ❑ AM ❑ ►M DATEOFCRASH o4 o7 og COLIN"ICRYCOVE 64 DIVEST. AGENCY REPORT NUMBER os- 000la7zg IMIIK CYUVSIIR®ORT NINISER 07089091 Notc: Bicycle rider, driver #2 is a resident of Israel staying with her grandmother at 6001 Pelican Bay Blvd # 102, Naples, Fl. 34109 239 594 7655. The listed address for #2 is her husband's parents residence in Canton Ohio where they receive mail. Narrative: #2 and her husband were riding wperate bicycles northbound on the west sidewalk for Pelican Bay Blvd at 6075. They were on the sidewalk riding against traffic. #2 was in Gont of her husband who was slightly behind her. Note that #2 is six months pregnant. #2 entered an u nnnarked crosswalk at the driveway exit for the condo complex at 6075 Pelican Bay Blvd. # 1 was exiting the complex in his passenger car. There is a stop sign set back somewhat 15 feet, from the sidewalk. # I hit #2 as she was in the intersection, the collision knocked 02 down and she received Injuries to her lower Icgs and possible other injuries. She was transported to North Collier Hospital by Collier EMS. Observations: I observed that these was damage to #11's lower front below the grill left of the center line of his vehicia There was no visible damage to the bicycle, and that III= were shrubs between the two patties as they approached that could have effected their view. Statements: #2 Stated that # 1 did not stop for the stop sign and hit her. W itness/Husband Seth Fladcn stated that # I slowed, but did not come to a compkte stop„ pulled forward slowly and hit his wife who was well in the intersection. Driver #I slated he stopped for the stop sign and was pulling forward looking left for vehicular traffic. He states #2 pulled in front of him, he did not see her and hit her. Witness Bortrue Bradshaw stated she saw the collision but did not see if #11 stopped or not. She stated # 1 was moving slowly and #2 was moving slowly. #I careless driving/not looking in the direction of his forward motion. #2 driving against traffic on a sidewalk entering a IZlucsion: ng as a vehicle is exiting demands caution.. t am rat assigning individual f W% bushes also obstructed both patty's view. SECO PAJ CURRENT ADDRESS crrYa STATE aCODE DATE OF affm SEX LAC W a EDLIF. EEOT. CJ P CORrIE f ADDRESS CITTi STATE ZIP CODE �y DAYS OF BUM aE)L LOC W A EOUF, EE-cr. OI P CIWpENr A0011FE8 CRY&STATE ZPOODE DATE OF SYnN _ SEX LO, W CEDL71P. d PAM ` CURRENT ADDRESS CRY& STATE ZFCOOE DATE OF MR11H RWA SEX LAO W 4 a EOIIIF. EJECL. CURRENT ADDRESS Col A ffATE ZFCODE OATS OF SOM SEX LOC w 1 4 &". d P —AGGRESS WVY& STATE ffi CDDE OAT! Or awnr RAC SEX LAC W I R MW E. =. i 0 SECTV0M • — NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE MUMMA CHARGE CrTATOON NUMB" O SECIION11 NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTEMUMMA CHARGE GFATIOMWONDER WTIESS MULE Mil QINa)RADDRESS CRY S STATE ZFCOOE Seth Rader 908 47th St NE Canh^ Oh 44714 YVWM NNE 0 CURRENT ADDRESS CRY A STATE DP CODE Bonnie Bradshaw 6001 Pelican Bay Blvd N ks, FI 34108 AID BY- 1. Phraidwl a NLRSS Z Pwwraft et Elff 3. PDMa OMw KAM Golfer EMS 4. C CLAW 151 AWW s. ODMR 2 TAIVIM. North Collier Hospital aY -"*OE Collier EMS WAS FMATFERWOW WKSTOGATIGN 1.YEa AT aux Z. aO 1 h IFNO.11" MKt WJESTIGATWM i.YES GnAWLETE7 2 MD 1 DATEOFREPORT ' 04 07 08 film FYESSYlN1W17 El TAKEN 1. YES t.aAESIKKI ACON,Y 2ND 2 I Onlar ZEd Womiak iD! 0508 DEPAMUDir FHP SO PD OTTER Collier county Shef ff'a Office ❑ ® ❑ j] err DIAGRAM February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular�es 7 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriff In de zp orts Page 10 of 12 �r 1 � 7 .va,�a�, 1 ♦ tk �NrW ,i:S S i7 ,7 °p 0 D 6 by a---Jor R`- / X, jTeo A Gr f Q . C ,,� / V INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW �y �r 1 � 7 .va,�a�, 1 ♦ tk �NrW ,i:S S i7 ,7 °p 0 D 6 by a---Jor R`- / X, jTeo A Gr f Q . C ,,� / V INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW I i i 161"' Z February 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session fY Y 9 A20 LAW ENFORCEMENT SHORT FO 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 11 of 12 r REPORT T ' DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ❑ tJRtVER REPORT OF TRAFFIC CRASH D DRIVER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ORIGINAL Z DATE OF CRASH TIME OF CRASH TIME OFFICER NOTIFIED TIME OFFICER ARRIVED INVEST. AGENCY REPORT # HSMV CRASH REPORT O 10/14/09 7 :08 ® AM ❑ PM 7:09 ®AM C] PM 7:14 ®AM pM 09 -27277 80289131 ate[ COUNTY /CTFYCODE FEETar MILE(S) N S E W CITY OR TOWN (check U)n city or town) COUNTY CI 64/54 1 ® ❑ ❑ Q NAPLES ❑ COLLIER AT NODE ♦ o FEET or MILE(S) FROM NODE s NEXT NODE t 0 OF LANES I. OMDED ON STREET, ROAD OR HIGHWAY w 4 Q 2. ueotvmw PELICAN BAY BLVD. xx., AT THE INTERSECTION OF (sheet mm rivomay) FEET MILE(S) N S E W AT THE INTERSECrION OF otreei. mwwwway) ❑ [] ® [] 6531 PELICAN BAY BLVD. YEAR MAKE (then. ford, etc.) TYPE (car, truck, bicycle, etc.) VEW LICENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 08 LEXUS UTILITY LZE016 FL -TT3HW31U982052339 Front R/Fmnt L /Front R/Side LiS)da Rear R/Rear URear Est.VehkleDamage VehicleRettttived by LTawRatutlo+ust iClrtry f VettlArw] X 6500.00 DRIVER 3 z Tar D.md] Renest 4 otter OTOR VE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER t AUTO-OWNERS INS. CO. 4245760900 NAME OF VEHICLE OWNER . (SameasDdver) ® CURRENT ADDRESS iNUnberamstreet) CITY AND STATE ZIPCODE e NAME OF DRIVER (Tate From OrrwLKeae) CURRENT ADDRESS (Numbward Stoat) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE mSEAN KRUPA 5814 GREENWOOD CIR NAPLES, FL 34112 N RIVER LICENSE NUMBER STATE DL TYPE DAver/Pedestrian Herne Phone Driver Pede]trien Business Phone RACE x DATE OF OMTH 0 K610"0426650 FL E W F 05/05/1942 UMBER OF PASSENGERS NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE ® YEAR MAKE (chev, fwd, de.) TYPE (car, truck, bicycle, etc.) VEH. LICENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER CANNONDALE BICYCLE D as Front ton L/Frmtt RJStde t15)de Rear R/Rear URear Est. Vehicle Damage Vehicle RemWed by L Tar Roman ust A Dire F Vehicle mage X 67,000 DRIVER ITarOwW$Regtest 9 4. Other OTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER AME OF VEHICLE OWNER (Sameas nrWer) ® CURRENT ADDRESS (NrmbC"Sueet) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE ❑ C to NAME OF DRIVER rrAerron, Drk vLx—) CURRENT ADD HESS ( ata street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE ! SCOTT E. WHITCOMB 1515 SERENITY CIR. NAPLES, FL 34110 O DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER STA DL TYPE Drive n Home odver/Peeestrtan Oust ess R X DA 8811TH W3257OS693750 Ft E W M 10/15/1969 UMBER Of PASSENGERS NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (Number and Street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE YEAR MAKE (Chev, Ford, etc.) TYPE (car, truck, bicycle, etc.) VEH. t.TCENSE NUMBER STATE VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER d u wee Front 4Fmnt L/Frcint R/Skle USkie Rear RJRear L/Rear Est, We ilde Damage VehkkRemared by t Towaaraua Lkc ) DA e t > f Whicie nTeOe Ira. owners aewat t ceps ❑ OTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE COMPANY (LIABILITY OR PIP) POLICY NUMBER AM VEHICLE OWNER (Sam,. Cover) E] CURRENT RE (NumterardSt,,d) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE w E OF DRIVER (Tate Fmm OrNa LKe st) CURRENT ADDRESS (teanter and street) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE h N C RIVER LICENSE NUM[iEtt STA DL TYPE prlver /P tWan Nwrte DtMxre mlvm /PedeWtan Casinos] Ptgrw RACE .0,:. N a NUMBER OF PASSENGERS NAME OF PASSENGERS CURRENT ADDRESS (NUmta.- and 5beet) CITY AND STATE ZIP CODE N SECTION#' NAME OF VIOLATOR fl STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION UM SECTION# NAME OF VIOLATOR FL STATUTE NUMBER CHARGE CITATION NUMBER a y SECTION NAME OF VIOLATOR Ft. T E NUMBER CHARGE A CtN NUMBER PROPERTY DAMAGED OTHER THAN VEHICLES EST AMOUNT OWNERS NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE UP (TNESS NAME (1) CURRENT AODRES5 CITY & STATE ZIP CAE WITNESS NAM£ (2) CURRENT ADDRESS CITY & STATE ZIP CODE tNVE5TtGATOft -WINK 8 SIGNATURE ID /BADGE NUMBER DEPARTMENT FHP SO PD OTHER OJ5 N. STEWART 3181 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OPFCICE 0 0 0 ❑ V H5MY -40006 (Wv. 04/00) * NLA i U YOU MUST READ AND COMPLY W]TH THE SN8' WC170NS ON THE 4ACIt OP TN= PMOM. .11 ® NO FUttTN811 ACTION FXQUUED M YOU, RIFMTCOPIRE W iN LAW INPOWMMT A66ICY ►e1 k - Ito 1 tip February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Pathways. Additional Information re: Collier County Sheriffs Office Incident Reports Page 12 of 12 1612 � Ts. DIAGRAM INDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW VBIICLE ONE (V -1) WAS TRAVELING NORTH ON PELICAN BAY BLVD. (V -1) ENTERED THE MEDIAN TO MAKE A LEFT TURN INTO CROWN COLONY (6531 P9UCAN BAY BLVD). THE BICYCLIST (V -2) WAS TRAVELING WITH A GROUP OF OTHER BICYCLIST TRAVELING SOUTH IN THE OUTS3400 LN ON P8JCAM BAY BLVD. (V- 2)WAS EQUIPED WITH A FRONT ILLUMINATION LIGHT AND WAS WEARING PROTECTIVE HEAD GEAR. THE DRIVER OF (V -1) FAILED TO YEILD -THE RIGHT -OF -WAY TO (V -2) AND SMOCK THE BICYCLIST (Y -2) ON HIS LEFT $I" SUBSEQUENTLY CAUSING HIM TO GET THROWN FROM THE BICYCLE ONTO THE ROADWAY. THE BICYCLIST SUSTAINED MINOR I11113URIER FROM THE ACCIDENT AND WASTBEATffi AT THE SCENE BY EMS. HE WAS NOT TRANSPORTED DUE TO HIS VO R MM (V -2) WAS TOTALED BY THE ACCIDENT. THE DRIVER OF (V -1) WAS FOUND AT FAULT FOR THE ACCIDENT. CONTRIBUTING CAUSES - DFU PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE DEFECT VEHICLE MOVEMENT VEHICLE SPECIAL FUNCTION$ 63wl.or"Wa"nalActle. Ej U1 a 01 No Oelocts Q O3strawtAhm 0 0 a tlee ID ?Farm 1.I 02 GXdes taMaO (emlwimtarrrte) 03FaOd ioYIW RqK- d -LaraY 03 Da oQ @tld- Grotto o1 mwarN5nnatMnrts O1 F @9ewglaft lurri rd—M-1 mtdatilp Neil tun 03 Di 37d10e hasrR 1 a 3ronce ursia �E]o MlmPppV6a[ktq 951mRmr tarwCiwgc 06 tmprapr Ttm �0a 0/OrwCtivdimprapr I.plb 06WetUSJ8laadt 06startnO MCI 045xkhv OS Maki q ja1tT— O6Chwginp Lana 07rrtwfwLtawnwpamm Space 5 6iMrpeRV Operation 6 uitcecof cAgtarwX.e 07 Ahsttld- Ulder)Muancs -Urtb lm my 07 wraaMdd wlpess 06Roperly Prked tltot Appikalae O Q a 06fXtps @Altdel6 Pngs-UWrlMuece as OR eq 1pmetNdeck 77AIIOt.MMIaMln OdCt MarratM) 091mraRwYFarked �OxerW101 2SNOgifgHOers 10 f01Mre0 Too CfaW IOMeklrp l►TVn i2 RUwwaY YdOGs 3vdlck Side a�Q ttasroOrdecl Tra1 Stip.1 12150: sarespeedumR 19 Load nAl Otter femhkl)n Nawative) 5a"- n 0 O @flat On ROW 03 Siws0C Ol Ol ION Typt 13OreprasiStopsipn 20 D12 east Other TrINIC Contrd 01 Crasstrp taRrlrXestYOgk lP wrkirq l 2 3 3FrsrrrdY UfaOed TOMaMakEOJplVeNCk 2t OrMnp wrOlp SldNWaY Ot Megan o 02 CrvbMrp at NIN144ar Crosswalk tnitaiol W1MMa! t5Impppr Padre 160n1Vt tpltdCrtr 22 FloNr�OVoln OSTu Lae mGaaslAa at Intersection O65taritlirgr F� 2hNw1M 17 fwceedd TibtW Sped WNt 23 Vdcle Madlkd OlYraikky AlOq ROW WRh Truk FOY"In ROad Rakirehi Ol Nate O ] t /OOSlnttlrO Tra/k 2s 0rhRr Ontnctbn (dPaar RiwaNagA"ReWn9a>ret TYMk. 0937ark1k9 MpdeStnmislrtl 30/01C0YKW InNarrhe) 02 NSrM - ----on Ydack a Road 77An OtMr IENPlaw In NrmbA), 77 All cow(Eagamin na noYe) Q3 Entered 01 Ol NtukitOwn FIRST /SU85EOUE HARMFUL VENT(S) EM IDENTI HTI 01 Codlstkn wth MV In tranprt(R— C14 15 Cotbbrr wtn ram8 16 slVrnagrVsien 29MVIenkpld1b:lOc .M O ❑2 3 ortat @U.S. OBRiwaeaaadway a @asst Q @C011slan wlM MY mtrrdpart(Metd on) Doak m Col,,wn with MV inUrgeprt(Myk) V MV rn amlRy PDkAW* Bak 30 Ran ofrmdrnto. ale it u @State nab oNer 00 dawn 04 Cools MV altMapowu* hat) 18 MV hit We" 320wtrrrd 320[crgWKkll l4''w��lrx,,M��re��tt USLaCM hemrlwt) WEARIER Otfalfk (StteK UF,q 050rUnkmeekiipht) OSCpkNIN. th MV htteroprt(atsit aan) 19 MV Mt letce 33TraOA/tralYry....•� 06TvmptOVtoR Mtkiinawn 06Cdltlknwlth MVrntrr¢DOt(Sldeswkel 20MVrntornete mwtr wall 'a 97 CoYfionxim MV mtmmjNNgoNckd M) 21 MY rn and 0ortabAmewna 3aFka UU O10ry 01Ckr Ol$kdAaNYWstW! OeCWHknwkhoskdcr 2214V Mt trlelshntlhrV 35 ft"o' 09Callsi- 0,1111V pn ROedw -y 23CoWska wadamdtrka2kn bsrk-t lkn 3600wrdt:l —ay 37 Caoo1=3 orOa 02we1 03S110MY Ol MCI.* @Nrkwp 03 RAN 01 mBeRlYeiKk 02 10 Ca ahknwith P.",,,tan ?k CeA SM wthtr/tc pKe 36StWratk..r NM 64 ky Os Fop dcommse 11 Cd1hl" with ticYde 25COisstatwttOislraaeutkrs 39Mdtan cr9saaVe. nARather talon. 12000tskn with atydeidks WM) 26CaNFknwthfww 9eQ a0oce road 77 AN aher(emllk:n (P- Iylatlr inwmtM) 770kt (Fadrrtln 77ASOtts(eMaM 4. LTCdlhlOn wthn Ned 2'7 MY Mt 9t0r t=d r0ect Iwra[;va) ) Newehre) IN AT T M OF CAASFN VI ION ft—do CONTROL ITE T ARACTE OI Nd OIVhiOnrotaastwd OXrai Ot rkM at IirsewRkNast XdrQMwkga at am- oz005wrtbntamWarr" Ol @ Imleflirt weadow 01 02:pecls, speed no 01 rasped rwarol MIT @Ataae TWOOn � @ iMWncd aF kMrsoctim m� WWKW o mOmsWCOwwkhwr(4V Os ROW UW rIONITICS151 raallor @ panedktoppd vdick Os7re mvsrmrm Os Sctpal TOY Ot OrNMaf AOcess codow" sle a p5lpyt3wldedmtteAys 051,Mdonvdkkk as Tnin Wwlw flsandm U-t-, 05 Railroad II"late properly re 06 Sa0ddrs- saRAowMOh 06 BdlOrefewed aa)eat 06 stop49n 12NOPasanrdlOre 068rldw t2 Too boom T 07 HdalnWweale POrd edge 07SIgrs/atlbdsrtb a7 ntid sign 77An Otte,(EMtalntn wrratmt 07 EmrrCe ramp 13 Kb a;R ta7p Payed OeStawlhp water as wwwoot!'"d roWars4ce a as Fog 77 At otter(SVU- 09Sn04 to lNrrMive) ❑ Oe Flaslwlp lode 09"tged Swiss oeestrarnp 09 arb;D bt. Palk 77Aa OtM (arphk 02 tY0awad wort 100acr /0aidgOpram 10F. sat. Phate In Nrrative} @Cvb 77 AD OUM(INOW mMarrative) R6HY -90006 (WV. "/04) Page 2 or 2 Dear Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors: A February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 1 of 22 161 2 January 25, 2012 A 20 This letter is to formally communicate, on behalf of The Montenero residents, the concerns and opposition to the Pelican Bay Services Division's (PBSD) current plan to widen the walkway from 5' to 8' on the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard. The views expressed in this letter are based on feedback communicated by a significant number of Montenero residents and their overwhelming opposition to the plan as expressed at our association's January 17, Board meeting. As you know, several Montenero residents and board members voiced their concerns at the January 3, PBSD Board meeting, as well at the January 12, Pelican Bay President's Council meeting. On January 19, Neil Dorrill and Kyle Lukasz, representing PBSD, visited our property and provided additional information about the project plan. Nevertheless our concerns remain, and The Montenero Board decided that it would beneficial to communicate these concerns in writing: - Montenero specific concerns - increased risk of automobile and pedestrian/ biker accidents at the intersection of the (widened) walkway and our driveways. - alteration of the landscaping in front of our building due to the planned removal of six trees and the likely increased signage needed to address the noted safety concern - Overall Pelican Bay concerns - similar safety concerns as mentioned above due to the large number of condominium driveways intersecting the walkway along Pelican Bay Boulevard. -loss of, and resulting imbalance of, the canopy effect along one side (the west side only) of Pelican Bay Boulevard with the removal of many trees at the completion of the first two project phases. -the absence of an integrated plan considering the walkway project and, as we understand from Jim Hoppensteadt, PBSD's plan to re- assess the implementation of a biker lane in Pelican Bay Boulevard. -the unknown total cost of all planned walkway widening phases, coupled with the uncertainty and doubt that the walkway widening would materially improve the safe passage of pedestrians and bikers. It appears the anticipated cost of the first two phases will likely approach $1 million; presumably the total cost for all planned phases will be a multiple of the first two phases. - project justification based on bringing the walkway up to code (i.e. 8') thereby reducing pedestrian safety risk, without any factual data to support the historical level of walkway accidents. We have been told the plan is not finalized and not formally approved; however, we understand PBSD has filed a permit application with Collier County and is receiving updated bids. We will remain alert to activities related to this proposed project and plan to have representatives attend future PBSD Board meetings and other special meetings on this topic. In the spirit of providing constructive ideas to assist in communication and decision making going forward, we encourage PBSD to: - actively solicit input and feedback from the broader population of Pelican Bay residents, since we do not believe there is general support for the walkway widening project (to meet the current Collier County code of 8'). - modify the plan to address the needed walkway repair, excluding dramatic widening. It was suggested by PBSD representatives at our 1/19 meeting that 6' widening might be acceptable to the PBSD. While this may alleviate February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session a 5c. Pathways comments from the community n O Page 2 of 22 1 L A Z some resident concerns, it would not meet the county code objective, would not have a noticeable impact on safety, and presumably would not materially reduce the $1 million projected cost. These factors would need to be addressed. - provide residents with the estimated total cost of all walkway widening phases. - clarify for residents PBSD's position on: -if PBSD were to propose an alternate 6' widening project, how does this affect Collier County's view Pelican Bay's adherence to code and use of funds? -since PBSD is proposing to spend resident monies (collected through the MSCU tax) on a project that is the responsibility of Collier County (i.e. responsible for maintaining the walkways and roads), how does this use of funds impact the deferral of other priority projects that might otherwise be undertaken if the county fulfilled their responsibility? - ongoing rationale for proposing projects that are the county's responsibility, but funded by the MSCU tax. -and, PBSD's current thinking on: plans for resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard. - plans for re- consideration of adding a bike lane on each side of Pelican Bay Boulevard (which arguably would reduce some bike traffic from the walkway). -if PBSD were to approve undertaking multiple projects that are the county's responsibility, what will happen to the MSCU tax rate, which is PBSD's primary funding source. - best approaches to be taken by PBSD to improve the priority given to Pelican Bay by Collier County for needed projects in light of the apparent county decision to fund the walkway repair along Vanderbilt Beach Road, but not along Pelican Bay Boulevard. We look forward to learning more about your current thinking and plans for addressing the high priority needs of our community. Sincerely, Robert A. Lauer, President For the Board of Directors Copies to: Keith Dallas, Chairman Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman John Baron John Chandler Geoffrey Gibson Hunter Hansen John laizzo Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble CC: Georgia Hillier, Commissioner, District 2 February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services4ol isi�n Board fl�ular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community A V Page 3 of 22 ' kPom: eialias [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] �e�`nt: January 25, 2012 4:55 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Montenero Letter to PBSD Board Begin forwarded message: From: Robert Lauer <ralau43 @hotmail.com> Date: January 25, 2012 4:22:15 PM EST To: <keithdallas @comcast.net >, <nfn16799 @naples.net >, <ibaron @watersideshops.com >, <iohnchandler219 @email.com>, <iosieeeoff @aol.com>, < hunter .hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, <iaizzo @comcast.net >, <mikelevv435 @email.com >, <naplessusan @comcast.net >, <d.itrecker @vahoo.com >, <teedup1 @aol.com >, <georsiahiller @colliereov.net> Cc: "'Andrew Cummins "' <aecummins @comcast.net >, <keithdallas @comcast.net >, <rdiarvis1469 @gmail.com >, "'kevin "' <kcshanahan @comcast.net> Subject: Montenro Letter to PBSD Board Please find attached letter to the PBSD Board regarding the proposed Pelican Bay walkway widening project From: Insoup [mailto:insoup @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:25 PM To: Robert Subin Subject: Project to Widen the Paths on the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd Shown below are email responses from Commissioner Hiller and Keith Dallas. Fwd: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening From : HillerGeorgia < GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net> Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening To : med5 @comcast.net, Subin Bob <insoup @comcast.net> Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:36 PM FYI- With thanks, Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Begin forwarded message: From: LukaszKyle <KyleLukasz @colliergov.net< mailto :KyleLukasz @colliergov.net>> Date: January 24, 2012 11:18:11 AM EST To: HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net< mailto :GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net>> Cc: OchsLeo <LeoOchs @col lie rgov.net<mai Ito: LeoOcks @ col liergov.net >>, Neil Dorrill <neil @dmgfl .com<mailto:neil @dmgfl.com>> Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening This does include relocation of the irrigation, restoration of the sod and installation of root barriers where necessary to help prevent future damage to the pathway. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:46 AM To: LukaszKyle Cc: OchsLeo; Neil Dorrill Subject: Re: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 4 of 22 1612 A 2U Thanks so much! Does this include all consequential costs like new plantings etc. ? Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 On Jan 24, 2012, at 9:01 AM, LukaszKyle <KyleLukasz @colliergov. net <mailto :KyleLukasz @colliergov.net>> wrote: Commissioner Hiller, Leo Ochs asked that I send you the total cost for the Pelican Bay pathway widening project. The Community Improvement Plan (CIP) that was completed for the community in 2010 outlines the widening of the pathways on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd and the north side of Gulf Park Drive. Construction drawings have been prepared for the first phase which is from The Commons (just south of Gulf Park Dr.) to the North Tram Station (just south of Bay Colony Drive) on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. The engineers estimate for this phase is $220,000. The second phase would complete the widening on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd from Ridgewood Drive to Oakmont Parkway and based on the estimates prepared for the CIP that phase would be $351,700. The last phase for pathway widening is the north side of Gulf Park Drive and is estimated in the CIP at $138,000. The total estimated cost is $709,700. Please let me know if I can provide any further information. Kyle Lukasz, PBSD Operations Manager - - - -- Original Message---- - From: OchsLeo Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 4:45 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening Kyle, For your response to the Commissioner with cc to me please. Thanks. Leo - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:11 PM To: OchsLeo Subject: Re: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening What is the total cost? Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:43 AM, OchsLeo <LeoOchs @colliergov. net <mailto:LeoOchs @colliergov.net>> wrote: Commissioner, Responses to your inquiry from Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Lukasz are provided below. VRa �. � y ----- Originak Messag&W - - -„ From: LukaszKyle Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:16 AM To: OchsLeo; 'Neil Dorrill' Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 5 of 22 1612 A 2U Leo: The engineers estimate for Phase I of this project is $220,000. There are funds available in the FY 2012 Pelican Bay Hardscape Fund 322 budget. The plan is for the project to be put out for bid and the award of that contract to go before the BCC. Kyle - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Neil Dorrill [mailto: Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:05 AM To: LukaszKyle Cc: OchsLeo Subject: RE: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening Kyle: Please respond as quickly as possible with the cost information. Leo, I have also asked our civil engineer (ABB) to verify if a 6 foot wide replacement asphalt path could still meet the uniform code for a "shared use" facility. If so that might be the answer as a 6 foot path would not result in any lost trees. The project does anticipate extensive root pruning and some type of rigid root barrier to prevent the type of problems that are occurring throughout Pelican Bay. Until recent activity on the part of several condos who prefer to leave all PBSD landscape in place this had been a very popular and highly rated project. Stay tuned. Neil - - - -- Original Message---- - From: LukaszKyle [mailto:KyleLukasz @colliergov.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:15 AM To: Neil Dorrill Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening Importance: High Neil, Received this from Leo Ochs regarding email from Commissioner Hiller about pathway widening. Do you want me to respond with the requested information or do you want to respond. Kyle - - - -- Original Message---- - From: OchsLeo Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:43 AM To: FederNorman; LukaszKyle Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening Importance: High Gentlemen, For response through me please. Thanks. ffffR r - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:41 PM To: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick Subject: Pelican Bay Sidewalk Widening February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 6 of 22 i A {20, 1b12 Please provide the details, including all costs, for the sidewalk widening project in Pelican Bay. Why is this needed? Why are so many trees being cut down? When is this expenditure coming before the BCC for approval? There appears to be overwhelming opposition to what is being proposed. Thank you - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Please also forward my email to Neil. Thanks! Re: Project to Widen the Paths on the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd From : Keith Dallas <keithdallas @comcast.net> Subject : Re: Project to Widen the Paths on the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd To : HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHiller @colliergov.net> Cc : Insoup <insoup @comcast.net> Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:56 PM Georgia, We are now reviewing our options and reconsidering our approach. We all are concerned with our trees as well. The issue is our pathways are currently designed to the bare minimum width. Current design standards are usually 6 feet, even wider if multi usage. The PBSD Board last month decided last month to think about how to interact with our residents and discuss it at our February meeting. We will keep you informed as we wind through this process. Keith On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:47 PM, HillerGeorgia wrote: > Keith, > I've heard a great deal of opposition in the community to the proposed project. There is much concern over the destruction of the treescape, as well as concern that this expense is not necessary. > I'd like to suggest, as I did at the PBHOA, that such controversial expenditures be put to referendum before being made. > You have an upcoming Foundation vote. Maybe the question could be placed on the ballot. > I look forward to seeing you resolve what is causing many a great deal of upset in a diplomatic, considerate way as I know only you can achieve. > With thanks - • Georgia Hiller • Commissioner, District 2 ,.` A From: Insoup (�ailto:insoup @comcast.net] Sent: Sunda iandary 22, 2012 11:49 AM To: keithdallas @comcast.net February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 7 of 22 1612 e.0 Subject: Project to Widen the Paths on the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd Dear Mr. Dallas: Kyle Lukasz from the Pelican Bay Services Division spoke to The Coronado owners on Thursday regarding the project to widen the pathways on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. We understand that this project was originated over 5 years ago as part of the Wilson Miller consulting study for the strategic vision of Pelican Bay. There are no current facts to support this project. If you wish to continue, we would expect that the data, as shown below, will be presented at the 1:00 meeting of the PBSD on February 1 at Hammock Oak. The claim that the widening of the pathways would be "safer" is clearly subjective and one most owners disagree with. Unless you have facts relating to current problems and enumerated objectives, you will be spending over $1 million without data to support the decision. Nor will you have quantified the objectives you expect from Phase 1 so taxpayers can determine the project's success or failure. We have copied the Board of the PBSD, as well as the elected officials of the PB Foundation and Collier County government. We will also share this information with presidents and residents of the other condo associations within Pelican Bay. Very truly yours, Arlene & Robert Subin The Coronado #803 7225 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 Statistical Evaluation of Proposed Project to Widen the Paths on the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd. (Metrics will also be used to measure performance if the project is approved.) 2011 After Phase 1 # of bike riders /day using paths (1) # annualized # of pedestrians /day using paths (1) # annualized # of incidents reported for entire year (2) Reported to Pelican Bay Foundation Reported to Collier County Police # of pathway incidents EMS notified (2) # requiring on the spot assistance # requiring Urgent Care visit # requiring hospitalization # of pathway incidents reported: a. Bikes hitting pedestrians b. Pedestrians hitting pedestrians c. Bikes hitting bikes d. Cars hitting pedestrians e. Cars hitting bikes February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 8 of 22 r 1, L Z A20 of bikers currently who will use expanded West side path (based on statistical survey) a. Currently biking north on PBB b. Currently biking south on PBB c. Currently biking on East path Footnotes (1) Sample of 5 days in season and 5 days in summer (2) Using paths only on West side of PBB From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:36 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Meetings with Condo Abutting Pathway Please forward this to Board members for their information. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: LukaszKyle <KvleLukasz @collieraov.net> Date: January 23, 2012 10:56:56 AM EST To: Keith Dallas <keithdallas @comcast.net> Cc: Neil Dorrill <neil @dmsfl.com> Subject: RE: Meetings with Condo Abutting Pathway St Lucia -There were about ten people that attended and all were in support of the project. The Claridge - Approximately 25 attended with the majority not in support of the project. They had concerns about the addition pedestrian and bike traffic and how it will impact exiting their driveway. They also expressed concerns that the added width may lead to bikes traveling at faster speeds. Some thought that it might be something that would be nice to have but not essential. St. Raphael - Their Board voted 4 -3 not in favor of the project. Approximately 10 people in the audience were all in favor of the project. St Pierre - Approximately 4 board members and 10 people in the audience, all were not in favor of the project. They were concerned about added pathway traffic and the effect it would have on exiting their driveway. Marbella- Only 2 Board members and 2 property management staff attended, they were all in favor of the project. Coronado - Approximately 20 attended, the majority were not in favor of the project. They sighted the cost of the project, impact on trees (not so much this phase as the additional phase going to Oakmont). As stated by some of the other condominiums they were concerned about added pedestrian and bike traffic creating additional difficulty exiting their driveway and the potential to have bikes travelling faster. Montenero - Generally against project, concerns about trees being lost in this phase as well as future phases, impact on entrance landscape. Summarizing the reasons the majority of those not supporting the project are: * Increased pedestrian and bike traffic creating further difficulty exiting driveways. * Potential for increased speed of bikes. * Concern over lost trees in this phase and particularly in the future phases. * That the existing pathway is fine at 5ft. that just the root damage needs to be addressed. * Overall cost for something not necessary required. - Original Message - - - -- F j Fapm: I ei�allbs [ mailto :keithdallasCa)comcast.net] Seiht: Sun 1Auary 22, 2012 2:05 PM To: LukaszKyle Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Meetings with Condo Abutting Pathway February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 9 of 22 16 I.2 Ai' U Kyle, Could you give me a synopsis of what transpired at each abutting condo you have talked to. Interested what was general reaction of people you met. If different, (St. Raphael for instance) between Board and other attendees, please indicate. I don't want to put you on spot (I know your observations are not an official counting of votes) so I will keep it between us. I'm just trying to get a sense of how people are feeling. I hear all the naysayers, but also know from conversations with various residents throughout Pelican Bay there are groups that support the widening. I'm just trying to get a sense of how widely various views are held. Your meetings are some indication, recognizing that those against the widening are probably more apt to attend. Thanks. Keith February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 10 of 22 16! 2A ZU ROY & CAROLE CURBOW 7575 PELICAN SAY BLVD. 91004 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34018 TO PBSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 01 -23 -12 We wish to express our opposition to the proposed pathway widening along Pelican Bay Blvd. The present pathway Is clearly in need of repair and some replacement - -but we submit the widening is unwanted and unnecessary. We have received emails from your board members in which the phrase "challenged with traffic" and "heavy traffic" were used. Heavy traffic does not exist on the pathways! Our opposition is primarily based on a clear lack of Need for the additional width. We are unable to find any numbers and traffic counts, to support the need to widen. They apparently, do not exist. We think PBSD has a duty to support their actions and spending with documented facts and figures. This is an important issue and getting bids and submitting plans to secure Building Permits without proper support and preparation, should not happen. We respectfully ask you to reconsider the widening project. We made several traffic counts in segments of 30 minutes each and at various times of the day. On average, there were 14 pedestrians per hour passing on the pathway in front of the Montenero. The highest hourly count was 18 the lowest count was 7. One person every 4 minutes. There were an average of 12 bicycles passing per hour. The counts were limited to the pathway on the western side of Pelican Bay Blvd. We trust you will agree, this is not "heavy" or "challenged with traffic' and there is simply no need for an eight foot pathway. You may wish to make your own counts. The bike traffic is in two categories The speedy racers (most all of whom are not P.B. residents) and P.B. residents who are older and slower. The latter group is divided into about 75% on the street and about 25% on the pathway. Our contention is that widening will bring a portion of the resident street traffic to the widened pathway. The new pathway will not have marked bike lanes and both groups will travel randomly on the left - middle or right side. We think the possibility of pedestrian /biker accidents is therefore increased significantly! A biker /pedestrian problem does not currently exist but widening will likely create one. t J February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 11 of 22 Page -2- 161 2p ZU It has also been suggested the Pelican Bay population is increasing and we remind you that we have only one building lot remaining which will be a high rise condominium and accommodate about 200 units. Otherwise, Pelican Say is fully "built out". Any population increase is necessarily very limited. Esthetics is another issue. Many trees will be lost and the opposition to removing trees is nearly unanimous. Also, a sizable amount of grass border and landscaping will be removed. Further, the new pathway will mean a redesign of the landscape entrance to the Montenero and we presume, to other condo buildings along the proposed route as well. A cost we would like to avoid. Our suggestion fora solution Is to seek a 6 foot wide,oathway 11 We are told the 6 foot path is possible but needs both County and PBSD approval. This approach would allow the rebuilding of our pathway and give pedestrians and current bikers adequate width. Couples (bikes or pedestrians) typically move to single file when in traffic to allow others to pass and this courtesy has worked well for 20 years. " if it ain't broke - - -- - - ---- , The 6 foot pathway would also save some money. Not very much, of course, but some savings, none - the -less. Plus, the need to remove trees, grass or landscaping would be at a minimum. We will appreciate you considering the 6 foot widening compromise which is supported by the vast majority of the residents with whom we have talked. We do not believe it is needed nor advisable. We request and will greatly appreciate the board re- opening and examining the need for widening. We Are also asking for the help and support of Ms. Georgia Hiller and Ms. Susan Boland in this effort. Thank you. Respectfully, Roy Carole Curbow Cc Montenero Board Members All Montenero residents Ms. Georgia Hiller, Commissioner Ms. Susan Boland, Chairwoman Ms. L. Resnick, Collier County Mr. Robert Subin (Coronado) February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 12 of 22 1612 From: Heather Allen [mailto:themontenero @aol.comj Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:09 PM To: keithdallas @comcast.net; nfn16799 @naples.net; jbaron @watersideshops.com; johnchandler219 @gmail.com; josiegeoff @aol.com; hunter .hasen @waldorfastoria.com; mikelevy435 @gmail.com; naplessusan @comcast.net; djtrecker @yahoo.com; teedupl @aol.com Cc: AECUMMINS @comcast.net; rdjarvis1469 @gmail.com; KCShanahan @comcast.net; ralau43 @hotmail.com; keithdallas @comcast.net; HillerGeorgia; pbpoa @pbpropertyowners.org; ResnickLisa; insoup @comcast.net Subject: Letter from Roy & Carole Curbow Good Afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, Roy and Carole Curbow have asked me to forward the attached letter to you. Heather Allen Office Assistant Montenero at Pelican Bay 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 239 - 596 -7797 Phone 239 - 596 -7697 Fax February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community 1612 � Page 13 of 22 From: Keij:h Dallas,[mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] 'sent: Sat4clay, J ary 21, 2012 3:52 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Blvd Sidewalks Begin forwarded message: From: "Daniel R O'Brien" <drobrien2 @comcast.net> Date: January 21, 2012 3:44:35 PM EST To: "'Dave Trecker "' <d]trecker(@vahoo.com >, "'Geoffrey S. Gibson "' <iosieseoff @aol.com>, "'Hunter H. Hansen "' < hunter .hansen @waldorfastoria.com >, "'John Baron "' <ibaron @watersideshops.com >, "'John Chandler "' <iohnchandler219 @email.com >, "'John laizzo"' <iaizzo @comcast.net >, "'Kieth J. Dallas, Chairman "' <keithdallas @comcast.net >, "'Mary Anne Womble "' <teedupl @aol.com >, "'Michael Levy "' <mikelevv435 @email.com >, "'Susan O'Brien "' <naplessusan @comcast.net >, "'Tom Cravens "' <nfn16799 @naples.net> Subject: Pelican Bay Blvd Sidewalks To: Pelican Bay Services Division Board Members Re: Recent considerations regarding sidewalk widening along Pelican Bay Blvd. January 21, 2012 My perspectives regarding the subject of sidewalk widening are as follows. As a driver: Each time I leave or enter my building's driveway I must (very carefully) negotiate the crossing of the Pelican Bay Blvd. sidewalk. I have done this several times a day, six plus months a year, since 2002. 1 have learned the following: - Walkers pose the least danger. They move slowly and I can easily spot them in time to stop and give them sufficient time and room to pass safely. - Runners are more of a problem in that that appear more quickly, moving faster and thus I must be extra diligent for them. We do sometimes inconvenience each other (they may have to run around my auto after I've crossed onto the sidewalk but then had to wait for road traffic, or I may have to pass up a good opportunity to turn onto the Blvd while I give extra time to a runner whose crossing speed is more difficult to determine), but patience rather than safety seems to be the issue. Bicycles on the sidewalk are my biggest concern. They appear very quickly, from either direction, moving far too quickly to properly anticipate. Too often only sudden braking by either me or the biker saves the day. I fear that widening the sidewalks will attract more bikers to them and will thus exacerbate the problem. As a walker: I do not like to walk the PB sidewalks when bikes are present /using them. I am too often startled by bikers approaching from the rear and frightened by (seemingly poorly controlled) bikes approaching from the opposite direction. In another place and time I suffered significant injury in a bike - pedestrian accident on a (very wide) sidewalk (I was the pedestrian). Again, I fear that widening the sidewalks will attract more bikes and more problems. As a bike rider: I try not to use the sidewalks (I admit to being sometimes tempted), particularly when they are populated with walkers. I find it impossible to truly yield the right -of -way to walkers without stopping or leaving the sidewalk. I think it rude to make them do so. I don't see this changing with widened sidewalks. My suggestion is that we make needed repairs to our sidewalks but leave them at their present width and further that we encourage bike riders to use the street. This approach is the safest alternative for drivers, bike riders walkers and runners. Dan O'Brien The Coronado February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session { 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 14 of 22 1612 From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 6:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Fwd: PROTEST AGAINST THE WIDENING OF THE SIDEWALKS Begin forwarded message: From: Herb Hasson <herbhh2Dlive.com> Date: January 20, 2012 10:54:57 PM EST To: <keithdallas(acomcast.net >, <nfn16799i2naples.net >, <jbaron(a)watersideshops.com >, <0ohnchandler219(CDQmail.com >, <josiegeoff(cDaol.com >, "hunter hansen" < hunter .hanseni February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 15 of 22 4..e F,*Qm: Keith Dallas, [maUto:Keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, "ary 19, 2012 10:51 AM To: ResnickLisa .� Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Paths Begin forwarded message: From: vbellnpls <vbellnpls@vahoo.com> Date: January 18, 2012 11:02:48 PM EST To: Keith Dallas <KeithdaIlas @comcast.net> Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Paths FYI. Ronnie Begin forwarded message: From: "Robert 0. Naegele, Jr." <ronir @naeeelenet.com> Date: January 18, 2012 11:01:49 PM EST To: James Hoppensteadt <Jimh @pelicanbay.ore> Cc: Robert Uek <rwuek7 @email.com>, Ronnie Bellone <vbellnpls @vahoo.com> Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Paths FYI From: William McCormick [mailto:billmccormir @msn.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:52 PM To: Robert 0. Naegele, Jr. Subject: Pelican Bay Paths 161,2 A eu Bob: Sorry for not sending this earlier. As I said to you, I believe the single most important improvement to Pelican Bay Has to be the paths. Currently, they are cracked, uneven, too narrow and not safe for both pedestrian and Bicycle traffic. They are far below the standard of the rest of Pelican Bay. I think the croosswalks were a good improvement and the initial ones were done in the most critical areas. But before doing more crosswalks, I think the paths should be addressed. In addition to the above mentioned deficiencies, they are downright ugly in their current state. As I understand it, the Foundation and the PBSD share responsibility for doing any improvements on the paths. I hope you can use your influence to get this going in both venues..Thanks, Bob. My best, BIII McCormick February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 16 of 22 A 'n - - MW Curbm ?M Ponallill 11111YE4 #11ow NWek FL 94106 Montenero Board of Directors: 01 -17 -12 The claims of "Heavy' or "Challenged with Traffic" on the pathways are not accurate assessments, in my opinion and I decided to make visual traffic counts periodically to, hopefully, prove or disprove those claims. I took counts in four 30 minute periods, the results of which are shown below. While not very scientific, it gives quantitative support to my contention of there being sparse traffic and no need for the paths to be widened. The counts were made of those persons who passed on the pathway in front of the Montenero on the western side of Pelican Bay Blvd. The counts were made yesterday, Monday, January. 16`h, in four 30 minute periods as follows: Time period Pedestrians Bicycles 9:45 to 10:15 AM 17 6 12:10 to 12:40 PM 5 1:30 to 2:00 PM 10 3:45 to 4:15 PM 4 7 - - ( 6 2 Two hour totals 36 21 Approximately 1 person every 5 were a single family group) 3 1/3 minutes 5 3/4 minutes I think these numbers are clear evidence that no traffic problems exists. We need repairs, upgrading and resurfacing badly, but not widening. J Roy Curbo #1004 February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 17 of 22 • •^ + From: Kelth,llas,[mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesd�` January 17, 2012 1:45 PM 161,2 A To: Heather Allen Cc: ResnickLisa; Roy Curbow; Robert A. Lauer Subject: Re: Letter from Roy Curbow Heather, Thank you. I am forwarding this to PBSD office so it will be part of our permanent record and will be distributed to our Board with the agenda for our February 1st meeting. Keith On Jan 17, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Heather Allen wrote: Hi Mr. Dallas, Mr. Curbow asked that I forward you that attached letter. He was having trouble sending it to you from his system. Heather Allen Office Assistant Montenero at Pelican Bay 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples, FL 34108 239 -596 -7797 Phone 239 - 596 -7697 Fax From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 11:38 AM To: Francisnat @aol.com Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: EXTRA WIDTH ON THE SIDE WALKS Mr. Natoli, Thank you for your comments. I will pass them on to the other Board members. The PBSD will be discussing this item at our next meeting, Wednesday February 1st at 1 pm at the Community Center. We welcome public comment. Keith Dallas On Jan 17, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Francisnat @aol.com wrote: SIR: PLEASE STOP THIS NONSENSE OF WIDEN THE SIDE WALKS OF PELICAN BAY. THANK YOU FRANK NATOLI INTERLACHEN A MEMBER OF P B SINCE 1989 From: Mike Levy [mailto:mikelevy435 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 10:22 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fw: Widening the sidewalks From: Phmacdon @aol.com Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 3:32 PM To: mikelevy435 @email.com Subject: Widening the sidewalks NO M NOM NOM Patricia Macdonald, The Montenero February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 18 of 22 q 16 t'K\ From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:11 PM To: Peter Klein Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Re: Peter Klein / MONTENERO Unit #1403 Peter, I am forwarding this to Lisa Resnick of the PBSD staff to make sure all Board members see this (they should anyway) and that it is made a permanent part of our record. It will also become an attachment to our February 1st meeting agenda. Tomorrow I will encourage interested persons to write their opinions to either me or Lisa Resnick (LResnick @colliereov.net) and those would be similarly handled. Thanks for your comments. Keith On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Peter Klein wrote: Folks, This is to inform you my wife (Anne) and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the widening of our pathways /walkways. Suffice it to say that a -mails have BEEN FLYING the past week among Montenero residents /unit owners on this topic and I only hope someone ij the strong has copied one or more of you on them. I sent one 3 days ago to our owners and expressed all the reasons why I oppose this expenditure (a list of strategic planning as well as operational /execution reasons... unfortunately I deleted it and cannot append it here),I do NOT oppose select maintenance where safety is critical from pathway cracking or drainage - related issues. I do NOT oppose repaving the pathway along its entire length or in select sections. I ONLY OPPOSE widening it at all. Of the 22 a -mails I have received from Montenero residents, 21 were OPPOSED and 1 IN FAVOR ... a range of 'good thinking' reasons were provided and I am sure (hopefully!) you are getting plenty of them on your own. My business is Strategic Planning and helping companies'grow their business' and applaud the various medium -to- longer term Planning efforts here in PB. I am also not someone who oppose'any spending' and have NO ISSUE with spending on the right programs and paying my fair share. Feel free to call me (239- 566 - 9097). Peter (and Anne) Klein www.pkassociates.com peter @pkassoc.com February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 19 of 22 `.. From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] 161,.2 A 20 Mnt: Mohfay, Tanu ry 09, 2012 2:24 PM x To: Resnicklisa ' a Subject: Fwd: Widening the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. Lisa, Make sure this is distributed to all Board members. Some have seen it already, but Comcast wouldn't allow all of us to receive it, for some reason. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Roy Curbow < rovcurbow @aol.com> Date: January 9, 2012 2:01:27 PM EST To: keithdallas @comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Widening the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. Hi Keith, I sent a copy of my letter earlier but it was returned. I thought there was a "block" on your mail box. Anyway, here is a copy. I sent copies to all 11 board members and 3 were returned —yours and a -mails beginning with "teeup" and "iaizzo ". The exact e-mail with e-mail addresses has been deleted. Thanks also for your note and I look forward to hearing more about the widening project at the board meeting. There may well be more to this story than many of us know about. And I'm aware that the initial phase is $300,000 and the $1,000,000 covers a much wider area of improvements. Regards, Roy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Carole Curbow <carolecurbow @aol.com> To: roycurbow < rovcurbow @aol.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 1:26 pm Subject: Fwd: Widening the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Roy Curbow <rovcurbow @aol.com> To: keithdallas <keithdallas@comcast.com >; nfn16799 <nfn16799@naoles.net >; johnchandler219 <iohnchandler219(@email.net >; josiegeoff <iosieeeoff @aoLcom >; naplessusan <naolessusan @comcast.net >; djtrecker <ditrecker @vahoo.com >; iaizzo <iaizzo @comcast.cet >; jbaron <ibaron @watersideshops.com >; hunter.hansen <hunter.hansen @waldorfastoria.com> Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 9:39 am Subject: Widening the sidewalk on the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 20 of 22 zu a 16th _ Board members; ' Pelican Bay Services Division 01 -09 -12 Good Morning, We wish to express our opposition to your plan to expand the sidewalk width to 8 feet along the western side of Pelican Bay Blvd. The widening is to begin near the Foundation office and proceed to the North Tram Station just past The Montenero, a distance of approximately 1.3 miles. We're also concerned about the number of trees to be removed in the process, which seems excessive. Further evaluation and advice from other than a landscape company seems appropriate. While we have no Landscape expertise, we feel the project could be completed without removing any trees. We have 14 oak trees along our Montenero property line adjacent to the sidewalk and 6 of those are to be removed. The reason given "they were planted too close together ". Says who? They are 24 feet apart and the layout was designed by a landscape architect. Furthermore, the trees look very healthy after more than 10 years. Please leave them! The sidewalk currently ranges from 5 to 6 feet wide and we question the need and the expense to widen it another 2 to 3 feet. We assume you are increasing the sidewalk width for the benefit of bicyclists - -- ? The speed of most bikers should preclude them riding on our sidewalks, most of whom are not Pelican Bay residents. The majority travel at 15 to 20 MPH which is acceptable on the 4 lane road but not on the sidewalk. We think the widening will invite more of these bikers to the sidewalk. Our understanding is the sidewalk speed limit is 10 MPH and pedestrians, of course, have the right of way but this may be ignored and is hard to enforce. Encouraging more bicycles on the sidewalks is not in our overall interest. It clearly increases the safety risks. Pelican Bay residents typically prefer to ride their bikes on the Berm which is a 12 foot pathway and very close -by. The non - residents do not have that option and may well opt for the new 8 foot sidewalk. The bottom line is, widening the sidewalk will likely add to the bike problems and not solve them. This project's cost of $1,100.000 is, in our opinion, a waste of money. Yes, the sidewalks are in need of repair and resurfacing but not widening. We live in the Montenero and have discussed this with many of the residents. We have not found a single supporter of your widening proposal. Not One !! We understand PBSD has already received bids on this project -- -This before most residents have even heard of the project. This should not happen. We feel strongly, PBSD should do a better job of making these projects known to residents in detail and encouraging input before decisions are made which impact our community. Our request and hope is that you will delay the widening until the entire community is aware of the plan and has the opportunity to contribute their thoughts to PBSD. We are confident you will find the vast majority are opposed. A delay costs nothing but plunging into the expensive widening changes may well be an irreconcilable mistake. Respectfully, Roy & Carole Curbow 7575 Pelican Bay Blvd. #1004 Naples, Florida 34108 February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community Page 21 of 22 A 2U From: Keith Dallas [ mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] 16i Sent: Monday, Jaya 9, 2012 1:05 PM To: ResnickLisa t. Cc: LukaszKyle; Jim Powers (jim @dmgfl.com); McCaughtryMary Subject: Re: (2) Montenero Residents Opposed to Widening Pathways Noreen got an email from Howard Bedford. I never saw it although she mentioned it was sent. I'll see if I can get copy for our records. I got the email, in hard copy from Roy Curbow. It says it is an email, addressed to our Board and others, so I assumed I would also receive as email. If I don't shortly, I'll ask him to send so it too can become part of our record. Keith On Jan 9, 2012, at 11:26 AM, ResnickLisa wrote: We received two calls this morning from two residents of The Montenero that would like to speak with someone re: their opposition to widening the pathways vroiect. Roy Curbow (239- 591 -3810 or rovcurbow @aol.com) Mr. Curbow said he wrote a letter and placed in front of Mr. Dallas' door Howard Bedford (239- 593 -4090 \ #703) From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 4:09 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Proposed Tree Removal on Pelican Bay Blvd. Lisa, Please see that the Board has this email for their information. You can also include in agenda package for February. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithda llas(U)com cast. net> Date: January 4, 2012 10:19:22 AM EST To: LukaszKyle <yleLukasz(a)colIieroov.net> Subject: Re: Proposed Tree Removal on Pelican Bay Blvd. Kyle, Thanks for your help. I tried to explain what is going on, but my lack of expertise shows. Keith On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:46 AM, LukaszKyle wrote: Your email outlines the proposed tree conflicts well. I spoke with your property manager and gave him my contact info and he was going to also pass that along to Mrs. Daravingas. I can meet her and go over the proposed modifications at the Montenero. As I recall the trees at the Montenero didn't absolutely have to be removed for the path alignment, it was that the path was going to hug the base of the trees and that the trees were planted so close together. Ellen thought that with the trees now mature and growing into each other it would be a benefit both from a pathway issue and for the canopy of the trees. I'll go over that with her and point the issues out and see if all parties agree. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5c. Pathways comments from the community •'� Page 22 of 22 r {_ A From: Keith Dallas [mai Ito: keithdallas(sbcomcast. net] 161 Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:40 PM To: George Daravingas Subject: Proposed Tree Removal on Pelican Bay Blvd. Elaine, Just so everyone is on the same page, I've went through the proposed plans for widening the Pelican Bay Blvd. pathway on the west side from the Commons to the North Tram Station. The trees that are planned to be removed are all on County property and are 13 in total, moving from the south to the north: 2 sabal palms between the existing pathway and the roadway, just north of the Commons driveway. • 1 Oak tree just north of the Sabal palms, also between the pathway and the roadway. • 1 pine tree just south of the Gulf Park Blvd. intersection, on the west side of the pathway. • 3 mahogony trees between the pathway and the roadway, just south of the Sandpiper Parking Lot driveway. • 6 oaks on the west side of the pathway north of the Montenero main driveway, basically in front of the service parking lot. There are currently 12 Oaks and the proposal is to remove every other one to allow the remaining 6 trees more room to grow. In addition the following shrubbery is effected: • Remove existing hedge to the north of pine to be removed, just south of Gulf Park Blvd. intersection. • Remove existing shrubs just south of the 3 magony trees to be removed, just south of Sandpiper Parking Lot driveway. • Remove existing arboricola hedge in 4 locations in front of the Marbella and The Cove. Those are the only trees or shrubs I see impacted. Keith - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Helmut Simon [ mailto:helmut @helmuthedi.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:26 AM To: office @pelicanbayservicesdivision.net Subject: Widening of the path along PB Blvd. I am horrified to read that you plan to widen this path. It is absolutely not necessary because usage is very low. Have you done a survey of how many people use this path at any given time ? I look down on the path from the 21st floor, most of the time it is not used at all. Driving along PB Blvd. I count the number of people using it; the highest I have counted was 12 between my building and the end of the Blvd, and that is at peak time in the morning when people are exercising. Please do a survey and you will come to the conclusion that widening is totally unnecessary. H. Simon St. Laurent 1614 p 2U To the Pelican Bay Services Division Board We, the undersigned, petition the Board to reconsider the plan to widen the sidewalks on the West side of Pelican Bay Boulevard from 5' to 8' in order to accommodate walkers and bikers. In addition to negatively impacting the "look" of Pelican Bay Blvd and the destruction of significant numbers of trees, we are more concerned about safety issues. It is the experience of many of us (bikers and non - bikers) that bike riders on the sidewalks are in constant danger because drivers exiting from properties bordering PBB or entering can not adequately see bikers. Several of us who ride regularly have experienced many near misses and believe that getting more bikers on the sidewalks only increases the probability of significant injury. We propose as an alternative reducing the 12' car lanes of PBB to 10' and the addition of a 4' bike lane. We note that Crayton Rd — south of the Naples Grand Hotel — has car lanes of 9'8 ". Also Crayton Rd is even more heavily travelled than PBB. A second alternative would be changing the car lanes to 11' and employ a redesigned gutter run -off on PBB. The run -offs currently are 2' wide. There are gutter designs that are 4' wide and shallow enough to serve as a bike lane. We understand that the lane narrowing plus bike lane was been considered some time back and was rejected. In light of the sidewalk widening proposal, we believe it should be reconsidered again as the safety aspects of the proposals as regards dangers to bikers as well as dangers to walkers with more bike riders on the walks may not have been well considered. Name (printed) Coronado Unit Signature 13 // „ . _,44 C „ 14 / (" G S :; ;Z �� 2nd � �/I L�,o AA--f- n e In 15 17 1 -8 � b �> n �� I 19 20 21 Ilia 22 1 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 K0'] 40 41 1612 A 2U of �U 1.4 1) 8 s' V. 1612 A 20 PETITION: After the presentation, we see that the way it is right now is just fine. Please do not disturb the Present pathways. It would be a disturbance of the environment. The signatures below agree they do not want the pathways changed. - dLR�a -L 4 sf �.•r 7225 Pelican Bay Blvd Naales, FL 34108 0 N ' {" 1612 A20 I Neil Dorrill From: Jim Carr [carr @abbinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:03 PM To: Neil Dorrill; KyleLukasz @colliergov.net Subject: RE: 6 or 7 feet pathways? ,'Veil, Going from 8' to 7' width saves the path material - asphalt, limerock and base which is $11,000 for the project. It also could lead to removing fewer trees, maybe a few less at $1,000 each. So the total savings would be approximately $15,000. Jim Carr, P.E. Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 239.597.3111 ext. 215 239.566.2203 fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:17 PM To: Jim Carr; KyleLukasz @colliergov.net Subject: RE: 6 or 7 feet pathways? This helps a lot. In a perfect world if a minimum of 10' is required for a "shared use" path we may want to go to smaller but new sidewalk to overcome opposition from abutting neighborhoods who are concerned with the removal of oak trees. Let me know what a revised rough estimate would be if we go to 7'. Thanks Neil - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Jim Carr [mailto:carr @abbinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:14 AM To: Neil Dorrill; KyleLukasz @colliergov.net Subject: RE: 6 or 7 feet pathways? Neil, There are two main sources to reference guidelines and definitions for sidewalks and shared use paths: the AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities, and the FOOT Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS). Currently Pelican Bay Blvd has a 5' wide sidewalk (pedestrian path) on both sides of the right -of -way. This is a typical ROW design cross section. A sidewalk is that portion of right -of -way designed for preferential or exclusive use by pedestrians. The minimum sidewalk width is 5 feet, or 6 feet when adjacent to the road back of curb. If we were to design PBB as a new street today, we would be required to provide a 5' minimum sidewalk on both sides, or a 10' wide sidewalk on one side. In either case this would be proposed for pedestrian use. Bicyclists should use the road and follow the traffic laws, although there is nothing to prohibit bicyclists from using the sidewalk. A shared use path is defined as a bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier. Shared use paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchairs; joggers and other non - motorized users. 1 { 20 The minillM wihlh is gd fAet,i b4t 12 foot width is desired. i It may be acceptable to decrease the shared use path width to 8 feet, but only when: Bicycle traffic is expected to be low, including peak times, Pedestrian use is not expected to be more than occasional, There is good horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe and frequent passing opportunities, The path will not be subject to maintenance vehicles. Typically, a shared use path is only reduced below 10 feet width when there is very limited right -of -way available, and the reduction typically occurs over a short distance (not the entire length of the path). The subject 5' sidewalk on the west side of PBB is proposed to be widened to a maximum 8' width, as outlined in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP). In my opinion, and by design standards, this is not indented as a shared use path. The CIP stated that residents and guests jog, bike, roller blade and participate in a variety of walking activities, and that these facilities should be widened in order to best serve the wide interests of the residents. The existing 5' sidewalk could be widened to 6' or 7' or to 8' maximum and it is still considered a pedestrian sidewalk. I hope this helps. Please let me know if additional questions. Jim Carr, P.E. Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 239.597.3111 ext. 215 239.566.2203 fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:55 AM To: KyleLukasz @colliergov.net; Jim Carr Subject: FW: 6 or 7 feet pathways? Jim /Kyle: Please research the manual and let me know if a "shared" path (one that includes bicycles and pedestrians) can be 6 feet vs the current 5 that we are living with. Neil - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Keith Dallas [mailto:keithdallas @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:49 PM To: Neil Dorrill Subject: 6 or 7 feet pathways? Neil, Can you nail down more specifics as to our using 6 or 7 feet pathways in lieu of 8 feet by our Thursday meeting? I'd like to see how strongly the "book" states the 8 foot rule, and how much it waffles. Since this is the most important pathway we have in the community, I hate to start off on the wrong foot. However I do wonder how much a 6.5 foot pathway would start to reduce the problem? Do you know of literature discussing this? Keith z N Mumma Buttonbush Lane and Ridgewood Drive —! Shift sidewalk location to other side of stop sign Cap D`Antibes • Incoming stop sign creates unsafe condition due to lack of stacking distance - Review necessity of incoming stop Watermark Place • Review switching stop sign and sidewalk locations Ardmore Lane, Lismore Lane, Annemore Lane, Katemore Lane • Review switching stop sign and sidewalk locations Uambiance • Location of walls, stop sign and sidewalk creates unsafe conditions due to visibility - Review switching location of stop sign and sidewalk a Hyde Park • Desirable condition of stop sign and sidewalk location - Review height of adjacent vegetation for sight visibility MAIN ROADWAY STOP SIGN AND STOP BAR SHOULD BE RELOCATED BEFORE SIDEWALK 0 RELOCATED SIDEWALK FOR INCREASED DISTANCE BETWEEN PATHWAY AND W. TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK \ DRIVEWAY 4 PROPERTY LINE 2--0" EXISTING WALL AND / OR HEDGE EXISTING STOP SIGN AND STOP BAR Pathway Improvement Study Area I Driveway Crossing Conditions ! N =1111111101111111 u ° c aiitB�NDLI ry ? F I�IAaB.R �v��iiaRUNDACEa.. a ;w R.m. Pwmere. BEGIN O 0 PROJECT z Z ;o 0 o s 10 m EXISTINGVALVE RAISE TOP TO EXISTING ELECTRIC O VAULT ELEV. =7S' HAND HOLES 24x36 SCALE: 1"= 1O WEST RIGHTdF -WAY LINE (TYP.) �. EXISTING ASPHALT OT A x6.60 7.11 108 7.30 EXISTING 7.06 ' 1 y z PT ___..--- - - - -__ __rj g5 0- -_.__. 1_BO_ _ +- — — --+ ' 7.25 6 A2 PATH (j\YP.) / _ . o Al .�S 3 Ow SO S7 ♦ i M s '"'^�.. �. 1 0 ✓' �%1 .—I —__-+1 _ — _-- . p _~r �- N 737 - 73 - - - -- - - -- �j ' rA, W - _ — — — — — . _ _ — — — ��. — — — — — — — — —�+ :.• — - +-'!,L — 67 PROPOSEDB'WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 6" WHITE STRIPING — — — 84 — — — 45 _ cy _ / 1 V O REMOVE (d) EXISTING REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB€ REMOVE(2) EXISTING PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 W S•�S REMOVE EXISTING HEDGE/ i SABAL PALMS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 = V� Q o-p0 PLANTS TOACCOMM MTE H W I...� NEW PATH 1 H —4 PELICAN BAY BLVD NOTE: PAVE RCROSSWALK RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #1I -0293 -E, ABB 1 LU y 'S rya p FILE #10504) 1 0 011 W93 .a9 10 pS 0 05N \7 & 1 NOTE: SIGN&STRIPING RECENCY ; m 1 W E.I `y� yyyv a+ %0• x9.35 + x 9.16 0 6 +5q`'�- +.&,\ 916 PERMITTED(ROW PERMIT #11 -M3.E, ABB FILE #10504) 1 y 1 Qi 0.19 10 F 54 con > o•I VQ� --jII W m 1 `q ds ` d Col °z NOTE: LEGEND: SIGN & STRIPING ALLSIDEWALKSANDRANPSSHALL PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH LEGEND: a• COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY z T EXISTING STOPSKN _ s REQUIREMENTS. 2Y MAXIMJM CROSS &STOP BAR SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX. F. TT ,, Ivl l ~ r�►1.�� V g -•M EXISTING FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTpN OFTRAVEL. (EDGE I PLANE PRO POSED 24•WHITE STOP BAR E CROSSWALK) b a MIN. BEHIND EXISTINGBABALPALM UM;7 y8 ^ v 1 i 1 EXISTING WATER BACKFLOW 11g WRO NOSES DENTE DETECTABLE 10 0 5 INLEX NO. 304 \ EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY l� 1 ] EXISTING PILE 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1C1 v 10 DESIGNED BY: ABB CHECKED : IBAC! REVIEWED BY: ABB BCALC 10' HOR' LL VERT.T. SCA: NIA }111+ 110 M ^; ^ A' C OQ IXISTING WATER VALVE DAM: lUNB 2011 .....__. 9 Y. 0 7.39 WEST - RIGHT-OF WAY LINE(7YP.) . 7S x.62 ._ -..�_ EXISTING I 7.2fi v I� ASP PATH mP') g REMOVE TING PLANTS A HE Gpp EI � e" + r \\ > .t o EXISTING PINE TREE _ PATH v oD OS 151 > 6 A7 � 7.50 --- x ON ru � TIOV1 co co: v REMOVE A EXISTING OAK TREE >� --�-- w — 9 + —_ - -- >, A� _ u7.a5 _ u x.53 -•�.. �`-- ' 8 0 9 r.... a,,.,> ry y. "IS� {� - PROPOSEDBIOB —V s7 —� �o +�> m LLUv C' • ELIC/A'�N BAY BLVD BLVD CO NTTRDL.VERrICALIINSTA�LLATION PER MANUFACTURERSPECIFICATIONS — •� +SP � -- — � -- x82 :mw ; ��,W ACAD FILE NAl6: ® PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT _ — j11 — - + - - 1- 1 1 y 10574mst LLL i 1W1 _ -- -- L -v Jqi CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONB 3�• PRDPOSEDBIOBARRIERROOTT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION _ v W U) ABB PROJECT / 11 PER MANUFACTURER SP ECIFICl1TiO15 # -0043 PLOT VIX1f UYOUT P, site(1) -3 —� — SHEET 3 - -_�_ OF 15 Ac.a F]le F 10574 r • I r � 0 0 , NOTE: THIS PORTION OF SIDEWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER ROW PERMIT #11 -0293E, ABE FILE 410504 EXISTING TELEPHONE R��1 / WATER ARV -71- 1 __� �L, 1 } ' SOBi r 1 g1 66 1 1 7.B3 /; B S2 . -1 M 8 % 8.10 _ _ — �K 1 _ � �B.O4 _ LU 1. — rt- X 2 1 — U) l� 7.73 W 1 PROPOSEDBIOBARRIERRDOT LU 1 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 1 x909 1 1 1 � 1 #11_M3E, ABB FILE 010504 1 — 9 -. _. .•ten -...,. -- ._..__. LI 1 3v "{ D r -+ cm 00 D m i , NOTE. PAVER CROSSWALK RECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11-0293 -E, ABE k$•TO FILE #10504) NOTE:PAVERCROSSWALKRECENTLY PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11-0293-E, ABE FILE #10504) a 141 9� PELICAN BAY BLVD v VQ> EXISTING a ASPHALT 0'a, X + � 1 * kyp G M S AND RAMPS SHALL 2010 ADAACCESSHILITY S. 2% WANUMCROSS 0:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (rYP.) PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH wvw.. EXISTING ..GE I PINTS EXISIINGSABALPALM EXISTING OAK ORMAHOGANi EXISTING PINE EXISTING WATERVALVEjEXISTING WATERVPLVEj ° SIGN &STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTINGSTOPSICN d STOP BM PROPOSED 21 WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROMWAL19 PROPOSED DETECTABLE EWARNINGS PERFDOT \ INDEX NO. 304 NpNOL/ 2 z r x vb 4 ° v 11 9 10 0 5 10 2436 SCALE: 1"=10 i::II�JARBER k •e:i�RIINDAGE.�. fenloml eo�oeem plersrem, lend r•eyan tn z Oo v1 co �-I o M �AAw UW�W �UOa 00 V pd- &o. o a > F -1 I w Gn vi o C2 M � z DESIGNED BY: ABB DRARN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: JAC BORIZ. BCALL" 1' - in, VERT. SCALE: N/A / DATE: JUNE 2011 i 10 0 5 10 NOTE: THIS PORTION OF SIDEWALK TO BE WEST CONSTRUCTED UNDER ROW PERMIT RIGHTOF -WAY #11_M3E, ABB FILE 010504 116 LINE (TYP.) 24.36 SCALE: 1"= 10 -. _. .•ten -...,. -- ._..__. -- - __ _ -ty k do _ __ ._ ? - �' ----- '--- -_ 1 + ._ _ - ?6 L 8.44 > °�a� + / 1 .__— _--- -._ - -- - - - -— ; (° 8.06 — — —— 9 7— _— _--- — S , >, , A B ---F� _ _ I , 26 I11h 156 B 1 W / / / W ''10 -- — t / H 1 r W ; > 1 PELICAN BAY BLVD / W 1> +� UJI -_ LU a 1 :0 O / O Im 1 W — 1 W Tg. P. — N + � 1 * kyp G M S AND RAMPS SHALL 2010 ADAACCESSHILITY S. 2% WANUMCROSS 0:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (rYP.) PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH wvw.. EXISTING ..GE I PINTS EXISIINGSABALPALM EXISTING OAK ORMAHOGANi EXISTING PINE EXISTING WATERVALVEjEXISTING WATERVPLVEj ° SIGN &STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTINGSTOPSICN d STOP BM PROPOSED 21 WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROMWAL19 PROPOSED DETECTABLE EWARNINGS PERFDOT \ INDEX NO. 304 NpNOL/ 2 z r x vb 4 ° v 11 9 10 0 5 10 2436 SCALE: 1"=10 i::II�JARBER k •e:i�RIINDAGE.�. fenloml eo�oeem plersrem, lend r•eyan tn z Oo v1 co �-I o M �AAw UW�W �UOa 00 V pd- &o. o a > F -1 I w Gn vi o C2 M � z DESIGNED BY: ABB DRARN BY: RAF CHECKED BY: JAC BORIZ. BCALL" 1' - in, VERT. SCALE: N/A / DATE: JUNE 2011 i 4CAD FILE NAME: 10574mst BBB PBDSECT / 11 -0043 PLOT YOLB \ LAYOUT site(2) -4 SHEET 4 OF 15 A d nle / 10574 116 -. _. .•ten -...,. -- ._..__. __ _ 0 50 k do _ __ ._ ? - �' ----- '--- -_ 1 ._ _ 1 S , U, B ---F� _ _ I , 26 I11h 156 W ''10 -- — W ; > PELICAN BAY BLVD - -- UJI -_ LU a 1 O N ; 1 W W , 1 # W N o ; 1 1 1 i 4CAD FILE NAME: 10574mst BBB PBDSECT / 11 -0043 PLOT YOLB \ LAYOUT site(2) -4 SHEET 4 OF 15 A d nle / 10574 MCC N e EXISTING WEST k6 HEDGE (TYP.) RIGHT4DF -WAY LINE (TYP.) t, ' 1 � ONOt7 ? Z S it $ �k,qua 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =10 z x o y PROPOSEDB B 95 PAVEftBORDEft '0>y.� { i0' .,� .•�� Poo- 1 ❑B .B 3 B2 M S AND RAMPS SHALL 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY S. 2% MYWMUMCROSS :1 MAXIMUM(12:1 MIAX. DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. All +0 xe41 EXISTING bqk ASPHALT —5-61 PATH CrYP.) PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH — EXISTING HEDGE / ll. (/ EXISTINGSABALPALM ( EXISTING OAK( ORMAH OR.-- �{ lJ EXISTING PINE vd EXISTING WATERVALVE EXISTING Oh HEDGE(TYP.) (SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: ExISTING STOP SIGN 8 STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHI NO CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE t WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 ti �o� BBB 0' k$ W S 8A ;s w �a - - 3 BO 2 s W n W ILI 3 � I V O (o 2 ; F _ F REMOVE 7LF EXIST. B i �B2 1 W +B REMOVE6LFEXIST. — — CURB& REP LACE W/ ss �� tp —�'f W /8 "PAVERBUI NEW NE > FLUSH CVRBB •ss —�_ -- P _ a "P FLOSIi CORB>� 2'TAER 7 • 2'TAPER —7a— — — 1 F - 1 PROPOSED NEW PAVERS 1 REMOVE EXISTING PAVER ; N BORDER AT 5' CROSSWALK WIDTH 1 1 1 1 M S AND RAMPS SHALL 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY S. 2% MYWMUMCROSS :1 MAXIMUM(12:1 MIAX. DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. All +0 xe41 EXISTING bqk ASPHALT —5-61 PATH CrYP.) PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH — EXISTING HEDGE / ll. (/ EXISTINGSABALPALM ( EXISTING OAK( ORMAH OR.-- �{ lJ EXISTING PINE vd EXISTING WATERVALVE EXISTING Oh HEDGE(TYP.) (SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: ExISTING STOP SIGN 8 STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHI NO CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE t WARNINGS PER FOOT INDEX NO. 304 ti �o� BBB WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY Q� O LINE (TYP.) + y5 0' k$ W S 8A ;s w �a - - 3 BO 2 s W n 8.46 � 2 ; F \ 55T x 8.52 �B2 1 W +B REMOVE6LFEXIST. y�� 7. 1 7 W /8 "PAVERBUI NEW NE > FLUSH CVRBB \ mo B — — — — — — _ — —1 O B • 2'TAPER —7a— — — 1 F 1 W PROPOSED NEW PAVERS WITHIN NEW B' CROSSWALK WIDTH REMOVE EXISTING PAVER ; N BORDER AT 5' CROSSWALK WIDTH 1 1 1 WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY Q� O LINE (TYP.) + y5 AONOL/ m 2 � M x vb q Ory iN0 10 0 5 10 2406 SCALE: 1 " =1d 0,029 xB,Ze -1 -------- "aaZ �J.r'�. +W + - — W + (./ :1 = ILI v - x8.37 41 855±. wI N 1 W kg 4j 1 63? � �- _ � 1 _ — I 6 OS I 1 B I 1 I 0' k$ W S 8A �a - - 3 8.43 — _ _ — — — _ s F1 �Y 8.46 3 t W Z 1 8. 2 3 x8.16 1 —xj.84 } 7_B7_ 1' ��� — -� — -- 7. W 1 10, -_ �- -- — _ _ —+ 6 - - - -_> - - M ; 7.87_ 1 1 B AONOL/ m 2 � M x vb q Ory iN0 10 0 5 10 2406 SCALE: 1 " =1d 0,029 xB,Ze -1 -------- "aaZ �J.r'�. +W + - — W + (./ :1 = ILI v - x8.37 41 855±. wI N 1 W kg 4j 1 63? � �- _ � 1 _ — I 6 OS I 1 B I 1 I 0' to !l =:icxou ... nARBER & Pmfesslmul eopveen, plennere, �i ka.meeptr or auRtmx.uraon s xo� tn z oEn 00 rA Ara V w � W auoa z a r"q 00 cn Hwo Ogg CA Q Ftrl � Q �z� w o cz7 M � z W � a DESIGNED BY: ADD DRAWN BY: ELF CEECEED BY: JAC Bomz. scA : 1' = ID' VERT. SCALE: N/A UATI: ZUNI 2011 ACRD FILE NAME: 10574mst ADD PBOJKCT f 11 -0043 PLOT V \ LAYOUT site(3) -5 SHEET 5 OF 15 A—d FILe # C Q P G N O L 2 � F �. _` _ ._. }b5 + @ g2 _ _i— � >80 , a �— �� 1 REMOVE EXISTING SHRLBS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW PATH I 1 Q9) ■ iiii. AEBER & ii�RUNDAGE- Pntesablul �enP?seexA %plennen, u Iaaa .m It IeM ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL Q"', B 0 RIGHT-OF �J WAY LINE (fYP.) // x$Be 97 X 1 16.56 J 1 J3 , 12.9 $g� - tttll aeW a.ne xn X�•Rativr��v1 Inylee -eeaa REQUIREMENTS. 2% MMMUMCROSS SLOPES AND20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. 10 0 5 10 a 9 A P., W z F+1 h 1 AJ v '9d 1 I ,,, ----I �y O 24.36 SCALE: 1' =10 .JS c]j N v w 1 m U) 1 r 00 EXISTING o'� .4 ASPHALT + --- PATH @JS -' — - ato Q 1 MM1 (TYP.) @Ba w 1 o + S f @9 EXISTING / JJ ELECTRIC r HANDHOLE O C/� OC 1� 1� ri ^ p >g '@0 g ...w ......... ... ..r- .n..�. .........,.,.,.,v... ...v..i.h- .:.v.. .,.....w... .w .... -.v. .Nw��v ,.Mn,..,....w �. _` _ ._. }b5 + @ g2 _ _i— � >80 , a �— �� 1 /� I�-C�.H 1--1 �1 3 x� gg3 �1M1 @OJ r t•B31 ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL + Y B73 -F ^0� -•^MM- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS l Q h-'1 REQUIREMENTS. 2% MMMUMCROSS SLOPES AND20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. EXISTINGSABALPALM a - -- — ----- - —J& -- _ _ _ — — B P., W z F+1 h 1 AJ v '9d 1 I ,,, ----I v] ,wll l EXISTING PIN? � to c]j N v w 1 m U) 1 r 00 t Tlj '"G 1 Q 1 0 1 � I Q / 1 w LU 1 1n py Hz — I g r .a m ti v _ -- —Y- I 0w LEGEND: m e �NS 1� ti 1 8' CULVERTS PROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION DaP PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS +1 x PROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS rn o i \ONOZ/ M�z SANDPIPER @� I� PARKING V ;11 ✓lb 4l � _ 0 0 5 10 Ell PROP09E0 A9PHeLT PATH NOTE: C D m rn J, do &35 7B9i 9ON ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCESSIBILITY -•^MM- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS REQUIREMENTS. 2% MMMUMCROSS SLOPES AND20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. EXISTINGSABALPALM FOR RAMPS)! NDIRECTIDNOFTRAVEL. PROPOSED ALUMINUM (JG ( ) EXISTING —ORMAHOGA- PEDESTRIAN RAILING �,.�yf PER FOOT (INDEX E.) EXISTING PIN? EXISTING RETAINING 692 WALL A STORM V 'JQ EXISTING WATERVALVE CULVERTS PROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION DaP PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS +1 x PROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS rn o i \ONOZ/ M�z SANDPIPER @� I� PARKING V ;11 ✓lb 4l � _ 0 0 5 10 gJx \ y WEST T SD RIGHT -0F -WAY 0 LINE (TYP.) + r_ 7.72 -_ -... + fill Dry` o Qg'P @O }e @O !ex'�6 J9 @,g 8.J1� I :•�\ J / PROPOSED8' WIDE CROSSWALK .\.\ Ll y 1 Q ,l[ttt 2 1 ROSS r 1 3 ; REMOVE EXISTING NOTE: PAVERCROSSWALK RECENTLY NOTE: S IGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY w MAHOGANY TREES PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293E, ABB FILE #10500 /// PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0298 -E, ABB J 1 ) '' / FILE #10500) O PELICAN BAY BLVD lb r 1 w 1 w 1 N 1 1 1 v "--'----- -- - - - - -- -- -- — &85 @ 1 88? —__ 1 +y �o + I i @� -v/ -� +9* 966 —.— - l cf - - - — �? 9. >T 94 @ 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =10 $2e, f / > 1 B J. PROPOSEDBIOBARRIER ROOT B 'P CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION / PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 v t 1 n t W 1 w 1 = a Iw 1 w ern 1 e i / 1 1 e a� a3 A rA a !DESIGNED BY: ABB 1 IGBEGED BY: JAG 1 B VERT. SCALE: 3— N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PROJECT / 11 -0043 PUOT VIEW \ I WU7 site(4) -6 SHEET OF 15 AGd Rl / 10574 T C D m rn J, do &35 7B9i 9ON gJx \ y WEST T SD RIGHT -0F -WAY 0 LINE (TYP.) + r_ 7.72 -_ -... + fill Dry` o Qg'P @O }e @O !ex'�6 J9 @,g 8.J1� I :•�\ J / PROPOSED8' WIDE CROSSWALK .\.\ Ll y 1 Q ,l[ttt 2 1 ROSS r 1 3 ; REMOVE EXISTING NOTE: PAVERCROSSWALK RECENTLY NOTE: S IGN 8 STRIPING RECENTLY w MAHOGANY TREES PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293E, ABB FILE #10500 /// PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0298 -E, ABB J 1 ) '' / FILE #10500) O PELICAN BAY BLVD lb r 1 w 1 w 1 N 1 1 1 v "--'----- -- - - - - -- -- -- — &85 @ 1 88? —__ 1 +y �o + I i @� -v/ -� +9* 966 —.— - l cf - - - — �? 9. >T 94 @ 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =10 $2e, f / > 1 B J. PROPOSEDBIOBARRIER ROOT B 'P CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION / PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 v t 1 n t W 1 w 1 = a Iw 1 w ern 1 e i / 1 1 e a� a3 A rA a !DESIGNED BY: ABB 1 IGBEGED BY: JAG 1 B VERT. SCALE: 3— N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 ACAD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PROJECT / 11 -0043 PUOT VIEW \ I WU7 site(4) -6 SHEET OF 15 AGd Rl / 10574 ( ^O i;trm Lo P G N ° 1 i GNOId r ZT - - . TINDACE -. P ft I. -t ■ .gi-. a Phan¢'¢. �1 N � ur uee ■MI W D ■1■J v D D e «-- >aL,�.w�z� O.Y i1 y 8 Dm J i s fe�eewu n m 10 0 6 10 RI c PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT RELOCATE ;a CONTROL. VERTICAL INSTALLATION V% TDT EXISTING WEST EXISTING N PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 24.36 SCALE: 1"=10 , T N4' (RELOCATE) ASPHALT ■ 9.BS RIGH i EFmWAP) STOP SIGN 1 ^ m 24' WHITE STOP BAR 663 TYP.) 8.8b 1 9.46 ;]0 9.69 Q 9 g �Q 0 ■ m I / I- fp '0`� b61 pA ,yJ .'° y 0] +90 -c, ..... B� i o 7Q 0 b b x IL72 a b { T "' --`�B 6O Bss� s t } 59 37 v 77 j - -- -- -- - - - - -- t 4 3 i +� +9,0j 9.r 20 -- - - - - - -- -- - -.-ti - __ -_ -_ -- _ - -- _ - n -. - -_ �.. p _ __ - - - -'1O _ _ _ 8r D s � "p? lat REMOVE BLF EXIST. ■ CURB & REPLACE W/ REMOVE 6 L EXIST 1 1D ■ NEW FLUSH CURB& W/ 1 W CURB E REPLACE W ; TTAPER NEW FLUSH CURB& ; 2'TAPER W 1 1 y (o ; PROPOSED TWIDE CROSSWALK W/ 6'WHITESTRIPING -4 ; 3 H; 1 1 t t F 644 I co ® w F h ■ 1 LU U p= S 0?3 NOTE: LEGEND: SIGNS STRIPING ^ p h ° ` ] ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL -- LEGEND: 9 _ PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH COMPLY WITH 2010 ADAACCESSIBILTIY o = A EXISTING STOP SIGN /�'�'�\ 2 % M CROSS RLOPES z AA Q! .,WW77 {c, ` �? & 510P BAR v ND 20 MAXIMUM SLOPES AND 2D:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX, (1 � V •wv.•w EXISTING HEDGE/ PLANE ✓Jb0 FOR RAMPS) INDIRECTION OF TRAVEL PRO POSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHN)CROSSYVAL19 rtb EXISTINGSABALPALM 'Y fl H B a s W a c PROPOSED DETECTABLE EWARNING. PERFDOT INOEXNO.304 10 0 6 10 EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGANY DB61CNED BY: ARE DRAWN BY: B1► CRECKED BY: JAC +b� WEST 1 +g RIGHT -0F -WAY 19 24X36 SCALE: 1 -10 1 LINE -WAY +b EXISTING PINE bry b �. x8 RBfl87/BD BY: AHB .,( b 0� y pQ EXISTING WATER VALVE r,D9 1 M "^.V,,.w. 6•''9 pp 1 Qy C87 TJ lAp Yy k 6.`06 bb 1 ! B B. ROME..CAL6: 1- = 10' VERT. SCALH: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 .. �N --s -- - .,7 - -'- ____-.. e x8.73 � 1 � +� J }6 ?` + ' - z + J a _- _ _..,.,v. -,F,^ ■ 1 11 Zt- - - - - - - _ _ & 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ �-+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - - - - -- - - - -- ..7.73 ____ Nl_ - _ - - ( _ _ F 1 PROPOSEDBIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 3 ; CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION �_ LU, P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATION PER MW UFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS y, + ® F LU Ul y 1 f ; PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT - �m0� ; tp LU _ _ W , CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION _ , W N , PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS B ■ N ACRD FILE NAME: — — 10574mst — _ AHH PROJECT / � . - 1 A m '• W ro, 11 -0043 PLOT VDtR \ LAYOUT 1 SHEET - — OF 15 _ Aca6 RIO 10574 ZD Q .0mono WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY 919 LINE ITYP.) x90 / 96T $De o PC, NOLY !'rr 'fib ib O.YNtie 10 0 5 10 24.36 SCALE: 1 " =10 I 850 SO I 0.3 _ _ } _ _ — _ _ — _ _ — _ _ _ RD 0�0� @_ `82D +I' ? t ° _ — — -- � — `78 B �� CONTROL,DVERTICAL INSTALLATION P -- �i• +G 'sS 1 1 + 73 _ _i- ms's 1 .B r _ — Wj EXISTING 1 ELECTRIC W 1 HANDHOLE LU , W 1 1� 1 b 1 1 1 � — 1 — 1 a Q> Z m W < �m O m }0� to i _._ - -- W 00 LU N >8 = 1_- ""1• d )(1.75 f i 1 0. O W W y9}— 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5 /LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH vvw!!//qqn. EXISTING HEDGE 1 PLANTS $y6 EXISTINGSABALPALM 11//!!!!l EXISTING ONC OR MAHOGANY PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 010 D1 L L LU # CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATONS 6- ^d^� ^� SORI2. SCAMS: 1" - 10' 0' _ _ _ _ A2 1• H U" CA B 7.94 — sis cz7 _ _ a� a DESIGNED EY: ABB WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY 919 LINE ITYP.) x90 / 96T $De o PC, NOLY !'rr 'fib ib O.YNtie 10 0 5 10 24.36 SCALE: 1 " =10 I 850 SO I 0.3 _ _ } _ _ — _ _ — _ _ — _ _ _ RD 0�0� @_ `82D +I' ? t ° _ — — -- � — `78 B �� CONTROL,DVERTICAL INSTALLATION P -- �i• +G 'sS 1 1 + 73 _ _i- ms's 1 .B r _ — Wj EXISTING 1 ELECTRIC W 1 HANDHOLE LU , W 1 1� 1 b 1 1 1 � — 1 — 1 a Q> Z m W < �m O m }0� to i _._ - -- W 00 LU N >8 = 1_- ""1• d )(1.75 f i 1 0. O W W y9}— 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5 /LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH vvw!!//qqn. EXISTING HEDGE 1 PLANTS �(V EXISTINGSABALPALM 11//!!!!l EXISTING ONC OR MAHOGANY VQQ EXISTING PILE L L LU EXISTINGWATERVALVEE SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN 6 STOP BAR PROPOSED 24' WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PERMOT INDEX NO. 304 90 It, 0.90 m e X 29 m R B m S S AND RAMPS SHALL 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY S. 2-/o MAAWMCROSS 0:1 MAXIMUM(12:1 MAX. N DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. w$ WEST RIGHTDF -WAY +8.83 / N `LINE (fYP.) �3? PER MANUFACTURE R SP ECIFICATIOFIS S —, m , 1 1 1 1 \\ 1 lI 0'y0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PON 011 UU 10 0 5 10 HII NDB nARBER & ii�RLNDAGE, =.. Prohaxbxul RI>yAoeexy Dllxuiere, k�l�exld r �mn V IINWO1111 •xe. flM hmud� -�hul. ]Iwlh ]vtle xo0 z OEn 00 �AAwrA W rj 0 q¢ a aW�z O �? 8113 J t 83 +8 Z-4 of Bo> 1 m ?y ■ H BIOS 9 0 — _ — _ _ — _ — — _ — _ — _ — — — — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ u W t 0) t 1 t i ■ t 60 � wry 0' ACRD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PRD.IECr � 11 -0043 PLOT VDIR \ LAYOUT site(6) -8 SHEET 8 OF 15 A-d File 1 10574 �d CHECKED BY: LAC RHYIHAHO BY: ADS D V � L L LU + >D 0 ^ ^d^� ^� SORI2. SCAMS: 1" - 10' 'A _ _ _ _ A2 1• H U" CA ON °;d de E v cz7 a� a DESIGNED EY: ABB �? 8113 J t 83 +8 Z-4 of Bo> 1 m ?y ■ H BIOS 9 0 — _ — _ _ — _ — — _ — _ — _ — — — — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ u W t 0) t 1 t i ■ t 60 � wry 0' ACRD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PRD.IECr � 11 -0043 PLOT VDIR \ LAYOUT site(6) -8 SHEET 8 OF 15 A-d File 1 10574 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =10 CHECKED BY: LAC RHYIHAHO BY: ADS > >> i> EXIST94G + >D ,D 9'' +> SORI2. SCAMS: 1" - 10' 'A _ _ _ _ A2 1• i VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: 1DN8 2011 9,32 u �PROPOSEDe WIDE CROSSWALK W16' W HITE STRPING +9.g3 u u m EXISTING �°'2p :°+ ro ASPHALT +$g4 "` . ,o J s ■ ■ '� u B PATH (NP.) Nm F �? 8113 J t 83 +8 Z-4 of Bo> 1 m ?y ■ H BIOS 9 0 — _ — _ _ — _ — — _ — _ — _ — — — — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ u W t 0) t 1 t i ■ t 60 � wry 0' ACRD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PRD.IECr � 11 -0043 PLOT VDIR \ LAYOUT site(6) -8 SHEET 8 OF 15 A-d File 1 10574 > >> i> EXIST94G + >D ,D 9'' +> ELECTRIC HANDHOIE >� _ _ _ _ A2 1• i T75 \ 60 �\ _ _ — _ — �PROPOSEDe WIDE CROSSWALK W16' W HITE STRPING �? 8113 J t 83 +8 Z-4 of Bo> 1 m ?y ■ H BIOS 9 0 — _ — _ _ — _ — — _ — _ — _ — — — — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ u W t 0) t 1 t i ■ t 60 � wry 0' ACRD FILE NAME: 10574mst ABB PRD.IECr � 11 -0043 PLOT VDIR \ LAYOUT site(6) -8 SHEET 8 OF 15 A-d File 1 10574 1 \� IN V-4, V/ V m;u D;z v� mm �v 1 ' < 0.78 ` 936 C m + o QOJ 88> 91J I ..,,. 9.48 A r �8,78X +as3 3 a,, I'I 1 90 ��% 691 5.56__- � Sa6 1 'j._9'38t_. _ ... _.._K. �__ _._ __ 8�F Bel 18.28# --}8 — _. &1,# ' 8.10 n m m V 4� 1 +1 &60� {@ g \a $>x x �'1 001 q� fro 3J t9.0/ 6 � EXISTING , 1 ELECTRIC " 8 6 9' 04 1 HANDHOLE a >J PROPOSED 6 WIDE CROSSWALK — \ \ aF° Wl6• WHITE STF&PING ¢ / 1 �7 9.27 ,yg 8.4D -� +— -- -- — - - -- - -- -- _� B.25 P8 — __ -- —rt _— ___— _....__ - - - -_ ___ 'am 1 _ RAISETOP TO REMOVE 6LF EXIST 1 BE LEV ELAT '^ CURB 8 REPLACE W! `<P REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. 1 ELEV. =8.40 NEW FLUSH CURB& CURB REPLACE Wl / 2' TAPER NEW FLUSH CURB & 1 1 2'TAPER 1 1 ' PELICAN BAY BLVD fifl 1 n� NOTE: PAVE R CROSSWALK RECENTLY L _j_ -- a1\ PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E, ASS FILE #10504) 11 NZ.50 3 1 1D2p t 921` Ig81 tx i N A >m 2 p /j_ r m -- m em 9.61 j N WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (TYP.) WEST RIGHTDF -WAY LINE (TYP.) EXISTING ASPHALT PATH (TYP.) B 6N OC/ 5 F 2 o,YHES 10 0 5 10 2406 SCALE: I- 10 / J w 1 - a' 1 m5 \\\ B � X9 W EXISTING Z> ELE CTRI C 1 1 N M1 HINDHOLE p &j7 fn 3 I moo LU — -+ — — - I@ —"� > .KC B 1 I~- /0 / m IW /W NOTE: SIGN& STRIPING RECENTLY N PERMITTED (ROW PERMIT #11 -0293 -E. ABB 1 FILE #10504) '� 1 y yy 1 — 4- – — —L — — — w Kb \�B 04 ,86 � N9.39 aTH% C'24 NOTE: ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SJRO- SL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADA ACCE REQUIREMENTS. 2% MlAXINUM 0PESAND20:1 MAXMUM(1ORRAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF LEGEND: -•-u= PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH µ^ms- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTINGSABPLPALM V! /1 (mil EXI STING OAK IX2MAHOGaNY EXISTING PIKE EXISTING WATER VALVE J SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTINGSTOPSIGJ & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24- WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED CETECTABIE �3 WARNINGS PERFDOT INDEX NO. 304 rONOC1 uu 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"=10 C11A 13E BI�AEHER & i"NDACEp... PmlesslomI— ll enamels PlenKn• 11 1 —d aI, -ire u iial .na 0 iew - Va. lW� naL V�p i.,tr xoo lin \°o z Ova 00 �AAw WrjZq aW z 00 a¢4 H z ry O Q �- M �° g o CZ7 d pa z i3 C402 [j z �4W DESIGNED BY: ARE )CHECKED BY: JAC sOmZ- 9CA1J1- 1• ID' 1 VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 g +96S B s 1 s0 J3 v0 r0 �� •� —_ _ _ ... EXISTING 1 JJ 8.1 8> taz ELECTRIC oh +� $�8j z HANDHOLE ; � ---- --'" -� � 1 - - -- -X7,83 - - - -- ' N � 1 B j= 1 N m IW 1 1 1 e 1 • 1 — 1 Y. ICAO FILE NAME: 10574mst MB PROJECT r 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ UYO1 site(7) -9 SHEET 9 OF 15 A—d F il� # 10574 X19.37 /'SF \ 6 2 &54x,! ,8 2 ti 1 LU 1 x rFa j 6 825 B.as S1 � 1 as`ril /� 1-i PROPOSED.' WIDE CROSSWALK AAA \`j 1. 7 1 —E REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. > >J REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. 0 1 "' CURB & REPLACE W! CURB & REPLACE WI W 1 W 1 N 1 1 NEW FLUSH CURB& TTAPER NEW FLUSH CURB& 2TAPER 1 1 i (p a 1 `o 1 1 x &5D N 1 B.43 o 1 — — — — — — — — —J LEGEND: -•-u= PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH µ^ms- EXISTING HEDGE I PLANTS EXISTINGSABPLPALM V! /1 (mil EXI STING OAK IX2MAHOGaNY EXISTING PIKE EXISTING WATER VALVE J SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTINGSTOPSIGJ & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24- WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHIND CROSSWALK) PROPOSED CETECTABIE �3 WARNINGS PERFDOT INDEX NO. 304 rONOC1 uu 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"=10 C11A 13E BI�AEHER & i"NDACEp... PmlesslomI— ll enamels PlenKn• 11 1 —d aI, -ire u iial .na 0 iew - Va. lW� naL V�p i.,tr xoo lin \°o z Ova 00 �AAw WrjZq aW z 00 a¢4 H z ry O Q �- M �° g o CZ7 d pa z i3 C402 [j z �4W DESIGNED BY: ARE )CHECKED BY: JAC sOmZ- 9CA1J1- 1• ID' 1 VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: JUNE 2011 g +96S B s 1 s0 J3 v0 r0 �� •� —_ _ _ ... EXISTING 1 JJ 8.1 8> taz ELECTRIC oh +� $�8j z HANDHOLE ; � ---- --'" -� � 1 - - -- -X7,83 - - - -- ' N � 1 B j= 1 N m IW 1 1 1 e 1 • 1 — 1 Y. ICAO FILE NAME: 10574mst MB PROJECT r 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ UYO1 site(7) -9 SHEET 9 OF 15 A—d F il� # 10574 V c'I�! N T D —1 �m m— ja REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY PAVERS 8 REPLACE WITH NEW PAVERS 8' WIDTH ■ �m■ t d + y a 6g ■,.,.. -.... ,,,,..,�, '9s) 9 ary PROPOSEDB'WIOE ^,5 ■_.— .ry.wv_..w...M...�..,.y.r ....n.�..ti.. 88. Yt CROSSWALK t 9p'1 WI B•PAVE REORDERS 1 a2 _ \ 'p w m 1 ---- - - - - -- + - - -_. 3 m e2 _ - -- _- — 8.23 n, m Bbry 1 � T ♦B m m \1 O, 1 5.49 w o - w 1 1 1 REMOVE 8 LF EXIST. 1 1 CURB 8 REPLACE W/ 1 NEW FLUSH CURB& 1 2' TAPER 1 1 REMOVE 26 LF EXIST. ® CURB & INSTALL NEW 1 13 LF TYPE D CURB 1 ■ 1 EXISTING ASPHALT B ARi hry flli6 >48,. B 9 n.00 re- B +$� I WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (TYP.) B.81 +UV 01/ ? � 5 lL °Nnas 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D 41 LU m 3 _ _ __ . _ W +� + PROPOSEDB WIDE t lt�@.u9B?B I� +87 4 D i— ��II " "" BS �. — — — ^- -\.• i 3 .(6 W/8" PAVERBORDERS 4• \ ,1 6 -y9 d ♦�t, B P ROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT ■ F CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION O REMOVE 1S LF EXIST. PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 m tRUU MOVE BLF EXIST CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W TYPE D PAVERS 8 REPLACE 1 W WITH PAVERS R0 8 REPLACE W/ P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N REMOVE MEDIAN 8 PROVIDE NEW CROSSWALK PAVERS REMOVE 16 LF EXIST. TYPE A CURB & REPLACE WITH PAVERS M S AND RAMPS 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY S. 2% MAXINUMCROSS 0:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX. N DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. WEST RIGHTdF -WAY LINE (TYP.) ■ 64 x,D PATH (TYP.) O w 1 .6 ■ "' ----__ - -3 x 68 I BS 0.64 I x sv ru W a B NEW FLUSH CURB& 1 2' TAPER 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ 1 A P. 4 La B.IB LEGEND: PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH �...n.w.• EXISTING FEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING SABAL PALM 0 EXISDNG OAK ORMAHOGANY � EXISTING PIN= EXISTING WATERVPLVE D45 SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHM CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE Elm WARNINGS PBRFDOT ( INDEX NO. 304 •s Tin- —A8.31 � m -0 L' s /_ az REMOVE EXISTING S' WE PAVER CROSSWALK o D O "{ r& RE RACE WTTHNEW TI m PAVERS B' WIDTH 00 a411 } 8.82 + Z Ia ; '� 11 t9l "$� v m dot ,D.,, / i k 4a.7s g O I I rm m EXISTING B 9 n.00 re- B +$� I WEST RIGHT -0F -WAY LINE (TYP.) B.81 +UV 01/ ? � 5 lL °Nnas 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D 41 LU m 3 _ _ __ . _ W +� + PROPOSEDB WIDE t lt�@.u9B?B I� +87 4 D i— ��II " "" BS �. — — — ^- -\.• i 3 .(6 W/8" PAVERBORDERS 4• \ ,1 6 -y9 d ♦�t, B P ROPOSED B IOBARRIER ROOT ■ F CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION O REMOVE 1S LF EXIST. PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 m tRUU MOVE BLF EXIST CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W TYPE D PAVERS 8 REPLACE 1 W WITH PAVERS R0 8 REPLACE W/ P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N REMOVE MEDIAN 8 PROVIDE NEW CROSSWALK PAVERS REMOVE 16 LF EXIST. TYPE A CURB & REPLACE WITH PAVERS M S AND RAMPS 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY S. 2% MAXINUMCROSS 0:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX. N DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. WEST RIGHTdF -WAY LINE (TYP.) ■ 64 x,D PATH (TYP.) O w 1 .6 ■ "' ----__ - -3 x 68 I BS 0.64 I x sv ru W a B NEW FLUSH CURB& 1 2' TAPER 1 1 1 1 ■ ■ 1 A P. 4 La B.IB LEGEND: PROPOSEDASPHALT PATH �...n.w.• EXISTING FEDGE I PLANTS EXISTING SABAL PALM 0 EXISDNG OAK ORMAHOGANY � EXISTING PIN= EXISTING WATERVPLVE D45 SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHM CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE Elm WARNINGS PBRFDOT ( INDEX NO. 304 i+s Ga tQz/ ' + +A2 ill _ _ _ LU O 1 B g@ F ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT W ■ CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 i •s Tin- —A8.31 � m -0 L' s i+s Ga tQz/ ' + +A2 ill _ _ _ LU O 1 B g@ F ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT W ■ CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 •s — +BSS � m -0 L' s /_ Z M o C a iil J6 q ONlap -- 7.80 ADIUSTTOP / 10 0 5 10 0 TOSLOPE JJJ 1 W (1) OAK 1 EAST C 2Ye MAX 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D rm m EXISTING PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 Ems' HAND CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 82 g,6 f k'I PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 P ON 01/ — 1 � m -0 L' s n � Z M o C PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ♦ Garr ry PRDPOSEDB'WIDE b P ON 01/ 3 � m -0 L' s n � Z M o C a iil J6 q ONlap >m NEW FLUSH CURB& V 10 0 5 10 0 ZTAPER 1 1 W (1) OAK 1 W C 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D rm m 1 h 1 82 g,6 f k'I ry PRDPOSEDB'WIDE b ALK R tMOCROSSW A REMOVE BLFEXIST. CURB & REPLACE W/ N NEW FLUSH CURB& V VE Z ZTAPER 1 1 W (1) OAK 1 1 LU LU ijBER & UNDAGE•ve. PmfenbnLL en�oee,q Ple,u�a3 1[ lend t,eyon z O 00 Q T� L w W �u a 00 00 aQ.HZ z' >w � MR m� vi o cZ7 DESIGNED EY: ABB ICBECXED BY: JAC HOME' SCALE: 1" . ID' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: IUNE 2011 ACRD FILE NAN&: 10574mst ME PROJECT f 11 -0043 PLOT vLE,T \ MYOUT site(8) -10 SHEET 10 OF 15 Aced nle F 10574 1 1 1 V ' ■ 1 ■ ■ / n cil UJ W Z N LU —F W (n ry ■ ti ■ z —4 �� �— --- — — — — — 1 ■ ■ ■ WEST Hi A;— k RIGHTOF -WAY LINE (TYP.) UNDACH- PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS m k uNN W DIIx *� B ET D D W10 0 - - m • - -° - ' 0 5 10 'b"P`fi�Kl� 2 24x36 SCALE: 1" =1D z —4 �� �— --- — — — — — 1 ■ ■ ■ Y �+— YR'M9MCTl� �rRBBR166LM1EB9F- 1 m 8 �S,>, Z yeEMeaL=E•xISF+Ne— ?s> ,,. ma?o � � " \ �ij-- ""'( ">f .T3 - : 1 � 00 Eeee - -se BJJt }sY� sal �i II ry ° m nD o1 *El 1 O d — SJ -- - PROPOSED8'WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 6' WHITE STRIPING '— — — REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURBS PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 7 TAPER CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION REMOVE S LF EXIST. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS CURB &REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB& 2' TAPER E KS AND RAMPSSHALL 2010 ADAACCES43191LIT/ TS. 2% MAXIMIMCROSS 20:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX N DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. _TT.F�1 ♦/ X rz D� mm v v 9.DD kat t •$e TEMDYErtiN9FM1� 'wry ^ < I I � ' 1 EXISTING s T" f "�>. a; m T.Ta \ o xS.A9 ASPHALT 6x 8.13 FI ' PATH( P WEST RIGHTOF -WAY LINE (TYPJ 1 W UU U) cn W 6 ryp 1 > W a �J� � (J] p 1 03 U] PROPOSEDSIOBARRIER ROOT 1 W CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 1 I, 1 ITI 1 1 1 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH �_sre h>vwv.. EXISTING HEDGE I PLANES ((y''�[„ \� EXISTINGSALiA1.PALM (/A} � (� EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGPNY �+'JJ EXISTING PI �tM EXISTING WATERVALVE�EXISTING WATERVALVEE +9 •�9 B LLLLL���JJJJJ � _ m ° v i ■ 92 ; m q �. _. - . -_ s +� adl o �0 a s 5z R DESIGNED BY: ABB 1D 0 5 10 DRA1fN BY: RAF 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D CHECKED BY: JAC p '09 EXISTING 3 ■ }g (fix B� a1 � lx CROSSWALK + m = *924 &71 8.60 &21' .21 ,Vq 7.97e.ra PI q * ** CL ■ ejo � -x m O • ---- -�-- - - --'� _— - u ■ b — — — — P. LU ■ -- —1-611 ?J y ■ ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 6 ■ -T0 m 9 "e 47.7, * OJ ' —iH — — — __ .,-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - es LU LU 1 N PROPOSED BICBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W P ER MAN UFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti0 ACRD Flu NAME: 10574mst ADa PROJECT t 11 -0043 PLOT YBTR \ TAYOOT site(9) -11 SHEET 11 OF 15 A-d Flle 10574 c N O 17 H Hi A;— k 7 7 P UNDACH- PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS m k Y �+— YR'M9MCTl� �rRBBR166LM1EB9F- 1 m 8 �S,>, Z yeEMeaL=E•xISF+Ne— ?s> ,,. ma?o � � " \ �ij-- ""'( ">f .T3 - : 1 � 00 Eeee - -se BJJt }sY� sal �i II ry ° m nD o1 *El 1 O d — SJ -- - PROPOSED8'WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 6' WHITE STRIPING '— — — REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURBS PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 7 TAPER CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION REMOVE S LF EXIST. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS CURB &REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB& 2' TAPER E KS AND RAMPSSHALL 2010 ADAACCES43191LIT/ TS. 2% MAXIMIMCROSS 20:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX N DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. _TT.F�1 ♦/ X rz D� mm v v 9.DD kat t •$e TEMDYErtiN9FM1� 'wry ^ < I I � ' 1 EXISTING s T" f "�>. a; m T.Ta \ o xS.A9 ASPHALT 6x 8.13 FI ' PATH( P WEST RIGHTOF -WAY LINE (TYPJ 1 W UU U) cn W 6 ryp 1 > W a �J� � (J] p 1 03 U] PROPOSEDSIOBARRIER ROOT 1 W CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 1 I, 1 ITI 1 1 1 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH �_sre h>vwv.. EXISTING HEDGE I PLANES ((y''�[„ \� EXISTINGSALiA1.PALM (/A} � (� EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGPNY �+'JJ EXISTING PI �tM EXISTING WATERVALVE�EXISTING WATERVALVEE +9 •�9 B LLLLL���JJJJJ � _ m ° v i ■ 92 ; m q �. _. - . -_ s +� adl o �0 a s 5z R DESIGNED BY: ABB 1D 0 5 10 DRA1fN BY: RAF 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D CHECKED BY: JAC p '09 EXISTING 3 ■ }g (fix B� a1 � lx CROSSWALK + m = *924 &71 8.60 &21' .21 ,Vq 7.97e.ra PI q * ** CL ■ ejo � -x m O • ---- -�-- - - --'� _— - u ■ b — — — — P. LU ■ -- —1-611 ?J y ■ ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 6 ■ -T0 m 9 "e 47.7, * OJ ' —iH — — — __ .,-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - es LU LU 1 N PROPOSED BICBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W P ER MAN UFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti0 ACRD Flu NAME: 10574mst ADa PROJECT t 11 -0043 PLOT YBTR \ TAYOOT site(9) -11 SHEET 11 OF 15 A-d Flle 10574 c N O 17 H Hi A;— k 7 7 P UNDACH- m k uNN W DIIx *� D D W10 0 - - m • - -° - ' 0 5 10 'b"P`fi�Kl� 2 24x36 SCALE: 1" =1D �+— YR'M9MCTl� �rRBBR166LM1EB9F- 1 m 8 �S,>, Z yeEMeaL=E•xISF+Ne— ?s> ,,. ma?o � � " \ �ij-- ""'( ">f .T3 - : 1 � 00 Eeee - -se BJJt }sY� sal �i II ry ° m nD o1 *El 1 O d — SJ -- - PROPOSED8'WIDE CROSSWALK W/ 6' WHITE STRIPING '— — — REMOVE 5 LF EXIST. CURB 8 REPLACE W/ NEW FLUSH CURBS PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 7 TAPER CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION REMOVE S LF EXIST. PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS CURB &REPLACE WI NEW FLUSH CURB& 2' TAPER E KS AND RAMPSSHALL 2010 ADAACCES43191LIT/ TS. 2% MAXIMIMCROSS 20:1 MAXMUM(12:1 MAX N DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. _TT.F�1 ♦/ X rz D� mm v v 9.DD kat t •$e TEMDYErtiN9FM1� 'wry ^ < I I � ' 1 EXISTING s T" f "�>. a; m T.Ta \ o xS.A9 ASPHALT 6x 8.13 FI ' PATH( P WEST RIGHTOF -WAY LINE (TYPJ 1 W UU U) cn W 6 ryp 1 > W a �J� � (J] p 1 03 U] PROPOSEDSIOBARRIER ROOT 1 W CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 W PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 1 I, 1 ITI 1 1 1 PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH �_sre h>vwv.. EXISTING HEDGE I PLANES ((y''�[„ \� EXISTINGSALiA1.PALM (/A} � (� EXISTING OAK OR MAHOGPNY �+'JJ EXISTING PI �tM EXISTING WATERVALVE�EXISTING WATERVALVEE +9 •�9 B LLLLL���JJJJJ � _ m ° v i ■ 92 ; m q �. _. - . -_ s +� adl o �0 a s 5z R DESIGNED BY: ABB 1D 0 5 10 DRA1fN BY: RAF 24x36 SCALE: 1 " =1D CHECKED BY: JAC p '09 EXISTING 3 ■ }g (fix B� a1 � lx CROSSWALK + m = *924 &71 8.60 &21' .21 ,Vq 7.97e.ra PI q * ** CL ■ ejo � -x m O • ---- -�-- - - --'� _— - u ■ b — — — — P. LU ■ -- —1-611 ?J y ■ ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT ■ PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 6 ■ -T0 m 9 "e 47.7, * OJ ' —iH — — — __ .,-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - es LU LU 1 N PROPOSED BICBARRIER ROOT PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION W P ER MAN UFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS P ER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti0 ACRD Flu NAME: 10574mst ADa PROJECT t 11 -0043 PLOT YBTR \ TAYOOT site(9) -11 SHEET 11 OF 15 A-d Flle 10574 O -cv �Q AmIllimme 1 NG,�otr 9 T x JL } °YnaB 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"=10 t gJ -ww.M . 1 1 1 1 EXISTING OAK OR MAHC— +JJ9 WEST RIGHTOF -WAY (TYP.) —1°—"— -- —_ -- -- �2 1 t i EXISTING 9 CROSSWALK. REPLACE EXISTING m __- CONC. SAY WITH a MIN. LENGTH RELOCATE 0 C � 1 x0. e3 ASPHALT PATH(TYP.) + m LIZ i 1 T9A _ _ - Bl -- — _ - - -� -�- OF m m LU LU 1 W ; t 0 W --- w ---- - --- - ._` r____ �. s x75 + +1 '�° ?D a - -__— -- .— .— _— _ —_ s _t - -_ � �O _ 1 i x J& — _ — — — +,—�— — — — — -- p e m + r� so --»72B v o a�3 •Jg r —�-- _ — — _ — _ — _ _ ._ — _ — _ — Ab _ — -- 5 r — — — — — — — — 1 w �— PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT O) vg� CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1!r PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 PRO POSED BIOBARRIER ROOT CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 / PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS I CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 1 1 PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS t t 1 t t - -- 1 gJ -ww.M TO WEST 1 1 ZY 0 EXISTING OAK OR MAHC— r 1 m m REMOVE 10 LF EXIST. z CURB A REPLACE W/ NEW CURB RAMP E FLUSH CUTS m T 9 CROSSWALK. REPLACE EXISTING ry CONC. SAY WITH a MIN. LENGTH RELOCATE 0 C � EXIST. TAPER DOWN TO PATH@ II m 1 STOP SIGN 4 12.1 MAX. SLOPE. IC�II 2I 1 gJ -ww.M TO WEST 1 1 XIEXISTING SABAL PALM 0 EXISTING OAK OR MAHC— r 1 EXISTING PINE m •.�, , Br S 2 1 B 15 Jh N l LIZ i 1 T9A _ _ - Bl -- — _ - - -� -�- OF LIZ 1 LU 1 W ; t 0 t / t t 1 1 � 1 N OTE: ALL S IDEW ALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUMCROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXMUM(12:1 M AX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. WEST PROPOSED SIOBARRIER ROOT RIGHT -0F -WAY CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION LINE (TYP.) PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS r- B SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24-WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHPDCROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �^'•`®" WARNINGS PE2FDOT I INDEX NO, 304 x 8.35 REMOVE EXIST.OAK °nor r v n �L g °,ynaQ 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"=10 1 1 gse o• m� B.re QI +a1 d S' 8, 5 ; +89� �� N�`� "'" ^^'wry CY°° +e _ _ "eal __ � _"_$_sr __ -1 r i o ,I o B. '�& S•� _ _ —._ -_ �_ .._ —: 7. '60 2 _ ---1 v 8.35 `+e - -_ �«__.� —•!-9 v 7 1 2 64 — _ _. - -- _. - -- / > _ o REMOVE PROPOSED BICBARRIER ROOT t LU B EXIST. OAK ADJUST IRRIGATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION t W PROPOSED&WIDE VALVEBOXESTOMATCHPATH 1 W CROSSWALK GRADE B PROVIDE SOUD PER MANUFACTURER 1 W /6 "WHITESTRIPING TOPS MO GRATES) SPECIFICATIONS ; W t W REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. t 0) CURB A REPLACE W/ 1 PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 NEW FLUSH CURB& CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION t 2' TAPER PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 q t o � t � 1 ry i AL)�ARBER & 3_DRTINDAGE —. -1 eo/poeexs, ple,x, d " y— N O �D z �0En ° en M A Aw UW W aU a 0 w��az O Ur" O aQ. E°• z HQ . V >� Q �0 w z G W DB ISIIGG INED BY: ARE DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY. LAC HOME- SCALE: 1, 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: ZUNI 0011 LC" FILE NAM07: 10574mst WE PROJECT If 'DDT 11-0043 site(10) -12 SHEET 12 OF 15 Aced File E 10574 PROPOSED ASPHALT PATH, -ww.M EXISTING HEDGE/ PIAMS XIEXISTING SABAL PALM /� 1 � { EXISTING OAK OR MAHC— V EXISTING PINE �M EXISTING WATER VALVE�EXISTING WATER —VEE SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: EXISTING STOP SIGN & STOP BAR PROPOSED 24-WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHPDCROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE �^'•`®" WARNINGS PE2FDOT I INDEX NO, 304 x 8.35 REMOVE EXIST.OAK °nor r v n �L g °,ynaQ 10 0 5 10 24x36 SCALE: 1"=10 1 1 gse o• m� B.re QI +a1 d S' 8, 5 ; +89� �� N�`� "'" ^^'wry CY°° +e _ _ "eal __ � _"_$_sr __ -1 r i o ,I o B. '�& S•� _ _ —._ -_ �_ .._ —: 7. '60 2 _ ---1 v 8.35 `+e - -_ �«__.� —•!-9 v 7 1 2 64 — _ _. - -- _. - -- / > _ o REMOVE PROPOSED BICBARRIER ROOT t LU B EXIST. OAK ADJUST IRRIGATION CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION t W PROPOSED&WIDE VALVEBOXESTOMATCHPATH 1 W CROSSWALK GRADE B PROVIDE SOUD PER MANUFACTURER 1 W /6 "WHITESTRIPING TOPS MO GRATES) SPECIFICATIONS ; W t W REMOVE 6 LF EXIST. t 0) CURB A REPLACE W/ 1 PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 NEW FLUSH CURB& CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION t 2' TAPER PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 1 q t o � t � 1 ry i AL)�ARBER & 3_DRTINDAGE —. -1 eo/poeexs, ple,x, d " y— N O �D z �0En ° en M A Aw UW W aU a 0 w��az O Ur" O aQ. E°• z HQ . V >� Q �0 w z G W DB ISIIGG INED BY: ARE DRAWN BY: RAF CHECKED BY. LAC HOME- SCALE: 1, 10' VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: ZUNI 0011 LC" FILE NAM07: 10574mst WE PROJECT If 'DDT 11-0043 site(10) -12 SHEET 12 OF 15 Aced File E 10574 cv "C' y ° `' 1lll.. cxou y AaeeR � z y - HI r TNDAGE -. & I..e 1nneu Rn�neexq PlenKn, T1 m�nn .1 V '� fl KIN W 0 IMI ae. N ..�}I�I O 0 < :•e e. rt,.In1 Z PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT Iei1 ♦)fMie -� D CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 10 0 5 10 -I PER MANUFACTURER M m SPECIFICATIONS 0 z 24x36 SCALE: 1•'=10 1 m EXISTING 1 WEST �1 1 RIGHT -0F -WAY O C REMOVE PATH (TYP.) �y1 0 � IIjF�y -'♦I LINE(TYP.) REMOVE j v m EXIST. OAK- ggry,- - - - -- y. 1 REMOVE EXIST.OAK x REMOVE Q x00 & 1 1 EXIST. EXIST. OAK ^ ...- _- ...__ -. Al EXIST.OAK q3 O Q 1 '100 A: r1 ,nv i6w- 7 1 r D8 '� 76 �1- ••yy� _ 7¢9 Xt 7, Bg - l x7.91 ____' -_ * @ O �e �''�� 1 ~ I�I1 Chi j_ _ '2g. - i LU F+'1 760 150 T gA _ _ _. _ - _. - _ .- - 1 9.2 i.12 7.BSx f(-* �s? 797_ „�� - •mot'. x_-_- --tie- - ?s7- ---- -_-. m ` ,50 __ _�. __- `� s.., 'j w•'TS 1��T Ir. ),, a �, 199 - _ 1 = 2 � � _ ImofJ1' N1 7 11A- __ / _ -- r.• ✓• 05 1� - -- - - -- 7.8B 2.5• \7 19 ---- - - - --. -.lF UWW -w16 -I _ - - �6 -- - - - - - - - -- -i Iii U O a W 1 _tR $ _ _ _ -_ y- __ _ _..- - - +}63� 7.53 - �5A - - - - 3' .�. - - - _ +- -_ - +JBp PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT 1 7 _ __- _ _ � 3 1 '— — — CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION 1 5 --- - - - - - .- 7.4i' _S2s 2' _ N 1 -r3 2 - 72a� �7y8 - �l 731 __ -- +� p 8 PER MANUFACTURER 1 w/ mil' Lim- W 1 - - �3g 1? 2 - - - - - - - - - - - �S —N ;� PROPOSEDB WIDE S? o SPECIFICATIONS ; li�l z LU L. _ - _ - - - - - - - --4-f 78 3 CROSS WALK 1 W/ 6• WHITE STRPING 001 1 m W 1 PROPOSED BIOBARRIER ROOT - Lu / CONTROL, VERTICAL INSTALLATION X T • 1 011 PER MANUFACTURER _,,.._.. .N SPE °'��AT'DNB PELICAN BAY BLVD 1 1 o0 1 1 '8 1 _ w o P. �s ol m �. H;24 z \ +7.70 7 g9 l p \ 7 75 LL J 7.87 7.89 - o I` 0• ,\ \ yB.02 784 A�' Oe: 1 10y 01 _ _- ..........— _;q._7•L4.'x_.. __ -`A JS Of ®7.88 0. WEST h RIGHT -0F -WAY PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH �www EXISTING HEDGE / 1. (/� EXISTING SABAL PALM EXISDNGOAK.ORMAHDGANY EXISTING PIME W�p�i EX ISTINGWATERVALVE�E XISTINGWATERVALVEE SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: 1 FXISTINGSTOPSIGN &STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHNO CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PERFDOT INDEX NO. 304 1 � 's \\ u V YV`o'v n a e w d 1D 0 5 10 DRSIGNED BY: ABB DRAITN BY: BAP 24x36 SCALE: 1 -10 CHECKED BY: lAC r _ ❑ ❑ 1 000 _:, ..�... '� m ..w`i' �NM�'ww.,...•...,.,H,r 1.96 LINE (IYP.) 6 06 0 x.29 ^�.....,, ZS _ 1._ __ - -_ - 9 _. - _ - �i�.._ ._ ._ -- ' o ----- - -- - _,, 7.9s , END PROJECT L95 - - - - - ?78.0 �? �� A� 8.20 8.21 _ _ It PAVE R CROS SWALK RECENTLY - kED (BOLA PERMIT k11 -0293 -E, AB6 - -F� - - _ _ 7 SJ FILE Y1D504) * 7. '� �4 1 7 } 67.80 NOTE: SIGN& STRIPING RECENTLY P 4��v ,60 V 778 PERMITTED (ROW PERMR #11-0293 -E, ASS v v BXISTING FILEk10504) PELICAN BAY BLVD �_ _ CROSSWALK 1 ' , m x7 a57 0 HOER- scA : I' = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: 1UNE 2011 ICAO FILE NA E: 10574mst W13 PROJECT 1 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 Aced F]le R 10574 NOTE: ALL SIDEWALKS AND RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2010 ADAACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 2% MAXIMUMCROSS SLOPES AND 20:1 MAXIMUM (12:1 MAX. FOR RAMPS) IN DIRECTION OFTRAVEL. Of ®7.88 0. WEST h RIGHT -0F -WAY PROPOSEDASPHALTPATH �www EXISTING HEDGE / 1. (/� EXISTING SABAL PALM EXISDNGOAK.ORMAHDGANY EXISTING PIME W�p�i EX ISTINGWATERVALVE�E XISTINGWATERVALVEE SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: 1 FXISTINGSTOPSIGN &STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHNO CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PERFDOT INDEX NO. 304 1 � 's \\ u V YV`o'v n a e w d 1D 0 5 10 DRSIGNED BY: ABB DRAITN BY: BAP 24x36 SCALE: 1 -10 CHECKED BY: lAC r _ ❑ ❑ 1 000 _:, ..�... '� m ..w`i' �NM�'ww.,...•...,.,H,r 1.96 LINE (IYP.) 6 06 0 x.29 ^�.....,, ZS _ 1._ __ - -_ - 9 _. - _ - �i�.._ ._ ._ -- ' o ----- - -- - _,, 7.9s , END PROJECT L95 - - - - - ?78.0 �? �� A� 8.20 8.21 _ _ It PAVE R CROS SWALK RECENTLY - kED (BOLA PERMIT k11 -0293 -E, AB6 - -F� - - _ _ 7 SJ FILE Y1D504) * 7. '� �4 1 7 } 67.80 NOTE: SIGN& STRIPING RECENTLY P 4��v ,60 V 778 PERMITTED (ROW PERMR #11-0293 -E, ASS v v BXISTING FILEk10504) PELICAN BAY BLVD �_ _ CROSSWALK 1 ' , m x7 a57 0 HOER- scA : I' = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: 1UNE 2011 ICAO FILE NA E: 10574mst W13 PROJECT 1 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 Aced F]le R 10574 SIGN & STRIPING LEGEND: 1 FXISTINGSTOPSIGN &STOP BAR PROPOSED 24" WHITE STOP BAR (4' MIN. BEHNO CROSSWALK) PROPOSED DETECTABLE WARNINGS PERFDOT INDEX NO. 304 1 � 's \\ u V YV`o'v n a e w d 1D 0 5 10 DRSIGNED BY: ABB DRAITN BY: BAP 24x36 SCALE: 1 -10 CHECKED BY: lAC r _ ❑ ❑ 1 000 _:, ..�... '� m ..w`i' �NM�'ww.,...•...,.,H,r 1.96 LINE (IYP.) 6 06 0 x.29 ^�.....,, ZS _ 1._ __ - -_ - 9 _. - _ - �i�.._ ._ ._ -- ' o ----- - -- - _,, 7.9s , END PROJECT L95 - - - - - ?78.0 �? �� A� 8.20 8.21 _ _ It PAVE R CROS SWALK RECENTLY - kED (BOLA PERMIT k11 -0293 -E, AB6 - -F� - - _ _ 7 SJ FILE Y1D504) * 7. '� �4 1 7 } 67.80 NOTE: SIGN& STRIPING RECENTLY P 4��v ,60 V 778 PERMITTED (ROW PERMR #11-0293 -E, ASS v v BXISTING FILEk10504) PELICAN BAY BLVD �_ _ CROSSWALK 1 ' , m x7 a57 0 HOER- scA : I' = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: 1UNE 2011 ICAO FILE NA E: 10574mst W13 PROJECT 1 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 Aced F]le R 10574 1.96 LINE (IYP.) 6 06 0 x.29 ^�.....,, ZS _ 1._ __ - -_ - 9 _. - _ - �i�.._ ._ ._ -- ' o ----- - -- - _,, 7.9s , END PROJECT L95 - - - - - ?78.0 �? �� A� 8.20 8.21 _ _ It PAVE R CROS SWALK RECENTLY - kED (BOLA PERMIT k11 -0293 -E, AB6 - -F� - - _ _ 7 SJ FILE Y1D504) * 7. '� �4 1 7 } 67.80 NOTE: SIGN& STRIPING RECENTLY P 4��v ,60 V 778 PERMITTED (ROW PERMR #11-0293 -E, ASS v v BXISTING FILEk10504) PELICAN BAY BLVD �_ _ CROSSWALK 1 ' , m x7 a57 0 HOER- scA : I' = 10• VERT. SCALE: N/A DATE: 1UNE 2011 ICAO FILE NA E: 10574mst W13 PROJECT 1 11 -0043 'LOT VIER \ LAYOUT site(11) -13 SHEET 13 OF 15 Aced F]le R 10574 P Ilk A F f Pathway Report Pelican Bay Foundation John Petty District Offices • January 23, 2012 1612 A 20 � • 1 . � 7 District Offices • pettyj @districtoffces.com: www.districtoffices.com • 954 - 522 -8299 1 0. C A c" I () t Pathwa y Report Pelican Bay Foundation PUBLIC RECORD RESEARCH I ict Reference File 161 2 p 20 An example of the reference material included in the records search. The Pelican Bay Foundation had requested the following: z. Find documentation that the pathway along PBB is a multi -use pathway that was not intended to be restricted to just pedestrians? 2. Find when the pathway was first installed? 3. When it was last repaved (in its entirety) from The Commons to at least the North Tram Station? 1. - Multi -Use Pathway We have researched our records and have found several sources delineating the pathways intended use. The question of the pathway has been discussed frequently over the years. The findings referenced include Newspaper articles, WCI Sales Pamphlets, PBID /PBSD Minutes and DRI Annual Monitoring Reports. Material quotes have been culled to provide responses to your request. The excerpt files will be sent to you along with a printed copy of this report separately. r . 4 161,2A20 Newspaper References "Winding bicycle and jogging paths meander throughout the community" Naples Daily News - Thursday, .Tune q, 1984 "and miles of jogging and biking paths." Naples Now - October, t982 "There are bike paths along each roadway, and on both sides of major arteries of traffic" The Napkes Star - Money - Friday, March % ig8i WCI Pamphlet Reference "Both private and community tennis courts, bicycle and jogging paths, parks and nature trails are provided for the outdoor enjoyment of Pelican Bay residents." 1612 A 20 1 "A pedestrian walkway and bicycle pathway system is integrated into the landscaped areas beside the roads throughout the community." F i1t. "Miles of bicycle and jogging paths wind throughout the community along most major boulevards and residential neighborhoods." 2. - Pathway Installation Date The pathway was built in sections as the development grew. Beginning with the first phase and continuing throughout the project. The DRI Annual Monitoring Reports we have on file state that they were substantially completed by 1995• i.#.jgj, -,�j Ir�#Ait�ti;,'f°�M 3�i11WiJg5i3 44gM[i71lR�Kf $• iARAlt$AIO$iaL! llrt" ELM► 7R, ilrwr$M /r$M triN tIK 11'lr. 11.11. Y0 ltrwlM Orts$$rl $ •. sr.$ ♦•ry ir.wwr /�w INr, 1.11. 1111 ldt! trF. • �..�,,:,. Irr itr, i.1. LIB..... ,�».... $� f. tMrrM tewbwrrAt #sMt OVA Pik t. lb"N "00 iN DO. 11.11. iii son OF, St"" "*A 1`N #lies 11.11. we $ , 161 A ek) 3. - Pathway Repavement We were able to find only one reference to the total repavement of the pathways but we have included several references to the partial repavement and the associated process for your use. s *A*VOW, %- ,iw~ a *arm ar +w..c 60" ar aw MictwWb'�wlNww ar.writi.aww ataes.rxsx�at c . e«s(rww aa•+�a t Nes�w, aa. c �.uw<.� eswsw 4 c:w,we.+ 4�wR a.ww.,:aa. aww fiwwM.�9�pYC4iw+pii&fw.Kaiwwwk io Miw a�wk 4lw.�#9. atlk+aYMM11kWYYt,.M+pM��nN t k�w x�m 9 �aa+t++tx3sw.ar aabif':vaati.+.ue. i of NPika'maaaoz#aMp R.' *IV?# tM4m?Mp .. "Mr. Archibald stated that hepassed out a copy of the sidewalk inventory. The County typically makes an annual inventory of its mad system, as well as an annual inventory ofthesidewalks and bikepaths. The roadways and walkways are rated as to service life. Service life typically means the d1noame the County needs to respond to undertake improvements. Ifthere is a service life of o -1 that means that within one year the Countyshould be out there resurfacing or repairing. Iftheservice life is i2 years then that indicates exactly what&says, that within 2 years the County needs to beplanning certain improvements Thisgives the County a planning and operational tool which in the current yearshows that there are three sidewalk priorities all of which can befunded There is approximately $2o, 000 in North Naples with which to reswfacesidewalks, and ourgoal is to go ahead an complete thosefzrstihreeprojects in our current year, which & typically during the winter months " PBSD Minutes - February 1,1995 PBID invoice /cl Missimer t Associates J.N. Envirormntal Services Technical Purification. Inc. Pilot Frei ht Carriers Hutchison Lire leck list presented to the Board of Supervisors: *11field Monitoring - lurch iii Analyses - March & laboratory Supplies 2 Drums Flocon Freight merges For Flocon Tires For Ford Courier #1 .0 3.2.65 1.120.00 169.92 66.14 Eric 0. Stahlman Ent. i pair Bike Rath - Dorchester 15.00 (Broken Water Valve) 01 splaywr i ter System - 4125184 . Thru 6/38185 PBID Minutes - May x5,1985 riuW, tlla�r dal 0 waves thrum NUnMo lwtMrM 2, am a t cares t �etW.tyrarlttl,At.artAe,srs►ze tl�tlttt++.a 0 I #wW trtect X :may ?00 ttwMltsMra *eater LNW ahwprtlracittNar, .ate Cap" Ww, . C taaua "Mr. Ward replied yes, that was a couple of years ago and thatresarfaahgprogram has all been completed The County was verygood at t:ommg in and doing that work earlier than anticipated Those sidewalks were essentially all resurfaced a couple ofyears ago and now we are back into redoing them again. PBSD Minutes September T, T999 161 2 0 "Mr. Connell asked "Is the contract we had opened to resurface thepath ways on Pelican BayBoulevard still open':" PBSD Minutes August 2, 2oo6 NIPicc, Fkm& Scptcmher 1, ?999 A 29,+ LET IT BE KNOWN, thin the Pelican Bay MS TBU Advisory Committee met in Regular Session on this date at 300 P.M. at the Foundation Center, 8269 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108 with the following members present: Dr. Alan Varlcy, Chairman ..It. Lou Vlasho, Vice Chairman. Mr. Joseph Bawduniak (.Absent) Mr. Thomas Brown (Absent) Mr. James Carroll (Absent) Mr. Edward Griffith (Absent) Mr. Glen Harrell (Absent) Mr. Herbert Hasson (Absent) Mr. John Hoyt Mrs. Cornelia Kricgh Mrs. Maureen McCarthy Mr. David Roellig Mr George Wemcr ALSO PRESENT: Sic (6) Pelican Bay residents; Mr. Ed lischner, Collier County Public Works Administrator, Mr. Ed Kara, Collier County Transportation Director; Deputy Scat Propper, Collier County Sheriff's Office; Mr. Chuck Curry, Managing Online Editor, Naples Daily News: Mr. Todd Turrell, Turrcli and Associates; Mr. James P. Ward, Department Director and Mrs. Barbara Smith, Recording Secretary. AGENDA Roll Call Approval of the Minutes of the August 4, 1999 Meeting Upcoming Events The !).,rani of Cmmty Public IL=x g sea LhY Pelican [ray Smites !)rzuaere t i—I Year 2M) Hudget fi,, SeM her 9, 1999 at 6,00 P. %t at I! .muck Wk Censr Coro muruty Policing Update Pelican Bay Web Site - (Power Point Presentation by Naples Daily News) AdminisiratoCs Report Capital Projects Street Lighting and Suect Signs Entrance Sims i7HT 35.11..iaf nw11. i11sl.IM1Yl!i Mf Y%: fN' M+ rMi ",wiM�Y[MR�W't%www.r.M+Wft #p1 i`Nl titS.�ak f�.rr.. MSS. "n'•. uf�f.MlMVf�.,AMM�ffIMMapl a+f.fe 1A. A.**WA"A#PL t'AfY1Y., "*A." 1.+M..prtiff,.afrrcfw.rw�m =s�wi: a *f•m. ka ap a1,n 1w r f . € w ' 1 a leela.r Kw.1Rf., fd} kw f 14 w 1Mz f.fw 1M. t1e.lnMd®e + + +6M+wxf1 KM.11.feflt #r awlew l:. rw a.� Mmww Yarf .�$#i1if! as irwf Ifw+fi. C1w. u+r.*w+afw M:M 11wlfew 1w+Yf lfwm.rAapC lwnw+rs _ alili�r _ 1 +�- 1rWwwtr.,. fps. rrls. Wew�farr��.+ ww++.. tfa.. �«. r+ww..a��.:�cr.......wee:sfw�rf +wR4�iMfrf, a».. w " 4r"bYY M* at aw M1M tr r s r� � iw 4M1aM1 • s�waw.Y�w.+.+�+.�awa...1eo....t MWM �IF.IM 4tif wAPP rtn�.•w.�..r Fi. +sf ta!♦ffff. weeMiiiiFMMM W�Yt ffiv9ffNi.iq.M Wf MWA .�u�.ff arwwm�. »ffwwf ww w1wM.r.wea iw1fidW`iUKwldw:a.0. Oh - N M.Mw V." @tMWr .lgWM4ia tee1w.+11an *. M "OW f+lniaMswu wlfi. * aaw� wf*+a � � ,F ae xra:�ff w .ww r fM�ffA. +�1 fleet wK .Mf w.�if f a ela�wwerfl fNt >� ,well fewwlrf •d'A. S`..,dw. xmmfxA: ary±•w rarla.... w. •.aid .... .TAM* dwnureeaKnmw»+t AIIMN.�lwa. T%. W 3. Additionally 161 2k A ZU Mr. Wardstated that as a resultoflastmeeting an analysis ofthe bikepath conditions has been prepared This analysis has been done in two different scenarios with two sub - categories within each. One scenario would be a repair of the existing bikepath with concrete and then to eitherreplace the existing bikepaths or overlay with blacktop and concrete. This analysis includes all bikepaths in Pelican Bay and each has been wheeled ofto determine the linealfeet, which is approximately 68,000 linealfeetof bikepaths. " PBSD Minutes December 7,11994 We have included a memo from the County Attorney's office pertaining to the pathways multi- use. "IK''K* W93~KV Maw. to ew 0.— a I-%—." wwww+.r. V.«.r "In the unincorporated area of Collier County, bicyclists may use sidewalkr regardless of whether there is a designated bike lane a4acent to apublicroadway. SectionY6.2o65(i0) and Sectio/IY6.2o65(it), Florida Statutes, govern the use ofsidewalks by bicyclists andprovides that aperson propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk has all the rights and duties applicable to apedestrian, except he /she shall yield theroht of way to anypedestrian and shallgive an audible sonalbefore overtaking and passing such pede strian. Collier CountyMemo - Apri126, 2007 4w;..4ew:r %ft %o* —.1 *+ Mew Mean., -0• f jW owl • r..ifw.rfwww- I"+af.wl.Max..wA Maw. to ew 0.— a I-%—." wwww+.r. V.«.r "In the unincorporated area of Collier County, bicyclists may use sidewalkr regardless of whether there is a designated bike lane a4acent to apublicroadway. SectionY6.2o65(i0) and Sectio/IY6.2o65(it), Florida Statutes, govern the use ofsidewalks by bicyclists andprovides that aperson propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk has all the rights and duties applicable to apedestrian, except he /she shall yield theroht of way to anypedestrian and shallgive an audible sonalbefore overtaking and passing such pede strian. Collier CountyMemo - Apri126, 2007 � s 161 Z A 2'G'.4 ' This report is intended to reflect the request for information criteria and is not intended to represent a complete synopsis of all records wherein reference to the bike paths, sidewalks or pathways occur. The research was conducted using records currently available to District Offices and was intended to provide a response within a reasonable amount of time. The documents referenced above are part of the public record and have been reproduced to reflect content only. 2000 S. Ocean Drive Suite 1705 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (954) 522 -8299 www.districtoffices.com February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5d. South Berm Permitting (2003 Berm Ownership Memo submitted by D. Trecker) Page 1 of 4 1612 A �0 PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION TO: Board of Directors FROM: Dave Trecker DATE: October 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Berm Ownership Jim Carroll, Chairman of the PBSD, called Heidi Ashton, the county attorney with whom Lisa Barnett has been working in an effort to resolve the berm ownership question. Jim reported that Heidi said unequivocally that the Foundation owns the berm. Jim queried Heidi about the argument put forth by Jim Ward that, because the dyke was built with public funds, the dyke/berm is owned by the county.; According to Jim, Heidi said that that had no bearing on berm ownership and that, as far as she was concerned, the Foundation owns the berm. Jim then reportedly contacted Jim Ward, told him of Heidi's position and urged Ward to accept that decision, which is in the best interests of the community. Ward apparently agreed. I feel it is unlikely that we will get any of this in writing. But with the position of a county attorney communicated to a community leader not affiliated with the Foundation, we probably have the next best thing. We owe Jim Carroll a debt of gratitude. I have prepared an article for the PB Post indicating that the Foundation, not the county, owns the berm. J. Trecker Copy: Kyle Kinney EDWARD K. CHEFFY BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY JOHN M. PASSIDOMO BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY GEORGE A. WILSON BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS. TRUSTS S ESTATES ATTORNEY F EDWARD JOHNSON BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY JOHN D. KEHOE. BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY LOUIS D. D'AGOSTINO BOARD CERTIFIED APPELLATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY JEFF M. NOVATT DAVID A. ZULIAN February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5d. South Berm Permitting (2003 Berm Ownership Memo submitted by D. Trecker) Page 2 of 4 CHEFFY PASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE: (239) 261 -9300 FAX: (239) 261 -9782 E -MAIL: CPWJ@napleslawcom PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors FROM: Lisa H. Barnett �? RE: Ownership of Foundation Common Areas DATE: April 9, 2003 1616 KEVIN A. DENTI JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY LOUIS W. CHEFFY BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY LISA H. BARNETT BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY ANDREW H. REISS WILLIAM J. DEMPSEY STANLEY A. BUNNER, JR. FRANK J. CAMPOAMOR OF COUNSEL: R. SCOTT PRICE You have asked that we review the ownership of the Pelican Bay berm, Oakmont Park, Ridgewood Park and Hammock Oak Park, and determine what rights the Pelican Bay Services District has in said properties, if any. In reaching the following opinions, we relied on ownership and encumbrance searches performed by Attorneys Title Insurance Fund. The legal descriptions searched were provided to us by the Foundation and we did not independently verify the completeness of the legal descriptions. The documents disclosed by the searches were voluminous, and in an effort to provide you with a coherent opinion, the statements of law and fact contained in this memorandum are summary in nature. Upon request, we will gladly provide you with a more detailed analysis. I. Ownership. We reviewed title to the south berm, the north berm, the berm west of St. Lucia, Hamock Oak Park, Ridgewood Park, Oakmont Park (the "Properties ") and the portion of the berm owned by Gulf Bay Land Investments, Inc., and Parcel J -1 Development, Inc. (the "Gulf Bay Property"). Title to the Properties was conveyed by several quit claim deeds from WCI Communities (and its predecessors in interest) to the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., and title to the Properties appears to be vested in the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. The Properties are subject to various easements in favor of the Pelican Bay Services District (formerly the Pelican Bay Improvement District) (the "PBSD "). Although the easements are not all identical, all of the easements specifically provide that i J k �O r February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5d. South Berm Permitting (2003 Berm Ownership Memo submitted by D. Trecker) Page 3 of 4 1612 the easements are for drainage purposes. This includes construction and maintenance of drainage facilities. Additionally, all of the easements provide that the Grantee (i.e., PBSD) is responsible for the maintenance of the easements and, in maintaining the easements, will not interfere with the Grantor's right of ingress and egress (or the rights of ingress and egress of its successors and assigns). The easements further provide that if the Grantees or their successors fail to use the easements for the purpose intended, then the Grantee, its successors or assigns, will vacate the easement or relevant portion thereof. Some of the easements specifically provide that they are private easements between Grantors and Grantee and specifically state "neither the general public nor any purchaser of property encumbered by this easement shall acquire any right, title or interest in or to the easement area." Finally, it is worth noting that some of the easements state that the Grantor (i.e., WCI Communities or their predecessors in interest) agrees for itself and its successors and assigns that it will be responsible for any and all repairs, replacements and maintenance or restoration of improvements and landscaping, including sodding over the easement area, except for repairs and replacements required by the grantees activities. As part of our review, we also reviewed the relevant plats. Again, although the dedications in each plat differ, none of the plats contain language which would have the effect of dedicating any of the PBSD drainage easements to the public. In fact, several of the plats specifically provide: "Easements to the Pelican Bay Improvement District shown in the plat are shown merely for informational purposes and are not dedicated hereby... Neither the public nor any purchaser shall acquire any right, title or interest in or to the PBID easement areas by virtue of this plat." Based on the above, it is our opinion that title to the Properties is vested in the Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc., subject to the drainage easements in favor of the PBSD, which are private easements and confer no rights on the public. 11. Anal,. A general principle governing all easements is that the burden upon the servient estate must not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the easement was created. Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1" DCA 1984). Where an easement specifically states the uses or purposes for which it was created, the use of the easement must be strictly confined those purposes and cannot be enlarged by any change in the use or character of the dominant estate. Id. Further, although the courts recognize that easements carry with them an implied right to do what is necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, that right is limited and must be exercised in a reasonable manner so as not to injuriously increase the burden on the servient estate. Id. Thus, where, as here, the easements specifically state that they are for drainage purposes and maintenance of drainage facilities, the PBSD does not have right to expand the scope of the easements. Another principle of law governing easements is that an easement is distinct from the right to occupy and enjoy the land itself. It gives no title to the land on which it is imposed and is not a possessory interest. Platt v. Pietras, 382 So.2d 414 (Fla. S`s DCA 1980). Although the PBSD may February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular es o j� 5d. South Berm Permitting (2003 Berm Ownership Memo sub d7D.Trec er «<111 Page 4 of 4 } ij, own the actual utility facilities placed within the easement areas, the PBSD does not have any claim to ownership of the land and cannot claim a possessory interest in the land encumbered by the easements. Also, the easements specifically prohibit the PBSD from interfering with the rights of ingress or egress of Grantor and its successors and assigns. Finally, it is our understanding that the PBSD has taken the position that it is not required to comply with the Declaration and General Protective Covenants for Pelican Bay (the 'Declaration "). Some of the easements in favor of the PBSD were recorded prior to the Declaration (copies of those easements are enclosed). The subsequent recording of the Declaration did not bind the PBSD since the PBSD does not appear to have joined in and consented to the Declaration. However, there are also easements in favor of the PBSD that were recorded subsequent to the Declaration. The Declaration contains covenants that run with the land. This means that any person or entity with any right, title or interest in the land, takes that interest subject to the Declaration once it is recorded. Although there is case law in Florida which provides that a governmental entity which takes title to real property by eminent domain is not subject to restrictive covenants, we were not able to locate case law which exempts a governmental entity with only easement rights from complying with use restrictions governing the use of real property. Based on the above, it is our opinion that the Declaration is binding on the PBSD only with regard to its rights to use the easements that were recorded subsequent to Declaration. However, regardless of whether the PBSD must comply with the Declaration, the PBSD does not have the right to expand the scope of the easements granted and any signage or improvements made by the PBSD that are not reasonably related to the use of the easements for drainage and maintenance purposes would be prohibited without the consent of the Foundation. ; ; F:\ wpd ocs\RE\PebcaoBayFowadxioa\Board or D'sectots-- bemi&Oakmoncwpd 3 t �5 i Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - January 27, 2012 Operating Fund 109 (Unaudited) Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Vehicles Due from Property Appraiser Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Accrued Wages Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance Assets 2,410,134.30 27,761.00 1612 A ZU $ 2,437,895.30 $ 2,437,895.30 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 28,990.69 33,701.50 1,292,615.54 1,082,587.57 $ 62,692.19 2,375,203.11 $ 2,437,895.30 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 41,861.25 $ 4,138.75 Engineering Fees 161 4,000.00 •� 3,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 2,331.33 812.65 1,518.68 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program ._ "' Pelican Bay Services - 2,831.33 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 7,500.00 - 7,500.00 Municipal Services Taxing Unit - - - Other Contractural Services w Income Statement w/ Budget - January 27, 2012 13.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 16,100.00 18,387.00 (2,287.00) Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 500.00 200.00 108.12 91.88 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,200.00 (Unaudited) 983.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General Annual YTD 1,150.00 YTD Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 Budget Budget 1,700.00 Actual - Variance Fleet Maintenance and Parts Operating Revenues: 1,800.00 514.79 1,285.21 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 3,000.00 888.51 Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 Special Assessment - Water Management Admin 666,300.00 553,029.00 555,424.10 2,395.10 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,583,474.00 1,590,176.45 6,702.45 Special Assessment Past Due 2,603.19 2,603.19 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - Surplus Property Sales - - Insurance Payment for Damages - - Interest 15,300.00 5,098.00 13,532.32 8,434.32 Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,263,901.00 $ 3,284,036.06 $ 20,135.06 Operating Expenditures: Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 14,300.00 $ 13,396.88 $ 903.12 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 100.00 100.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 1,200.00 1,100.00 100.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 9,000.00 6,216.00 2,784.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,300.00 705.50 594.50 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 200.00 107.69 92.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 3,800.00 4,274.00 (474.00) Insurance - General 1,200.00 600.00 600.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,300.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording Fees 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Other Office and Operating Supplies 2,000.00 700.00 178.49 521.51 Training and Education 1,100.00 400.00 85.00 315.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 74,500.00 $ 69,013.56 $ 5,486.44 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 41,861.25 $ 4,138.75 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 4,000.00 236.25 3,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 2,331.33 812.65 1,518.68 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 2,831.33 - 2,831.33 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 7,500.00 - 7,500.00 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 300.00 286.42 13.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 16,100.00 18,387.00 (2,287.00) Telephone 500.00 200.00 108.12 91.88 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,200.00 2,216.87 983.13 Motor Pool Rental Charge 100.00 - - - Insurance - General 2,300.00 1,150.00 1,150.00 Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 - - - Fleet Maintenance and Parts 5,400.00 1,800.00 514.79 1,285.21 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 3,000.00 888.51 2,111.49 Tree Triming 30,000.00 10,000.00 7,488.00 2,512.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 500.00 634.56 (134.56) Page 1 of 3 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 28,450.00 $ 30,976.02 $ (2,526.02) Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 279,500.00 $ 16.1 A 6 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200.00 491.34 (291.34) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 28,400.00 30,073.11 (1,673.11) Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 500.00 268.75 231.25 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,300.00 2,830.51 (530.51) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 130,762.67 $ 108,698.13 $ 22,064.54 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 3,200.00 1,100.00 681.99 418.01 Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 14,700.00 $ 13,801.94 $ 898.06 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 100.00 100.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 5,700.00 3,500.00 2,200.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 - 7,723.00 (7,723.00) Telephone 3,900.00 1,300.00 705.50 594.50 Postage 3,000.00 300.00 (92.28) 392.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 4,200.00 4,617.55 (417.55) Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 - 200.00 Clerk's Recording 2,000.00 200.00 49,759.25 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 800.00 285.31 514.69 Training and Education 1,500.00 500.00 85.00 415.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 28,450.00 $ 30,976.02 $ (2,526.02) Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 279,500.00 $ 255,280.61 $ 24,219.39 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - - - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 32,100.00 28,868.18 3,231.82 Pest Control 5,000.00 1,700.00 800.00 900.00 Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 800.00 154.58 645.42 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 9,800.00 14,279.00 (4,479.00) Temporary Labor 190,100.00 77,400.00 77,999.54 (599.54) Telephone 3,200.00 1,100.00 681.99 418.01 Electricity 3,400.00 1,100.00 411.21 688.79 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 5,200.00 4,751.48 448.52 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 800.00 1,105.48 (305.48) Motor Pool Rental Charge 300.00 100.00 76.93 23.07 Insurance - General 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 - Insurance - Auto 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 - Building Repairs and Maintenance 1,700.00 600.00 - 600.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 8,400.00 9,216.34 (816.34) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 22,400.00 10,508.36 11,891.64 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 300.00 - 300.00 Tree Triming 63,600.00 51,200.00 49,759.25 1,440.75 Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 2,300.00 2,692.21 (392.21) Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,000.00 644.34 355.66 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 20,600.00 22,342.37 (1,742.37) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 25,300.00 31,326.75 (6,026.75) Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 23,900.00 21,987.40 1,912.60 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 2,000.00 - 2,000.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 10,000.00 2,017.60 7,982.40 Painting Supplies 800.00 300.00 24.68 275.32 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,000.00 - 1,000.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,000.00 1,184.13 (184.13) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 3,000.00 2,790.90 209.10 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 592,300.00 $ 548,303.33 $ 43,996.67 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 826,012.67 $ 756,991.04 $ 69,021.63 Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 161 Z Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment $ 1,000.00 $ $ - $ General Improvements - Total Water Management Field Operations Capital $ 1,000.00 $ $ - $ Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks $ 102,000.00 $ 30,600.00 $ 27,761.00 $ 2,839.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 30,600.00 $ 27,761.00 $ 2,839.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 30,600.00 $ 27,761.00 $ 2,839.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 856,612.67 $ 784,752.04 $ 71,860.63 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 43,780.00 42,912.01 867.99 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,134.55 2,180.45 Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 Reserves for Equipment 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 Reserved for Attrition (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) Revenue Reserve 129,500.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,123,995.00 $ 1,120,946.56 $ 3,048.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 1,980,607.67 $ 1,905,698.60 $ 74,909.07 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 1,283,293.33 $ 1,378,337.46 $ 95,044.13 Page 3 of 3 A 2U- 161 L Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - January 27, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments $ 480,764.10 Interest Receivable - Due from Tax Collector - Total Current Assets $ 480,764.10 Total Assets $ 480,764.10 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable $ - Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd 28.00 Accrued Wages Payable - Total Liabilities $ 28.00 Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved 194,157.20 Excess Revenue (Expenditures) 286,578.90 Total Fund Balance 480,736.10 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 480,764.10 A 2U- A1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - January 27, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: Ca rryforwa rd Curent Ad Valorem Tax Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Insurance Claim Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Street Lighting Administration Payroll Expense Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractural Services Telephone Postage and Freight Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage Insurance - General Office Supplies General Other Office and Operating Supplies Total Street Lighting Admin Operating Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Other Contractual Services Telephone Electricity Insurance - General Insurance - Auto Building Maintenace & Repairs Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Other Equipment Repairs Personal Safety Equipment Other Operating Supplies Electrical Contractors $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - 436,800.00 358,176.00 356,844.56 $ (1,331.44) $ - 15.36 $ 15.36 6,216.00 $ 10,366.50 $ 10,366.50 4,500.00 1,485.00 4,217.41 $ 2,732.41 598,900.00 517,261.00 529,043.83 $ 11,782.83 $ 41,400.00 $ 14,300.00 $ 13,396.52 $ 903.48 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 8,966.67 6,216.00 $ 2,750.67 3,900.00 $ 1,300.00 540.71 $ 759.29 2,000.00 $ 200.00 107.69 $ 92.31 12,100.00 $ 4,000.00 4,470.80 $ (470.80) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 300.00 15.36 $ 284.64 1,000.00 $ 300.00 - $ 300.00 93,700.00 32,166.67 27,547.08 4,619.59 62,500.00 21,600.00 19,732.74 1,867.26 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 200.00 - 200.00 400.00 100.00 108.12 (8.12) 44,200.00 11,100.00 8,769.00 2,331.00 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 1,100.00 755.02 344.98 11200.00 300.00 106.80 193.20 200.00 100.00 - 100.00 500.00 100.00 - 100.00 64.40 (64.40) 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) Page 1 of 2 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 74,016.67 63,144.34 10,872.33 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 7,155.00 161 L A ZU Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 2,500.00 1,312.18 1,187.82 Total Street Lighting Field Operating 146,800.00 41,650.00 35,597.26 6,052.74 Total Field Expenditures 240,500.00 73,816.67 63,144.34 10,672.33 Capital Expenditures: 22,000.00 - - Street Lighting Field Operations Total Non - Operating Expenditures Other Machinery /Equipment 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 General Improvements - - - - Total Capital Expenditures 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 74,016.67 63,144.34 10,872.33 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 7,155.00 7,179.74 (24.74) Property Appraiser Fees 8,900.00 4,895.00 - 4,895.00 Reserve for Future Construction 228,100.00 228,100.00 228,100.00 Reserves (2 1/2 mos. for Operations) 54,900.00 54,900.00 54,900.00 - Reserves for Equipment 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 - Revenue Reserve 22,000.00 - - Total Non - Operating Expenditures 357,400.00 325,050.00 320,179.74 4,870.26 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 399,066.67 383,324.08 15,742.59 Net Profit /(Loss) - 118,194.33 145,719.75 27,525.42 Page 2 of 2 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets y�w Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received /Inventory Recv'd Accrued Wages Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - January 27, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 383,534.06 1612 X24' 383,534.06 $ 383,534.06 Liabilities and Fund Balance 3,090.00 3,090.00 303,213.58 77,230.48 380,444.06 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 383,534.06 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Special Assessment Special Assessment Past Due Fund 111 Transfer from Tax Collector Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: Clam Bay Restoration Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Tree Trimming Other Equipment Repairs Aerial Photography Minor Operating Other Operating Supplies Total Clam Bay Restoration Clam Bay Ecosystem Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services 1612 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - January 27, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual $ 289,511.88 $ 127,100.00 34,000.00 700.00 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 108,035.00 105,927.50 496.47 939.67 400.00 458.57 $ 451,311.88 $ 397,946.88 $ 397,334.09 $ (612.79) W_� Variance (2,107.50) 496.47 939.67 58.57 $ 163,368.75 $ 54,500.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 36,842.25 70,151.60 23,400.00 7,488.00 15,912.00 29,000.00 9,700.00 - 9,700.00 349.77 - - - 7,500.00 - - 588.01 - - - 1,000.00 - - - $ 271,958.13 $ 87,600.00 $ 25,145.75 $ 62,454.25 $ 7,253.75 $ 100.00 $ - $ 100.00 143,000.00 1,200.00 - 1,200.00 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem $ 150,253.75 $ Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ Non - Operating Expenditures: 1,300.00 $ - $ 1,300.00 88,900.00 $ 25,145.75 $ 63,754.25 Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 2,118.55 $ 26.45 Property Appraiser Fees 2,600.00 1,558.00 1,482.37 75.63 Revenue Reserve 6,700.00 - - Reserves (2 1/2 month for Operations) 15,900.00 15,900.00 15,900.00 - Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 19,603.00 $ 19,500.92 $ 102.08 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 108,503.00 $ 44,646.67 $ 63,856.33 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 289,443.88 $ 352,687.42 $ 63,243.54 Page 1 of 1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - January 27, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets 1642p20:.. $ 2,665,858.34 Liabilities and Fund Balance Current Liabilities Accounts /Trade Payable Goods Received Inv. Received Total Liabilities Fund Balance Fund Balance - unreserved Excess Revenues (Expenditures) Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 110,095.49 11,612.58 2,582,848.52 (38,698.25) 2,665,858.34 $ 2,665,858.34 121,708.07 2,544,150.27 $ 2,665,858.34 Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenditures: 1612 A20 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - January 27, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Irrigation & Landscaping Engineering Fees Lake Bank Restoration Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Licenses and Permits Traffic Signs Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Total Irrigation & Landscaping Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserve for Contingencies Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures: Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ 2,553,384.04 $ - 436,500.00 436,500.00 436,500.00 - - - 53,487.00 53,487.00 331,900.00 278,796.00 276,574.45 (2,221.55) 19,500.00 6,435.00 16,297.74 9,862.74 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,275,115.04 $ 3,336,243.23 $ 61,128.19 $ 132,154.37 $ 44,051.46 $ 9,387.15 $ 34,664.31 85,000.00 - - - 2,978,637.97 992,879.32 421,457.07 571,422.25 4,164.19 (4,164.19) 43,031.00 (43,031.00) 1,000.00 (1,000.00) 50,000.00 - - - 7,004.18 (7,004.18) 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 21,323.00 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 1,076,499.48 $ 524,597.19 $ 551,902.29 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,180.00 $ 5,531.53 $ 648.47 6,800.00 4,080.00 3,896.51 183.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,260.00 $ 9,428.04 $ 831.96 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 1,086,759.48 $ 534,025.23 $ 552,734.25 $ - $ 2,188,355.56 $ 2,802,218.00 $ 613,862.44 Page 1 of 1 February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence (submitted by S. O'Brien) re: Survey Page 1 of 1 From: Susan 0 "Brien 161.2 20 To: ResnickLisa Subject: pathway widening, etc. Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:57:44 AM Hi Lisa, I would appreciate your distributing this to the other directors as a one -way communication. I talked with Stephen Birnkrant at Amplitutude Research, Inc. in Boca Raton, FL to get a ballpark cost estimate of a questionnaire on topics of interest to the PBSD, e.g. widening /repairs to pathways; bike lanes on PBB; funding for resurfacing PBB; doing additional crosswalks and landscape upgrades; and lighting upgrades, etc. He said if we have a number of different topics in the questionnaire, then doing a written survey (versus a telephone survey) is needed. With about 6500 units, he would mail 1000 surveys randomly. Cost would range from about $5500 to compile the data gleaned from the questionnaire results to about $8000 which would include a longer narrative of the questionnaire results. The time from the day the Board decided to do the survey until the Board has the survey results would range from about 6 to 8 weeks. If the time to finalize the questions on the survey is limited to about 2 weeks, then the Board could have the questionnaire data in about 6 weeks. I found Amplitude Research via a google search. I realize this company is one of thousands that does questionnaires, but it does give us a starting point with some basic information. Susan O'Brien 1612 A20 CLAM BAY MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT MANGROVE MONITORING REPORT BY: TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR: THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION DECEMBER 201 1 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report ^ A 2 ^ O December 6 12 ber 2011 Introduction The Clam Bay estuarine system is a 570 -acre area of sandy beaches, shallow bays, seagrass beds and mangrove forests on the coast of Collier County in southwest Florida. The community of Pelican Bay abuts the northern and eastern edges of the system, while the Seagate and Naples Cay communities abut the southern portion of the system. The Clam Bay estuarine system is an important natural and recreational resource for local residents and visitors. Clam Bay was designated a Natural Resource Protection Area by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County in 1994 (Collier County, 1994) and consists of approximately 420 acres of mangroves and some 115 acres of shallow, open water bays, as well as a 35 acre beachfront parcel (Clam Pass Beach Park). The system consists of three primary bays; Outer Clam Bay (southernmost), Inner Clam Bay (central), and Upper Clam Bay (northernmost), connected by a series of tidal creeks. The entire system receives runoff from adjacent upland and wetland areas. Upper Clam Bay is connected to Inner Clam Bay by a winding narrow creek. Inner Clam Bay is connected to Clam Pass through another narrow creek. Outer Clam Bay is connected to the Gulf of Mexico by a wider creek through Clam Pass. Some water also flows south to Doctor's pass through the culverts under Seagate Drive. Clam Pass is a small, marginally stable inlet that has migrated north and south along the shore over the years. Prior to dredging, average water depths were -2.5' to -1.0' with a width of 30 -50' (Collier County, 1994). The Pass remains the primary source of tidal exchange for the Clam Bay system, but it is restricted by sediment deposits just inside the pass and in the long meandering tidal creeks surrounded by mangrove forests. The smaller embayments located primarily to the north of the pass are not subject to normal tidal exchange except during exceptionally high tides. Tidal range is restricted throughout the Clam Bay system (Turrell 1995; Tackney 1996). Clam Bay Restoration and Management 161 r/� n r � Biological Monitoring H (,/� U Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 The system is bounded on the north by Vanderbilt Beach Road, to the south by Seagate Drive, to the east by the Pelican Bay development and to the west by the Gulf of Mexico. Pelican Bay is predominately a residential community of private single - family homes, as well as both high and low -rise condominium units. The community also includes a golf course, common areas with meeting rooms, tennis courts, beach park facilities, emergency services facilities, and commercial areas with shopping and hotels. The 2,104 -acre Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in 1977 as a partnership between Collier Enterprises and Westinghouse Communities. It was one of the first developments in Florida required to save fragile coastal wetlands and associated ecosystems (Urban Land Institute, 1981). The development of Pelican Bay had a limited impact on the wetlands themselves (approximately 94 acres in total with about 78 of those acres located in the northwestern corner of the property) leaving the mangrove forest intact and preserved around the bays. In 1992 a small area of dead black mangroves was first observed in the northern part of the system. In 1995 a significant area (approximately 50 acres) of dead and dying mangroves was reported ( Turrell, 1996). Following the die -off, restorative dredging was proposed to increase tidal flushing by opening up the pass and widening several tidal creeks within the system. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (permit #0128463 - 001 -JC) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (permit #199602789 (IP -CC)), authorized restoration activities in the Clam Bay system, in an effort to restore the mangrove communities that had died off. The restoration activities permitted by state and federal agency permits required a suite of monitoring activities to assess effects of the work efforts. Those permits expired in 2009 however, the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), in an effort to remain informed of the condition of the system, and vigilant in their protection of it, pursued new permits in order to continue the maintenance of the flushing channels within the forest areas. Permits were granted by DEP (permit #11- 0128463 -005) and ACOE (permit #1996- 02789) authorizing this activity. Like the previous permits, the new permits require annual monitoring of mangrove and other components within the system. This document presents a summary of the mangrove and seagrass monitoring which has taken place within this past year. Mangrove Monitoring Methodology The mangrove monitoring undertaken this year was a continuation of monitoring which was initiated under the old permits. The eleven existing Turrell, Hall monitoring plots and the eight existing Lewis mangrove plots were observed. The previously established monitoring procedures were conducted. These included documenting the number and species of trees within the plot, as well as their approximate height. Each monitoring plot is a measured l Om x l Om square staked at each corner and marked in the center with a labeled PVC piping. Monitoring activities included enumeration and mapping of living and dead trees with diameters at breast height (DBH) recorded for all living trees with a DBH greater than 2.5cm. Seedlings were identified by species and numbers were estimated by count or percent cover (where high numbers make individual enumeration difficult). In 2003, each measured tree was tagged and identified with a plot specific number to allow for easier tracking of individual trees as well as to allow easier comparisons over time. Any saplings that grow to sufficient size ( >2.5cm DBH) between monitoring events are added to the tree counts and Clam-Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 receive tags and numbers as well. 1612 A420 Photographs were taken and any additional observations, including standing water, wildlife or signs of stress are noted. Time, tide, and prevailing weather conditions were also noted for each survey. Meandering transects were walked throughout the system to inspect stressed areas or to observe areas of concern related by residents of the community or identified through examination of aerial photographs. These surveys are conducted throughout the year as needed. Observations made during these pedestrian transects are noted in the general biological discussion of this report. A photographic timeline was also initiated this past year. Concerns expressed by residents led to the establishment of photo points on the roofs of two condominium buildings adjacent to the mangrove area. Quarterly photos are taken from fixed positions on the roof of the Montenero and the Grovesnor condominium buildings. Over time, comparisons can be made of the photographs to determine if any additional die -off or gradual changes are occurring. Each year, scale rectified aerial photographs are taken of the Clam Bay System by Aerial Cartographics of America. The aerials are produced at 200 -scale in both color and infrared versions. These annual photos can then used to compare recovery and die -off areas for the annual reports. Mangrove Monitoring Results A summary of the 19 monitoring plots have been included on the following pages. Plot discussions, comparative photographs, and tree compositions have been included on each individual plot page. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 1 Changes have once again been noted in this plot since last monitoring period. Seedling growth has continued as can be seen with more saplings reaching the measurable 2.5 cm dbh. Sine the past hurricane damage to the mature red mangroves within this plot, mangrove seedlings and sapling growth continues to reestablish the overall health of the plot. The new documented growth has filled in the previous damaged areas of the plot indicating the continued progress of this plot. The canopy is now dominated by red mangroves and the once dominant white mangroves have started to be outnumbered by the reds, resulting in their overall decline. The groundcover consists of both white and red mangrove seedlings. 2010 2011 N O% >f V Plot 1 30 25 d L > 20 ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm 0 15 ■5.1 -10.0 cm 10 ❑> 10.0 cm M, E z' S 0 Red Black White Species Plot 1 Changes have once again been noted in this plot since last monitoring period. Seedling growth has continued as can be seen with more saplings reaching the measurable 2.5 cm dbh. Sine the past hurricane damage to the mature red mangroves within this plot, mangrove seedlings and sapling growth continues to reestablish the overall health of the plot. The new documented growth has filled in the previous damaged areas of the plot indicating the continued progress of this plot. The canopy is now dominated by red mangroves and the once dominant white mangroves have started to be outnumbered by the reds, resulting in their overall decline. The groundcover consists of both white and red mangrove seedlings. 2010 2011 N O% >f V Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 2 The overall progress of this plot continues to be most noticeable within the understory growth and the large red mangroves. The plot is dominated by red mangroves in the canopy with many new seedlings comprising the understory cover. The seedlings will continue to increase in size over the years with many added this year and many others expected to reach the measurable size class in the next couple of years. The overall condition of this plot is good and should continue to progress. 2010 2011 V Plot 2 30 25 20 ■2.5 -5.0cm c 15 0 5.1 -10.0 cm 10 13 > 10.0 cm E Z 5 0 Red Black White Species Plot 2 The overall progress of this plot continues to be most noticeable within the understory growth and the large red mangroves. The plot is dominated by red mangroves in the canopy with many new seedlings comprising the understory cover. The seedlings will continue to increase in size over the years with many added this year and many others expected to reach the measurable size class in the next couple of years. The overall condition of this plot is good and should continue to progress. 2010 2011 V Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 2010 Plot 3 This plot has made some considerable improvements over the past few monitoring periods. Red mangroves are now the dominant species with numerous whites still growing in this plot. Increases have been noted in terms of trees moving up in size classes. While most of the increase has been in red mangroves seedlings that have now reached the 2.5 cm dbh size, both white and reds size increases have been observed. Red mangrove seedlings continue to be the dominant groundcover and comprise now about 50% of the midstory growth. The overall biological condition of this plot has improved throughout the past monitoring period and continued progress should be expected. 2011 &M-% C Plot 3 35 N 30 - r 25 -- - - - - -- ■2.5 -5.0cm 20 ° ■ 5.1 - 10.0 cm 15 m ❑ > 10.0 cm E 10 Z 5 0 Red Black White Species 2010 Plot 3 This plot has made some considerable improvements over the past few monitoring periods. Red mangroves are now the dominant species with numerous whites still growing in this plot. Increases have been noted in terms of trees moving up in size classes. While most of the increase has been in red mangroves seedlings that have now reached the 2.5 cm dbh size, both white and reds size increases have been observed. Red mangrove seedlings continue to be the dominant groundcover and comprise now about 50% of the midstory growth. The overall biological condition of this plot has improved throughout the past monitoring period and continued progress should be expected. 2011 &M-% C Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 2010 Plot 4 This plot, which is located in a stressed area near the berm, remains in a degraded condition. A large amount of exotic treatment has occurred in and around the plot which needs to be continued. Leather fern still comprises the majority of the groundcover. Coin vine and salt bush are also present. Brazilian pepper has become established in this area and requires continued treatment. The mangrove trees within this plot are still trying to recover but a lot of dead trees and stumps remain standing. The leather fern, vines, and other midstory and groundcover vegetation are depressing the regeneration of mangrove seedlings and the overall recovery continues to be affected. No positive gain was documented this monitoring period. 2011 }.-� an - F v Plot 4 30 25 L > 20 ■2.5 -5.0cm J 15 ■5.1 -10.0 cm 0 `m 10 O > 10.0 cm r 5 Z 0 -AfD::: Red Black White Species 2010 Plot 4 This plot, which is located in a stressed area near the berm, remains in a degraded condition. A large amount of exotic treatment has occurred in and around the plot which needs to be continued. Leather fern still comprises the majority of the groundcover. Coin vine and salt bush are also present. Brazilian pepper has become established in this area and requires continued treatment. The mangrove trees within this plot are still trying to recover but a lot of dead trees and stumps remain standing. The leather fern, vines, and other midstory and groundcover vegetation are depressing the regeneration of mangrove seedlings and the overall recovery continues to be affected. No positive gain was documented this monitoring period. 2011 }.-� an - F v Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 5 This plot consists of both red and black mangroves with red being the dominant species. A few of the established blacks died in this plot during the main die -off however they have continued to grow through the monitoring period. New growth is dominated by red mangroves. Many young red seedlings increased in size this monitoring period to the extent that they were added to the number of measurable trees. The canopy is still about 50/50 red and black mangroves, but in the next few years the reds should start to dominate. The overall condition of this plot continues to improve. More trees were added and many more are expected to reach measurable size the next couple of years. 2010 2011 igE Q Plot 5 30 25 d Z 20 0 2.5 -5.0 cm 0 15 0 5.1 -10.0 cm 10 0> 10.0 cm E z 5 0 - I i I I I Red Black White Species Plot 5 This plot consists of both red and black mangroves with red being the dominant species. A few of the established blacks died in this plot during the main die -off however they have continued to grow through the monitoring period. New growth is dominated by red mangroves. Many young red seedlings increased in size this monitoring period to the extent that they were added to the number of measurable trees. The canopy is still about 50/50 red and black mangroves, but in the next few years the reds should start to dominate. The overall condition of this plot continues to improve. More trees were added and many more are expected to reach measurable size the next couple of years. 2010 2011 igE Q Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 6 Trees continue to increase in size and recruitment of both red and whites continues to rebound. The documented success is likely due to the latest flushing cut having been constructed adjacent to this plot last year. The plot will continue to recover and several measurable trees have been added to the count this past monitoring period with others to be added in years to come. Biological health of this plot has continued to benefit from the flushing cuts and restoration activities enacted within the system. 2010 2011 M) R� r V Plot 6 30 25 aD 20 ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm 0 15 -- - -- ■5.1 -10.0 cm 10 [3 > 10.0 cm .40) Z 5 - 0 - Red Black White Species Plot 6 Trees continue to increase in size and recruitment of both red and whites continues to rebound. The documented success is likely due to the latest flushing cut having been constructed adjacent to this plot last year. The plot will continue to recover and several measurable trees have been added to the count this past monitoring period with others to be added in years to come. Biological health of this plot has continued to benefit from the flushing cuts and restoration activities enacted within the system. 2010 2011 M) R� r V Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 7 This plot is located in a die -off area that was criss- crossed with flushing channels in 1999. Since then, the plot first experienced dramatic growth of white mangroves and with a few red mangrove seedlings also becoming established. This year and last year revealed an increase in die -off of the existing whites along with an increase in the number of black and red seedlings. The trees have continued to fill out the midstory growth and recent damage to the canopy is a result of the increase numbers of reds and blacks. This is a good sign that the biological health of the plot is improving and the reds will soon be the dominate species within this plot. 2010 2011 I-" 0 N O Plot 7 16 14 - - y d 12 - - - -- -- - -- 10 ■2.5 -5.Ocm c 8 - ■5.1 -10.0 cm o 6 ❑ > 10.0 cm M E4 -- - - - - - -- - - -- z 2 0 Red Black White Species Plot 7 This plot is located in a die -off area that was criss- crossed with flushing channels in 1999. Since then, the plot first experienced dramatic growth of white mangroves and with a few red mangrove seedlings also becoming established. This year and last year revealed an increase in die -off of the existing whites along with an increase in the number of black and red seedlings. The trees have continued to fill out the midstory growth and recent damage to the canopy is a result of the increase numbers of reds and blacks. This is a good sign that the biological health of the plot is improving and the reds will soon be the dominate species within this plot. 2010 2011 I-" 0 N O Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 8 This plot saw another increase in the number of measurable white mangroves, which is the dominant species. We anticipate many additional saplings will continue to grow and soon reach the measurable 2.5cm dbh size class in the next couple of years. This plot's overall condition has improved with much additional midstory growth as seen in the photos below. The recovery of this plot has lagged behind some of the other areas in the past but seems to have fully rebounded since the last few monitoring periods. Ground cover within this plot is dense due to all the new red and white mangrove seedling coverage. 2010 2011 N C Plot 8 30 0 25 9 > 20 ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm 0 15 ■5.1 -10.0 cm 10 [3 > 10.0 cm .40, E z' 5 0 Red Black White Species Plot 8 This plot saw another increase in the number of measurable white mangroves, which is the dominant species. We anticipate many additional saplings will continue to grow and soon reach the measurable 2.5cm dbh size class in the next couple of years. This plot's overall condition has improved with much additional midstory growth as seen in the photos below. The recovery of this plot has lagged behind some of the other areas in the past but seems to have fully rebounded since the last few monitoring periods. Ground cover within this plot is dense due to all the new red and white mangrove seedling coverage. 2010 2011 N C Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 9 This plot has struggled to rebound due to the amount of Brazilian pepper and leather fern infestation. Maintenance activities are ongoing and need to continue to help ensure the plot will fully rebound. The density of midstory vegetation and amount of fallen dead trees and other debris in the plot forced new boundaries to be established which resulted in slightly mixed data for this and last monitoring periods. No new significant mangrove growth was observed this year and we believe this is due to the heavy groundcover precluding seedling recruitment. There are a few small red and white mangroves that could become measurable within the next few years. 2010 2011 f"11 0 ..•., M Plot 9 30 ayi 25 d > 20 ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm 0 15 ■5.1 -10.0 cm 10 [I > 10.0 cm z 5 0 Red Black White Species Plot 9 This plot has struggled to rebound due to the amount of Brazilian pepper and leather fern infestation. Maintenance activities are ongoing and need to continue to help ensure the plot will fully rebound. The density of midstory vegetation and amount of fallen dead trees and other debris in the plot forced new boundaries to be established which resulted in slightly mixed data for this and last monitoring periods. No new significant mangrove growth was observed this year and we believe this is due to the heavy groundcover precluding seedling recruitment. There are a few small red and white mangroves that could become measurable within the next few years. 2010 2011 f"11 0 ..•., M Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 50 45 aNi 40 as 35 > 30 c 25 d 20 E 15 Z 10 5 0 Plot 10 Red Black White Species ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm ■ 5.1 - 10.0 cm ❑ > 10.0 cm 2010 Plot 10 This plot continues to show continued growth since last monitoring period and especially since the monitoring started 12 years ago. White and red mangroves have increased in size and sapling recruitment of both has also increased. Whites especially seem to be the dominant species and have continued to increase dramatically in numbers. The canopy is still dominated by white mangroves while the groundcover consists of additional white, red seedlings and some Batis growing. Overall this plot is doing well and will continue to recover as many new white and red seedlings begin to reach maturity. 2011 rV. C Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 11 30 m25 — -- - -- - - - 20 > ■ 2.5 - 5.0 cm c 15 — ■5.1 -10.0 cm 10 O> 10.0 cm E Z 5 0 Red Black White Species 2010 Plot 11 This past monitoring period indicated additional damages in this plot by the increased number of downed trees scattered throughout the area. The rebound that was documented in the past monitoring periods has been lost. We believe that this down turn may be due to finals stages of stress induced by the hurricanes 5 and 6 years ago. Continued monitoring of this plot will be undertaken to document and new regeneration or any continued decline. We do believe that there are several new mangrove saplings that are going to be approaching the measurable class size. This regeneration should be closely watched in the upcoming years. 2011 F--16 en� N Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Lewis Plots Plot 1 100 80 — N 2 60 0 40 H 20 0 Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 1 This plot was not monitored last year due to the dense mangrove growth in and around this plot. This year revealed a healthy plot overall with numerous white mangroves that will slowly reduce in number as the reds and blacks begin to take over the plot. 11-- OIN N C Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 2 16 14 12 10 t° 8 LO 6 ~ 4 2 0 Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 2 This plot has seen much improvement in the overall number of trees. In comparison to some of the other plots the total number of trees is considerable lower however the overall quality of the mangroves are good. Additional growth is expected to continue and the overall numbers will continue to rise. i M) IN Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 3 100 90 - -- - 80 -- 70 — c 60 - -- F- 50 -- 40 - — -- ~ 30 — -- 20 10 0 Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 3 This plot contains numerous amounts of mangroves with the whites being the dominate species. Progress will continue to be made as this plot and the surrounding area is thriving. Groundcover consist mainly Batis and numerous seedlings. I"",' � ^ r j C Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 4 100 80 y 2 60 0 !4) 40 - H 20 0- Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 4 This plot has transitioned from being dominated in the past by whites to now being dominated by reds and blacks. The increase in the number of black mangroves has risen sharply and should continue due to the amount of black seedlings within the plot. t,. % N 3> Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 5 50 40 N 2 30 0 20 10 0 Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 5 This plot does not have the large number of measurable mangroves at this time. However, with the high number of seedlings and considerable amount of groundcover improvements will continue to be made. r V Q Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 6 30 25 i N 20 2 0 15 10 5 0 Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 6 Since the past couple of monitoring periods this plot has gone through some considerable changes. Now with the red mangrove being the dominate species this plot has seen all three types be the dominate species and now has begun to establish itself and have the characteristics of a typical red mangrove forest. Increases in mangrove number could possible stabilize however the trees will continue to increase in size. N N 0 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 7 45 40 35 w 30 0 25 20 H 15 10 5 0, Laim Red White Black Mangrove Type Plot 7 This plot like many of the others has continued to progress over time. This plot has bounced back and slowly is becoming dominated with red mangroves that are out competing the whites resulting in their numbers decreasing, but this is part of the natural cycle. 1--"~ ON 1 V N O Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Plot 8 140 120 y 100 0 80 60 40 20 0 -! I I Red White Black Mnagrove Type Plot 8 This plot has seen a major increase in the overall number and health of existing and new mangrove growth. Now that this plot has been in a healthy state for the past few monitoring periods the overall number of trees has seemed to stabilize. The increase this past year is evident in the overall size of the existing mangroves, even though there has been an actual decrease in numbers the quality has improved and should continue. 1—" 0 Oman" t V Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Condominium Roof Photos 161.2 A Zp Montenero Roof July 2011 Montenero Roof October 2011 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 16I2 A 2U Grovesnor Roof January 2011 Grovesnor Roof October 2011 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 161,2 A2U Another issue that arose this year was the presence of a boring beetle attacking stressed trees in the early months of the year. Observations within the system and research into the life habits of many boring beetles led to the conclusion that white mangroves affected by the sustained cold temperatures in December 2010 and January 2011 were most susceptible to the beetle attack. Cold stress reduced the abilities of these trees to fight off the boring activities and many trees succumbed to them. Yellowing leaves, leaf drop, and eventual death of the tree was the result. Efforts were made to identify the beetle but since no adults were collected, it was not possible to identify the culprit down to the species level though it was narrowed down to some type of a flat- headed borer (Metallic beetles). Continued vigilance will be maintained to see if additional infestation occurs in healthy trees instead of just the already stressed ones. Borer damage to stressed tree Clam Bay Restoration and Management 1612 A 20 Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Seagrass Monitoring Methodology Seagrasses are a valuable biotic indicator of environmental health and the PBSD has recognized the value in maintaining viable conditions for seagrass growth. The original permitted dredging design- entailed impacts to seagrasses within the channel between Outer Clam Bay and Clam Pass. Monitoring over the life of the permit was designed to allow documentation of the regeneration or loss of seagrasses within the system and follow the effect of increased tidal flushing on seagrass aerial coverage and density within the potentially affected beds. These monitoring practices have continued in order to further document the overall health of the Clam Bay system. Monitoring methods include examination of aerial photographs and ground truthing by in -water and wading surveys. Accurate estimation of seagrass coverage is primarily hampered by visibility. The type of seagrass and limited visibility make estimation through examination of aerial photographs almost impossible. The most effective survey technique has been diving and wading transects and the most effective time has been at low tides when shallow water and substrate exposure make coverage estimation easier. Best effort was made to overcome the visibility obstacles in those areas that were deeper. Due to the ephemeral nature of the grasses being monitored, the survey methodology has been slightly modified from what was originally permitted in the 1998 permits. It was noted early on that the seagrasses shifted in location from year to year and that fixed quadrats in the same location year after year did not accurately depict seagrass coverage or presence within the Bay. More general observations of the presence of grasses along these transects have been used to locate the grass beds with the quadrat measurements used to quantify coverage within those areas where grasses are found. Grass beds in or adjacent to the transects are then mapped with a handheld GPS unit (Garmin 76c) and transferred to an aerial exhibit. Clam Bay Restoration and Management O Biological Monitoring 16,12 A Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Seagrass Results Outer Clam Bay: Transect 1 Transect one was surveyed with a surface supplied air source and snorkeling gear in water depths from 2 to 3 ft. Visibility was approximately 8 -10 inches and was easily reduced if sediments from the bottom were stirred up. Halodule beaudettei (Shoal grass) was found within quadrats 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, of this Transect. The general area of grasses along this transect remained consistent with last couple of years and has expanded slightly from the original pre- dredging monitoring. Densities of grasses was higher in some areas and lower in others but overall was generally consistent with last years results. In addition to the grasses, oysters (Crassostrea virginica) were also observed along the mangrove fringe line. Oyster clumps (approximately 6 inches by 6 inches), upside- down jellyfish (Cassiopeia xamachana), lightning whelks (Busycon contrarium), fighting conchs (Strombus alatus), shell debris, and red, green and brown algae (Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, and Phaeophyta) were also observed along Transects 1. Transect 1 45% 0 0 40% 35% 30% 25% o 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% a 10% 5% 0% 0% - 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Numbers (1 -6) 16l 2 A 2U Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Shoal Grass (Halodule beaudettei )(formerly K wrightii) Lightning Whelk (Busycon contrarium) (Transect 1) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Outer Clam Bay: Transect 2 161. Z p Zp Transect two was also surveyed via snorkeling gear and wading. Water depths ranged from 1 to 3 ft. with visibility approximately 6 -12 inches but like Transect 1 this was easily reduced if sediments from the bottom were stirred up. A small area of Shoal Grass (Halodule beaudettei) was observed along this transect between quadrats 1, 2, and 3. The density of this grass was very sparse (maximum 10% coverage) and was mixed in with some Caulerpa algae. Caulerpa was also observed in other areas along this transect and throughout the system. Transect 2 12% - -- ___ __----- _ ___._----.- _____- .---- _. -- 10% a 10% y 8% U 6% 5% 5% v 4% L d 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Numbers (1 -6) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report n O December 2011 01 Outer Clam Bay: southwest sector, transect 3 Transect 3 was surveyed with mask and snorkel gear. Water depths ranged from approximately 10 to 22 inches. Visibility varied between 2 and 6 feet. A small patch of turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) was observed along the western mangrove fringe line. This patch has been observed in the same location for the past several years though it has not appreciably increased in size. The patch is very small and consists only of about 15 to 20 erect shoots with 1 to 5 leaf blades each. The extent of the rhizomes was not explored for fear of disturbing the bed. In addition to the grass, both blue -green and red algae were present within the shallows. There was also a lot of Caulerpa present in and around this transect area. Other observations made along this transect included the Florida fighting conch, upside -down jellyfish and a few scattered oysters right along the fringe line of the mangroves. 3% 0 2% L > 2% O U c 1% v L d 1% 0% Transect 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Numbers (1 -7) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Western side of waterway between pass and bay, Transect 4. 1612 A en Transect 4 was surveyed by both wading and snorkeling due to the varying water depths. Water depths ranged from 1 to 6 ft. with visibility of approximately 12 to 24 inches. The survey was conducted during the flood tide and the incoming current was quite strong. Large amounts of shell and vegetation debris was encountered drifting with the current along the bottom. Small patches of Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii) were observed along the western mangrove fringe line. Oysters were once again observed along the mangrove fringes on both east and west sides of the channel. Blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), southern hard clams (Mercenaria campechiensis), and lightning whelks (Busycon contrarium) were observed scattered throughout this transect. Several fish species such as mangrove snapper (Lu Janus griseus), mullet (Mugil cephalus), and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) were also observed. Transect 4 60% 50% 50% 0 40% V 30% 25% 25% C v 20% as a 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quadrat Numbers (1 -9) Clam Bay Restoration and Management f Biological Monitoring A42-0 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei) Southern hard clam (Mercenaria campechiensis) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report A 2 0 December 2011 4• Western side of waterway between pass and bay, Transect 5 Transect 5 was surveyed by both wading and snorkeling due to the same varying water depths as transect 4 has. Depths ranged from exposed substrate inches to 30 inches. In the original monitoring efforts, both shoal grass and paddle grass had been observed along this transect. As the tidal prism changed with the dredging activities, areas where grass had been present became subjected to longer periods of exposure and so died out. Shoal grass (Halodule beaudettei) was again observed along this transect. Small amounts were scattered throughout quadrat 3, 4, 5 and 7 along the channel edges in areas that were not exposed at low tide. Black mangrove pneumatophores and algal patches were also observed across this transect. Mud snails were observed throughout the transect and Florida fighting conchs were seen scattered throughout the area. Further continued monitoring will indicate if the return is permanent or not. Transect 5 80% ° 70% 60% 50 /o o L 50% 40% V 40% 30% 4) 20% 10% CL ° 10 /0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Quadrat Numbers (1 -9) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report 1614 � ^ 2 O December 2011 Inner Pass, shoal area east of Clam Pass, Transect 6 Transect 6 is oriented north to south and covers a large portion of the shoal area just east of the Pass. This transect was surveyed by wading on account of the very shallow water depths which ranged from exposed substrate to approximately 4 inches. Visibility was not impaired. Large amounts of shoal grass were observed once again in the vicinity of the two mangrove islands, around quadrats 2 and 3, and quadrats 4 through 6. The two beds present are in the same locations as last year though the density of coverage has shifted. The southern bed is sparser than it was last year while the northern bed is denser. The main change in coverage on this transect from the original monitoring conducted during the first annual report is that the grasses seem to have shifted more towards the center and away from the perimeter of the transect. Densities seem to be consistent with earlier surveys. Remaining portions of this transect consist of a sandy sediment with green mat algae, mud snails, and Florida fighting conchs. Trasect 6 60% - - -- 50% 50% 0 50% 40% 40% V 30% 25% v 20% 15% L a 10% 0% 1 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Quadrat Numbers (1 -8) Clam Bay Restoration and Management 1612 A 20 '8iological Monitoring Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Inner Pass, shoal area east of Clam Pass, Transect 7 Transect 7 is oriented northeast to southwest and covers a large portion of the shoal area just east of the Pass. This transect was like T6 was surveyed by wading on account of the very shallow water depths which ranged from exposed substrate to approximately 4 inches. Visibility was not impaired. Large amounts of shoal grass were observed once again in the vicinity of the two mangrove islands, around quadrats 3 through 5. The two beds present are in the same locations as last ear though the density of coverage has shifted. The southern bed is sparser than it was last year while the northern bed is denser. The main change in coverage on this transect from the original monitoring conducted during the first annual report is that the grasses seem to have shifted more towards the center and away from the perimeter of the transect. Densities seem to be consistent with earlier surveys. Remaining portions of this transect consist of a sandy sediment with green mat algae, mud snails, and Florida fighting conchs. Trasect 7 50% 50% 0 50% 40% 40% 030% C 20% 15% CL 10% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Numbers (1 -6) Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring 161 Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report A % O December 2011 (r. Inner Pass, southern section of channel and shoal area, Transect 8 Like Transect 7 Transect 8 is oriented northeast to southwest and crosses both the channel and the shoal area. The survey of this transect was conducted by both wading and snorkeling the survey line. Water depths ranged from 2 inches to 4 feet with a visibility approximately 2 to 3 feet in the deeper portion of the channel. Shoal grass was observed on the east side of the channel in the shallower water depths. This grass bed has decreased slightly and shifted to the west since the original monitoring efforts. The small patch of shoal grass observed two years ago on the west side of the channel has not returned, most likely due to sand build- up allowing this area to dry out during low tides. Densities have increased from the 10% to 25% coverage seen last year to around 10% to 45 %. The current densities are consistent with what was observed during the first annual report. Large groups of mud snails, a few Florida fighting conchs, and small patches of algae were also observed. 45% Trasect 8 40% c ... 35% 30% 30% 25% O 25% 20% v 15% 10% a 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Quadrat Numbers (1 -6) Clam Bay Restoration and Management 1612 A Biological Monitoring A 2 Q Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report 44.. December 2011 Seagrass Conclusions Seagrass coverage within the Clam Bay system appears to have decreased since the surveys conducted immediately prior to the dredging in 1998. What has been shown by the past twelve years monitoring is that there was a decrease in the monitored seagrass beds immediately following the initial (1999) dredging activities. This decrease appears to have stabilized around 2004 or 2005 and has reversed in the past few years to where the grass beds are re- establishing previous areas and new areas appropriate for the grasses (in terms of water depths and light penetration) are being colonized. Future monitoring of the seagrasses will be conducted to see if this trend continues. Water Loggers Three continuous water level monitoring loggers were deployed in the system this year. These instruments help us to see how water levels within the mangrove forest react to tides and storm events. The graph below shows the water levels within the forest in comparison to the rainfall recorded within Pelican Bay during the same time period. 6 5 4 x Y � 3 Y 3 2 1 0 6/25/2011 7/25/2011 6/25/2011 9/25/2011 10/25/2011 11/25/2011 Clam Bay Water Level Vs. Rainfall 5.00 - North 4.50 -South - Plot 7 - Rainfall 4.00 3.50 3.00 C 2.50 c 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 The fluctuations in levels depicted shows that the system does receive elevated water levels after heavy rainfall events but quickly returns to normal levels. This is an indication that the water flow and flushing capacity of the system is still functional. Clam Bay Restoration and Management Biological Monitoring Turxell, Hall & Associates, Inc.: Mangrove Monitoring Report December 2011 Tide Gauges 161,2 A2u The tidal data and flushing analysis for the bays and main waterways within the system will be presented under separate cover. There were some equipment problems with the gauges which resulted in bad /unusable data. Additional data collection is underway and this report will be presented when it is completed. Water Quality Testing The water quality sampling and data analysis is presented under separate cover. Water quality sampling is conducted within the Clam Bay system on a monthly basis. Water quality samples are collected by PBSD staff and transported to the Collier County Pollution Control laboratory for processing. Of the parameters sampled and collected, dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrates (NOA orthophosphates (OPO4), total dissolved solids (TDS), and chlorophyll -a are discussed. Discussion on these parameters is provided because they are the most indicative of nutrient loading and other potential water quality problems. Additional sampling information was recently provided and is being incorporated into the summary report which will be submitted when this additional data has been fully incorporated. Conclusions Since the final original permit required monitoring report in 2008, the past restoration activities have continued to yield positive results within the mangrove forest of Clam Bay. The majority of the monitoring plots show continued increases in mangrove numbers and sizes. Two plots (Plots 4 and 9) have been consistently hampered by exotic vegetation and very dense ground cover growth. Ongoing exotic eradication activities will allow for the eventual re- establishment of natural native vegetative community within these areas. Borer damage is being monitored to determine if it was an isolated outbreak or an ongoing issue. Continued vigilance will be maintained to see if additional infestation occurs in healthy trees instead of just the already stressed ones. Continued annual inspection of the flushing cuts throughout the system will be continued. These cuts are vital to the continued health of the system and must be maintained so that the water flows and flushing capabilities of the main waterways is protected. This years monitoring has shown that the system continues to recover and both mangrove and seagrass recruitment have been documented. While the success of work efforts to date is undeniable, continued vigilance is called for to maintain a viable functioning ecosystem at Clam Bay. Stress in mangrove forest areas is still apparent, although in several areas this may still be attributable to storm or cold damage. The spectacular recruitment of white mangrove seedlings, now 8 to 10 feet tall saplings, throughout the original die -off area is testament to the efforts undertaken with the initial dredging and that work can be considered a success. a STATE OF FLORIDA N mma %u!�XF ►E CITY COLLIER COUNTY °FT.MYERS M oP CEY WEST ...e`z;� oP,� t T T'49� '^- — am.,n•. , a SUBJECT \1. Y Pelican,, -- u *34101 ) PROPERTY §, Bay b. �i r � •an:.r 09 ^� North I =fs`s i Napless s # 'h' J x sky,: t[KJff *� }, VICINITY MAP NOTES: — THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE. — LATITUDE: N 26° 13'49" —LONGITUDE: W 81 ° 48' 59" COUNTY AERIAL Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. CLAM BAY Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3132 LOCATION MAP Email: tuna?aturrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632, T.T.T. SECTION -08/09 TOWNSHIP -49S RANGE -25E 6 5 4 a� 3 L r ro t F1 1 0 6/25/2011 Clam Bay Water Level Vs. Rainfall -- 5.00 North South 4.50 Plot 7 Rainfall 4.00 7/25/2011 8/25/2011 9/25/2011 10/25/2011 11/25/2011 3.50 3.00 c 2.50 ,T C OC 11 1.50 MOIL 0.50 1 11 N C) C 1612 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 December 12, 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order I1. Attendance A21 r Fiala — - --- AGENDA Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta- III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: November 14 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Hannula B. Windham Studio VII. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XI1. Adjournment P, . Cr)rres: Mist. Comes: Rent t. Ld= 2 2-1 Copies b: The next meeting is January 9, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 December 12, 2011 Minutes 161 k? A 21 I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:28 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella (Excused), Jerry Parillo, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Manuel Gonzalez - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty- Juristaff, Paul Ceriani- Public III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 14, 2011 Change: II. Attendance should read: John Weber (Excused) Betty Schudel moved to approve the November 14, 2011 minutes as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $136,245.77 • P.O. for Mulch was not decreased (requested by the Committee) as the Budget Office is still receiving invoices from the Contractor for Mulch - Sufficient monies are available for Mulch (Open P.O. monies remaining $9,492.20) • Capital Outlay $519,000.00 Darryl Richard noted monies for the Executive Summary Bid Award to Hannula ($278,000.00) will be distributed from the Improvements Capital Line Item (upon approval by the BCC.) Dale Lewis requested notification when the Hannula Bid Award is approved by the BCC. (Staff Action Item) 1612 A21 B. Project Manager Report- Darryl Richard reviewed the Executive Summary: (See attached) • The protest filed by Ameri-Pride did not meet the Purchasing Policy requirements - The Bid Award goes to Hannula $278,818.46 • The Executive Summary ( Hannula Bid Award #11 -5700) is on the BCC Agenda for approval on December 13th • Anticipated the Contract will be issued in mid to late January Manuel Gonzalez stated he would notify Dale Hannula of the projected January 30th start date for the Devonshire Blvd. Refurbishment Project. Dale Lewis moved to approve the Recommendation to award Bid #I1 -5700 for the Devonshire Boulevard Landscape and Irrigation Refurbishment Project (as per the Executive Summary.) Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez - Discussed under VI. B. B. Windham Studio - Scott Windham and Manuel Gonzalez reviewed the Monthly Maintenance Report: (See attached) o Recommended postponing the sod patching based on the following - Naples is currently in the dry season - Perceives sod will creep into the patchy areas where the broadleaf weeds are dead - The patchy areas have the appearance of thin spots - 52 pallets of sod are needed (20, 000 sq. ft.) if replacements are installed - Approximate cost per pallet $110.00 - $115.00 Betty Schudel suggested installing sod plugs in small areas that are conspicuous. Discussion took place on utilizing sod plugs in visible areas and it was determined: • Installation of sod plugs is labor intensive • If needed sod plugs may be installed in a few small areas Dale Lewis moved to postpone installing sod for 60 days to see what happens during the dry season, subsequently if the Committee does not like the appearance of the area sod will be installed Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. 2 1612 A 21 The Monthly Maintenance Report resumed: • Warranty Replacement Items - (])Cabbage Palm in Median No. 3 (near Airport Road) - Bougainvillea in Median No. 10 (west of Livingston Road) • Stunted Xanadu will be replaced if the plant food treatments are not successful • Proposed using Fertilizer blends based on the specific plant type • The blends will be established by - Soil test in the medians - Tissue testing on the plant materials Greenway Entry • Sketch of the proposed Memorial Greenway was reviewed (See attached) • FPL is amiable to the concept (provided that the Site Plan is in compliance with FPL restrictions) • FPL has approved Wood Pergolas for other projects • The proposed Design consists of - Wood Trellis (Pergolas) with flowering vines - Decorative concrete pavers - (2) Benches - Relocate the existing Trash receptacle to the front entry - Bike rack - Install various grasses along the existing fence line Dale Lewis moved to accept the Drawing to take to FPL for approval and subsequently bring the Site Plan back to the Committee. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Staff will coordinate a meeting with FPL to obtain approval on the proposed Site Plan. (Staff Action Item) VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment Scott Windham suggested refurbishing the Crown of Thorn Bed in the Radio Road west Median Tip (at Devonshire) as follows: • Install Yellow Lantana and Juniper (for consistency with the east end) • Exchange the (104) Little Red Crown of Thorn (on the original Proposal) with the Yellow Lantana • Transplant some Yellow Crown of Thorn to the east Median Dale Lewis moved to proceed with Scott Windham's recommendation to refurbish the Median tip at Devonshire and Radio Road Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None 1612A21 IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT Paul Ceriani resides at 34 Lancashire Place in Berkshire Lakes Community. He stated his backyard adjoins the Devonshire sidewalk. He expressed concern on the possibility of damage or removal of the flourishing Bougainvillea in his backyard due to the Devonshire Hedge Project. Discussion ensued the following was determined: o Mr. Ceriani's Bougainvillea is on private property and will remain o All vegetation located in the ROW (up to 13 ft. from the sidewalk edge) will be removed for the Devonshire Hedge Installation There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended next meeting is January 9, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 M Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 44%k 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 November 14, 2011 Minutes 1612 A21 I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:28 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, Jerry Parillo, John Weber (Absent) County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Brenda Brilhart- Purchasing Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Carlos Herrea - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff, Suzanne Chapin- Public III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. A. Purchasing Subsequent Agenda Items were renumbered Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 2011 Dale Lewis moved to approve the October 10, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by Betty Schudeh Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Purchasing Darryl Richard noted an Executive Summary - Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5700 to Hannula Landscaping for the Devonshire Blvd Landscape and Irrigation Refurbishment Project was included in the meeting packet. Brenda Brilhart stated the recommendation to award the Bid to Hannula Landscaping in lieu of Ameri-Pride was based on the following issues reported by the City of Naples: • The Company was unresponsive • Poor quality of work • Problems with their Equipment 16 k2A21 o Noted the Hannula Bid Recommendation was pulled from the November BCC Agenda as an Intent of Protest was submitted by Ameri-Pride - The Purchasing Department received the Formal Letter of actual Protest today - The Hannula Bid Recommendation is on the December 13rh BCC Agenda for approval - Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director will respond to the Letter of Protest (BCC approval is not required) Dale Lewis volunteered to attend the December BCC meeting to endorse the Hannula Bid Award Recommendation. Darryl Richard stated: • Lane closure Fees are not applicable for Devonshire as it is not a major arterial road • Anticipates Staff will receive the Contract in mid January • Does not anticipate any additional delay by Hannula Landscaping as they are familiar with the Project Betty Schudel stated from the onset the Committee preferred to utilize Hannula (based on previous job performance) and noted the Project is now 60 -90 days behind schedule. Dale Lewis expressed disappointment on the extended delay and noted that the Committee was forthright with their concern of awarding the Bid to Ameri -Pride (as the Company submitted an insufficient Bid package.) Scott Windham reported the Median Tips will be complete by Monday (Radio Road and Santa Barbara.) B. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $2,201.78 C. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard - Discussed under VI. B. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula - Manuel Gonzalez - Discussed under VI. B. B. Windham Studio - Scott Windham reviewed the Monthly Maintenance and Status Reports: (See attached) Devonshire Status Report o East end Medians - Installation of Cabbage Palms is scheduled for today - Staging and installation of container Plant Materials is scheduled for tomorrow November 15'h - Planting and Mulching will be complete by the first of next week 2 161L -P21 Radio Road East Status Report o Gold Lantana will be installed in the Median Tips as the Yellow Dinni Crown of Thorns is currently not available Discussion took place on the cost of Mulch for the top dress on Radio Road. Gloria Herrera responded $12,289.00 was spent on Mulch. Michelle Arnold questioned the additional $12,000.00 in the Mulch Line Item (No. 25.) After discussion it was concluded the additional $12,000.00 was not needed for Mulch. Dale Lewis requested Staff transfer the $12,000.00 into Operations. Windham Studio Maintenance Report o Atrazine was applied today (for weed control) - The total sq. ft. for Sod replacement will be submitted Discussion ensued and it was determined that additional Mulch will be required. After discussion Staff stated a portion of the $12,000.00 Mulch Line Item will be retained to Mulch the Sod replacement areas (amount to be determined based on the Sod sq. ft. Quote.) • Magnolias are showing signs of new growth • Hannula Maintenance Report by Manny Gonzalez (See attached) Jerry Parillo requested a Plant Material Identification Chart. Staff and Scott Windham responded with the following: • Digital copies of the original Concept Board will be provided • Staff will post the digital copies on the (Radio Road MSTU) website and notify Jerry Parillo VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment - Previously discussed under VI. B. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS Staff requested to change the meeting time to 2:00 p.m. The Committee agreed to meet at 2:00 p.m. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT Suzanne Chapin gave an update on the Radio Road East MSTU: • A Public Referendum Ballot question will be held at the January Presidential Primary to expedite the Project - Ballot pertains to obtaining a 10 year Loan for $650, 000.00 • Reviewed Presentation Boards for the Project 1612 A 21 o Crushed Shells are incorporated into the Design Discussion ensued on installing Crushed Shells. It was concluded the initial cost for Crushed Shells was higher than Mulch but long term would be a cost savings on Maintenance. Dale Lewis moved to blend in with the Radio Road East Project (install Crushed Shells) to provide a smooth transition (aesthetically.) Scott Windham recommended using Mulch as Crushed Shell lends a different look and feel than the original Design (with Mulch.) Without a second the motion was withdrawn. Dale Lewis made the following suggestions concerning the Bike Trail entrance: • Landscape along the Chain Link Fence • Install a roof for the Bench seating area Dale Lewis moved to Landscape the entrance to the Bike Trail (along the chain link fence), install a roof over the Park Bench, and directed Scott Windham to prepare a rough Draft (aesthetically consistent with the Radio Road Median Project) Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. It was determined additional monies are needed for the Bike Trail Improvements rough Draft by Windham Studio. Dale Lewis moved to approve $3,000.00 for Windham Studio (for the Bike Trail Improvements rough Draft.) Second by Betty Schudeh Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:34 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended �< The next meeting is December 12, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 11 1612 A21 A A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N ------------ O W W V O) D A W N O W W V O) N A W N O W O V O) (J( A W N O O O V O) N A W N 0 m m D v m C m- m n c D z o D z z z O m D D m i z Om C vm,2 m� < z00 zz m DmOn O -a p<m�r� m<<�mm T i �� r�1Dm�2mZTrD a°�c'_o �nnmm ���� <�� �m�i -iop kmm m�� m0 m�OCnD zmZ rnn� nyimm Mmm,I-nmm rna>Z2<< �tnm ��� ��cz m? N =nmZm nom ?mOzz mv�i�'i����- D�Di?o�o m O CAD D X —O N M 0CZnCZi� c DC�i� k� m��oy mom C /)> I C�mDD00 c Z� N O y�D z < mo o�o m nn�mm m0<�ODDK _K c�n�ZD�Dm z m oOp D D D D z p ..mac mX mmXX r-� A �� a U) DDr NDC= oomZmc�D rn -- z O D z m M m 0��� O Cl) n 1 x r m Z m m c D r m p 1 L7 zD n m W n x m z m i O 0 Cl) z D A m I I 1 1691111-1)1 �feIn ' Afo WJA 69 <A <A Wwfn1- h"69 69 to 6AIt 696Are'ER -i W W O J N� m {O O V N N A V V D) D) 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O C O A O O O O O O O O O fN 169 IRA 169 IRA 6916911C,9140169 111111111 fA IRA IRA 169 IRA RA IRAI IRA IRA 0o O) O O Q1 000 69 469 CA 69 69 69 RA RA 69 RA RA RA RA 69 69 69 RA RA RA 69 11401 469 IRA 49 69 RA 6 CT N (D W A ao W O O A CD N O O O W to to O W co O O O W N W 0O V O N O O co N A O V O V O O OO O O O O O ?' 69 RA RA RA RA 69 RA RA 1140169 IRA RA 69 69 RA V � (J( W W N V 00 A U1 W N N_ O A W W O O CO W O Ut i 00 W .4 9) (n O O N W W O 00 OO Co O O O W co N N O A — O O O O W IRA IRA 69 69 RA 69 69 69 RA RA 69 69 69 RA RA RA 69 69 69 fA N N � � W a7 A N O) O) 10 (D N OO 00 O O O O O O O A 0 0(D 0 O (o (o (D O O O O O W OO Ul O O O O O O A N IC) 0 0 0 6D D 7 � O A N N N Cn W CJ�i A J A j i W (J( V W O O O O O _� O O O O (" N O A V Q (T A N O O O O O CD 0 0 0 Cl O O. O O O O O O O O O O O O A O O O O cn A VA A U7 O A O O (J) O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O O O O A N A N A O N O O 40 CA 69 69 69 RA RA 69 RA RA RA RA 69 69 69 RA RA RA 69 11401 469 IRA 49 69 RA 6 CT N (D W A ao W O O A CD N O O O W to to O W co O O O W N W 0O V O N O O co N A O V O V O O OO O O O O O ?' 69 RA RA RA RA 69 RA RA 1140169 IRA RA 69 69 RA V � (J( W W N V 00 A U1 W N N_ O A W W O O CO W O Ut i 00 W .4 9) (n O O N W W O 00 OO Co O O O W co N N O A — O O O O W IRA IRA 69 69 RA 69 69 69 RA RA 69 69 69 RA RA RA 69 69 69 fA N N � � W a7 A N O) O) 10 (D N OO 00 O O O O O O O A 0 0(D 0 O (o (o (D O O O O O W OO Ul O O O O O O A N IC) 0 0 0 W" cn w O O O 00 W 69 RA 69 69 69 6D D 7 � C C � < to x .. Q N y D a o Q n Q J O u a O p m 0) O " i O O o m 3 m N O o m RA 69 m O � � N M tr a (D N x 3 m d W" cn w O O O 00 W 69 RA 69 69 69 RA 69 69 6D D 7 � C C � CL O O W y Q J fD O 0 0) O " (D O O O O fA 69 RA RA 69 n O 3 3 (D N RA 69 69 o d O O O O O A O N N M O C) -► N W A N U7 W Co lT W N O O O Cl O (D O O O -+ O O O V V O A O O W O OD W (n 0 0 0 0 O (D O O O N O O O V O O CT O O 00 W O A O O O O O O O O O V O O O (O (Ji O N O N A W W A N 0 0 0 0 O V 0 0 0 O O O O W V(D A O W C '�57 222,-I?i?imm n n °1 o m' >> y x o r cn D) N (Oil 0 7 O .O« C C C D) OJ 3 C) D) N O `z — < 3 CD Cn (n O G) N 7 7 7 M d O a a C C (D a 0_ O_ O " q (D d 0 CD y o y C p 0 0 O n O C) 7 m z CD CD CD y 3 (D m m � o � V � A A N a V e D a A A N m ° 3 e m C) d 9 n 0 °o W O N A V W O A N w a ao ti m N O O N ff N A ao ao m o m m N T -TG -TG s m x x x O x g g v D Q m m m � m N d r d `m m co r m CD N W W t W .Nr 40 N N aD O) CO CO N V V OD W to A A A A A A A A A A A A U( (Jt (Jt CA CT 0 Cn 0 (J1 CJ( V W O O O O 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0 O O O O CD C-0 W A () O O n n N Co Co Co G O O N O j "' W W A N) A A A W J OD W CJt (OJ( a) 0 V N A OJD A f7i fD N O N (D �' m (D �< Q O O C C C C < n (D 'O 7 N O d Z C 3 S g r O N N C (n N 7 d N N O O -0 N 0 (D C -0 . C cl) C CD _ N c N N O O y O (C �` O N v CD n (D N N C O 7 (n d N (D CT N n y W (n N j CD O (D N U) c S C m 69 RA 69 69 RA 69 69 69 69 69 RA 69 69 69 RA N m N W 4 W W � J O W O W . O W (J( Na O (D O A O 00 N 8 N O N cn N O W 00 W O J O N O A O M O O O O O co co W RA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 RA 69 RA 69 RA RA 69 N Cl) W Ui W a) O a) 0 O (D W N i O i O i (T J, 9) . W U) W O O O 00 G7 O W O co N O O O -- N O (D s D n c 01 O1 O. v CD C v 3 TO Cr IDvy N cn N 00 CD CO) C 6D D 7 � O C � (D O O W y co to V RA RA RA o d O O O O O A O N N M O C) -► N W A N U7 W Co lT W N O O O Cl O (D O O O -+ O O O V V O A O O W O OD W (n 0 0 0 0 O (D O O O N O O O V O O CT O O 00 W O A O O O O O O O O O V O O O (O (Ji O N O N A W W A N 0 0 0 0 O V 0 0 0 O O O O W V(D A O W C '�57 222,-I?i?imm n n °1 o m' >> y x o r cn D) N (Oil 0 7 O .O« C C C D) OJ 3 C) D) N O `z — < 3 CD Cn (n O G) N 7 7 7 M d O a a C C (D a 0_ O_ O " q (D d 0 CD y o y C p 0 0 O n O C) 7 m z CD CD CD y 3 (D m m � o � V � A A N a V e D a A A N m ° 3 e m C) d 9 n 0 °o W O N A V W O A N w a ao ti m N O O N ff N A ao ao m o m m N T -TG -TG s m x x x O x g g v D Q m m m � m N d r d `m m co r m CD N W W t W .Nr 40 N N aD O) CO CO N V V OD W to A A A A A A A A A A A A U( (Jt (Jt CA CT 0 Cn 0 (J1 CJ( V W O O O O 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0 O O O O CD C-0 W A () O O n n N Co Co Co G O O N O j "' W W A N) A A A W J OD W CJt (OJ( a) 0 V N A OJD A f7i fD N O N (D �' m (D �< Q O O C C C C < n (D 'O 7 N O d Z C 3 S g r O N N C (n N 7 d N N O O -0 N 0 (D C -0 . C cl) C CD _ N c N N O O y O (C �` O N v CD n (D N N C O 7 (n d N (D CT N n y W (n N j CD O (D N U) c S C m 69 RA 69 69 RA 69 69 69 69 69 RA 69 69 69 RA N m N W 4 W W � J O W O W . O W (J( Na O (D O A O 00 N 8 N O N cn N O W 00 W O J O N O A O M O O O O O co co W RA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 RA 69 RA 69 RA RA 69 N Cl) W Ui W a) O a) 0 O (D W N i O i O i (T J, 9) . W U) W O O O 00 G7 O W O co N O O O -- N O (D s D n c 01 O1 O. v CD C v 3 TO Cr IDvy N cn N 00 CD CO) C 16 1 A �� 1 ligir p'll 7:- w�. F PL s "J .h J 1 s= RICH KING MEMORIAL GREENWAY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' =10.0' NAPLES, FLORIDA Daember 12011 PROJECT #oo -10 61 2 A21 O �W0 W V OWt N A W N+ O b GNO V A N A W N� O W W V W N A W N W 0 1p W V W N A W N + - i�Almm -r ��— omoTOr[�; mz`2m�O Zmm- �Alzncy�l 00 "A -�W W Doo A vx m� AxCmZr c � "' yyb mm zmC� ZZ Dp �d N�A�gm2 m7zc v'� �mtmimm m" �T3N°- ATmCyy =C �aA Wmmuim ic"ym����oo�zoQmyva� aAC���o�v�xaN�A°�RANIZO�� cm o� xn�am z m -a zm zzm ,ir -i >-i o g ma xmm 3 n G) <v p{ 00102Px> 00 A)c -0x0 a OZZ r-�>, �r�m myZ W D 8�mm mn<.'lalAO3. oi' npm �m Z W N C 5 W. w OtA-D z <oma m� mm �mm nvmmm ir"O °yD� +r�zy aD V n n Z N c�mQ�A 03A D Z$yW ZCof�1'iX�p pmm z OPj o mmm me N m$r r"�C:r CmZMO pj rn-O'I -I�m rtoi mm F icn >DZi Cl) nDOn -Ni Z 0X $ m �Z � m'A grmA n < m m y m Z D O O n W 3 �1 N N N N N N N N MIN N N N N N N N N MA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V O. • V W -+ V W V fJ N A J �l Of Of O O N W O O O O O O O O O N N O In N A O- A O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O O O O A 0 0 O O O t!1 (T O fT O� C O 0 0 0 G IV IJ IV O IV C O C G O O O O O O O O O A O O O O O O O O o O o O O O O O A A O A O o O O NNN W W N W W N� N N fA W W N W W+ W N 69 fA N W N NN NNN NNNN N N N N N N O 3 3 N N- N N W W po {Ap W '3 N to IV A O V O J yJ N O to tD O O A NN`N W N N N NN M N M N N N N N N N MWIN NNN W N NCA (A m x la _ _ 3 W W tWT W N O O N V t]NO O OWD 00o N OW1 N O p0� O O p ' ' P Y NN fA fA to fA lAN NdI NfA N (A 'A (Rd/f/1 (A fA Nd1 fAN W fA fA tR (AN NNNNNN N W N N W a ��a d ru O O O O OO A N OO Vj0 00 00 O J O 00 33 ED 0 ° m m m m � ci m A A A A A A A A .10 A A N A N N N OC.) n N N O p W pW O O N Ir A E S m c $ o Lp w a m o Q = o & y A O L C 'to n N N W N W N N N N N N N N N N N A m N Of N N Of N t0 mt O O O r 01 t0 W O OD O N N N o Oo W wp W WW O A S m S O O O O tp tm W 3 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n _ G n V 4L O O tip W m v m v_ 3 "0 a Z M q0 „ a N t7f v 00 "$ J J C S. 161,2 AZ1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to award Bid #11 -5700 for "Devonshire Boulevard_ Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., in the amount of $278,818.46; and reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc. Improvements will be funded by residents of the Radio Road Beautification MSTU. OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board's approval to award Bid #I1 -5700, "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. CONSIDERATIONS: On June 19, 2011, the Purchasing Department sent out 752 notices for Bid #11 -5700, "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project." On July 20, 2011, three (3) bids were received and opened from the following contractors: Coastal Concrete Products, Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc., and Ameri -Pride Inc. The lowest bid per tabulation including selected alternates was from Ameri -Pride. On August 1, 2011, the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee reviewed all the bids and requested additional information on the previous project experience from Ameri- Pride, due to the fact that the list of projects provided by Ameri -Pride were not roadway landscape and irrigation projects. On September 12, 2011, representatives from Ameri -Pride attended the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee meeting and presented a list of references and previous project experience in response to the Advisory Committee's concerns. After further discussion the Advisory Committee recommended awarding the contract to Ameri- Pride, provided it submits additional letters of references from recent clients with like work similar to the proposed Devonshire project. On October 10, 2011 the MSTU Advisory Committee met and confirmed that it was satisfied with the letters of references received from Ameri- Pride. Staff originally recommended award to Ameri -Pride as the apparent low, qualified and responsive bid. Subsequent to the submission of the recommended award, Staff learned that this vendor was having difficulty with fulfilling its obligations under a contract with the City of Naples. The City advised the County of problems it is experiencing with two contracts it has entered into with Ameri- Pride. The City issued a cure letter to Ameri -Pride who failed to satisfactorily comply. County staff has also experienced difficulty in getting accurate and timely information from this vendor. Because of these uncertainties, staff recommends that the Board reject the bid from Ameri -Pride and award to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc., as the actual lowest responsive and qualified bidder. Ameri -Pride filed a protest with the County Purchasing Department but that protest was not timely. Section XIX.D of the Purchasing Policy requires protester to file a formal bid protest within five (5) days from the date of the filing of its notice of intent to protest. Ameri -Pride filed a notice of intent to protest on November 3rd, but did not submit the formal protest until November 14th. This untimely submittal therefore constitutes a waiver of Ameri- Pride's right to protest. 60 1612A21+ Staff recommends awarding Bid #11 -5700 to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. This recommendation was supported by the MSTU at their last meeting on November 14, 2011. Contractor Base Bid Amount Base Bid + Alternates n,- e-: Pride *c N Z7 � $967,214–.3-7 Hannula Landscape $234,842.66 $278,818.46 Coastal Concrete Products $311,604.54 $356,313.42 FISCAL IMPACT: Radio Road MSTU Fund 158 - 162522 improvements general has funds available for project funding. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board award Bid #11 -5700 for the "Devonshire Boulevard Landscape & Irrigation Refurbishment Project" to Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc.; reject the bid from Ameri- Pride, Inc; and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached contract after review by the County Attorney's Office. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager, ATM Department Attachments: (1) Bid #11 -5700 Bid Tabulation, (2) Copy of Contract #11 -5700 Hannula Landscape, (3) Copy of letter sent to Ameri -Pride on November 17, 2011, (4) Copy of Purchasing Policy Section XIX.D 161 2A 2�, , MAINTENANCE REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: November 12, 2011 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report and Greenway Entry MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to previously discussed maintenance action items: Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. A few observations areas follows: As discussed in the past several MSTU meetings, Hannula sprayed the turf in the medians with Atrazine to kill the numerous broadleaf weeds with the intent to remove them and patch the areas with St. Augustine sod. However, because it has taken so long to complete this process pushing us into the winter, dry season, Pam and I recommend waiting to replace any sod until the spring. This will give the existing turf an opportunity to fill back in the areas where the weeds have been killed. Additionally, Pam and I came to this conclusion following field review of the turf areas finding them not to be too overly browned out to warrant replacement for season. There remain a few warranty replacement items from the Phase III planting installation which have been mentioned on numerous occasions and need to be taken care of including replacing one dead Cabbage Palm in median # 3 east of Airport Rd and several Silhouette Bougs in median # 10 west of Livingston Rd at the large Live Oak Trees. (Final plant count TBD) FPL easement Greenway entry landscape update: • Meeting was held on 11/29 at the county office with FPL and county parks and rec staff to review the FPL design requirements for transmission line area. • WSI has prepared a change order request to complete a conceptual design for the entry as directed by the committee last month. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1.937 Email: scott tz windllamstu<lio.com www.windliarnstudio.corn Jap 1612 A-21 •i ■ Once work order is issued, WSI will design the entry for committee review and submittal to FPL as part of a consent form package for review and approval. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Wi -idllam Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000367 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@wincE.inistudio.com. tivww.win( 11an1StUdlo.conl 2 • �a V�JN'br AM' - - 'did in MEETING MINUTES To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM Dale Hannula, Hannula Landscaping From: Scott Windham Date: November 29, 2011 RE: Radio Road Median Improvements (Devonshire to Santa Barbara) Construction Substantial Completion Walk Through Minutes MSTU Committee and Staff: The following are the minutes from the construction Substantial Completion Walk Through for the above date: • The project was 100% complete upon the walk through. The Hannula team did an excellent, professional job with quality plant materials and completion within the allotted schedule. • We propose the following additional enhancement to finish off the project. Remove the existing plants (Mixed Crown of Thorn) in the west median tip on Radio Rd at Devonshire and replace with Parson's Juniper and Gold Mound Lantana to match the east median tip treatment. Hannula has prepared pricing for the committee's review. The original project called for 104 Little Red Crown of Thorns which we did not use. So, we propose that the Little Reds be substituted with 104 Gold Mound Lantana for this median tip. Lastly, we recommend that Hannula transplant the 13 -15 healthy yellow `Dinni' Crown of Thorns to the far east median tip to fill in. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 Windliarn Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891.Brighton I.,ane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: ( 239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott@ windlrarnstudio.corn w ww.a7i ndhamstudio.corn 106 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 January 9, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: December 12 2011 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report A. Hannula B. Windham Studio VII. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 1612 A 21 o Buggy jAh, r Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta 7� The next meeting is February 13, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & MaMite 'e 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Date: 3l i 3 1 2 Item #: I C^oies to: ibi ZAZi MAINTENANCE REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: January 9, 2012 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report and Greenway Entry MSTU Committee and Staff: The following is a report of the general conditions and recommendations for the maintenance of the Radio Road MSTU areas as related to previously discussed maintenance action items: Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. A few observations are as follows: The remaining few warranty replacement items from the Phase III planting installation which have been mentioned on numerous occasions will be taken care of within next week (1/16) including replacing one dead Cabbage Palm in median # 3 east of Airport Rd and several Silhouette Bougs in median # 10 west of Livingston Rd at the large Live Oak Trees. (Final plant count TBD) FPL easement Greenway entry landscape update: ■ WSI completed a planting plan, paver layout plan and pergola details sheet to be included in the FPL consent package for submittal to and review and approval by FPL. WSI met with Hannula and county staff on site on 1/3 to discuss reducing maintenance services during the winter months to prevent cost overruns as well as to discuss continuing fertilizer research and modification efforts. Some strategies discussed included the following: • County is currently testing soil PH to modify the county fertilizer mix accordingly. Still focused on one blanket 100% slow release fertilizer for all. ( Trees, palms, plants and turf) • Hannula recommends three different fertilizers - - one for palms (8 -2 -10 with sulfur and boron), one for plants (the county new and improved 8 -2 -12, 100% slow release), and one for turf (16 -2 -8, 50% slow release). • Hannula also recommends 4 applications /yr of 50% slow release fertilizer rather than 2 applications /yr of 100% slow release as is Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape architecture, LC 26000363 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhanistudio.com N-v urw.- windhanis tudio.com 1 161 2 q 21 county standard now. Additionally, if county continues to require 100% slow release, than Hannula recommends 3 applications /yr, • To green up the turf now, Hannula also recommends an application of 21 -0 -0 Ammonium sulfate blend with a follow up application of 20 -1 -10 one week later to green up the turf. • Another item for the committee's consideration is to incorporate liquid fertilizer in with the spray applications to boost the turf whenever pesticide applications are done. Other follow up items from last month: • Hannula sprayed the stunted Xanadu with 15 -0 -0 liquid fertilizer to stimulate growth. If do not respond favorably, the plants will be replaced. • Hannula will replace the `Dead' Laurel Oak in median 26 with a Live Oak. • Hannula trimmed the Viburnum hedge along Devonshire. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Boa 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @xxindhamstudio.com wAvxv.-windharns todio.com N 161.E A21 A A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N — — — — — > �" O W O V CA N A W N O W O V M C" A W N 0 W O V M C" A W Ai 0 0 tO V Of N A W N •��� -i-i n— OmpTprrr ��cn— mmp mm �1zC�n�� �— Tpn Omm CC :D; vm'm- mnDCDMm �, ry -1 z O�mOD�- IM-CO �DO �Dv� mom '0, �2G�1nzr � m =Z— G�G�-I O�� D < �r� Dmm ZG�G� zz�� m �mDZpC>�z� nTmO�zz >zt„��zz m�cmi>=D r« T� TMZ r0< � c N �DmOOW m ;D Q0.Z�1m XMW000 m I_To�°��TT Cm,�C0 N T A-XI -I K Zoe mx F o W> > D- n m n? p' 00-i L 2 2 mom W'm O m M m� MT D D m O D �z m� y =m x Z� n�� m m m�� 0x ��T T '� -000 Z XOzz �r� v mr�0 mw ��zcn DDA�c Omm m n zcncn cDcn v� ����� ��z nn�mm n<���� c0ic� -�zKK co Z n Z{ m z n Z Z Z C m m Z Z p0 D� D C O X Z D� CA z OD O m m 000 ngP �—ZiW O �mmZx� mnm�X G) r- Cl) D n� �� co Dz COr�2 zmOD m m m r = m m nor cn O cn z 0 O m z m X m X C> r m X G) z 5 m m M m z m Z D co 0 0 O m Cl) K M '���fA ��.9�fn '(19�fn ����►��1.01-En 69 69 09 to w to tq 4A 1.9 to to W fn to to to e91enitnlfn en to Vs toIfn1<n to to to <n V _ N s W W O J N O m CO CD N V N N A J V CA W O O C" .0-00 O O O O O O O A C" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p CD tl� N O O O O O O O O O N A O O O O O O O O O A tnitnlfnlfolfn fnlfnlfej -,O nl4A 0 millmill fNlfo Ito Ito Ito fo Ito I Id 191 OAo i w Ito Itn to O W F I:;, N I.P V N O O W O w O A A (D O COO O O O O N O 0 N O O O O N A O o a a v > rn W CD A O A N N N (r W CJ1 --• C11 CIi A J A W AP N � N CJ1 J W O O O O O O 0 0 O cn N O A V cn w co U1 A N O O O 0 0' O O O O O O O O O A A A O A O O O O O O O 1 O O O O 1 O O O O CT C71 cn ' 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N O N O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O A A A O A O Eo to fo to fo to to to to to to to fo to fo E) to fn 1"I to w to fo to to o a a v > rn W CD c N A a W all CA W O -+ W A W 00 CT 00 CD CD W J CD 0 3 m cn w co O O cn A N co J !-I, O V O O 6 A, N O J O V A O O A O J CD O O A "11.6 to fo to to fn ffl fn 69 W A V� O CD W A N w w to 00 00 V W A Cn W � n Cn In 00 -N 00 co A CT O (D 0 0 0 cn N N CA O CA O O O O V W lfN lfn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn fn ffl fn to to to to fo to 114014W 0-9 a a v > m< W CD c N A a 'm N fii N CL A W a W J CD 0 3 m O d o 3 m N a e O c 3 n w �^ O n FL x to to m p 00 A C) O O N N O O O O O N O V_ '-' W W A N_ A .P A W J 00 O m z N ° 0 0 0 m W � N j 3 n• m >a m m � CW,) CT CO)i A Co A 3 aAi CD DO In gC) ;u - = Nm � � y o CS y 7 CD d C?- -Cp y CD S n y m 3 m m d d m o ,� < v = 3 % m m _O D W ` . y v Cr c N N d CD CL ? FD. N N= p � 0 W � CD y 3 v 9 W O ' A w A N in 5. n N CO.f C�op tp� fD 7 CD O y 7 Eo fo fo 691691 H to to fo to fn fo fo D W CD N A N A CL A W a W J CD O O M C. O I . O O O O O O cn to to to to n 00 A C) O O N N O O O O O N O V_ '-' W W A N_ A .P A W J 00 O 3 m W � N j 3 CW,) CT CO)i A Co A 3 CD DO In gC) ;u - = Nm y fn fo fo a o °—�'• O O O O O A— O N N O O O W U1 A N N C.71 J CD 0 0 0 0 O Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 W A O A O al 00 Cl) O O O O O O CD O O O N O O O tD CT O Ui O W W CA CA O O O O O CA O O O J O O O O N V O O O O J O O O O O V O v O N O < cnW j j 2 2 2 T T T T m 0 y y a m m m o 0 0 � w 7' 7' M M M O c cc N d 3 3 y CCD n v m v Z 7- m (n (n n O y W N N CD (a (0 j O. 7 7 7 y N Q CD d d 7 y' y CL CL y C p y 0 0 CD C.) o` 7 m Z y v 0 w m tv CD CD CD y 3 Ci C) CD 0 0 y CD (p N m � <D D 3 N A "► �• C A D1 A W W to U1 Ln CT CT Ul U1 L" CT U1 J Ln ° W W A W (b fD O Efl to fA O a o °—�'• O O O O O A— O N N O O O W U1 A N N C.71 J CD 0 0 0 0 O Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 W A O A O al 00 Cl) O O O O O O CD O O O N O O O tD CT O Ui O W W CA CA O O O O O CA O O O J O O O O N V O O O O J O O O O O V O v O N O < cnW j j 2 2 2 T T T T m 0 y y a m m m o 0 0 � w 7' 7' M M M O c cc N d 3 3 y CCD n v m v Z 7- m (n (n n O y W N N CD (a (0 j O. 7 7 7 y N Q CD d d 7 y' y CL CL y C p y 0 0 CD C.) o` 7 m Z y v 0 w m tv CD CD CD y 3 Ci C) CD 0 0 y CD (p N m � A A A A A A A A A A m + to U1 Ln CT CT Ul U1 L" CT U1 J Ln ° A O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O O _O N N CD W W G) G) W W ZJ W W W O W O C0 00 A C) O O N N O O O O O N O V_ '-' W W A N_ A .P A W J 00 m W � N j CW,) CT CO)i A Co A 21 21 S DO In gC) ;u - = Nm CS y 7 CD C?- -Cp y CD S n y m 3 m m d d m o ,� < v = % m m _O D W ` . y v Cr N N d CD CL ? FD. N N= p � 0 CD `° y CD y 3 v V ' CD y CD v 7 N y CD 3 A N in 5. n N W fD 7 CD O y 7 w CD W CD < v CD O y (n 7 y � a C i0 fD V 0 a H ffl fn En Efl to fo to fo (A fo (A fo to to to + � A o _s O A 3 N j !9 A + Si + N O (P N (r J 0 (n W O J O O y A W 00 coo CT O J W O CT N O A O N Co 7 V U1 N O Ul J O A O N O ft? A O A 04 0 0 0 O V Lo 3 d fR fn ffl to to to to fo to ffl fo to fo fo be fn m n d C 9 � tJ w Ln co o A N W W CA O O CO D1 ° V A O A O O O Ut V— W C CD (Jl W A O O O CA V fD W N O W CA O O 0 O W— N N L D � v c Z O o0 tO -L v N Co L N --I C 1612 X22 Qrazo lz"d E.c'a M.S.T.U. A4 C,r:xt 2995 S. H*vu4fae AAA yk ft 34104 p )E(339T3B Minutes JA[ 2012 August 3, 2011 BY: ....................... I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Sue Chapin at 10:04 AM. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson (arrived later), Paige Simpson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — L/ Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Fiala Public: Jerry and Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron Hiller _ Henning T Coyle III. Approval of Agenda Coletta ?G Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda for August 3, 2011 as submitted. Second by Paige Simpson. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — June 21, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved June 21, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Paige Simpson. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated August 3, 2011. She reported as follows: • Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $148,028.59 • Operating Expense Available - $ 5,229.00 • Capital Outlay Available - $ .00 • Reserves for Future Construction Available - $56,300.00 • Purchase Order Items - Inter - Government Charge (IGC) covers the ROW Permit Urban Green pulled and SFW*Jq pits by Visa) covers a direct vehicle expense paid by Darry (, ichard. Date :_ V Item t 1 Copies to: 161 Z 'A 22 B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported Staff met with Scott Teach, Mark Isaccson and Election Office representatives on June 30. He distributed a "To Do List" noting some critical deadlines in getting the MSTUs' Ballot Question on either the 1st Tuesday in January or the 1st Tuesday in March for residents to vote at no costs to the Committee. (See attached) Michelle Arnold stated the Attorney and Budget Offices requested the following steps be addressed prior to submitting the Ballot Question to the BCC: o Draft Resolution for the Radio Road East MSTU in which ceases after 6 years and will need to be revised. o Attorney's office will prepare the ballot question. o Budget Office does not want the loan to exceed a 10 year term. Staff will then provide the draft Resolution and Ballot Question for the Advisory Committee's review. Michelle Arnold stated Commissioner Henning offered to assist with the process and requested working with one representative (due to Sunshine Law) from the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee. Dale Johnson arrived at 10:15 am. Tom Depouw moved to appoint Sue Chapin as the liaison person to work with Commissioner Henning. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Henning had agreed previously to speak to the different developments to explain the facts of the ballot question and any other questions that may arise. Dayna Fendrick was directed to proceed with the Development Plans for re- submittal. It was noted the approval process could take 2- weeks without any issues. Discussion occurred on the maintenance of the buccaneer palms, the overall height of the gumbo limbo trees and the 8 -10' setback use of crushed shells. Urban Green will provide detailed specifications on maintenance and each tree will be discussed individually. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported both the buccaneer palm and gumbo limbo trees are native to the area. Staff expressed concerns over the cost and maintenance of the buccaneer palms. 2 161 2 q 22 Staff stated it may be difficult to find potential suppliers for Florida #1 grade gumbo limbo trees with a single leader. Staff urged Urban Green to find a supplier who would commit to a delivery schedule to avoid a variance submittal. Dayna Fendrick suggested using Florida #2 grade gumbo limbo trees and to provide the supplier specific details to fill the order. The trees will not be as full as the Florida #1. Staff provided pictures of Florida 42 gumbo limbo trees. (See attached) Michelle Arnold suggested having a public meeting closer to project construction to show how the medians will look before and after a few years of growth along with maintenance costs. Dayna Fendrick displayed and reviewed Option A and B Overlay Concept Designs with the crushed shell setback of 7' with some mulch under the plants. A consensus was formed to go with "A" Concept Design (less crushed shell than "B" Concept Design) and use shell adjacent to the curb in narrow medians at turn lanes but not the travel lanes. Tom Depouw suggested holding a public meeting prior to Election Day to explain the ballot question and gain support. VII. New Business A. Ballot Question — Supervisor of Elections and County Attorney Previously Discussed in V.B. VIII. Old Business A. Concept Review Request Previously Discussed in VI. B. Grant Update Michelle Arnold confirmed the Committee is aware the Radio Road East Project was moved up to the #2 position. The Grant decision may be made around the construction time and suggested the Committee give consideration to not starting the project prior to Grant approval. She noted even though the Grant is for matched funds, the benefit would be helping to repay the loan sooner. C. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU None IX. Public Comments None September 7, 2011 meeting is canceled. The next meeting will be held on October 5, 2011 at 10:00 am. 3 Ibis azz There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:34 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Jo "son, ChaivfWan �mr i-rne►, These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee one ` .a as presented '; ' or amended The next meeting is October 5, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 in 1612 p 22 ZUI:o Raul 6" M.S.T.U. All"" eo+w+►•;X•�tc 2995 S. Howd-a NAtt", Ft 34104 Summary of Minutes and Motions August 3, 2011 III. Approval of Agenda Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda for August 3, 2011 as submitted. Second by Paige Simpson. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — June 21, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved June 21, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Paige Simpson. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Services Report B. Project Manager Report Michelle Arnold stated Commissioner Henning offered to assist with the process and requested working with one representative from the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee. Tom Depouw moved to appoint Sue Chapin as the liaison person to Commissioner's Office. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1 Ra& R"d 5"t 1612A�2 2855 S. gowedoe Duoe Zv,,e¢, 9,d 34104 August 3, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - June 21, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business A. Ballot Question - Supervisor of Elections and County Attorney VIII. Old Business A. Concept Review Request B. Grant Update C. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 1612 Aee W J CO O U c 0' 0 Lu of U Z w 00 cr J o �Q�WJ�aQCDO WO >,�Z OU a- C) a) F- Z O' J Q F- Z Z Q Z W Z d U W wzt- �U ��Of IX �0, w E J c)a_ U)} Z QF—� Li Z O O > > cn cn z F- O —XO!Of fQQW0,Z 2WW N 0XF-J— ZZO� W oOo!z<� o!o!���oC> O :C/)- M w� �tA Of�U LL > >_ �� Lli LL LL O O W LWi W Cl) 2i Q Q W JO W~~ W W W LL F- LL > � m F- F- W Z (n U) >- > o (n J W o O_ U) 0 Q > < cn c) W W (n of Q_' J QQ2�Of W ZZ��uoZQ W 0 W 0 -of r- z CRUZ W WQ DWLL ZZW �2QQw�O Z OF -��O_ �Q Of of T- W W~ UoIL — — O_ F- F -00ZF- F- W =0000 —U F-F- MM Of 0 � N M 'V 0 W I- W O O e- N M g w tD n M O O e- N M V O W� W LLB N O O O O O O O O o o O N N O O N N A CO 0 0 C� I O O o 0 0 0 0 114- 0 I 0 I .- 00 "T M l(7 O o v 4 o Lo o 0 0 ' ' ' 0 0') o O 0 Co r- N � � 0 0 W LO 000 N 0 � � 0 0 It N N o 1- r- tD 00 o - q- N o (D CD M M V- L6 � rl N - N L(5 M M Cfl CO to R 2 LO LO O F- > Q 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 E1)- 64 o Ln � N 0 O Lo O 0) v 0 0 00 00 N LSD N 1-- co O C) o CO 00 O O LO Ln 00 00 "t M 'er 04 0 0 r 00 0 0 N i y N N 0 N `� 00 N 00 N O LO CO O M N Ln O LO o LO 00 00 c- O N C6 C6 Co M M M M t r d tF Cl) N N to a Q� x w 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6$ 69 69 69 6CY 69 64 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0) T- 00 M O V r O N N = o � N N � trj W o O N M M Z �- LL O U Q 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 61} 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 01) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 EA m 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 O o O 00 0 0 000 0LO 0000000 LO 0 M C LO ~ ~ LO N CO- M o ifl LM N LO V Q 69 69 69 69 69 Ef t 69 69 69 69 69 69 61% 69 69 69 69 H? 6'> 69 6' 609,164 69 69 69 64 6-1 W J CO O U c 0' 0 Lu of U Z w 00 cr J o �Q�WJ�aQCDO WO >,�Z OU a- C) a) F- Z O' J Q F- Z Z Q Z W Z d U W wzt- �U ��Of IX �0, w E J c)a_ U)} Z QF—� Li Z O O > > cn cn z F- O —XO!Of fQQW0,Z 2WW N 0XF-J— ZZO� W oOo!z<� o!o!���oC> O :C/)- M w� �tA Of�U LL > >_ �� Lli LL LL O O W LWi W Cl) 2i Q Q W JO W~~ W W W LL F- LL > � m F- F- W Z (n U) >- > o (n J W o O_ U) 0 Q > < cn c) W W (n of Q_' J QQ2�Of W ZZ��uoZQ W 0 W 0 -of r- z CRUZ W WQ DWLL ZZW �2QQw�O Z OF -��O_ �Q Of of T- W W~ UoIL — — O_ F- F -00ZF- F- W =0000 —U F-F- MM Of 0 � N M 'V 0 W I- W O O e- N M g w tD n M O O e- N M V O W� W r LL m O a w 'O co O CY cu m w Ict OR r N M IR LO r N M r A 161.2 k2e 0 O O II O. N U rn m n O O O LL O O O LL O > O O N ca O � � X > > m o O N N N @ R5 F- F- 0 0 O X LL O O LL LL C) f m �a LL LL LL LL W 00 V O 00 .-r 00 T M 64 A^ N O N .� 01 C (6 N w C) rn O LO o plp C:) C: LO I;j- , O N O M M Lf) O O O M O O d M 63 69 64 69 EA 63 69 69 64 613 ER EA 64 EA 64 EA 69 69 69 fA EA 69 64 O LO M O a0 LO D i cl� CO O c0 M m E N d Ki ell 64 69 64 64 169- 69 64 69 69 64 69 64 EA 611 64 69 64 69 64 69 69 r- (D O LO N M LO Il- LO Ct CO N M U V' O N N N 0 *- N a o 0 r o p o O o 0 0 �v� v L rr C 7 � a U) Z3 -0 cn (0 U) rn N N J U 'L N E LL C U c�UO�w a� 0 U U E �a E o Z CU w L N V m (p t6 W caLL m > ��cnU�U -0U Ict OR r N M IR LO r N M r A 161.2 k2e 0 O O II O. N U rn m n O O O LL O O O LL O > O O N ca O � � X > > m o O N N N @ R5 F- F- 0 0 O X LL O O LL LL C) f m �a LL LL LL LL W 00 V O 00 .-r 00 T M 64 A^ N O N .� 01 C (6 N w N R W m O cc O cc w J cl Q 1612 A elt N N O N Cl LL Z 0 m cl > ca L c 4 O E N O Y c1 N �" O c! O c •N L= N C N w N N V c0 O c y ON "O U w O f0 - C c m N N U - c G/ O N C o_ A M r O �i lm °' y �° c1 c p c (7 c O' N m O .° D H y Y O c N O c) CL r- Ln �n O 1 O C 0C '� 0 d O a a to c "O u el O r-1 ,= e-I O i Y •p c 1-1 p o o N > 'D c > ° w 0 N a T u 3 O "1 Y c 1 m Z a`r N m o Z L O T y m : O c 0 `� r L N m m 9 N u of F u 7 a 'O o m O O \ CO m N 41 3 y " m W C O 0 7 N N ~ Y "a Y O r y0 E C L }' N W N u 0 c O O X d N L+ 0 cc N M axi a N v E cv OA C N °° c (D 3 1 v > v° Q Lvui oN v ° v c° .O £-0 m a Z cr E fl o m a c c to c a) c O M v m to 0 a_ N y L c M N Z L y U c U O O N O OJ Gl m p v j v CJ O am+ m> N m O c0 U E d U d d d E d -� L c > N E N N J u a c c c c c 7 7 - - _v E�--I E ci M M M `~ O u ti N cl c c a+ c a�.r j U �4 14 O N M N lD lD 'i O u c C) c c c c Y C O_ c Y u to E p to !a O d e ri n ri O M O m O M N M OM N ei m oq } Q E m J cl N �..� = D. v L v c m Z '" Z v v c ° m m n w W a a c r- 'O V O H Z u N O O u U_ O •� c co 0 E d1 v c N CO y O 'V F- , d Q W w Q O N c N ,� W = c0 c 0 � N c V C ` W O M C O c "6 H OD E W W C y0,, L C �" � O. cm H N N 2 m LU Op d L m in m c 3 a W C Q: W L - m 0 v v m y E 3 E o v v v x x a o c c ° v c Q o m v m o m m cv v g v Co W Z O? E- w > �°-, u o c ao oc is + CL Q - m v O Z } o_ v ° v w v v = c o m C H O a m a o m u m = V cw m v o E m v n O O O Z E - co m co a` E I E E E• 0 o v � a Cl) '" v L o � o W °1 O o > U u U cC u m Z O w 0 vc u N E v o �-+ .� N en a m Ln w n RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU PREPARED BY URBAN GREEN STUDIO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1612 A 22 7/19/11 The project consists of median beautification for a 1.3 mile length of Radio Road, between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard, including landscape planting and irrigation improvements. The medians range in width from 12 feet to 42 feet. The landscape plantings include canopy trees and large palms, accent trees and palms, and shrub and ground cover plantings. The design is based on sustainable design principles, and utilizes primarily native species, supplemented with drought - tolerant and non - invasive ornamental species. The medians will be 100% planted with shrub & ground covers, with no sod areas. Crushed shell may be used as a design feature in selected areas. The irrigation system will utilize a groundwater source, with an 8" well and 15 HP variable frequency drive submersible pump. The irrigation head type, layout and zoning will be tailored to the planting layout and plant selection. A Consumptive Water Use Permit has been approved by the South Florida Water Management District. OPINION OF COST - ON GOING MAINTENANCE The following figures are based on the current cost of $70,100 - $75,253 per mile contracted amount plus $4,537 per mile for staff time for a comparable roadway width (data provided by Ms. Pamela Lulich for Livingston Road). 1. Standard Mulch option 1.3 miles x $79,790/mile = $103,727 annual cost of on -going maintenance (using the higher figure) 2. Crushed Shell option 1.3 miles x $79,790/mile= $103,727 less 10% ($10,373) = $93,354 annual cost of on- going maintenance Assumptions for 10% deduct: • The crushed shell areas will occupy approximately 25 -30% of the overall median area, and will be non - irrigated except for micro - irrigation to accent plants. • Maintenance required for the shell areas will be somewhat less than what is required for planting beds (trimming, fertilizing, spraying, weeding). Some weeding and raking may still be required, but will be easier than in bed areas. • Decreased square footage of irrigation coverage will require fewer heads, etc. therefore will decrease the irrigation maintenance required. • Crushed shell can be replaced less frequently than standard mulch (every 4 -5 years instead of every 2 years for standard mulch). J" Ila {t ' ak ; ` s I "I II X � CO 6 � "v I-� e. tL a �� Cn W lJ O SY. II LPs � X :N t6 <* a to % 1D r Ct � I I P. h h Q C2 S. M lD L b 40 u ti � � W N m N L2 d U O W ^I =a � LL 00 � � N a W Q � o Z YC 0 W '.j. Q m O O LA _ 0 v U 7 h Ln 1 R M W M Z W W m Y u W LAS. a A H O CL � � v Lu O u b N O O W h O ri :SC � N 3 LL +e- c m p4 � M u E t- G O 161 2A 22 1612 2e \ \\ \ ��� C, 00 ��\ �� It It it w 00 00 /g�\ \ \\\ 1612 2e 16t2A1� 1612 -� ZZ -- Right - o -fWay Application 161 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION ROW PERMITTING & INSPECTION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 Telephone Number: 252-5767 Inspection Telephone Number 252-2417 hftl):/Aw_Aiw,colliergov.net/Index.asDx?Daae=424 [CALL f-IMAIL L IN ALL APPLICABLE INFORMATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT# :,# SDP/AR# BUILDING PERMIT # DJECT NAME Radio Road East MSTU 30% Conceptual Plan review enewal/Modification (Unexpired Permit) $100 Rck-and-Bore/Directional Bore $500 prinkler Head $50 pen-Cut $2,000 liscellaneous Events $200 ither iMMERCtAL SMALL DI .onstruction (Driveway) $1,000 ... 111111011111111 roperty 1winees Info. tes: ❑ Copy of house survey with A sketch for the request ❑ Application fee ❑ Details for request (location, size, etc.) 1$2,000 A $2,U0UT/4i4,UUUA $1,000 $2,000 $400 X, '$31000 22 _7 --­ t-eontracEori i,4amrd uz _, ­11 yL Agent Contact Name ms.Dayna L. Fendrick, RLA information KA 5;_ Add. 1263 Hernando street nn Arld 12885 Horseshoe Drive S . 11 Les, FL 34104 CityLState/Zlp Naples, FL 34103 -252-6201 Telephone 239-263-4029 Contractor's License Number , C26000347 - Fla, LA Business 4. if the application is made by any person or firm other than the owner of the property involved, a written oonsent from the property owner shall be required prior to processing of the application. 5. Growth Management Division approval does not exempt the permittes from gaining approval from any State, Federal or Local Agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed work. 6, 1 have read the Collier County Right-of-Way Permit Notes and Conditions and agree to conduct all work in accordance with the County Ordinance #09-19, as amended and all applicable all County and State, codes and laws, as amended. Under penalties of pedury, I declare that I have read the forgoin9416-ffirit-t-a-Mlication and that facts stated in it are true X Akpi6RIZED SIGNATURE Work shall be performed in accordance with approved plan, Conditions of Permit appearing on reverse side, stipulations specified as part of this permit and in accordance with Collier County Ordinance #09-19 and the "Public Right-of-Way Construction Standards Handbook,' latest edition. Applicant declares that prior to filing this application he has ascertained the location of all existing utilities, both aerial and underground. Any changes to any utility shall be the responsibility of the Permittee for all cost. This permit is contingent upon Permittee obtaining necessary rights of entry for construction and maintenance where required right- of-way for public use has not been dedicated and accepted by Collier County. V, 161 [ A 22 zazalz"44 E44 M.S.T.U. Ak Co.w tt 2985 S. Hww+(« U,,4t Nqt", Ft 34104 October 5, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda r IV. Approval of Minutes - August 3, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business A. Liaison to Commissioner Henning Report — Sue Chapin VIII. Old Business A. Grant Update B. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1612 4 A 22 RAO" 1zerul E" M.S.T.u. Add C"w" a 229S S. Ho",4 ,1?.1w' t Wes, Ft 34104 Q ROWYM Minutes �; �0 October 5, 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order BY' " " " "' °' ° " " " " "' The Meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairman Sue Chapin at 10:07 AM. A quorum was established. H. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Paige Simpson, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson (Excused) County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Public: Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron Fiala Hiller III. Approval of Agenda Henning Add: V.B.1 Application Coyle B.2 ROW Permit Coletta �v B.3 Resolution Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda for October S, 2011 as amended. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — August 3, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved August 3, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated October 5, 2011. She reported the beginning 2012 Budget as follows: • Ad Valorem Tax - $158,200.00 Misc. Corres: • Operating Expense - $44,600.00 • Improvements General - $ .00 Date: 5115(12_ • Capital Outlay - $ .00 r Item #:I 2 RZ2 COPiN 1 W 161 2 A 22 B. Project Manager Report 1. Application Darryl Richard reported the County is in receipt of Dale Johnsons' application to renew his term. He noted the 2- Advisory Committee positions have been advertised with a deadline of October 29th. Janice Bundy has applied. Paige Simpson arrived at 10:12 am. Sue Chapin moved to approve Dale Johnson's application form for the Radio Road MSTUAdvisory Board to be forwarded and approved by the BCC. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. It was noted Paige Simpson's term will expire October 27, 2011. Paige reported not receiving a renewal letter from the County Managers Office regarding her term expiration and her intention is to submit a renewal application. Staff will check with the County Managers Office to make sure they have her correct address. 2. ROW Permit Darryl Richard previously emailed the 30% Plan Submittal to the Advisory Board, Urban Green and Staff. The plan was submitted for an internal review and approval on the crushed shell and the tree placement concepts. ROW Permitting approved the 30% Plan without any disapproval comments with the following special conditions attached to the permit: ➢ The amount of exposure (1/4 inch) of the border will be allowed at this time. At any time in the future should the border fail to contain the crushed shell /stone and /or become a public safety issue the County reserves the right to have the material removed from the ROW at the MSTU expense. ➢ No work shall be performed within 1800 feet of Davis Blvd unless coordinated by Collier County TECM. Staff confirmed they are coordinating with TECM. Dayna Fendrick clarified the amount of exposure (1/4 inch) of the border as 1/4 inch below the top of the curb. Pam Lulich stated the 1/4 inch exposure will satisfy both the MRP standards and ROW requirements. Staff stated ROW reserves the right up to100% for additional comments on plans. Darryl Richard reported an increase in the Urban Green Studio contract due to contract completion date adjustment. Additional time will be required to cover future meetings. The rate is based on the approval of the original contract. The original completion date of October 5, 2011 was extended until the end of February, 2012 and increased $6,072. 2 161 2A 22 Tom Depouw moved to extend the contract (Urban Green Studio) at the rate specified. (Not to exceed $6,100) Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Resolution Michelle Arnold reported the Executive Summary has been placed on the October 11, 2011 BCC agenda. The Executive Summary recommends approval on the resolution calling for the BCC to authorize the ballot question to be put on the Presidential Primary in January 31, 2012. (See attached) She asked for approval on the Executive Summary and Staff recommendations. Sue Chapin expressed concerns received from Commissioner Henning. Mark Isackson emailed Commissioner Henning financial points to consider as the financing moves forward. (See attached) Sue suggested the MSTU possibly change the term of the loan from 15 years to a 10 -year term. Michelle Arnold responded it could be done but doesn't allow flexibility for the maximum 15 -year term and if property values continue to decrease, it will take longer to pay. Tom Depouw also expressed his concerns and stated he could not approve 15 years of payments. Michelle Arnold responded the language given was to allow for flexibility and it was important that the public know that 15 years is the maximum and it could be paid off sooner. She recommended identifying the impact to the individual taxpayer. The focus of the ballot question is; can we use the dollars we are currently collecting to pay for the loan. Much discussion was made on changing the term, the loan amount and how to seek public support on the January ballot question. It was noted Sue Chapin and Commissioner Henning plan to visit many of the developments to provide facts and answer any questions the public may have on the ballot question. Sue asked staff to provide backup information and any graphs that would be helpful in presenting facts to the residents. Speakers Janice Bundy stated people want the project and are anxious to see it started. They will be looking at the numbers and the term of the loan. Some will vote no. She suggested a realistic loan amount and to hold a public meeting to explain the ballot to the Communities. 3 1612 A 2[ Floyd Chapin said it has to go on the ballot in January otherwise it will be dead for another year. He asked the Advisory Board to agree on something today. It's very important not to delay the project. Michelle Arnold suggested amending the ballot question to read: Shall the existing ad valorem property tax levied at a rate not exceeding. 5 mils on taxable property within "Radio Road East Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) " be used to obtain and repay general obligation bonds in a principal amount not exceeding_ , with a maturity not longer than years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to advance the construction of landscaping /irrigation improvements with the MSTU? Sue Chapin moved to change the amount on the official ballot (from $750,000) to $659,000, term no longer than 10 years and amend the question as Michelle suggested. Second by Tom Depouw. Further discussion was made on future estimated MSTU funds that may be available, the term and the loan amount. Sue Chapin moved to amend the motion to state the amount to $649,000 for 10 years. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. Michelle Arnold stated the proposed changes will be submitted to Mark Isackson and Counsel. Darryl Richard suggested the MSTU consider gaining public support on the ballot question by doing a mailing. It will be discussed at the November meeting. Michelle Arnold will research who is able to vote. Is it the property owner or registered voter regardless of ownership? Dayna Fendrick suggested adding the verbiage; the purpose is to advance the project to the ballot question. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick provided and discussed memos regarding Gumbo Limbo /Buccaneer Palm availability and Lee County staff comments regarding Colonial Boulevard shells. A list of suppliers for Buccaneer Palms and Gumbo Limbos was distributed. (See attachments) Paige Simpson left at 11: 37am. 2 1612 A-et Dayna also reported a productive coordination meeting was held with Michelle Arnold, Staff and the Botanical Garden staff on maintenance requirements for the Buccaneer Palms and Gumbo Limbos. She affirmed the ROW Permit was approved and Urban Green would be moving forward on the 60% Final Documents and suggested Staff set up a meeting with James Abney & Associates regarding irrigation. VII. New Business A. Liaison to Commissioner Henning Report - Discussed in V. B.3 VIII. Old Business A. Grant Update None B. Liaison Report - Radio Road MSTU None IX. Public Comments Janice Bundy stated she would like to see the project get started as soon as possible. She will get the word out in her community to vote yes on the ballot question. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Suzanne Chapi ice Chairman These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on /! - L - -2- o `� as presented k or amended The next meeting is November 2, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 5 1612 pLL MS.TAL Ake ear, 299S S. H D44t NApt", FL 34104 Summary of Minutes and Motions October 5, 2011 III. Approval of Agenda Add: V.B.1 Application B.2 ROW Permit B.3 Resolution Renato Fernandez moved to approve the Agenda for October S, 2011 as amended. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — August 3, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved August 3, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Services Report B. Project Manager Report 1. Application Darryl Richard reported the County is in receipt of Dale Johnsons' application to renew his term. Paige Simpson at 10:12 am. Sue Chapin moved to approve Dale Johnson's application form for the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Board to be forwarded and approved by the BCC. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. Darryl Richard reported an increased in the Urban Green Studio contract due to contract completion date adjustment. Additional time will be required to cover future meetings will be based on the approval of the original contract; the original completion date of October 5, 2011 was extended until the end of February, 2012 and increased $6,072. He recommended the Advisory Committee approve the additional funding not to exceed $6,100. 161 c p22 Tom Depouw moved to extend the contract (Urban Green Studio) at the rate specified. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. Resolution Discussion was made on what the loan amount and term should be, the information presented at previous public meetings and how to seek public support on the January ballot question. Michelle Arnold suggested the amending the ballot question read: Shall the existing ad valorem property taxed levied at a rate not exceeding. 5 mils on taxable property within "Radio Road East Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) " be used to obtain and repay general obligation bonds in a principal amount not exceeding_ , with a maturity not longer than years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to advance the construction of landscaping /irrigation improvements with the MSTU? Sue Chapin moved to change the amount in the official ballot the amount of money be $659,000 and not longer than 10 years and amend the question as Michelle suggested. Second by Tom Depouw. Further discussion was made on the amount. Sue Chapin moved to amend the amount to $649,000. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0. V/ T CC N � T lii W 0 C Z O LL 0 ,a v ca 0 0 0 0 0 O N LLo C1S rte,, � O `. Q 0 06c-�0 O O U? O a OEAO o 0 OHO N 000000aoo � � CA 00 N O LO r 0 O OO O O O CD U) W� O O O O m m 0 0 0 0 Cf) W 0 0 O O U-) ti O M O co ►I C�ll�i ,M W-1 IG i61 2A 22 . Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef> Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft 69 CL L V Q EL x w Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft 69- Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft to 00 O 00 00 N Lo O La LCD CD = U) O l() LA O I- O 1' E O M N N T- T O U Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Vl} Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft EA 60 Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft 69 0 0 oaooao co m0 0 ow 00 o0O 0 0 0 w 0 o 0LOCD U') w LO C) 0 C) U') 00 000 000LO .a O O O CA O m OA O O O O of 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 OA O 0 O O O f- m LO t� f- M O OCM M LO �� 0 0 0 0 M M ti C 00 CO N 6� V N C6 ti ti CD C.O M�� 00 C'7 � N (D V U-) LE") (.O co N L() N N N M N O N N E m Q Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft EA Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Ef> Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Eft EA U) J LU p U w_ Z U) � U W � U Z w m Q' J U J Q w wXwLL �` 0 >1w z a LU Z W O Q H Q Q Z Z Qw (D Z U Z Q wLUz�C,.)U���� >0w wiu E J caw �� Z Q � zU U Z Z O � W ��OzXCr C °fjr> 0sZ = (D 0- w N v)iX zJ C) 00 �QI- LL LL > r J _j OZHcn CO ���CO 0 N -0 U.T�� w� r-cn xx �� o QQ w�w ��pOU� W �O C: Y) ° M" Z 20 p� �F- X O �D > >_ W� LwLLWLwwWL W U U) na wJ F-� HHLwi W LL > >m WZ U) C/) �o C/) LL C NXUOQ>OQ w0 wwco > x x w> QQxx0QFa- U' ",2.0 NW �W QQ 00Q w(nw DwLL >F- w xxQQ0x0 z �� w aQ �x »x www'0 U o L L ? ? � F - � U U Z w i:l0000 F- mm� N M LA O OD O O N M t w w 1- w m O T N M le W W 1- W M O r v- v- r r T- T- T- N N N N N N N N N N M 0 000000aoo 0 00 000 0000 O O O O O O O O O O (D U7 U) 0 0 0— CO O O �t (6 co- C 7 I Y ti 00 M r C �t N N N CO N Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef> Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft 69 CL L V Q EL x w Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft 69- Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft to 00 O 00 00 N Lo O La LCD CD = U) O l() LA O I- O 1' E O M N N T- T O U Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Vl} Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft EA 60 Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft 69 0 0 oaooao co m0 0 ow 00 o0O 0 0 0 w 0 o 0LOCD U') w LO C) 0 C) U') 00 000 000LO .a O O O CA O m OA O O O O of 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 OA O 0 O O O f- m LO t� f- M O OCM M LO �� 0 0 0 0 M M ti C 00 CO N 6� V N C6 ti ti CD C.O M�� 00 C'7 � N (D V U-) LE") (.O co N L() N N N M N O N N E m Q Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft EA Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Ef> Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Eft Ef} Eft Eft Eft Eft EA U) J LU p U w_ Z U) � U W � U Z w m Q' J U J Q w wXwLL �` 0 >1w z a LU Z W O Q H Q Q Z Z Qw (D Z U Z Q wLUz�C,.)U���� >0w wiu E J caw �� Z Q � zU U Z Z O � W ��OzXCr C °fjr> 0sZ = (D 0- w N v)iX zJ C) 00 �QI- LL LL > r J _j OZHcn CO ���CO 0 N -0 U.T�� w� r-cn xx �� o QQ w�w ��pOU� W �O C: Y) ° M" Z 20 p� �F- X O �D > >_ W� LwLLWLwwWL W U U) na wJ F-� HHLwi W LL > >m WZ U) C/) �o C/) LL C NXUOQ>OQ w0 wwco > x x w> QQxx0QFa- U' ",2.0 NW �W QQ 00Q w(nw DwLL >F- w xxQQ0x0 z �� w aQ �x »x www'0 U o L L ? ? � F - � U U Z w i:l0000 F- mm� N M LA O OD O O N M t w w 1- w m O T N M le W W 1- W M O r v- v- r r T- T- T- N N N N N N N N N N M LL U) b a m w N O w 0 cu 0 0Y W, 00 a) W) N T" Wk A2C CL °&^ °O an c to O o 00o _,I O CD Q > N LY X to d N E VMf > °° J X m E o to �a a F- F- O T O o � N � o c 0 N a Q — o w a` N 63 69 64 6'i 69 6`i 6`3 64 69 6F) 69 69 Q 0 o N tU 00 Lo N O o LO d) 00 _ O 0) to Cfl M CD O 0) to V' LO N p CO M N to N E o co � a? lU (U O LE N M LO 0 0 d V O CO Q @ co Q co 0 to N OS C) 00 N 69 6-1 64 EA 61)-160-160,16-11 0 N r Ff3 6-1 6q 0 0 LL O E O a C? LO v 5 it 0 0 O N CN c c d X m a O O } LL } LL 2 - LO LO � N N d cl c tll r — � — N N (D _U N N M N_ (6 — > 7 (6 U) 7 U) -0 N " U N J C U 'C N U LL_ - inUOaw N �F N C to cn O U U E Q E o `• � ca Z ' �E-5 ��U CIO- W, 00 a) W) N T" Wk A2C v to 00 m CL °&^ °O an c to O o 00o _,I O CD Q > N LY X to d N E VMf > °° J X m E o to m �° F- F- O T O o � N � o c 0 N a Q — o w a` N _ C3; Q N tU (U N O o LO d) 00 _ O 0) to Cfl M r- n O 0) to V' N N N p CO M N to N 7 V lU (U O LE N M LO 0 0 V O CO Q @ co Q co 0 to N OS C) 00 N U 0 - M 0 N r M 0 0 LL O E C? 5 E LL U- CN c c X m LL I.L. } LL } LL 2 v to 00 m CL °&^ E an c to O o 00o _,I O E!3 VT N O Q > N LY X to d N E VMf > °° J X m E o to m �° F- F- O T O o � N � o c 0 N a Q — o w a` a c to E m X, Q > N LY X to d Y N 0 E > °° Z 0 3 a m E o X m �° N N E F- J O o a � o c 0 LL 2 a U Q � w O rn MEMORANDUM 1612 A 22 DATE: September 7, 2011 TO: Darryl Richard FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd. to Davis Blvd As you know, we currently have 2 vacancies on the above referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the application received for your review as follows: Mr. Dale M. Johnson 8148 Piedmont Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records, for the last 2 years, of the applicant recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IM Attachments 161 2 A 2e Mitcheillan rom: Johnsod2@collierschools-com AOL 9-1t. Thursday, September 01, 20112:28 PM Iwo: Mitcheillan Subject: New On-line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Taniiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252-8606 Application was received on: 9/1/20112:28:02 PM. Name;, 09-285-648� . ��� Ilia A6meA#dj*s-. 18148 Piedmont Drivd �tyi ale Ziip'.Crde 3410 Phone Numbers 121 Fag; Ru..".J. 390377-0333 Lob-nsod2gcollierschoo—l-s-,-coA Wio Road East of Santa Barbara BLVD to Davis BL:D] Category: Iresident of MSTU- Madison -p . Oistrict School Board of Collier Coun 15--1 uwc Eg of Indicate D IYT VMP "mess, OU do your of Indicate NOTE'i' All A�AA-' soY ogr d' Me -rs"M..W 'h e ir, . profile d. IWIfy the Bc>axd of County event.1hdt1h 9P 1Pf ern recommeridat�ons or they it or 41M. Sir recc men ati s: read : !y, iR a�ivi a bo r ? 16 4.2 A 22 of Indicate •Are you; a: ieeg� #eyed voter iin;�� ,County? Ye 3o:yeu c`Pg ly;hold`pullc <office? Tio`you cut'xen ly or ever se e . a Collier CounlwDoar� r +COM�n Et��?' Y�Se dio Road East of Santa Barbbra BLVD to Davis BLD Advisory Committe Flease'list= ' ou3c: camsan�� :;ec�*�,t�es: servd on the Radio Road East Advisory m Board for the past two ears however term is ex pi e . Morgan Stat .S- Second Education, Frostbur State College, Frostburg, NO M.S- Urban Education, 7niversity. Baltimore MD Certificate of Advanced Study in Education- Johns Hopkins University, Baltimor X VriGU4C: worked in Baltimore City Public Schools for 32 years prior to coming to Collier County. I have been it 'ollier County for 8 years and am currently employed by the District School Board of Collier County. I ived in the Radio Road corridor since I arrived in Collier and wish continue my service to the commute kontinuins on the Advisory Board. • 2 Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee, 161 i,2 A32e Please see attached email as follow -up to our discussion at today's Radio Road East MSTU Meeting. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 341014 telephone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 -252 -6627 Cell: 239 - 253 -9083 From: ArnoldMichelle Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 12:21 PM To: RichardDarryl Cc: LulichPamela; SCHAPIN43 @aol.com Subject: FW: Darryl, Please share this email below from Mark Isackson with the Radio Road East MSTU Committee members. Also let the language below reflects the proposed rewording of the ballot question as they voted on today at the meeting. Shall the existing ad valorem property taxed levied at a rate not exceeding .5 mils on taxable property within "Radio Road East Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU)" be used to obtain and repay general obligation bonds in a principal amount not exceeding $649,000, with a maturity not longer than 10 years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to advance the construction of landscaping /irrigation improvements within the MSTU? If anyone has any recommended changes to the attached please let me know as soon as possible. micnelle rdwardsArnold, Director Growtk Management Division Alternative jransportation Modes Department 2885 '5otjtk Horseshoe Drive ;239) 252 -5841 From: IsacksonMark Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 5:10 PM To: HenningTom; OchsLeo Cc: KlatzkowlefF; Miller, Steve; ArnoldMichelle Subject: RE: 161'2 A22 Good Afternoon Commissioner, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with a few financial points to consider as this financing moves forward. 1. This MSTU is collecting on average about $150,000 per year in Ad Valorem tax revenue. Ordinance 2009 -44 sets a millage rate cap at .5000. The current rate is .4666 per $1,000 of taxable value. The referendum only seeks permission to pay debt from the existing millage rate. No additional millage is sought. 2. It is typical with ballot questions to have a not to exceed financing amount, with a maturity not exceeding a certain number of years at an interest rate not exceeding the maximum lawful rate. The language proposed is similar to the Forest Lakes MSTU ballot question in this regard. 3. 1 do not anticipate having to borrow more than $750,000 and in fact l would like to use existing MSTU reserves to take the amount borrowed down to $500,000. The maturity on this financing will probably be in the seven to ten year range. The fifteen year maximum maturity allows for flexibility. Finally, the market will set the interest rate when bids are received. 4. Looking at the numbers, if we borrow $500,000 and anticipate a ten year maturity at an interest rate of 4 %, annual principal and interest will total $61,700. Since reserves would be drawn down under a $500,000 borrowing scenario, the remaining property tax revenue assuming again $150,000 in receipts would be used to fund annual maintenance. The Growth Management folks tell me that annual maintenance could approach $75,000 to $90,000. 5. It is not feasible to pay off this financing within the sunset provision contained within 2009 -44 for the reasons mentioned above. There is simply not enough property tax revenue to support both principal and interest as well as annual anticipated maintenance. Would be happy to discuss these points further. Regards, Mark From: HenningTom Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:48 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: KlatzkowJeff; IsacksonMark Subject: RE: The mstu is collecting $250,000 per year even if the property values go down and only collecting $200,000 a Syr note would collect 1million. And what is with the maximum legal interest rate, are we bank of America? I will not approve this language From: OchsLeo Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:18 PM To: HenningTom 1612 A 22 Cc: KlatzkowJeff; IsacksonMark Subject: RE: Commissioner, The 15 year maturity is a not to exceed term to provide flexibility to the MSTU to determine what level of annual financial commitment they are comfortable paying. As you know, we have to have sufficient cash flow each year from the millage to pay the debt service. The shorter the repayment term, the higher the annual debt service requirement. I will discuss alternatives with Mark and Derreck and get back to you soon. VR, Leo From: HenningTom Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:04 PM To: OchsLeo Cc: KlatzkowJeff Subject: Leo The voters are going to see the 15 yr payback and pause. They were told it's a 5 year project. This is not good Shall general obligation bonds be issued in a principal amount not exceeding $750,000, with a maturity not longer than 15 years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to finance landscaping and irrigation improvements, payable from ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate not exceeding .5 mils on taxable property within the "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit "? Cit'de, ,'lorida Law.. e..mail add,esses are public records, ff you do no - YG`Ci." e- T'ti3il address , eieaa, ced in to a pAblic records r Guesl. do 4 o' Send electronic a% i iU mis ent'ty. Instead.:;t;rlact 1 :gs {3if... }7, °YID: phone M it Writing- 1612 A22 Special Conditions 1) The amount of exposure ( '/4 inch ) of the border will be allowed at this time. At any time in the future should the border fail to contain the crushed shell /stone and /or become a public safety issue the County reserves the right to have the material removed from the ROW at the MSTU expense. 2) No work shall be performed within 1800 feet of Davis Blvd unless coordinated Collier County TECM. 1612 A 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve a resolution calling for a referendum to be held for the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to determine if the qualified electors residing in such MSTU approve the County obtaining a loan not to exceed $750,000 in order to finance certain landscaping and irrigation capital improvements within such MSTU. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners of a resolution calling for a referendum to be held for the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the Intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to determine if the qualified electors residing in such MSTU approve the County obtaining a loan not to exceed $750,000 payable from ad valorem taxes already being levied at a rate not to exceed .5 mils per year against all taxable property within the MSTU in order to finance certain landscaping and irrigation capital improvements within such MSTU. CONSIDERATIONS: On July 28, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 2009 -44, which established the MSTU. The principal purpose of the MSTU is to provide landscaping and irrigation for the section of Radio Road from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard. The Committee has been meeting since October 2010 and in that short time has hired a landscape architect and developed preliminary plans for the beautification of the roadway. On March 29, 2011, the MSTU Advisory Committee held a public meeting for review of preliminary project plans for landscaping & irrigation on Radio Road between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard. There were 41 residents who attended this publicly advertised meeting representing the various communities within the MSTU boundary. The overwhelming comments received during the meeting indicated that the community wanted to see the project completed as soon as possible. Public comment was in favor of the MSTU pursuing financing to advance the construction in order to take advantage of lower pricing. On June 14, 2011, the MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman petitioned the Board of County Commissioners seeking direction for staff assistance in acquiring a loan for the landscape and irrigation installation project. The Board directed staff to assist the MSTU in obtaining the appropriate financing to advance the project. In order to meet the MSTU Committee's financial goals, a referendum question must be posed to the qualified electors residing within the MSTU to determine whether they agree that the capital improvements project should be financed through a loan and whether the ad valorem taxes already being levied can be utilized to repay said loan. County staff has been working with the Supervisor of Elections office to coordinate the timeline to submit the referendum question for the Presidential Preference Primary. The proposed question is contained in the attached resolution and asks: 1612 P 2e Shall general obligation bonds be issued in a principal amount not exceeding $750, 000, with a maturity not longer than 15 years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to finance landscaping and irrigation improvements, payable from ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate not exceeding .5 mils on taxable property within "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit "? If the Board approves the attached Resolution, the referendum question will be included on the Presidential Preference Primary election ballot that will occur on January 31, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the resolution calling for a referendum to be held for the Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit and authorize the Chairman to sign the Resolution on behalf of the Board. Prepared By: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Attachment: (1) Resolution Calling for Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit Referendum 161 2,. +p 2c RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDERING AND CALLING FOR A BOND REFERENDUM ELECTION TO BE HELD FOR THE RADIO ROAD, EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT TO DETERMINE IF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN SUCH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT APPROVE THE ISSUANCE BY THE COUNTY OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS THAT SHALL MATURE NOT LATER THAN 15 YEARS FROM THEIR DATE OF ISSUANCE IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $750,000, PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED AT A RATE NOT TO EXCEED .5 MILS PER YEAR AGAINST ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT IN ORDER TO FINANCE CERTAIN LANDSCAPING AND SPRINKLER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SUCH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners (the "Board ") of Collier County, Florida (the "County ") hereby finds and determines that: (a) On July 28, 2009, the Board enacted Ordinance No. 2009 -44 creating the "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit" (the "MSTU "), the principal purpose of which MSTU is to provide landscaping and sprinkler systems for the section of Radio Road from Santa Barbara Boulevard east to Davis Boulevard (collectively, the "MSTU Improvements"). (b) The advisory committee for the MSTU has requested the Board provide for a bond referendum election to be held to allow the qualified electors residing within the MSTU to determine whether general obligation bonds secured by and payable from ad valorem taxes levied at a rate not to exceed .5 mils against all taxable property within the MSTU should be issued to finance costs of the MSTU Improvements thereby allowing 1612 A ee the MSTU Improvements to be completed sooner than if the MSTU funded them on an annual basis. (c) It is in the best interests of the County and the MSTU to allow the qualified electors within the MSTU to determine whether or not to issue general obligation bonds (the "Bonds ") secured by and payable from ad valorem taxes levied at a rate not to exceed .5 mils against all taxable property within the County (the "Ad Valorem Taxes ") in order to finance costs of the MSTU Improvements. SECTION 2. BOND REFERENDUM ELECTION. A bond referendum election of the qualified electors residing within the MSTU is hereby ordered and called to be held on January 31, 2012, to determine whether or not the County shall issue the Bonds to finance costs of the MSTU Improvements. Such Bonds shall mature not later than 15 years from their date of issuance, shall be issued in an aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $750,000 and shall be payable from the Ad Valorem Taxes. SECTION 3. MANNER OF VOTING. The referendum election shall be conducted in accordance with applicable law at the same time and places as the Presidential Preference Primary election to be held on January 31, 2012, coordinated and conducted by the Supervisor of Elections of Collier County; provided, however, the referendum election shall only be held at those precincts that serve the electors within. the MSTU. Early voting may be utilized to the extent allowable by, and in accordance with, applicable law. SECTION 4. OFFICIAL BALLOT. The form of ballot to be used shall be in substantially the form as attached hereto as Exhibit A. The ballots to be used in the referendum election, including any required sample ballots, shall be prepared and distributed by the Supervisor of Elections of Collier County in accordance with applicable law. Electronic balloting may be utilized to the extent allowable by, and in accordance with, applicable law. SECTION 5. ABSENTEE VOTING. Adequate provision shall be made by the Supervisor of Elections of Collier County for absentee voting. Ballots to be used in the referendum election for absentee voting shall be in substantially the same form as those ballots utilized at the polling places on the day of the referendum election. Ballots for absentee voting shall be distributed, collected and canvassed in accordance with applicable law. SECTION 6. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION. The bond referendum election shall be held and conducted in the manner prescribed by law. The results of the election shall be as soon as practicable returned and canvassed in the manner prescribed by law. The results shall show the number of qualified electors within the MSTU who voted at such bond referendum election and the number of votes cast respectively for and 2 1612 A 1 22 against approval of the Bonds. Upon canvassing and certification in the manner prescribed by law, the results shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board. SECTION 7. ELECTION RESULTS. If a majority of the votes cast at the bond referendum election in respect to the aforestated proposition shall be "YES - For Bonds" votes, such proposition shall be approved and the Bonds described herein may be issued by the County. If a majority of the votes cast at such election in respect to the aforestated proposition shall be "NO - Against Bonds" votes, such proposition shall be defeated and the Bonds described herein may not be issued by the County. SECTION 8. NOTICE OF BOND REFERENDUM ELECTION. A public notice, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, shall be published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the County in the manner provided by law. The notice shall be published at least 30 days prior to the bond referendum election, once in the fifth week prior and once again in the third week prior to the week in which the bond referendum election is held, all in the manner provided in Section 100.342, Florida Statutes. SECTION 9. SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS. The County Manager is hereby authorized and directed to coordinate with and through the Supervisor of Elections of Collier County in carrying out the purposes of this Resolution. SECTION 10. CONFLICTS. If there is conflict between the provision of this Resolution and any other resolution or ordinance or portions thereof, the provisions of this Resolution shall prevail to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 3 SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. effective immediately upon its adoption. 161,2 A2e This Resolution shall become DULY ADOPTED this I Ith day of October, 2011. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (SEAL) Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: sir Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 4 161 2 1XICI- 1. YII1 Official Ballot Collier County, Florida Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit Bond Referendum Election January 31, 2012 Approval of Limited General Obligation Bonds to Finance Landscaping and Sprinkler Improvements in the MSTU. Shall general obligation bonds be issued in a principal amount not exceeding $750,000, with a maturity not longer than 15 years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to finance landscaping/sprinkler improvements, payable from ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate not exceeding .5 mils on taxable property within "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit ?" INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: YES - FOR BONDS NO - AGAINST BONDS A 2t 1612 A ee . EXHIBIT B Notice to Electors of the "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit" of a Bond Referendum Election to be held on January 31, 2012 Regarding General Obligation Bonds to be Issued to Finance Certain Landscaping and Sprinkler Improvements in the MSTU Notice is hereby given that a bond referendum election will be held on January 31, 2012, to determine whether Collier County, Florida may issue general obligation bonds maturing not later than 15 years from their issuance in a principal amount not exceeding $750,000, interest upon which will not exceed the maximum legal rate, to finance various landscaping and sprinkler improvements, which bonds shall be payable from ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate not to exceed .5 mils on all taxable property within the "Radio Road, East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard Municipal Service Taxing Unit ", all as further provided in Resolution No. adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida on September 27, 2011. A copy of such Resolution No. may be obtained from the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Collier County, Florida. 161.2 AjZ2 9 - MEMO TO: Michelle Arnold, Collier County ATM Pam Lulich, Collier County ATM Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Katie Binkowski, Urban Green Studio FROM: Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio DATE: August 11, 2011 SUBJECT: Radio Road East MSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Palm Availability As requested in our last MSTU committee meeting (8/3/11), we have researched the availability of Gumbo Limbo trees and Buccaneer Palms. We have discussed size /specification, price, quantities, and the option of contract growing with nearby suppliers and have summarized their comments below: GUMBO LIMBO (ursera simaruba) 16 -18' ht, 8 -10' spd, 6' ct, 6" cal, FG, single trunk, full balanced head, structurally sound branching Native Green Cay, Boynton Beach (561) 496 -1415 ❖ Size: 16' FG. ❖ Cost: $10 /ft. ❖ Qty: a few hundred currently available ❖ Contract growing: Yes (The nursery has not done this before, but would consider it as an option) ❖ Contact: Mike Jameson (miiam @mac.com) ❖ Comments: Nursery grows Gumbo Limbo trees with natural form (not FL # 1). They have a variety of forms, including some with horizontal branching, and also a large quantity of trees available with 6' clear trunk /street tree form. Native Tree Nursery, Goulds (305) 247 -4499 ❖ Size: 18' FG. ❖ Cost: $10 /ft. ❖ Qty: 400 currently available ❖ Contract growing: Yes Contact: Michelle Radio Rood East i175TU Gumbo Umbo ano Bucco'ne.-f" Palm Availability memo 1612 A22 ❖ Comments: Nursery grows a variety of forms and sizes. The natural form of the nursery's 16' -18' Gumbo Limbo trees are not considered FL #1. Suggests smaller size to meet FL #1 standard. South Coast Growers, Lake Worth (800) 753 -2034 ❖ Size: 16' FG, 3 " -4" cal., 6' -8' ct. ❖ Cost: $250 each ❖ Qty: 600 -700 currently available ❖ Contract growing: Yes, if necessary, although it is not preferred. Contract growing is more expensive due to rental of land, cost of labor, and need for property insurance. ❖ Contact: Jessica or Kenya ❖ Comments: Nursery offers a variety of container sizes, as well as field grown and collected trees. Most of the trees grown are natural form, not FL # 1. Caribbean Tree Farm, Homestead (305) 247 -4717 ❖ Size: 45 gal, 16' -18' ht. ❖ Cost: $100 each ❖ Qty: Few currently available. ❖ Contract growing: No ❖ Comments: Future availability uncertain. Does not typically grow large quantities. Plantation Spice Growers, Goulds (305) 257 -2306 ❖ Size: 65 gal, 18' -24' ht, ❖ Cost: n/a ❖ Qty: n/a ❖ Contract growing: n/a ❖ Comments: Supplier caters only to high -end residential /resort clientele. Only grows large specimen, character Gumbo Limbos with strong horizontal branching. Recommends 45 gal, 12' -14' ht to meet the FL #1 standard. Conclusions /Recommendations 1. This analysis is a snapshot of current availability. Nursery inventory is very cyclical and will continually change as crops turn over and are sold. 2. Gumbo Limbos are widely available in the size specified and will likely continue to be grown and available on a consistent basis in the future. 3. Growers are consistently of the opinion that the natural growth characteristic of Gumbo Limbos is free -form and not with a central leader. They feel that the FL # 1 standard does not apply to free -form trees (similar to Jacarandas and Royal Poincianas). If a central leader is a Radio Road East MSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Palm Availability memo 1612 A zz requirement, we may have to specify a smaller size (12' ht.) Larger trees will typically be more natural form. Based upon these comments, we don't recommended specifying FL# 1 for the Gumbo Limbos. 4. Since Gumbo Limbos are grown in a wide variety of forms - ranging from low- branching "character" trees to more single trunk street trees, we will write a very descriptive specification for our project conditions. Our conversations with growers indicate they do have a significant number of trees that are of the "street tree" form. 5. While contract growing is an option offered by some suppliers, the practice does not appear to have cost advantages, nor does it seem necessary, given the widespread availability and large quantities that match our desired specifications. We believe it will be possible to find and select the number of trees (54) required for the project without the need to contract grow the material. 6. We recommend that the Landscape Architect /Contractor make a field trip to inspect the top 2 -3 nurseries, and select and field tag the trees individually at the appropriate time. BUCCANEER PALM (Pseudophoenix saraentii) 25 gal, 7' ht, heavy trunk Sol -Air Farms, Homestead (786) 573 -2020 ❖ Size: 25 gal, 6' ht. ❖ Cost: $75 -$100 each ❖ Qty: Hundreds currently available Island Tropical Foliage, Miami (305) 245 -0010 ❖ Size: 25 gal, 6' ht. ❖ Cost: $250 each ❖ Qty: 20 -30 currently available Botanics Wholesale, Homestead (305) 245 -2966 ❖ Size: 25 gal, 7' ht. ❖ Cost: $350 each ❖ Qty: Hundreds currently available Radio Road East POSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Polm Availability memo 1612AtZ, Soaring Eagle Nursery, Bokeelia (800) 293 -7256 ❖ Size: 25 gal, 6' -7' ht. ❖ Cost: $250 each ❖ Qty: 20 -25 currently available Conclusions /Recommendations 1. Buccaneer Palms are available at several sources and are a consistently grown product, particularly in nurseries specializing in palms and /or native plant materials. 2. Price varies widely by grower and it will be necessary to shop around to get the best quality for the best price. In general, Gumbo Limbos and Buccaneer Palms are readily available. Since quantities and sizes do fluctuate over time, we recommended checking availability with suppliers again, closer to the time of construction. Please review this information along with the attached photos and documents, and let us know if you have any comments or questions. Sincerely, Dayna Fendrick, RLA, AICP URBAN GREEN STUDIO Attached: Gumbo Limbo Photographs, South Coast Growers Gumbo Limbo Supplier List, Betrock's Plant Finder Buccaneer Palm Supplier List, Betrock's Plant Finder Radio Road East MSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Palm Availability memo K A I 2.2 Gumbo Limbos with single trunk "street tree" form, South Coast Growers Gumbo Limbos with character low- branching form (not specified), South Coast Growers Radio Road Eosi MISTU Gumbo Limbo and Bucccneer Po(rr Availability memo 1612 A2L Mgt R�Vz S g -, �;z�'`vl�'��`�` „8^�^.au �{u' 'a'kS"v�:�`G�,�y,c.�. u �����'v�o =`�� .. c.�u' rua ��$ �__ .v' c. .ter --'!' . . . . . . . . . . . SS 9 g z. 5 V t A 7,7, k S '7 E SE;_ E SSE 2 F S R v g Iry RI T- f. 9, 1-5 U. t; �7 1, F 9 �R F �Rg . . . . . . . Mu . . . . . . . . . . . . . E k t. 9 �� 9 a S ! 4 z z = g -o o �4 SS 2 v V.!M �. 7 �' "& 'A& �� C�2 ” A -"nL2 t 8 9-2 Z V T � F .I iF - - , . - 5 E ' E 'E '5 %MZ f E E. F, Ez�= erTr s n -S -B zr C: -'I' t.4 X, Z:. '7 7.,-, zx r zr C'.. % t t- 2 2 L c S � t2 A M g Ey 5 ":E E ea ;7 a- E, gy .77 cc f5 E C4 :rg VC•SV 7nif Z; D �z 7 S 7'm ZZ Z C Z Z C C Z Z List of Suppliers for Buccaneer Palms, Betrock's PlantFinder (July 15, 2011) Radio Road East MSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Palm Availability memo 16 1,.2 p 22 $�$g88888g88aS8SS888o80888 88888880 °880�8$80$8$88$$g808888o""a r `Gcrs8C88^$$pj`� n.N..i w' - -.. x n r °ui Li v; Liec�rLi �ic� poL -..; vi v: N.riooeN •, __. .. e5p�x -8 •_ Ow_ O OOGOGOgO��k,�oo � _ C ROE��v��vc�v�uvv�vuc;vv 4 iyCy 7y0 L�yy b ` Gk>'2c$iw �a�- 8w-((g W�,�yj a�¢w�����LLs Yom+ ¢¢S'SCC�C, f 4�$ 2's6 �¢ �S S�fG( �y .�i ��.. �i.•ZG ?�GU.wV}1 uyy... u. G<.SO uwml8 O }� $d VV+ •H� ='l�� YY_wG.- r-.-�. • li%L a, o7 L 8`1F�ae 7 �'vo' ^ -�' °'� °O`g v`�S c Ei X77 =12;;P v .¢e<°wo 1`a<.<�SNUSz'�s"oaos'��omGa�su °U •'+6uSVU2 ,`� iSGC¢i <� =_ziC �� �V� Pd •+66 «6« • f mviPn�v�Gv, nv�GGuv^ ��vin�v: u?' �+ �iGGvv�v^. HS` ijuGGv�iGv�iGGvn. �Gv, uGv�L" i` �vL" zzv1" SGGGGGGGGGv n.�^nvi,�RaGGGz.G-- .`�1'u oSSSSS8888ttttt ttoottttttt8�ootoo'tttt0000a - __!oo800to'MS 8 o zo €$88 $88888 ___ �egh8888S$888 88888888 "8 $8888 S8 N So 8_ _ 8 ....o�d ceeo vNU;d o o c' o n a, a, V • ¢ _,,,bmA?�o : �b �:ry .. ^ n °o.°___ ^___5'.2�T � �i' in N K <wi t�< .j ^ND.FN _o. ^OHO•, n.,_•ig0"��mtOOW _ 9V 6v 4ye��N' �^' ��ev��8W888888888�$ 8. 8u.". Lu. dd8�88 $888`_?$88LL�r ^.�d888888�'`vz � .u.' SJVVVV��u:�u8n`��nx _.Zgu' ......8.. _Ga eyYUcXB _ ^H� v'�sbN4 tSu35s`sYaa�i°y�pF. N$E ° Cu�G wo`- $ffi °&8�� °aa ¢ °op•£� w N j y: "_�W�a� „a r° n�$�`odo pw”' -c y w...ev Ww r `cy aw_'S "w'a� 'd' c -•+c•{ # on t G L•' .. ¢ y�< 9 0! f3 w;v W�'b�iG j`i� °me3ea`� <7�Ha}L� w 3_,xSeiMzcSl c��¢�z.o�c^cozWmo°n »<$c$pb `_nn..n ^_. n.. _.. _..1�1 .n ^__.. ^rvrv- nn�n` -n n.+nn _nn. -n: ` G ^`�.. �..��"WW'u " •` .,_NlriNN NN NNN NNNNNN NNN NNN.NNNNN NNNN GN G.NKNNNNNY.NNN..._.._.�GN V:NNN NNUNOm Nm Np GNV JWN�N GGC::: 8t8 �$SoSBo$o888ot8S88S8S8z8So8888 8 SEE o 88oSSSSSSS $BOSSS8898SS88S8SO8oS8SS88$o$4 t2' m388,;e -�m� °�8� u u r $ u mho cNam e o oq oA: ..*b monk i^Hervo o ncGN ��onrobH_ oon ^nn _Ny L3n'? nry----- rv".Y rvx' arv' 3Yn��R�' n3���kn" ��' �iSS�LZ� 'N°N��8��8�����.�_�t`sgS'9 ..sg$s..gc f ....,.ss.. .s.sas...s _.�,.•.s.;s.� .s ... H _g$ n ..65 {< U^w w .. 8� ^eWa =!e Nw' u`? o`.'<Zm� at Vx4W,w�. ?.Y;`.,� B.Yn: ^ +...u�''cw"-'YG'' �Lw uv'' �'+S"c - aNdd 7w• -awL uw t�t'$�v,K¢¢:.¢_'s�}ri, ;.'ia ^��JJO „ „� flg r$`k'¢ ^¢2yN2y44a�= �yy'yy!awo$ ^�`,8 -w `E�� E5Y6 ^.00WQLLPV Qn Vici 4l30 >.'O ^pui• �Si Y�iz Ni'Y N'S Ku+�YV�.. �.- •./CCp 8u .s `'�$. - =w.3 ..ems °8_0 - - oi_"Y.",toF':'..W WBy tx-�t•$cg 7a =W 353., L� «Hs`ei e,m c-lu'p o.,.�u >`u'$�u s�' = {? c¢`d u.Nv�.¢ S• > °dc”. c: di �u'C2c.. ..-c ".,y',3'cax� . mNN0 J1NNNNNU�N NNNN N.�NNNG+NNNNi'iI NNNNY.^/,NNNNNNNN NNNNNV!NNNN J�N NNNVNNNNJ.N NNNN NNV NNVIY N.NY NN $$$$g$g$OOC$00g$090$$000 OgSEgQ`.,gb s°sg+ t. - nnwn$$8 $ W88R83�W _ W QR8__ eyeL� L • O � TCC �CC O Om x•00 �N� ^.• $ N$rygN .8ry N$� �4 �gq C p •-� v - &�czd c.Q,,, .$_,dS w}6.��uWa���- _G O�.:a C NVINNNNNV :NNVniNY- N:/�NNNfrvI'�NV.NVniN V�N,_/INV NNC�NNNN NBC List of Suppliers for Gumbo Limbos, Betrock's PlantFinder (July 15, 2011) Radio Road East MSTU Gumbo Limbo and Buccaneer Palm Availability memo L_ 1612 A e C.' D MEMO TO: Michelle Arnold, Collier County ATM Pam Lulich, Collier County ATM Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Katie Binkowski, Urban Green Studio FROM: Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio DATE: August 12, 2011 SUBJECT: Radio Road East MSTU Lee County staff comments re Colonial Blvd. shell I spoke with Pat Moore, LeeScape Coordinator and Mike Williams, Maintenance Supervisor, to ask about their experience with the shell in the medians of Colonial Boulevard. Their comments are summarized below: Pat Moore RLA LeeScape Coordinator 239 - 533 -9400 He has not seen any problem with the shell getting out into the roadway, it stays in place pretty well. Occasionally some shell gets displaced when a vehicle runs into the median, and clean- up is necessary, as with any other material. The maintenance crews use the shell areas to park their vehicles while working in the medians, so they don't have to block off a lane or park across the street and cross 3 lanes. (I don't know if we could do the same on Radio Rd, as our shell areas are configured differently). Mike Williams Maintenance Supervisor 239 - 533 -9417 They have been real happy with it, and almost never have to do anything to it. They have not seen problems with it getting out into the roadway. If you keep it a little below the curb, it stays put real well. The shell was originally crowned somewhat, and it settled in after a couple of rains. He suggested using the washed shell so the color is white, not dirty - their supplier was Forestry Resources. Mike was not certain if they used filter fabric, as the shell was done as new construction, and then turned over to maintenance, but he thinks there is filter fabric. They don't have edging between the shell & mulch areas, they just butt up to each other. Overall, very positive response. Sincerely, Dayna Fendrick, RLA, AICP URBAN GREEN STUDIO Radio Road East MSTU Memo re Colonial Blvd Shell 1612 AZT MEETING AGENDA RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU MEETING W/ BOTANICAL GARDEN STAFF 1. BUCCANEER PALM a. Suitability to microclimate /roadway setting b. Maintenance requirements At installation • Soil amendments /type • Micorrhizhae additive? • Fertilization • Watering schedule Regular schedule once established • Fertilization - blend, schedule, amount • Watering schedule • Spraying - fungicides, pesticides • Pruning 2. GUMBO LIMBO TREES a. Suitability to microclimate /roadway setting b. Florida #I standard (central leader) vs. natural form of tree c. Maintenance requirements At installation • Soil amendments /type • Micorrhizhae additive? • Fertilization • Watering schedule • Pruning - for corrective /structural defects /clear trunk height Regular schedule once established • Fertilization - blend, schedule, amount • Watering schedule • Spraying - fungicides, pesticides • Pruning - guidelines for natural /irregular form AUGUST 23, 2011 4 1z"41 &a M.S.T.U. AI C .:x 2885 S. Hoot N,�" NAtt", Ft 34104 November 2, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes -October 5, 2011 Meeting 1612 Azz RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2012 Board of County Cornrnissioners Fiala 1 `� Hiller Hennin Coyle Coletta V. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee A. Public Information regarding Ballot Question VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VIII. New Business IX. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. SC. Comes: 'Ite: 1l r L'2_ _ M tiLj-!� Zw}22 I hies to: 161 A ee Z440 Ra44 E*rvsX M.S.T.U. Ake Caw► 2985 S. H* D -,;,vc NAtly, Fl 34104 Minutes November 2, 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Public: Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron III. Approval of Agenda Add.- VIII. A. New Board Member Applications Tom Depouw moved to approve the Agenda for November 2, 2011 as amended. Second by Renato Fernando. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — October 5, 2011 Meeting Renato Fernandez moved to approved October S, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee — Addressed after VI. A. VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated November 2, 2011. She reported the beginning 2012 Budget as follows: • Ad Valorem Tax - $157,532.81 • Operating Expense - $38,483.00 • Improvements General - $ .00 • Capital Outlay - $ .00 1 161 2 p +LG ■ Reserves - $131,900.00 V. Commissioner Henning meeting with the Advisory Committee A. Public Information regarding Ballot Question Commissioner Henning asked the Advisory Committee to aid Sue Chapin and him with Association(s) Board Members information to educate voters in the different developments regarding the ballot question. Michelle Arnold clarified restrictions for the MSTU Committee members and the County. They are to remain neutral when addressing the ballot question by educating and but not to direct voters to vote one way or the other, but to encourage them to vote. Staff provided a draft letter addressed to registered voters in the Radio Road East MSTU boundaries for Commission Henning and the Advisory Committee's approval. It was suggested the letter be signed by Commission Henning and Dale Johnson, the Chairman of the MSTU Advisory Committee. Minor revisions to the letter were suggested. Commissioner Henning will review the final draft. The letter will be mailed before early voting and absentee ballots are sent. Commissioner Henning and Michelle Arnold will research and monitor when the absentee ballots are scheduled for mailing with the Supervisor of Elections. The Committee will make a decision at their next meeting as to the date for mailing. Dale Johnson suggested additional copies of the letter be made available to the Advisory Committee to distribute in their communities. Residents should reference their Trim Notice for an explanation of their tax bills that show the amount they are paying into the RR East MSTU. Janice Bundy stated the Sanctuary and Blue Heron have separate Associations. She indicated the Sanctuary Board will contact the Blue Heron Board regarding the ballot question. Staff provided and reviewed a Time Line Task List on the Resolution and Ballot Question. (See attached) Dayna Fendrick recommended posting the letter and a copy of Urban Greens' 60% Design Plan for the Associations within the MSTU boundaries. Tom Depouw suggested the project be expedited so construction begins before season starts in 2012. 2 1612 p Ze Commissioner Henning will assist in expediting construction once the ballot question gets positive results by the voters. Discussion regarding costs associated with a mailing was discussed. The Staff researched costs and noted the following: ■ Letter will be addressed to Dear Resident. ■ There are 2,508 registered voters. ■ Prepaid postage envelopes are available as a bulk item through USPS. Letter can be printed with address pulled from Excel voter list received from Election Office. Costs estimated between $1,500 and $2,000. Sue Chapin moved to do a (ballot question) mailing with(final draft) the letter as approved by Commissioner Henning's office with costs not to exceed $2,000. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. The Advisory Committee requested Staff have the ballot question packet ready for the December meeting. The packet will be posted on the County website. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported items had been addressed in VI. VII. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick provided and reviewed additional details on the 60% Design Plans and a Status Report Memo addressed to Staff. (See attached) She reported a minor design adjustment had been made to the gumbo limbo tree placement and the shell layout under the trees. (See attached) It was noted costs for Landscape & Irrigation Improvements are lower than original concept. Discussion was made regarding the final plant selections, plant maintenance and irrigation on current design with future changes if needed. It was noted the irrigation system is zoned controlled. Janice Bundy reported a traffic study for installation of a traffic light at the entrance of Madison Park and the Sanctuary was scheduled to be done during January through March. She suggested installing pavers on medians for pedestrian crossing. Staff will verify traffic light and cross walk plans. James Abney — James C. Abney & Associates distributed and reviewed the Irrigation Opinion of Probable Construction Cost dated October 31, 2011. ki 1612 A VIII. New Business A. New Board Member Applications Staff presented applications from the following 5 candidates to serve on the Advisory Committee: ➢ Johnathan L. Smith ➢ Rosemary D. Mastroleo ➢ Paige Simpson ➢ Janice Bundy ➢ Lawrence Cece It was verified that Jonathan Smith did not reside in the MSTU boundaries and therefore his application could not be considered. The Advisory Committee took time to review the applications. Dale Johnson moved to recommend Janice Bundy as a representative from The Sanctuary /Blue Heron(to serve on the Radio Road East MSTU Advisory Committee) be submitted to the BCC for approval. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Renato Fernandez requested Staff notify the candidates the Advisory Committee made a selection today due to time restraints. Applicants are encouraged to become involved and to attend future meetings. IX. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin plans to attend the next Radio Road MSTU meeting. X. Public Comments There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 PM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Q"t �4;7�� - Dale Johnson, airman These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended The next meeting is December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 11 C O g N to C14 O � T O w o Z O LL' > O Z N co _d O O Q 609, 69- fl} E0- Eli V/ r i O V = Q ti O O Ef, El} El} El} r M r 00 00 N M O IJl C) M 0 q- oci�o o r- 000 N O O O O M r O O O O M Il- � 0) I- r N C ti LO CD ti O O Ef, El} El} El} r M r 00 00 N M O IJl C) M 0 C:) c) o 0 w 00 O O r 00 O Lo O O O 1- � ce) m O O cyi M 4 0 N M Il� 6430U)- El} El} Eli Eli Ef? M O C A O i ti M m N Tllr 1612 4h 2e 0 0 00MMM000M M O O O O 4 4 67 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 I Il� 0 0 0 C CO M C O M 0 0 0 CO O M M M W W El} 16'k I El} 16q 164 16')- Efi 1 691 69 (l)- I Eli 1619 O O N N N � r O r tC M N O t co N M M Ln 69 69 EA H9 H9 Efl 63 EA El} Eli' H-} Eli 69 El} E9 H? EA Ell H) V). El} 69 El} H9 H9 Eli El} 0% 6R 619 co CD co i i i i i i i i i i i . . 0 i i 0 i i O i . i i i i i _ m I- M CD M E r r r E O U 60- Wi Ul , EA 69 El} El} El} El} Ef} Eli 69 69 Eli El} El} 69 Eli Eli 61.1. El} EA Efi El? EA Eli Efl 69 Ef? 69 0 0 ow 000 o mO O 0 c CD oOO Oo0w o O 000Ln u) LO o C) U') 00 OOO 000W) O 0 0 0 0 M O O O O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 d . O O O O O O 1O O O 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w d N N fl- I- O O 1- I- M O M co O O O O O r M O ti 0o 00 N _ � � N O � � O O M � � 00 M - N O O O O N E O N N N CY) N r r — N r r N Q m Elk Eli Efi Eli 69 H9 Eli Eli Eli Eli EA Eli 61% K) Efl K} El} 64 Eli Elk Eli El} EA Eg Eli EA Eli Efl Efl El} 69 U) J ❑ w F- � OU W m J U _I t - QwwJ� a_ QCDO �' rn� n� uJ O n O U~ HZ W JH Q� Z +-Z QZ Z D- - U zn- �wZZo�OOQ¢wO� w m a�J U) X co Q D cncnz zU �-- Z Z O 0� w 0 � ❑z�CO ��OfOfF-U> O a -0�.� � w� �cn ��U �� oj= wDww owWWUw an.H >OOF- LLF- F- wo > >m ❑ HwZ (/)U) (nJ W c 0Q -'COQ �Q rArAwwW >�'�J QQ=wwwzzIr�LnzQ m �w a) �Q � zzc�c�z wwwQ > QQ�� QF- C� �_ U �w d QQ ❑ ❑Q cncAH D w L� w Q Q O Z u) U F-� � n Q� �� w w w Q U ❑�??Q� F- F- ZF- F- w = -D 0000 F- F- MM -- Of r N M et O cD 1� 00 O O r N M A O co 1� 00 O O r N M et LA tD 1� oo C7 O \ P 0 a � k \ Of S % Cl 0 � � _ CD E \ \ § \ C'4 - g �k/ a f a) \ " 00 J ± cn 0 m > \ }kk / � \ ^ \� \ U a LO §\EL 0 (D <Q:wo $ / , \, Rf o o , 9 \ « L9 \ \ > 2 0 7 7 9 .m \ CL 2 co © : e e e _n It Go § 0-) e % LL LO } ƒ nnnaaGnnnaaa ( / \ \ cc 00 = _ _ = I ogo 0 ¢ , , / , / / / 7 � a_a_n_______ ?3 / \ J\\ C:) CD 7 22 2 ## � A }.[ 0 7fcn U) CL & / 2 = _ (n 220$0 .g @ E r a G @ F G c O @ o I ± k 2 % m cuW 2 e \ 0) f \2� 2O >n�mm=_ S % Cl 0 � � _ k 00 (n ƒ 00 k o § &y /k \ ƒ k a m E} � \ j / 1612 A 2e 00 CD E \ \ § \ C'4 - g �k/ a f a) \ " 00 J ± cn 0 m > \ }kk 7 � \ ^ \� \ U a LO §\EL 0 (D <Q:wo $ / Rf o o , 9 \ « L9 \ \ > 2 0 7 7 .m \ x x x 2 co © : e e e _n It Go § 0-) e % LL LO } ƒ 5 ( / \ \ cc } _ _ = I k 00 (n ƒ 00 k o § &y /k \ ƒ k a m E} � \ j / 1612 A 2e 00 CD \ c \ \ § \ �k/ a f \\ \\ 00 J ± cn 0 m > \ }kk � \ ^ \� \ » = f §\EL 0 (D <Q:wo ] E �k/ a \ <. / 2 cu { ® J ± cn 0 m > \ }kk � \ ^ 2 ƒ ..< o CL » = f §\EL 0 (D <Q:wo y 1612 A ee Time Line Radio Road East MSTU Resolution & Ballot question Task Deadlines Draft Resolution for ballot question 9 -23 -2011 Coordinate with Sue Chapin on language 9/30/2011 - 10/7/2011 BCC Meeting 10/11/2011 Deadline to provide question to SOE Office 11/1/2011 Provide Notice of election 5 weeks prior to election 12/27/2011 Provide Notice of election 3 weeks prior to election 1/10/2012 Based on favorable election outcome Solicit RFP for loan 11 -1/11 thru 12 -31 -2011 Select Bank and negotiate agreement 3 -13 -2012 Ask BCC permission to amend Ordinance to eliminate sunset date for MSTU 3 -27 -2012 Amend MSTU Ordinance and adopt Resolution for the issuance of a loan for the Capital Improvements 4 -24 -2012 If unfavorable election outcome Report back to the MSTU committee to determine action 2 -1 -2012 G - November >, 2011 161 A 2e. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South • Naples, Florida 34104 • Tel. 239 - 774 -8192 • FAX 239 -530 -6219 Resident Address` Naples; florida 3xxxx Dear Resident, The Radio Road East Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) was created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on July 28, 2009 for the purpose of making roadway beautification improvements along Radio Road east of Santa Barbara to Davis Boulevard. You may have participated in one or more of the public meetings conducted to solicit input from the residents on how our road should be enhanced. We appreciate your involvement. As a registered voter within the Radio Road East MSTU Area, you are contributing each year through your property tax millage to the MSTU. During the last public meeting held in the community it was apparent that many of you were interested in the project being completed as soon as possible. The Consultants have estimated that the MSTU will have to raise approximately $650,000 in order to complete the project, which will take about 7 years to collect at the current millage rate. The only way this can be done expeditiously and take advantage of today's lower costs is to obtain a loan from one of the local financial institutions. On October 25, the Board of County Commissioners approved placing the question on the January 31, 2012 Presidential Preference Primary Election so the residents can decide if they want to get the project completed in a 2 to 3 year time frame as opposed to waiting 7 years to raise the funds before co� mpleting construction . If the ballot question is approved, the loan will be repaid using existing ad valorem property taxes already being collected for the MSTU. The Radio Road East MSTU Committee supports the approval of the Bond Issue and believe it will be beneficial for the Community if passed. There is "no" millage tax increase to the property owners in approving the ballot question. The ballot question will read as follow Shall general obligation bonds payable from the existing ad valorem property taxes levied at a rate not exceeding .5 mills on all taxable property within "Radio Road East Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) " be issued in a principal amount not exceeding $649, 000, with a maturity not longer than 10 years and an interest rate less than the maximum legal rate, to advance the construction of landscaping /irrigation improvements within the MSTU? The Radio Road East MSTU committee urges you all to participate in the upcoming Presidential Preference Primary Election and vote on the proposed ballot question. If you should have any questions regarding the Radio Road East MSTU and the project to be completed as part of the Bond Issue please contact Project Manager, Darryl Richard, at 239 - 252 -5775. Thank you, Dale Johnson, Chairman, Radio Road East MSTU <address> Naples, FL 34104 Cc: Michelle Arnold, Director, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes C I T it t e i CI s 1 413 � am`F^` S'3SS99 " I'M i TO: Michelle Arnold, Collier County ATM Pam Lulich, Collier County ATM Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Katie Binkowski, Urban Green Studio FROM: Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio DATE: October 31, 2011 SUBJECT: Radio Road East MSTU Status Report - 60% complete 161 A Zr. MEMO Collier County Transportation staff has reviewed and approved the preliminary (30 %) R.O.W. Permit Application and drawings, which proposed the use of crushed shell in the medians. Design parameters are the shell must be installed 1/4" below the top of curb, and at a typical offset of 6' from the back of curb. One exception to the 6' offset is at locations adjacent to turn lanes, the shell may be installed up to the back of curb. The shell will be installed over a filter fabric, with an edging that resembles a wood grain, made of recycled plastic. One minor design adjustment has been made to the Gumbo Limbo tree placement and the shell layout under the trees. The trees have been grouped into more informal clusters instead of the earlier regular street tree arrangement. This was done in part to address staff's concern with the wide- branching form of the trees, to shift the trees further back from the travel lanes. The tree groupings also respond to a more curvilinear layout of the shell areas. The planting plans are at a 60% plus state of completion. The planting layout, plant material selection and spacing are all complete, subject to Committee and staff review. The final plant selections have been based on the committee's prior approval of plant material and plant tour observations. We have researched and confirmed availability and suitability of the key plant species used in the design. Site details and a materials schedule with preliminary quantities are also included in the 60% submittal. Following closely behind, irrigation plans are at a 30 -60% state of completion. The contract for Urban Green Studio, which was to expire on October 5, 2011, was extended to February 29, 2012. The contract extension was needed in part to allow additional meeting attendance and reasonable time for the completion of 100% construction drawings, which have been delayed due to a lengthy R.O.W. Permit Review process. In addition, we are providing assistance for efforts to obtain financing that would advance the project's construction. Radio Roar! Last MSTU Status Report 60 1612 p22 r rn O 0 O O 7 O_ n O r-r ni Z3 it n v CD (D L Ol O O 3 (D Z3 N r v a v m C 3 3 3= m 0 cn cn 3 W in N w a -i -1 p v n v n n w in r m p A D C == -I ;o A A 3�- D n rn p cn - m n Vf r o cn 3 n w X� O n r m n a a m g m m Z W Z y to D-0 3 3 v_l v -0 r „ n r 3= s m p N vl cn 3 W cn W '1 -1 -� x v n n n w pD vl (D O o o — p < (D n d 0 o * o � o � o O o c O w o 1' g (D o_ vl Z n ° 0 0 rD n o f(D— c o n v d c ; m n m 0 O °1 0 fl' N ro x O a O n o 7 v a T v (SD a O o o m o o o' x x x o o m p v a 3 cn C o N a — c Q (OD �. o_ v 'o � d � o nu o_' m n n ° — vc ID ° cu no, �' 0 [nu ° n m ° �° o v a 0 o a a a 1O— m rD (D x o d Z Q go O O' O_ 3 O. t0 _ c = O °—' n _ O w 1° x' 0 �D < 0 c fu ni c=il O fl-< a �i N °— ni - (DD = O1 LE d N o �. y (D d' O Q c r_r O (D O Dl fD LO O rr O n 3 CD c c _. q zi x o c VL CL CD ?. CD an CD D C ,B 003 0 Z2 (n W V p O W T O W Vl tn. v G) n On vDi oa w o '� O n a vOi fl. r<D r0D a n Qj CD CD rD n p m = co a m w 0 3 (D r n w W n W -0 7 rD 0 -V 0.° n� � 3 o O 'p r=-rrt -10 N G7 t1J n -0 7 O- Z zr CD (n 0 O_ =T -0 00 O D! v 07 a O CD (DD � �• 'D tL tL 3 O. CD 0 v T o 0 O O w N n. o m Q � n ((D o c n 0 -0 o_ '9 ;o -P X N N 3 H ]J E5' r N t-• W r r W V r W W W W N N O N N i-+ �-•' CS r N) (D CD '00 CD a. (n N D n 0 In On n O O to O to c0 CD (n t0 O n t0 (n Ln r Ul Vl O N OJ O n ,-r O. S O SL -n D. o c 9 N 41 2 d w w Lo N N N Q1 O l0 O O to r �-+ N r (D O T p � W CD _ (D c CO 7 v CD d 7C CD O_ � N r fll 0) O N d N ? 0 07 n [] :M (D ' - 0 O � O 01 X .11 x "-' l0 x lD X �-+ u, N w w �+ .A o� v-1 a) -4 rn w T n rt n n .b N: u -O a n r r X r r X X -4 X x x r n N o-c rt S d v 0) Ln W W � N � CD N ` ' N ` - r (n Cn - to - LT N .A rt r r ? r W V7 N O V V CD co d i'b O. O n n �' O n � < (D aj ` \ - rt `.cr• N r* � � O- O 3 (o ° o D 3 0 vl 41 C) o w o w a .n w ° n o "-1 -r (n ,`� -9 (n U O (o o — v i (D o 0 0 0 0 vl o o cn(A (0 c QJ� o -i 'n n< (D rD t`DD -� n n n n 0 n n � 0 n n � o io o°, c� �' (1 O O_ ` of rn 3 W O C) o 0 ; `' ''' rt c c (DD o Q n o C 0 (D O Q d 0 n 0 1 c 0 z N c c � 3 CD W c' ,� T' - to rn � .0r O *'k O_ 0 fx-' 0 CL C C rr• � N O. Or = D d O 7 -n d .- l0 CD 3 CD '0p 7c T 0 W P O 0 7' N p O C c C 7 U c - p — N VI Ul _ 7 � LA —_ � 7 fD t0 (D c o d Q � - W 0 0 O �' (N d C (D ai to CT zT 0 (D -n d lZ Q c O x C) o�p, ,o o o OD r Ul V ul C n N F+ H N l0 O co N W to (Nn 07 W r W O N 11 O� N W to N Cn � N r+ tD N N 07 W O (n N rf 0 r C) O Lrl O O V V � � N 10 VI O .A 0 0 O LO O a CD n D V) p O rn m rn m m rn m m rn m m m rn m m 3 M r (n r (n r (n r (n cn cn T T r T -n z C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D rn D T�r7 D m D rn D m D (O 7 � n rr IU 7 ((a �r �n r �n � -1, ttr � t -V, -U)- -U'� -t'r tsr - -EFr tfr ti+ + r - tt>• -(n 3 Gn W O r* O O r O " ice* o 0 - rn �n o O V W r O O (n N " O O F-. N N Crl W N W O O O O �--` N Cn N � - k N (n Cn r N O cn O O Vl Ln (n O O O O O O 111 O Ll O W .A to -N 4, O O O W to N O O O O O O O O O iA {b} +Pl i4 if-i -bl)- ih -V�l -V-T i!T -u+ ifT i11, ifT -W iPr -(FT -b4 -bT if -UT i4 i{T -R {fl -b4 w W w F+ 0) � W O N N µ rn cn r o — 00 � Lrl -N m W r N N �D Ln N r r o r r N w w o l rn rn �o co a r o N 0 W O V N [Jl O O O �-` C) W Ln Ln W N co r W W to N M Cn N V1 O N W V1 1� N (n Co W V N In W co CO n O V O O O O V co �-` N -4 O O O O O O O r rn O 0 O O 7 O_ n O r-r ni Z3 it n v CD (D L Ol O O 3 (D Z3 N r v a v m C F Cx , n z Nn n o 0 �WP m x _p A sp �0 p 3 •• `s 3� z � D O r ,cmn �C7 -n O oD ° M D U') g = Z W o � Z = D r Z � � rn o� M M D r R V = Lrl m rn 0 � II 0 N 11 0 n A C 2 m rn r r m D � I m 1` rn Z m N n � z 1 if F4 II 0 �CS c J M ; m C ON� ill qyy�� ps ��� m ZO O��p n tlj 2 m? m �o off iir =n Q 0 m rn F� II 0 �CS c J M ; m ON� ill qyy�� ps ��� ZO O��p n tlj m? D off iir =n Q 0 m �Mi�Np azo° 3g�� i9�^ i>mp ^pry. o j�v zn9 �n >ER m m 30ap p ~ ^O DrSi� 9E � mzm �d °coo o^ 5 � .1m� z � moo Fg � NZZ i 1 6 Ti g n n rn n tlj O D Q 0 Q' D og o >ER o � o � S z , Do r' 60. v 0 � O � r � r s � iI m 4 0 pZ� P� F n p A C 0 C A m � cmi a A � c Z m i m n T < f T 3 D � C n x Z m 3 m i °C n m x . �s 3§ O O � o - i � 3 • C � Z � v t � f � f 1 � i z � T � D C Z a i e t Z ` c 1� , 7 ,S 3 f C S { Fn , m � r F 0 i - W m Z i Amy y 7 O C v) 3 i m r r y - Em a I a I n 1 0 r • G fs C 7 cl� 0 A 1612 o� 1 A22' r RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU LANDSCAPE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANT SELECTIONS & GROUPINGS ROYAL PALMS Asian jasmine Bromeliads as accents (Option: Aloe or other spiky plant as accents) Beach Dune sunflower at tips GUMBO LIMBO TREES Silver Saw palmetto Blue Palmetto (Sabal minor) Pink Muhly grass Florida Coontie - Rafsee44tvr�per ACCENT PALMS Green Thrinax Silver Thrinax Silver Coccothrinax Dwarf Bougainvillea 1619. - U122 MAY 4, 2011 ACCENT TREES "A" Silver Buttonwood trees (Option: Simpson's Stopper treeform) Florida Coontie ', I S�eietp-Gmlic Golden Creeper at tips ACCENT TREES "B" Pigeon Plum trees Spider Lily Golden Creeper 'Rq Lily is BUCCANEER PALMS Spider Lily Golden Creeper. 9QGiE4y- 6errfie-- Message Details From: " Richard Darryl" < Darryl Richard @colIiergov.net> Page 1 of 1 Block Add To: "sueflynn@onebox r6' 2 <sueflynn @onebox.com >, "SueFlynn3423 @comcast.net" <SueFlynn3423 @comcast.net >, " (faustore@aol.com)" <faustore@aol.com >, "RRE Dale Johnso (Johnsod2 @collier.k12.fl.us)" <Johnsod2@collier . k12.fl.us >, "SCHAPIN43 @aol.com" <SCAPIN43 @aol.com >, "Torn DePouw (tdepouw @gmail.com)" <tdepouw @gmail.com> cc: "LuiichPamela" <PamelaLulich @colliergov.net >, "Arnold Michelle" < MichelleArnold @coiliergov.net >, "SilleryTessie" <TessieSillery @colliergov.net >, "HerreraGioria" <GloriaHerrera@colliergov.net >, "Prieto Evelyn" <EvelynPrieto @colliergov.net>, "'LillyKevin "' <IMCEAEX- 0 = COLLIER+ 2000UNTY+ 20GOV+ 2E...._ OU= ITDOMAIN,.. „cn =Recipients..._cn= kevinlily@ colliergov.net >, "'Kim' Pachik "' <kpachik@collierappraiser,com> Subject: Trim Notices & "Tax Bill" - Radio Road East MSTU Fund Date. Wed, Nov 02, 2011 2:47 PM 158 Show Header Info Attachment(s): 2010 SAMPLE TRIM NOTICE.PDF [66 KB], 2011 SAMPLE TRIM NOTICE.PDF [67 KB] Radio Road East MSTU advisory committee, I just spoke with Kevin Lilly at the Property Appraiser's Office and he provided an explanation for the confusion with the documents residents are receiving in the mail. The Property Appraiser sends out the Trim Notice which does have the breakdown of the multiple line item that make the total of the 'tax due'. And then the Tax Collector sends out a copy of the "Tax Bill” that simply list the total amount of taxes due' without the detailed break -down of all the various items associated with the total amount due. Residents should reference the 'Trim Notice' for explanation of the tax bill. And if there's questions on the tax bill should contact the Tax Collector at 239 - 252 -8172. SEE ATTACHED SAMPLE OF THE TRIM NOTICES SENT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN MSTU BOUNDARY. SEE SECTION "A" UNDER TAXING AUTHORITIES - WHICH LIST THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT DUE TO THE "RADII ROAD E. OF SANTA BARBARA" Please call me if any questions (239- 253 -9083) Thank you, https: / /www.onebox.coml net _olmlmail_MessageDetails.aspx ?tabid =6 &msgid= CA27A592... 11/5/2011 ZL Radio Road Phase III —East System, 161 2AEL Irrigation Opinion of Probable Construction Cost October 31, 2011 Irrigation Bid Schedule Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (1) Irrigation System water source: 8" Irrigation well with (1) NEMW 15 HP VFD Submersible pump station. Refer to submersible pump station detail for elements list. Include: (1) Bermad 910 -P 2" hydrometer valve & self flushing automated filter system to be incorporated into pump station during manufacturing, by Irrigation Contractor. Unit Price $ 33,500.00 Total Cost $ 33,500.00 (1) Irrigation System 3 phase power electrical service for pump station and adjacent controller. Service to be in accordance to pump stations and controller manufacturers, as well as based on availability of service on site. Include all hardware and labor required. By FPL. Unit Price $ 4,000.00 Total Cost $ 4,000.00 (1) Irrigation System electrical service connections for electric service to pump station and controller. By Irrigation Contractor's Electrician. Unit Price $ 1,500.00 Total Cost $ 1,500.00 (1) Irrigation System AC Controller Adjacent To Pump Station, and Rain Sensor: Motorola AC M 24 stations controller with Stainless steel pedestal & Hunter MWS Mini - Weather Station with rain, wind and freeze sensor, plus any hardware /software necessary to operate and communicate with the CCDOT central control system. Controller to be provided by Collier County Department of Transportation. Unit Price $ 8,500.00 Total Cost $ 8,500.00 (3) Irrigation System DC Controller Away From Pump Station, and Rain Sensor: Motorola DC M 16 stations controller with Stainless steel pedestal & Hunter MWS Mini - Weather Station with rain, wind and freeze sensor, deep cycle battery and solar panel plus any hardware /software necessary to operate and communicate with the CCDOT central control system. Unit Price $ 7,500.00 Total Cost $ 22,500.00 (4) Irrigation System Controllers installation. Provide materials and labor necessary to install controllers in accordance to the manufacturer current specifications. To be provided by the Irrigation Contractor. Controller scheduling to be coordinated with Collier County Transportation staff. Unit Price $ 500.00 Total Cost $ 2,000.00 (5,640 + /- L.F.) 3" 1120 -1220 Class 200 PVC gasket irrigation main line with Hardco DIP fittings, Pantone Purple 522C; Main line depth 36 ". Unit Cost per Lineal Foot $ 8.00 Total Cost $ 45,120.00 (900 + /- L.F.) 3" Class 150 SDR 11 Extra Molecular Strength HDPE casing. Directional Bore, to be used as 3" irrigation main for median to median crossings. Pull together in conjunction with adjacent bores. Unit Cost per Lineal Foot $ 20.00, Total Cost $ 18,000.00 (900 + /- L.F.) 2" Class 150 SDR 13.5 Extra Molecular Strength HDPE casing. Directional Bore. Pull together in conjunction with adjacent bores. Unit Cost per Lineal Foot $ 15.00, Total Cost $ 13,500.00 i612 Q22 (12 + / -) 3" HDPE to PVC Mechanical Joint coupling with transitional gaskets, or interconnecting fittings for connecting Class 150 SDR 11 HDPE to PVC. Unit Price $ 300.00 Total Cost $ 3,600.00 (11,400 + /- L.F.) AWG 12 Gauge solid copper insulated control wire suitable for direct burial applications. Unit Cost per Lineal Foot $.25 Total Cost $ 2,850.00 (108,000 + /- L.F.) AWG 14 Gauge solid copper insulated control wire suitable for direct burial applications. Unit Cost per Lineal Foot $.17 Total Cost $ 18,360.00 (2 + / -) 3" Irrigation main double valve blow off unit; 3" flanged connection valve with 1.25 threaded connection valve, valve boxes and all materials as illustrated per installation detail. Unit Price $ 650.00, Total Cost $ 1,300.00 (4 + / -) Irrigation main pressure -check points: 0 -100 PSI liquid filled pressure gauge with Schradder type air valve; with SCH 40 PVC interconnecting fittings; connected to the valves cluster manifold line; installed within a 10 round valve box. Unit Price $ 125.00, Total Cost $ 500.00 (4 + / -) Irrigation 3" main line isolation valve, Nibco MJ619 -RW -SON. 619 Series 3" Irrigation epoxy coated isolation valve with non - rising stem, square nut opening connection, flanged connections. Provide 10" plastic corrugated plastic sleeve and 10" round valve box. Unit Price $ 600.00, Total Cost $ 2,400.00 (4 + / -) Waterman Irrigation 1.5" Pressure relief valve. Provide all materials and labor necessary to install in accordance to the manufacturer specifications. Refer to the revised installation detail, by Irrigation Contractor. Unit Price $ 750.00, Total Cost $ 3,000.00 (4 + / -) Waterman, Irrigation 2" Air vacuum release valve. Provide all materials and labor necessary to install in accordance to the manufacturer specifications. Unit Price $ 750.00, Total Cost $ 3,000.00 (15 +1-) Irrigation quick coupling valve, 1" valve with Acme threads and Pantone Purple 522C locking cover; connected to the valves cluster manifold line; installed within a 10 round valve box. Include filter fabric and gravel. Unit Price $ 150.00, Total Cost $ 2,250.00 (5 +1-) Irrigation quick coupling valve key w/ swivel ell, to match quick coupling valve specified, by Irrigation Contractor. Unit Price $ 100.00, Total Cost $ 500.00 (40 + / -) Hunter ICV- 10 1 -FS-AS, ICV Series plastic 1.0" Electric solenoid valve with: FS Filter Sentry self cleaning filter; Accu -Set dial type pressure regulator; isolation SCH 80 PVC 1.5" ball valve at ESV inlet; Christy ID- STD -Y I, Yellow, blank identification tag; Christy ID- MAX -P2 -006, purple warning plastic tag; Scotchlock DBR wire connectors. Install within a 12" Rectangular valve box with purple lid. Unit Cost $ 350.00, Total Cost $ 14,000.00 161La�G (125 + / -) Hunter PROS- I 2-R-MP300/200, Pro -Spray Series 12" High pop -up body with purple cap and MP Rotator nozzle. Refer to plan for nozzle size & coverage pattern. Unit Cost $ 45.00, Total Cost $ 5,625.00 (450 + / -) Hunter PROS- I2 -R -XX, Pro -Spray Series 12" High pop -up body with purple cap and Toro Low Gallonage spray nozzle. Refer to plan for nozzle size & coverage pattern. Unit Cost $ 38.00, Total Cost $ 17,100.00 (150 + / -) Irritrol Adjustable pressure compensating flood type bubbler nozzle for Tree /Palm supplemental hydration. Refer to plan /bubbler designation chart for bubbler nozzle size designation. (1) Bubblers per tree /palm. Unit Cost $ 38.00, Total Cost $ 5,700.00 (80) Green color reflective pavement markers, as indicated per plan. (2) Units per zone control valve, one unit at each side of median. Provide gel adhesive approved by Collier County Transportation Department. Unit Price $ 25.00, Total Cost $ 2,000.00 PRELIMINARY SUBTOTAL: $ 230,805.00 PRELIMINARY 10% CONTINGENCY: $ 23,080.50 PRELIMINARY GRAND TOTAL: $ 253,885.50 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 1, 2011 TO: Darryl Richard FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Boulevard 1612 42 As you know, we currently have 1 vacancy on the above referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Mr. Johnathan L. Smith 761 Pine Vale Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Ms Rosemary D. Mastroleo 7409 Meldin Court Naples, Florida 34104 Ms. Paige Simpson 7790 Berkshire Pines Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Ms. Janice Bundy 7950 Haven Drive, #1 Naples, Florida 34104 Mr. Lawrence Cece 7834 Stratford Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. IM Attachments 161 2A ZL Mitchelllan rom: jonsmith @comcast.net ent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:15 AM o: Mitchelllan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 10/26/201112:15:10 AM. Name: onathan L SmitN Home Phone; 39- 821 -754 Home Address: 1761 Pine Vale Driv City: ale Zip Codes 3410 Phone Numbers Fax: Business 0 -Mail Address: 'onsmith comcast.ne Board / Committee Applied for: Padio Road East of Santa Barbar Category: MSTU Adviso Boar Work Place: Pole Montes, Inc., 950 Encore Way, Naples, FL 34110 How long have you lived in Collier County: ore than 15 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? of Indicate Do you or your employer do business with the County? Ye Civil Engineering Fi NOTE: All advisory board members must update their, profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and /or, any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board`!. Not Indicate WAre you a registered voter in Collier County? ©e Do you currently hold public office? Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? Not Indicate Please list your community activities: 161 ZA22. Vome owner and Tax payer Have spoken before the Planning Board and County Commissioners Education; FHigh School / Professional Ex erienc TU 0 • at a Civil Engineering Firm (Hole Montes, Inc) employed a a CAD tech and deisgner for lent nroiects and road design. I would like to represent the Palm Springs Subdivision reg 2 161,2 A22 Board of County Commissioners 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8097 Fax: (239) 252 -6406 ,pplication for Advisory Committees /Boards Name: �O s 2w,c r �� 1 - \ ("6�y 01 �A Home Phone: LA3cn 7 L 2 �'1 Li 3 8� Home Address: 0 a1 \\-I 4 L n �� Zip Code: 0 L-f Fax No. Business Phone: e-mail address: Y 1ma8k1r 1) � 20 6) vr,c- s-�" t1 . V-1 R-+ Place of Employment:. e C it Q Board or Committee Applied for: �i S`� \�Aci i o �ol • C.. [C o�nc� 1 ]C).y �s ���td Category (if applicable): Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, Iay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years: 16 Months: 10- Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes X No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No X If so, what is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No - X If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No _X_ If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes No_)LIf yes, please list the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes No —)L- If yes, please list the committees/boards: 1:2 a Ae 2 • Board of County Commissioners 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8097 Fax: (239) 252 -6406 *7�-%--7pplication for Advisory Committees/Boards ' S� nom' Home Phone: Name:- Home Address: �-q l � -? ` -J _DLZIp Code- a -q 3� e-ma address: i e uT nOlA�tS ��s•�� Fax No. Business Phone: fl Place of Employment: Board or Committee Applied for: 1 C� (�G G S�rGt�✓�u ���� Category (if applicable): �� ��i�i� P.+�� C4 1" S) V Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years: -� - Months: Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes h St No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No so, what is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes Noi 1 If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No *,,Y If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes No><" If yes, please list the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes ,�- _ No If yes, please list the committees/boards: DM Please auaGn any -4 ---" - ---- - _on .2200 Tw...I/ mf 7r,aU FAxvL Snhe 303. Nantes. Florida 34112 -5746 and FAX !0 252 -6406. tp !) 161 k6 A 2 • Please list your community activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations6etc. and positions held: • • Please attach any additional information you feel pertinent Please forward to the attuuion of Ian Mhchell, F wain a Manager, Board of County Commissioners, 3299 Tamiaml Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5746, and FAX to 252 -6406. Y� L 1612A22 • Board of County Commissioners 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8097 Fax: (239) 252 -6406 i A,pplication for Advisory Committees/Boards Name: .ol(�, j f ) C Pi �7/.�/7 �1% - Home PhoneQ 9' � tJ�Z Home Address: 4/ AX" " NwY, Zip Code • Fax No. Business Phone: e-mail address: Place of Employment: re,-/, ert . r Board or Committee Applied for: R� / o ; 2n� A! C z e Category (if applicable); Example: Commission environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years: /'/ Months;, • Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes X No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No X If so, what is that office? is Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No —Y�If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with which you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes NoC If yes, please list the organizations. NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners In the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes No X If yes, please list the committees/boards: !091 • 161,2 A ee. neighborhood Please listyour comnppft activities (civic clubs, associations, etc. and positions held: Education ' ; , -, , Ile i r lod 'W, e/.�rrJ,�L��L�%1J�1� i A :E �L iii Please attach any additional information you feel pertinent Please forward to the attention of Ian Mitc%eA Executive Manager, Board of County Commissioners, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Sarte 303, Naples, Florida 34112 -5746, and PAX to 252 -6406. It Mitchelllan *'on tn Icshores @comcast. net Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:43 AM : Mitchelllan Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 10/5/201111:42:58 AM. Name: awrence Cec Home Phone: 239- 455 -910 )Nome Address: 17834 Stratford D City: ale Zip Code-.5_41_04 Phone Numbers Faat: 09-3 3-50981 Business: 239 - 353 -5913 &Mail Address: cshores comcast.ne Board / °Committee Applied for- MSTU Radio R Category: Not indicate Work Place :" How long have you lived in Collier County; 5 -1 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? of Indicate Do you or your employer do business with the County? Not Indicate NOTE: All advisory boars CommisMoners.in the evej organizations that may bei is enter into contracts with tk ibi z A 6'0' members must update their profile and notify the Board of County that their, relationship changes relating to memberships of fit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they ,'County. Would you and/or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1 recommendations made by this advisory board? of Indicate Are you a registered voter in Collier County? ©e Do you currently hold public office? 161, 2 A 2Z Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? ©o of Indicate Please list your community activities: ember, Kiwanis, Elks, Republican Executive Committe Educations ducated in C Ez eriences Fr—esident of The Shores at Berkshire Lakes HO • O u 1612 AZ[ 0 C) 0 0 C) U� U� w t.0 r-4 k.0 00 CN c E m r-4 Ln ^ tn CL w LO w 1-0 0 0 0 0 0 C> CD C� C) O 0 C) C) 0 as 0 0 CD CD > 0 0 0 0 w ::� C� C� C� C� 0 0 Ln Ln Ln x m tn -Ln r-4 tn M V'j- M In 0 0 4� c Lq a� cu O Ln 0) E rn 00 r-I Itt tn -1 r-i rw -q tn tn tn 0- if 1.0 l0 l0 H ko C) O 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 a) 0 0 0 0 C) O O of C� C� C� C� C� :6 Lf) U) 0 Ln V) X rl tn n � -1 Ln r4 ro 9.0 M X m qj)- -J)- -Lr} 4j)- C) CD O C� � O M iii rn cn en 00 ro m 1-4 r-1 4n w w w k.0 Lo CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 o d Ili O Lr Lr) qj,) Ln 1-1 r14 CN O ro Ln rn x BSS 1612 AZ[ e 1612 A 22. Z440 IZ"*4 Ellev,x M.S.T.U. Aoi"" e"m 2995 S. H*w4fat Nzvt Algt ", FL 34104 Minutes December 7, 2011 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order at 10:16 a.m. P, J AN 1 7 2 No quorum was established. Fiala Hiller The meeting continued for informational purposes. Henning . Coyle Staff noted the Committee members are required to notify S a �a Transcriptionist) if they are not able to attend the meeting. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw (Absent), Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold - ATM Director, Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera - Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick - Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski - Urban Green Studio, James Abney - James C Abney and Associates, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff Misc. Corres: Public: Janice Bundy - Sanctuary /Blue Heron Date: -5112 III. Approval of Agenda - None Item #: zZ192y IV. Approval of Minutes - October 5, 2011 Meeting - None Codes to: V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the December 7, 2011 Radio Road East MSTU Report: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax - $65,785.60 • Operating Expense P.O.s - $15,070.79 - Clarified the acronym IGC (pg 2) is Inter Government Charge B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard submitted the Cost Estimate ($1,472.57) for the Radio Road East Ballot Informational Mailing. (See attached) 1 16 1,L A 2e Discussion took place on the preparation for the Ballot Mailing and it was concluded: • The Ballot Mailing will be prepared on Saturday December 10th at 10:00 a.m. • Volunteers to prepare the Ballot Mailing are Darryl Richard, Sue Chapin and guest, Janice Bundy and guest - Sue Flynn (Juristafj) will assist with the mailing • Staff will provide the following services to expedite the Mailing process Print the Ballot Informational Mailing Letter Confirm with the Clerks Finance Office if the machine is available to pre fold the Ballot Letter Budget Office will pre -stamp the envelopes with the MSTU supplied postage VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported: • Landscape and Irrigation 90% Design Plans were submitted and reviewed on Monday (December 5th) • Based on comments received a new set of Plans was prepared by James Abney Staff requested additional time to review the Plans and perceived the target date for 100% Design Plans is mid to late January. Darryl Richard stated Staff will confer with Traffic Operations regarding the Advanced Design on the Madison Park and Sanctuary Traffic Signal. Pam Lulich reported removal of Median tips is planned during the Traffic Signal installation due to Crosswalks and ADA requirements. Discussion ensued on the Madison Park and Sanctuary Traffic Signal. After discussion the following was determined: • The Signal Warrant Study is scheduled in February • Staff deemed there is amply time to coordinate with Traffic Operations to avoid Median Design conflicts on the Traffic Signal Project and Radio Road East MSTU Project • If a Traffic Signal is warranted the timeframe for Crosswalk Improvements is approximately 6 -8 weeks • ADA ramps will be installed on sidewalks only - Median (paver) Landings are not designed to be ADA accessible • Construction Cost and Irrigation and Landscaping modifications (for the Traffic Signal) is funded by Madison Park and Sanctuary HOA (per Gene Calvert) Dayna Fendrick noted due to the removal of the Median tips the No Tree Zone may be pushed back and affect Tree spacing. 0 r 1612 Staff recommended keeping the Plans as Designed (until additional information is available on the Traffic Signal.) The Median Grading Plans was discussed. It was noted that the original Estimate did not include soil fill to grade up to a 12 inch crown in the wider medians. After discussion it was concluded the additional soil square footage will be added as an Alternate to the Bid. Darryl Richard requested Dayna Fendrick submit a change for Services during Construction and the hours required for Design changes on the Turn Lane. Sue Chapin asserted that the Radio Road East MSTU Project should be stalled until the Traffic Signal Project is complete. Michelle Arnold reported on the Loan: • Purchasing is in the process of going out to bid with Banks • Staff will have an indication of the loan rates that are available prior to the Referendum Election The Loan and Bid Solicitation were discussed. It was concluded that in the event the Referendum passes Staff will proceed to Bid for the Landscape Materials. Staff projected a NTP will be issued to the Contractor in June for Construction. VII. New Business — None VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin stated she attended the Radio Road MSTU meeting and gave an update on the Radio Road East MSTU Project. 11:16 a.m. Dale Johnson arrived. Darryl Richard announced Janice Bundy will be appointed to serve on the Committee on December 13th by the BCC. IX. Public Comments There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 PM. The next meeting is December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 3 A a Staff recommended keeping the Plans as Designed (until additional information is available on the Traffic Signal.) The Median Grading Plans was discussed. It was noted that the original Estimate did not include soil fill to grade up to a 12 inch crown in the wider medians. After discussion it was concluded the additional soil square footage will be added as an Alternate to the Bid. Darryl Richard requested Dayna Fendrick submit a change for Services during Construction and the hours required for Design changes on the Turn Lane. Sue Chapin asserted that the Radio Road East MSTU Project should be stalled until the Traffic Signal Project is complete. Michelle Arnold reported on the Loan: • Purchasing is in the process of going out to bid with Banks • Staff will have an indication of the loan rates that are available prior to the Referendum Election The Loan and Bid Solicitation were discussed. It was concluded that in the event the Referendum passes Staff will proceed to Bid for the Landscape Materials. Staff projected a NTP will be issued to the Contractor in June for Construction. VII. New Business — None VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin stated she attended the Radio Road MSTU meeting and gave an update on the Radio Road East MSTU Project. 11:16 a.m. Dale Johnson arrived. Darryl Richard announced Janice Bundy will be appointed to serve on the Committee on December 13th by the BCC. IX. Public Comments There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 PM. The next meeting is December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 3 A a 1612 ECE VED FEB 0 1 2012 R_ / • _ R"04 G I 4 &Wd of Cou* CW1YAWiO " M.S.T.U. Ak -,may. N w "au 2995 S. H oe 1N' Nom, Ft 34104 Minutes Fiala I/ December 7, 2011 Hiller Henning I. Call Meeting to Order Coyle The Meeting was called to order at 10:16 a.m. Coletta —rte No quorum was established. The meeting continued for informational purposes. Staff noted the Committee members are required to notify Staff (or Transcriptionist) if they are not able to attend the meeting. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw (Absent), Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson III. IV. V. Misc. Corres: County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, James Abney — James C Abney and Associates, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff Public: Janice Bundy — Sanctuary /Blue Heron Approval of Agenda — None Approval of Minutes — October 5, 2011 Meeting — None Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera reviewed the December 7, 2011 Radio Road East MSTU Report: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax - $65,785.60 • Operating Expense P.O.s - $15,070.79 — Clarified the acronym IGC (pg 2) is Inter Government Charge I�y 2.LB. Project Manager Report Item #. p arryl Richard submitted the Cost Estimate ($1,472.57) for the Copies to: Radio Road East Ballot Informational Mailing. (See attached) 1612 A [c Discussion took place on the preparation for the Ballot Mailing and it was concluded: • The Ballot Mailing will be prepared on Saturday December 10th at 10:00 a.m. • Volunteers to prepare the Ballot Mailing are Darryl Richard, Sue Chapin and guest, Janice Bundy and guest - Sue Flynn (Juristafj) will assist with the mailing • Staff will provide the following services to expedite the Mailing process - Print the Ballot Informational Mailing Letter - Confirm with the Clerks Finance Office if the machine is available to pre fold the Ballot Letter - Budget Office will pre -stamp the envelopes with the MSTU supplied postage VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported: o Landscape and Irrigation 90% Design Plans were submitted and reviewed on Monday (December 5th) o Based on comments received a new set of Plans was prepared by James Abney Staff requested additional time to review the Plans and perceived the target date for 100% Design Plans is mid to late January. Darryl Richard stated Staff will confer with Traffic Operations regarding the Advanced Design on the Madison Park and Sanctuary Traffic Signal. Pam Lulich reported removal of Median tips is planned during the Traffic Signal installation due to Crosswalks and ADA requirements. Discussion ensued on the Madison Park and Sanctuary Traffic Signal. After discussion the following was determined: • The Signal Warrant Study is scheduled in February • Staff deemed there is amply time to coordinate with Traffic Operations to avoid Median Design conflicts on the Traffic Signal Project and Radio Road East MSTU Project • If a Traffic Signal is warranted the timeframe for Crosswalk Improvements is approximately 6 -8 weeks • ADA ramps will be installed on sidewalks only - Median (paver) Landings are not designed to be ADA accessible o Construction Cost and Irrigation and Landscaping modifications (for the Traffic Signal) is funded by Madison Park and Sanctuary HOA (per Gene Calvert) Dayna Fendrick noted due to the removal of the Median tips the No Tree Zone may be pushed back and affect Tree spacing. 2 1612A2e , Staff recommended keeping the Plans as Designed (until additional information is available on the Traffic Signal.) The Median Grading Plans was discussed. It was noted that the original Estimate did not include soil fill to grade up to a 12 inch crown in the wider medians. After discussion it was concluded the additional soil square footage will be added as an Alternate to the Bid. Darryl Richard requested Dayna Fendrick submit a change for Services during Construction and the hours required for Design changes on the Turn Lane. Sue Chapin asserted that the Radio Road East MSTU Project should be stalled until the Traffic Signal Project is complete. Michelle Arnold reported on the Loan: • Purchasing is in the process of going out to bid with Banks • Staff will have an indication of the loan rates that are available prior to the Referendum Election The Loan and Bid Solicitation were discussed. It was concluded that in the event the Referendum passes Staff will proceed to Bid for the Landscape Materials. Staff projected a NTP will be issued to the Contractor in June for Construction. VII. New Business — None VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Sue Chapin stated she attended the Radio Road MSTU meeting and gave an update on the Radio Road East MSTU Project. 11:16 a.m. Dale Johnson arrived. Darryl Richard announced Janice Bundy will be appointed to serve on the Committee on December 13th by the BCC. IX. Public Comments There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 PM. The next meeting is December 7, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 zullza lz"04 E" H.S.T.U. AAA Co.c 2995 S. H Nw Al-tk fl 34104 January 4, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance ke � JAN T 7 2012 Fiala Hiller _ Hennin Coyle Coletta III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes -November 2, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Misc. Cones: Date: 31 t 3 /t 2. Item #: I C9 Z -,?- r4 22 Copies to: The next meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 Z4o"IZ"*4E" M.S.T.U. Akz" &w4p z � 2885 S. Ham« N�vt N.ft",Ft 34104 January 4, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda 161,2 p22 RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2012 Board of County CommisS ORM Fiala Hiller ! ✓ Henning — Coyle Coletta 3G IV. Approval of Minutes -November 2, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report – Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report – Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report – Radio Road MSTU – Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date:_ 3 ti 3 / 17- Item k I UT 7—m 2'Z Copies to: The next meeting is scheduled for February 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 zulao lZoiul 60E.4 M.S.T.u. AAA ea,,.,► 299S S. N*w4l­ D, 4t Note,, Ft 34104 Minutes January 4, 2012 161.2 AZT I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:07 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Janice Bundy, Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale Johnson County: Michelle Edwards Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Pam Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera — Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick — Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski — Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: IV. A. December 7, 2011 Meeting VII. A. Postcard Mailing VIII. B. Liaison Report —Sue Chapin /Commissioner Henning Tom Depouw moved to approve the Agenda for January 4, 2012 as amended. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried unanimously5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — November 2, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approve the November 2, 2011 Minutes as presented. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Approval of Minutes — December 7, 2011 Meeting Change: Page 1, title to "Notes" Add: Page 3, 3rd Paragraph, 2nd sentence to read "that portion of Radio Road" Change: Page 3, bottom of page to read "The next meeting is January 4, 2012 " Tom Depouw moved to approve the December 7, 2011 Notes as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1 161 2 A22 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated January 4, 2012. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Received - $125,555.76 • Operating Expense Available - $37,483.00 • Improvements General - $ .00 • Capital Outlay - $ .00 • Reserves Available - $131,900.00 It was noted the P.O. for Legal Advertising covered 2 advertisements on the Ballot Resolution. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard distributed the 90% Design Plan provided by Urban Green and reported Staff will be reviewing the height of plant materials to meet site -line requirements and utility locations. (See attached) Design Plan #LP 107 Darryl Richard noted a change will be made to mulch a 6' section currently showing as "existing pavers" to accommodate a future sidewalk in the median on both sides at the corner of Radio Road and Sanctuary Drive /Madison Park Boulevard. The traffic light and the sidewalk will be installed at the same time, if the traffic count warrants a light and is approved for installation. The Committee formed a consensus to install pavers and then the sidewalk for the safety of pedestrians. The Engineer Consultant will determine the sidewalk placement but staff will give their recommendations. The plans will be provided to the Advisory Committee for review. The County Engineers were concerned on the maximum 18" height of the Bromeliads which was related to Urban Green. Dayna Fendrick responded there are varieties that would scathe that height. The Bromeliad varieties have not been identified at this point. Design Plan #LPI I I The Design Plan was prepared after review of the intersection of Radio Road and Davis Boulevard construction plans. A question was posed on who will be responsible for payment of the pavers. Dayna Fendrick reported the Design does not show pavers. Staff will review the contract covering fill and pavers and report back to the Committee. The median was cut back approximately 13' to accommodate turn lanes. Pare Lulich reported receiving documents verifying location of utilities and will coordinate with Dayna Fendrick and report the results back to the Committee. 2 161.c A2z VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported receiving comments from the County Engineers and will provide responses. Darryl Richard recommended submitting a ROW Permit at this time. The costs for a ROW Permit are approximately $1,200- $1,500. Urban Green will provide alternate line items for a 6" and 12" crown on filler in the medians. Tom Depouw left at 10:48 am VII. New Business A. Postcard Mailing Sue Chapin reported the letter mailing did not mention that "every registered voter in the MSTU can vote regardless of their affiliate." She noted both Commissioner Henning and she have verbally told the voters this in the different developments during their presentations, but that the presentations aren't getting to all the voters. Tom Depouw returned at 10:55 am Sue expressed the importance and suggested the Advisory Committee send out a postcard. Darryl Richard distributed an estimate to do the postcard mailing from Cecil's Copy Express in the amount of $897.24 (See attached) Renato Fernandez left at 10:55 am Discussion was made on the previous mailing with eliminating duplicate addresses on mailing list and the fact only 30 letters were undeliverable. Renato Fernandez returned at 10:58 am A consensus was formed on the contents of the postcard and was decided Staff compose the wording and email a draft to the Advisory Committee for review and changes. Sue Chapin moved to approve mailing a postcard (and to approve Cecil's Copy Express estimate) not to exceed $900 as a reminder for upcoming referendum. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU Staff stated the BCC approved and awarded their contract to Hannula Landscape for the Devonshire Project and will commence project in late January. Discussion followed on the County's bidding process, negotiating pricing, mandatory pre -bid meetings, interviewing qualified bidders, bidder's background and type of experience and identifying services the MSTU will require. 161,12 AZ[ Michelle Arnold described the Purchasing Departments' bidding process and review committee and how an Advisory Committee member(s) could be a part of that process. B. Liaison Report — Sue Chapin /Commissioner Henning Sue Chapin confirmed upcoming meetings that both Commissioner Henning and she will attend to discuss the ballot referendum with the residents of the following developments: ➢ Plantation Club House — January 10th at 7:30 pm ➢ The Shores Club House — January 18th at 6:00 pm ➢ Sherwood — No date at this time ➢ Sapphire Lakes — Residents will write a "Letter to the Editor" and include what will be included in the postcard. IX. Public Comments Michelle Arnold reported the County has not started the bidding process to the banks for the loan yet and does not expect to hear back prior to the elections. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:33 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Johnson, C h Olman These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended - V--," . The next meeting is February 1, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CUR AD VALOREM TAX DEL AD VALOREM TAX FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST INVESTMENT INTEREST INTEREST TAX COLLECT REVENUE STRUCTURE TRANSFER FROM APPRAISE TRANSFER FROM TAX COLLI CARRY FORWARD GEN CARRY FORWARD OF ENCUI NEG 5% EST REV TRANSFERS & CONTRIB TOTAL REVENUE ENG FEES OTHER Insurance General Legal Advertising Licenses And Permits OTHER MISCELLANEOUS Office Supplies Other Operating Supply OPERATING EXPENSE IMPROVEMENTS GEN CAPITAL OUTLAY TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR TRANSFERS BUDGET TRANS APPR BUDGET TRANS TC COL TRANSFER CONST RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES RESERVE FOR CAPITAL RESERVES 1--a w fti- i � Radio Rd East MSTU FUND 166 January 04, 2012 Amended Actual Available Budget Commitments Expenditures Total $ (158,200.00) $ - $ (125,555.76) $ (32,644.24) $ - $ - $ (6.39) $ 6.39 $ - $ - $ (64.61) $ 64.61 $ (158,200.00) $ - $ (125,626.76) $ (32,573.24) $ (62,700.00) $ - $ - $ (62,700.00) $ (9,759.58) $ - $ - $ (9,759.58) $ 7,900.00 $ - $ - $ 7,900.00 $ (64,559.58) $ - $ - $ (64,559.58) $ (222,759.58) $ - $ (125,626.76) $ (97,132.82) $ 49,759.58 $ 61976.86 $ 8,854.72 $ 33,928.00 $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ 300.00 $ - $ 1,000.00 $ - $ (1,000.00) $ 7,000.00 $ 2,746.31 $ 298.69 $ 3,955.00 $ 300.00 $ - $ - $ 300.00 $ 57,359.58 $ 10,723.17 $ 9,153.41 $ 37,483.00 $ 26,500.00 $ - $ - $ 26,500.00 $ 26,500.00 $ - $ - $ 26,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ - $ 325.10 $ 2,674.90 $ 4,000.00 $ - $ 2,744.42 $ 1,255.58 $ 7,000.00 $ - $ 3,069.52 $ 3,930.48 $ 8,100.00 $ 8,100.00 $ 123,800.00 $ - $ - $ 123,800.00 $ 131,900.00 $ - $ - $ 131,900.00 1--a w fti- i � Radio Road East PO's FY 12 Vender Name Item PO# Remaining Paid Juristaff Clerical Services 4500130363 $ 2,746.31 $ 253.69 Lets peak Inc Close Translat to Spanish 4500132701 $ - $ 45.00 Naples Daily News Legal Advertising 4500133759 $ 1,000.00 $ - SFWMD Permits by Visa FY 12 FY 11 $ - $ - Urban Green Eng Fees 4500124450 $ 6,976.86 $ 8,854.71 IGC $ - $ - Property Tax Limitation Impact FY 12 Gross Taxable Value 339,017,579 Minus: New Const. Annex. 10,673,378 - Plus: Amendment #1 TV $ - $ - Component $ - $ - Adj. Taxable Value 328,344,201 $ - $ - $ 10,723.17 $ 9,153.40 $0 Final FY 08 Taxable Value $0 Final FY 09 Taxable Value $348,180,488 FY 11 Final Taxable Value $339,017,579 FY 12 July 1st Certified Taxable Value -2.63% Adj. 11 to 12 FY 12 FY 11 Millage 0.4666 0.4400 Extension 158,186 153,199 Maximum Millage =.5000 Property Tax Limitation Impact FY 12 Gross Taxable Value 339,017,579 Minus: New Const. Annex. 10,673,378 - Plus: Amendment #1 TV Component 0 Adj. Taxable Value 328,344,201 11 Levy 153,199 Rolled Back Rate (less Amend. One) 0.4666 91 % of Rolled Back Rate 0.4246 ^ ` r V R' 1 2 3 4 5 6 A LANDSCAPE LEGEND Key THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES it -- -. - TREES 100' NO TREE ZONE BS N W f 2 I Combo limbo CD it EXIS nNG Pigeon Plum CE Co-pus erectus "serimus" Silver Buttonwood MUMS CA Coccothrinax argentata 2607 SF a PS 1. 6" HDPE 9xraneer Palm RR RADIO ROAD Royal Palm TM / Key Thatch Palm CRUSHED f I w Thdnax radiata 4" SCH 40 AOB715 BRO Bromeliad EDGING trelitzia re inae Orange Bird of Paradise SHELL ' m BM Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf BougainNllea MUC Mrhlenbergia capillarls K SAM J� Sue -stem Palmetto SRS Serenoa repents "serimus" Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coontie GRODI000VER � ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Helianth s debilis it it loo, NO TREE ZONE HYL Fymerorallis latrfolia Spider Dly 262 , 000_ Sunshine Mimosa TRA DO Asian Jasmine 261 a60 - #2 =� 260 #1 #1 �\ \ \\ \ \ \�.. `. \ . \��� \ \ \\ 2406 SF EXISTING PAVERS 21 /480\ 480 RR R :;; 469 11 699 15 3 T R RR CRUSHED SHELL 220 ED — -- 122 _ ^'�- ---- ---`— 100' N TREE ZONE ' EXISTING �� SFU ERL PS - ------- -tt "NM— - --- - - - - -- `-- u PAVERS ._.-------- ---- .._ -- - -- S LARA —z'eTV — , GRANADA LAKES DRIVE PLANTATION A LANDSCAPE LEGEND Key Botanical Nacre Common Name TREES BS Busera simaruba Combo limbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Co-pus erectus "serimus" Silver Buttonwood MUMS CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoenix sargendi 9xraneer Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM Thrirex mordisii Key Thatch Palm TR Thdnax radiata Florida Thatch Palm AOB715 BRO Bromeliad B-liad trelitzia re inae Orange Bird of Paradise a BM Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf BougainNllea MUC Mrhlenbergia capillarls Muhly grass SAM Sabal nunor Sue -stem Palmetto SRS Serenoa repents "serimus" Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coontie GRODI000VER ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Helianth s debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Fymerorallis latrfolia Spider Dly MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachebspermum asiahcum Asian Jasmine A 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES A LANDSCAPE LEGEND Ney Ieterrkal N.— Cb—PI TRH BS Bur— simaruba Gumbo limbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erecba " -doe." Silver Buttonwood PALMS CA Coccothdm: argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoeri— argenbi Su— er Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM ThI morrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thrmaz radian Florida Thatch Palm /81\ 13'\ 111� BRO Bromeliad )/_% r Streli. regime 3856 SF CRUSHED SHELL EDGING BH7 C_ Dwarf Bougainvillea SI Muhlenbergia capillaris Mrhly grass SAM [_Q Blue-stem Palmetto SRS Serenoa repere *wricem" ZAP Zamia pumila Ci GRIXI0001/Bt -- --���� Emodea littoralis ��'Za►'lim HED lleliaml— debilm Beach Dme Sunflower .�� =__— i��•l.—__��j►� � Mimosa sb gilima � TRA Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine ®� SWIMS ��sssss3 sss���cs�ri� .�a�o�i. v - Elm. - - -- - LANDSCAPE LEGEND Ney Ieterrkal N.— Cb—PI TRH BS Bur— simaruba Gumbo limbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erecba " -doe." Silver Buttonwood PALMS CA Coccothdm: argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoeri— argenbi Su— er Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM ThI morrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thrmaz radian Florida Thatch Palm ACCENTS BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR Streli. regime Ora a Bird of Paradise S. BH7 Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf Bougainvillea MOC Muhlenbergia capillaris Mrhly grass SAM Sabal minor Blue-stem Palmetto SRS Serenoa repere *wricem" Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coorbe GRIXI0001/Bt ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED lleliaml— debilm Beach Dme Sunflower HYL Hymenocallis latifdia Spider lily MIS Mimosa sb gilima S"'m'"' Mimesa TRA Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine 1 Z 3 4 5 6 (� EXIS TING BERKSHIRE PINES j� —� THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES 2 ' SCH E40 DRIVE - _4 —._— FM _ — — _ _ _ — -- - -- - _ 2600 SF CRUSHED SHELL TM n cnr _T_ I sl — -- -- EXISTING RADIO ROAD PAVERS _ IS I 178 ALT. BHJ — — — '-t 1 BHJ DDD D DD D — � 27C EDGING D EXISTING 275 — — — — — V °�. w \ \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \\ ""'j'- �`�... r • �• irrri 5 irrir - S 5- t��� /� i..` , i �,'if/ •'i� ' % /%' 1 w I C RR u JCL 2 = I ru v=i I EXISTING 3 \ \ \ \ \ / / r / ' r 3 EDGING LJ1JC.1 ' 3 � w 6" HOPE TR uw, I J 4" SCH 40 3 32 16 3 32 2 30 6 EXISTING -� 15 111 96 26 78 100'NO REE ZONE 3 32 CE i CA U BS 4" HOPE CE IS RS Y U BH7 CE 2- SCH 40 100' NO E ZONE EDGING _ -- ------_j_. Ej PLANTATION CIRCLE PLANTATION I� LANDSCAPE LEGEND Mey Botankallure Corrrron Nacre TREES BS Bursas simaruba Gumbo Gmbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE C. —rpus erecbs "sericeus" Silver Buttonwood PALM CA Coccatioirex argentzm Silver Palm PS Pseudoptaerix sargendi S.. er Palm RR Roysnea regia to Royal Palm TM Thrinax morrissli Key Thatch Palm TR Thdmx radian Florida Thatch Palm AC®iF5 SRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR trelitzia re inae Orange Bird of Paradise SHNUHS BHI Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf Bougainvillea MIIC Muhlenbergia capillaris MJdy grass SAM Sabal minor Bue -stem Palmetto SRS Sererea repens "sarluus" Silrer Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coonbe CilOUlI SR ERL Emodea Iittoralis Golden Creeper HIED Helianthus debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Fymenocallis latifolia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa sbigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiabcum Asian Jasmine i 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 THE SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES SAPPHIRE LAKES SAPPHIRE LAKES - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- IEl -- - - -- - A - - -- - S ----- - -cnry ----- -- _ -_._._ --- -- 4 27 L FOC 10 ' NO TREE ZONE 100' NO TREE Z NE RR CRUSHED SF RO 145 CRUSHED SHELL 9H] EDGING a :0 00 000 OOS� i 282 $�o -o aoo. o,o 000 + EXISTING STING � #4 OOO _ a y >; PAVERS 4" SCH 40 E�� D i ' EDGING ur 27 3 583 _ 261 co 234 678 Z O 3305 SF T ED R RADIO ROAD N = CRUSHED o - _-- - -- U SHELL -- - -�' /"_ - - -- t2 "W,4 -_ - -" m O - -- - - - -- - -- �._- --_ - -. OD --- o.a SABAL LAKE DRIVE SABAL LAKE \ SABAL LAKE LANDSCAPE LEGEND VAy entamcal fame Co —Name TREES BS Bur— simaruba Gumbo limbo CD Coccoloba civersifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erect a "wnmus" Silver Buttonwood PALMS CA Coaottrimx argentata Silver Palm PS P.- loph -ri. sargentii Bucraneer Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM Thrinax mwrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thdmx radiaa Florida Thatch Palm AOB7B9 BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR Strelit is re inae Orange Bird of Paradise SHRIBS BH/ Bougainvillea "Helen John " Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC Mthlenbergia capiUris Muhly grass SAM Sabal minor Blue -stem Palmetto SRS Se—a repels "sericeus" Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia punula Florida Coonbe (ROtd DDO"VER ERL Emodea littoralis Gulden Creeper HED Helianbxs debilis Beach Ouse Sunflower HYL Rfinenocallis laafulia Spider lily MLS Mimosa strigillosa SusNne Minwsa TRA Trachelospormum asiatiohm Asian Jasmine J 1 2 3 4 5 6 D V EXISTING — — I 4" HDPE — 2' SCH 40 SAPPHIRE LAKES RADIO ROAD 1 — -- - - - -- ZUNE_!.! _ EXISTING 6" HDPE y 4" SCH 40 92 522 �\\ R EXISTING 3 4� 105 296 PAVERS \�` \\ --- - - - - -- _ - i00' -NO TREE- Z�NE -- LANDSCAPE LEGEND Iffy i cb— Name 0 It TREES BS Bur— simanfia Combo Limbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sericeus" Sil— Buttonwood PALLS CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargenti L .I • j �i►4q��� e Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM Thdnax morrisAl �Q�asslgss�SS����SS�Sgi Till Thrinax radian Florida Thatch Palm A�C.HS BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad - Strelitzia regime Orange Bird of Paradise SHRIffi 'A7�( {���(� ZZl:rjZ�Z 2�Z ��7 LCCCTI� Bougainvillea "Helen 3ohr o ' Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Muhy grass rV Sabal minor 411 28 2686 12 18 27 S—noa repens "sedceus" Silver Saw Palmetto r IRS HFID Cit"Mot SHELL Emodea littoralis SHELL HED Helianths debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Hymenocallis ladfalia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiaaoim Asian Jasmine HDPF r MADISON SAPPHIRE LAKES RADIO ROAD 1 — -- - - - -- ZUNE_!.! _ EXISTING 6" HDPE y 4" SCH 40 92 522 �\\ R EXISTING 3 4� 105 296 PAVERS \�` \\ --- - - - - -- _ - i00' -NO TREE- Z�NE -- LANDSCAPE LEGEND Iffy IlotahkW llrre cb— Name TREES BS Bur— simanfia Combo Limbo CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sericeus" Sil— Buttonwood PALLS CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargenti Buccaneer Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM Thdnax morrisAl Key Thatch Palm Till Thrinax radian Florida Thatch Palm A�C.HS BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR Strelitzia regime Orange Bird of Paradise SHRIffi BW Bougainvillea "Helen 3ohr o ' Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Muhy grass SAM Sabal minor Sue -stem Palmetto SRS S—noa repens "sedceus" Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coonte Cit"Mot ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Helianths debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Hymenocallis ladfalia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiaaoim Asian Jasmine F D 1 2 3 4 5 6 VIZZ I — 6 194 169 5 6 CD Y R m EE ANE-- .----- LANDSCAPE LEGEND lay Ibtarical lame SAPPHIRE TRM as Bur— simaruba Gumbo limbo CD EXISTING Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sedoeus" Silws Butt rrwood PALMS CA F- S[[w,rPalm PS Pseudaphoerixsargentii 13,— er Palm RR Royst— regia Royal Palm / Thririax morriss[[ My Thatch Palm TR Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm ACCEM BRO &omeliad [#omeliad STR Strelitzia regime r:,e".rd of Para1,- SHRLE S PBSP BHI Bougainvillea "Helen Jolrs ' Dwarf Bougaihvillea MUC • Mthly grass SAM Saba[ minor Blue -stem Palmetto SRS S—noa repe,s "sedceus" ADIO ROAD ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coonae GR011DOWLR ERL Emodea littoralis .e HIED Helianaxs debilis Bead, D— Sunflower Hit Himenocall[s latifa[[a Sp[der lily MIS Mimosa sbigillosa shine Mimosa -KID —Zg\ Asian Jasmme CRUSHED P ELL SHELL IBM, EM In— . D D I � ! vH _ EXISTING 4 HOPE L MADISON LANDSCAPE LEGEND lay Ibtarical lame exnerotF lame TRM as Bur— simaruba Gumbo limbo CD Cocco[oba di- sifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sedoeus" Silws Butt rrwood PALMS CA Coccottrinax argentata S[[w,rPalm PS Pseudaphoerixsargentii 13,— er Palm RR Royst— regia Royal Palm TM Thririax morriss[[ My Thatch Palm TR Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm ACCEM BRO &omeliad [#omeliad STR Strelitzia regime r:,e".rd of Para1,- SHRLE S BHI Bougainvillea "Helen Jolrs ' Dwarf Bougaihvillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Mthly grass SAM Saba[ minor Blue -stem Palmetto SRS S—noa repe,s "sedceus" Silwtr Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coonae GR011DOWLR ERL Emodea littoralis Golden C e per HIED Helianaxs debilis Bead, D— Sunflower Hit Himenocall[s latifa[[a Sp[der lily MIS Mimosa sbigillosa shine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiadoim Asian Jasmme F A v v N 1W.D D I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE SANCTUARY AT BLUE HERON ` BLUE HERON I SANCTUARY DRIVE — — — — - - - -- = 100' NO TREE ZONE r 00.' NOTREEZONE— - -- — — — -- - - -- 63 — -� -- ' ---- -- ' - -_ -..— I 233 18 2754 SF 2 BW CRUSHED a xxx� RADIO ROAD ED RO 305 TM { SHELL _eroo < Oo�o bow r ooc� drro c — ;i -- 1f -- •- 0.00 _ 000 a o 0 EXISTIIJG ; ,� EXISTING p" HDPE • #6 _ _ ,. �� PAVERS EDGING 2" SCH 40 ` EXISTING ' 3 620 4 27 40 EDGING CA °1 CA T RR RO 3658 SF CRUSHED SHELL ED PAVERS I 14 4 RR _ FF TR la ` 12° ----- E--- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -_ i MADISON PARK MADISON PARK BOULEVARD MADISON PARK LANDSCAPE LEGEND VAy Botanical Nome C—rove TRIBES BS Busera simaruba Gumbo Umbo CD Coccoloba diwrsifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sericeus" Silver Buttonwood PALM CA C— thrinax argentata SXver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargenti Buccaneer Palm RR Royston. regia Royal Palm TM Thrinax morrissii Irey Thatch Palm TR Thrimx radial. Florida Thatch Palm AOCENIS BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STIR StreliKia regime Orange Bird of Paradise SHRUM M BougainWllea 'Helen Johns ' Dvarf BougainWllea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Muhly grass SAM Sabal minor Elue -stem Palmetto SRS S—roa repers "sen.." Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Caonte (ROUNDONOt ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Helianmus debilis Beach Due Suiflower FiYL Ftymenocallis latfolia Spider lily MIS Mimosa strigillosa S—hine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiatcum Asian Jasmine I A ,j .\j NO V-1 1 1 2 1 __ 3 — 1 4 1 5 1 6 WWI -- ----------------- JY -A ROBIN OOOD LANE 16' WM -n MADISON PARK r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �: 111111' - - L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — LANDSCAPE LEGEND VAy Bannicid Nam c— Nam TREES BS 13—ra st"ruba Gumbo Limbo RADIO ROAD Coaoloba dive,slflia Pigeon Plum L]REE C._erp. ­0. ".H­" Silver Buttonwood PALMS • /59\ D ly —EGING Silver Palm EDGING 1, Pseudophoerix sargerbi 100, N; ZONE Roystoma regia Royal Palm _U Thrmax marMi Key 'Thatch Palm TR TMmx radiate Florida Thatch Palm AOCENTS 13RO Bromeliad Brormlied STR Strelitda regime Ora rK)e Bird of Paradise SHRLJBS BW Bougalmille, Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC WMI-t-gi. capillam Mutely grass �mm Sk 51, M. #6 SRS S—noe repers Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamla pumila Florida Coontie GtOLIVOI)VER ERL Emodea littoralls Golden Creeper HED Wi-if— cletillis Beach Dim Sunflower HYL Ffy—mcallis latifolia Spider Lily , S_1Mrj_ Z .... As1anJasrim EL N PROPOSED WITH PAVERS MADISON PARK r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �: 111111' - - L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — LANDSCAPE LEGEND VAy Bannicid Nam c— Nam TREES BS 13—ra st"ruba Gumbo Limbo CD Coaoloba dive,slflia Pigeon Plum CE C._erp. ­0. ".H­" Silver Buttonwood PALMS CA C—othdroxargeniat" Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargerbi B—neer Palm RR Roystoma regia Royal Palm TM Thrmax marMi Key 'Thatch Palm TR TMmx radiate Florida Thatch Palm AOCENTS 13RO Bromeliad Brormlied STR Strelitda regime Ora rK)e Bird of Paradise SHRLJBS BW Bougalmille, Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC WMI-t-gi. capillam Mutely grass SAM Sahel mirror am -stem Palmetto SRS S—noe repers Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamla pumila Florida Coontie GtOLIVOI)VER ERL Emodea littoralls Golden Creeper HED Wi-if— cletillis Beach Dim Sunflower HYL Ffy—mcallis latifolia Spider Lily , S_1Mrj_ Z .... As1anJasrim A Nj N ­i __4 1 2 3 q 5 6 A LANDSCAPE LEGEND " Botanical Nano C_ Nam TREES L BS Bursera simaruba Gumbo Umbo CD Coccoloba diwmifolla Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sedceus" Siher Buttonwood ___ -------------- ___ ______._ .____._ ___ — --- _______.___ _________._ FM E _________ ___. -. _ --------- . _ ______-- .._ -.____ _________ - _. _ ______._ -____ ____. _. __ _...- ------------------ _ ' Silwx Palm PS Pseudophoerixsargendi Buccaneer Palm RR Royston. regia Royal Palm TM Thdmx morrissii KeyThalch Palm O Thdnax radiata Florida Thatch Palm AOBLIS _ BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad 16' WM— Strelibia regime Ora Bird of Paradise SHBI85 —' — — — -- — — — Dwarf BOugairwillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris M hly grass SAM _ __ _ _ ............................... _......_..._.._ ... — -------------- ___...._._-- .�..._._.__ -. SRS — — — — — — — — ZAP Zamia pumlla Florida Coonfie GROU D00W6t ERL Ernodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED BTCUTS Beach are Sunflower MTL Hy— nocallis ladfolia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum wladwm Asian Jasmine , w t 100' NO TREE ZONE lis � I F ° 182 59 EDGING ' W ¢ 278 SF PROPOSED 20 PAVERS E 04 6 30 RR RO +' +, ' + . a �a R ALT. 318 +00 5 CE 3 �9 +00 3_17 +SJD� u + 4096 SF EDGING i i 218 200 SF EDGING PROPOSED �Ja v„ tiv Q CRUSHED SHELL f RADIO ROAD ED / PAVERS F'r? 100' NO TREE ZONE i -- ---- ----' - -- 74"'.--- ------ -- -- - - - - -- DI 4 - - -- _ 12' WH i .I 100 IBIS CLUB APARTMENTS v I COLLIER COUNTY A LANDSCAPE LEGEND " Botanical Nano C_ Nam TREES BS Bursera simaruba Gumbo Umbo CD Coccoloba diwmifolla Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus erects "sedceus" Siher Buttonwood PALMS CA Coccoftmx argentata Silwx Palm PS Pseudophoerixsargendi Buccaneer Palm RR Royston. regia Royal Palm TM Thdmx morrissii KeyThalch Palm TR Thdnax radiata Florida Thatch Palm AOBLIS BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR Strelibia regime Ora Bird of Paradise SHBI85 BW Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf BOugairwillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris M hly grass SAM Sabal minor Blue -stem Palmetto SRS Seneroa rep ens "sedceus" Sileer Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumlla Florida Coonfie GROU D00W6t ERL Ernodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Helianths debilis Beach are Sunflower MTL Hy— nocallis ladfolia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum wladwm Asian Jasmine B I � V Q V arBi I 2 1 1 3 4 I r CE 251 PS Q-i'QD Jj Z iIS c J 4 1t! RL EDGING IS �Iz I \ B 5 6 2460 SF CRUSHED SHELL 7 _ / ^ 6 / RO LANDSCAPE LEGEND " BotaNcal Fame Cbrrmon Name TRM BS Bursera simaruba C>umbo 11mbo CD Coaoloba dversifolia Pigeon Plum CE i Silver Buttonwood PALM CA C=othdmx argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerrxsargendi 63 RR Royst— regia \ \ TM 100' NO TREE ZONE— Key Thatch Palm TR Thrinax radiala Florida Thatch Palm l 202 SF BRO 239 A081\ Bromeliad SJR PROPOSED / PAVERS / Oran Bird of Paradise T 3 \ BHI Bougainvillea "Helenkhson" Dwarf BougairMllea MIIC MWenbergia capillaris f _ SAM Sabal minor EDGING EDGING _� _ +r* ZAP 12 a Z RO ALT. BHI OtOUODDVER ERL Fmodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Fieliardx debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Fymenocallis latifolia RADIO ROAD 100' NO TREE ZONE Mimosa strigillc \ TRA Trachelos,,rn asiaawm Asian Jasmine \ P, \ 2460 SF CRUSHED SHELL 7 _ / ^ 6 / RO LANDSCAPE LEGEND " BotaNcal Fame Cbrrmon Name TRM BS Bursera simaruba C>umbo 11mbo CD Coaoloba dversifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarl. erects "se6—" Silver Buttonwood PALM CA C=othdmx argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerrxsargendi Buccaneer Palm RR Royst— regia Royal Palm TM Thrinex morrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thrinax radiala Florida Thatch Palm ACICEiIS BRO &omeJiad Bromeliad SJR Strelihia re inae Oran Bird of Paradise sHlll 9 BHI Bougainvillea "Helenkhson" Dwarf BougairMllea MIIC MWenbergia capillaris Muhly grass SAM Sabal minor Blue-stem Palmetto SRS Ser—a repels "sedceus' Silver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coonde OtOUODDVER ERL Fmodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Fieliardx debilis Beach Dune Sunflower HYL Fymenocallis latifolia Spider lily M1S Mimosa strigillc S--- Mimosa TRA Trachelos,,rn asiaawm Asian Jasmine U. f-\j ^ D `V r A A 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 6 ' RO I 2358 SF CRUSHED SHELL I — I I II I oonnon Nacre 1 I f I. 1 �•" O RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU NAPLES FLORIDA TREES o lD' zo 40' NORTH 1" = 20- BS Br— slmaruba Combo limbo I Coccoloba di— sifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus —t us "seriaus" Silwr Buttonwood PAU1S N / 100' NO TREE ZONE I , 1 Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargendi I RR _ p TM Thrinax morrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thrimx radiata Florida Thatch Palm \ BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad LU 1, I SHRUBS � �/ O x m UK I #9� 143 SF L L(n-i \ Q 0 195 n I Sabal minor flue -stem Palmetto PROPOSED P4 PAVERS I I Sllver Saw Palmetto RADIO ROAD O CD I 1 \ I I I VI i LANDSCAPE LEGEND rr y Botanical roan oonnon Nacre IN COORDINATION WITH: JAMES C.ABNEY &ASSOCIATES Z'N P� Fri 110 PHONE (U9j 3°48951 PREPARED FOR: CO COLLIER [DIOROADARDOPCOUAVISORYCMMITTS AND THE RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE '3 °IE T " """2TRA'L NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE(239)252 -8097 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU NAPLES FLORIDA TREES o lD' zo 40' NORTH 1" = 20- BS Br— slmaruba Combo limbo CD Coccoloba di— sifolia Pigeon Plum CE Conocarpus —t us "seriaus" Silwr Buttonwood PAU1S PROJECT #: O (2a91 6J 029 F (239) 5 -91 CA Cocmthrimx argentata Silver Palm PS Pseudophoerix sargendi Buccaneer Palm RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm TM Thrinax morrissii Key Thatch Palm TR Thrimx radiata Florida Thatch Palm AO®415 BRO Bromeliad Bromeliad STR Strelitria regime Orange Bird of Paradise SHRUBS UK Bougainvillea "Helen Johra ' Dwarf Bougainvillea MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Muhly grass SAM Sabal minor flue -stem Palmetto SRS Sereroa repam "sericeus" Sllver Saw Palmetto ZAP Zamia pumila Florida CDOntie GROUNDOOV9t ERL Emodea littoralis Golden Creeper HED Ward— debllis Beach Ulm Sunflower HyL Hymenocallis latifolia Spider Lily MIS Mimosa sbigillosa Sunshine Mimosa TRA Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine D r B A 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN COORDINATION WITH: JAMES C.ABNEY &ASSOCIATES Z'N P� Fri 110 PHONE (U9j 3°48951 PREPARED FOR: CO COLLIER [DIOROADARDOPCOUAVISORYCMMITTS AND THE RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE '3 °IE T " """2TRA'L NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE(239)252 -8097 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU NAPLES FLORIDA o lD' zo 40' NORTH 1" = 20- LANDSCAPE PLAN 90D�O PLANS I-NA L rENDRICK, RLA -1224 SHEET # i i i LP111 i a x ' P '`' CALE: 1" = 20' DATE: DECEMBER %r 2011 PROJECT #: O (2a91 6J 029 F (239) 5 -91 REV DATE DEScRIFrION _ N Q PLANT MATERIAL SMALL BE PLANTED 2" HIGH WITH SOIL MOUNDING UP TO THE TOP OF ROOT BALL 3" MINIMUM OF MULCH MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12" PLANING SOIL FOR GROUNDCOVER BED. FINISHED GRADE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE DRAINAGE/PERCOLATION OF ALL PLANTING PITS/BEDS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. MIN. Shrubs and Groundcover Cil S6LLE: NOT TO SCALE 2 NOTE: PREPARED PIAN "NG + + I SOIL AS SPECIFIED. ALL SHRUBS AND GRW NDCOVE1t MASSES I I Native Drought Tokranca TO USE TRIANGULAR SPACING EXCEPT Royal Palm Tree PITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 1.11 0..,,,.",,.. WHERE NOTED REFER TO PLANT LIST FOR — PROVIDE S' MIN. SPACING INDIVIDUAL PLANT SPACING X. I AS SPECIFIED A4SCALE - N0OTTO SCALE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PLANT JI CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE TYPES WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS 1' n I} I} 1 1 BL SCALE:NOTTO SCALE MAINTENANCE NOTES: 18" TO CENTEROF Gumbo Umbo • + + 24" TO CENTER OF SHRUBS 2 30" O.C. o GROUNDCOVER < 30' O.C. _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — A HARD FREEZE OR PROLONGED COLD SPELL 24" MULCH ACCESS STRIP APPLY ONE TIME IMMEDIATELY AFTER FREEZE BACK OF CURB 24' MULCH ACCESS STRIP Yes STAINING ON TRUNK TO DETERMINE IF FURTHER 40' ht, 40' spr TREATMENTS ARE NECESSARY. CD Typical Plant Spacing Q'� SCAL _N TTOSC/LLE u t w-4- . 0 O REMOVE ALL FRONDS HANGING BELOW HORIZONTAL FIVE LAYERS OF BURLAP TO PROTECT TRUNK TWO STEEL BANDS TO SECURE BATTONS SIX - 2 "x4 "xWl_ WOOD BATTONS Q 60D 4" x 4" WOOD BRACES. NAIL TO BATTONS AND FLAG AT MIDPOINT USE 3 @ 120D. 3" MULCH (OR SHELL, DEPENDING ON LOCATION) AS SPECI FIED MIN. 2' -0" FROM TRUNK BERM SOIL 6" TO HOLD WATER 2" x 4" x I8 "L WOOD STAKES. FINISH GRADE - SEE GRADING PLANS _t= = LLFll- t= PREPARED PIAN "NG k�l .� I SOIL AS SPECIFIED. I CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE Native Drought Tokranca PERCOLATION OF ALL PLANTING Royal Palm Tree PITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SCALE: NOT TO SCALE 1.11 0..,,,.",,.. h� PREPARED PLANTING SOIL 3 VHrrE NON -WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE 'ABRIC, MODEL #RK -WHT -4300 D EQUAL CUT 'X' IN ROC -KLOTH LCK TO ALLOW FOR PIANTING. TRIM :EDED TO ALLOW FOR BULK OF UAL SHELL, 3" DEPTH, CRUSHED AND WASHED FREE OF DUST AND SAND, 1/2" MINUS, BY SUPERIOR STONE OR FLORIDA AGGREGATE SOURCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL SHELL TO BE RAKED SMOOTH AND COMPACTED, CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE DRAINAGE/PERCOLATION OF ALL PLANTING PITS/BEDS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 1T' MIN. Bromeliad Planting : NOT TO SCALE — MULCH h SHRUB F CONDIT 2" NYLON STRAPPING (3) 2"X2 "X8'STAKES, PAINTISTAIN STAKES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION DARK GREEN COLOR (TyP.) 3" MULCH AS SPECIFIED BERM SOIL TO HOLD WATER SOIL BACKFILL TO BE 50/50 MIX OF COARSE SAND (1.0 -2.0 MM) AND EXISTING SOIL CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE DRAINAGE/PERCOLATION(MIN. 2 - /HR) OF ALL PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PROVIDE AUGER HOLES TO BREAK THROUGH COMPACTED FILL LAYER IF PITS DO NOT DRAIN FREELY. Buccaneer Palm Installation and Maintenance ACOTAE ggggqq� �w 3 4 MATERIALS SCHEDULE I 6 Key Botanical tame - -- Cornmon Name, B&B OR CONTAINERIZED I [hit Native Drought Tokranca ll AS SPECIFIED C—ntx PLANTING PITS P01OR TO INSTALLATION. h� PREPARED PLANTING SOIL — COMPACTED FILL LAYER IF PITS DO NOT Gumbo Limbo Tree I AS SPECIFIED A4SCALE - N0OTTO SCALE JI CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE DRAINAGE(PEROOLATION OF ALL PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO INTMIATION. Multi-Trunk Tree BL SCALE:NOTTO SCALE MAINTENANCE NOTES: Bursera simaruba Gumbo Umbo • 1. CUr BACK IRRIGATION ONCE ESTABLISHED. (6-12 MONTHS) Z TREAT WITH ZEROTOL OR COPPER FOLLOWING Selectively prune outer branches to A HARD FREEZE OR PROLONGED COLD SPELL APPLY ONE TIME IMMEDIATELY AFTER FREEZE Tull balanced head, structurally sound branching habit 52 AND AGAIN IN 30 DAYS. MONITOR FOR BLACK Yes STAINING ON TRUNK TO DETERMINE IF FURTHER 40' ht, 40' spr TREATMENTS ARE NECESSARY. CD Coccoloba diversifolia 3. APPLY 8-2 -12 FERTILIZER ACCORDING TO 12 -14' hk 6- 7'spr, 6' CT, 3' cal, FG, full head 30 RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATES AND Yes I SUPPLEMENT WITH SOPO -MAG MICRONUTRIENTS. lanes 4. APPLY GRANULAR SULPHUR AT THE Coracarpus erectus %ericeus" RECOMMENDED APPLICATION RATE. 10 -12' hk 6-7 spr, multi -trk min 5 trunks, full head PLANT TOP OF ROOT BALL EA SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISH GRADE 1 3" MULCH, KEEP 6' AWAY FROM TRUNK 1, 12° BE SOIL 6" TO CONTAIN WATER; �( T- REMOVE AFTER SIX MONTHS SOIL BACKFILL TO BE 50/50 MIX OF COARSE SAND (1.0 -2.0 MM) AND EXISTING SOIL CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE FREE DRAINAGE/PERCOLATION(MIN. 2 - /HR) OF ALL PLANTING PITS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PROVIDE AUGER HOLES TO BREAK THROUGH COMPACTED FILL LAYER IF PITS DO NOT DRAIN FREELY. Buccaneer Palm Installation and Maintenance ACOTAE ggggqq� �w 3 4 MATERIALS SCHEDULE I 6 Key Botanical tame - -- Cornmon Name, Spcilication Quantity [hit Native Drought Tokranca hlantaised or f4at— Ht S r C—ntx PLANTING PITS P01OR TO INSTALLATION. PROVIDE AUGER HOLES TO BREAK THROUGH COMPACTED FILL LAYER IF PITS DO NOT Gumbo Limbo Tree DRAIN FREELY. A4SCALE - N0OTTO SCALE TREES BS Bursera simaruba Gumbo Umbo • 16-18' ht, 8 -10' spr, 6' CT, 6- cal, FG, single trunk Selectively prune outer branches to Tull balanced head, structurally sound branching habit 52 EA Yes 1 40' ht, 40' spr maintain 15 min. clearance over trave CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Mum 12 -14' hk 6- 7'spr, 6' CT, 3' cal, FG, full head 30 EA Yes I 30' ht, 20' spr lanes CE Coracarpus erectus %ericeus" Silver Buttonwood 10 -12' hk 6-7 spr, multi -trk min 5 trunks, full head 28 EA Yes 1 20' h4 20' spr PA "S CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm 25 gal, 3 -4' hk single trunk 24 EA Yes 1 15'K 6' spr PS Pseudophoenix sargentii Buccaneer Palm 25 gal, 6 -7 hk heavy trunk, matching form 19 EA Yes 1 15' ht, 6' spr RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm 8-10' gw, 22 -25' oa hk heavy trunk, full head 42 EA Yes 2 60' ht; 25' spr TM Thdnax morrissii Key Thatch Palm 25 gal, 4 -5' ht, double trunk,full 25 EA Yes 1 20' ht, 8'spr TR Thrmax radiata Florida Thatch Palm 25 gal, 6 -7' hk single trunk full 35 EA Yes 1 15' ht, B' spr AOCERS BRO STR Bromeliad Strelicia Bromeliad 3 gal, as shown 222 EA No 2 18" ht, 24" spr Remove dead leaves anti rower, pods W RIffi regime Orange Bird of Paradise 3 gal, 18 -x18 -, as shown 16 EA No 2 Flit, 4'spr Remove dead leaves and tower pods Big Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson' Dwarf Bougainvillea 3 gal, 14 "x14 ", 3'oc 1025 EA No 1 30" ht, 36" spr MUC Muhlenbergla capillarts Pink Muhly Grass 3 gal, 18'k14 ", r oc 445 EA Yes 2 4' ht, 5'spr Trrn foliage maximum 2x per year SAM Sabel minor Rue -stem Palmetto 15 gal, 3-4'K as shown 31 EA yes 1 6' ht, 6'spr Remove dead fronds SRS Serena repens'sericeus" Silver Saw Palmetto 7 gal, 24 "44", full, 5' o.c. 149 EA Yes 1 5' ht, 5'spr Remove dead fronds ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coontie 3 gal, 15"x15 ", 3' oc 1204 EA Yes 1 30" ht, 36- spr Monitor &treat for scale F needed GROUND 01TEFt ERL Ernodea littoralis Golden Creeper I gal, 9"45 ", 30" oc 2831 EA yes 1 18" ht, 30' spr Allow natural form, do not shear HED Helianthus debilis "Dunne Supreme" Beach Dune Sunflower 1 gal, 9 "x15 ", 24" oc 2584 EA Yes 1 18" ht, 30" spr Alhw natural form, do not shear HYL Hymenocallis latlfolia Spider Uly 3 gal, I5 "45 ", 3' oc 1916 EA Yes 2 18" ht, 30" spr Remove dead leaves and flower pods M11 Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa I gal, 4-x12", 30' oc 968 EA Yes 1 6" ht, 30" spr '. Trachelospermum aslaticum Asian Jasmine 1 gal, 6 "424, 24' oc 6213 EA No 3 6' h[, 30' spr I� LANWIS Crushed Shell 1/2" minus, washed, 3" finished depth 51,972 SF N/A Filter Fabric Roc-Moth #RK WHT- 4300 77,958 SF N/A Overby Fter Faoric 12" Anchor Pins DeWitt #APB1 6 "xl "x6', It gauge TBD by COntrador Landscape Edging Model #95340 Master Mark Terrace Board 5,213 IF N/A Krehling 10assic paver, or equal, Herringbone pattern Pavers, added where not existing Canrete unit pavers, roadway at 45 degree angle. Field color' #0193, 992 SF - N/A Red /Buff /Charcoal. Border: Soldier course #0194 Mulch Pro -Euc Muldn Pro -Euc Mulch by Forestry Resources 2 CF bags, 3" min. watered -in depth, all planting bed areas (30,421 co 15,217 BAGS N/A NOTES: 1. Shrub & Groundcover size specifications are shown as ht x spr 2. Drought Toleranceratlngs: 1 =Very Drought Tolerant 2 = Drought Tolerant 3 = Moderately Draught Tolerant 3. Maintained ht. is the maximum height at which the plant material shall be maintained In order to comply with sightline requirements Indicates shrub /groundcover material used in sightline areas I �? to 2" NYLON STRAPPING - WRAPPED 360 D AROUND TRUNK BEFORE TYING - WRAP @ LATERAL BRANCH. 3" CRUSHED SHELL AS MULCH, CONTINUOUS WITH CRUSHED SHELL IN ADJACENT AREA BERM SHELL 6" TO HOLD WATER, REMOVE AFTER SIX MONTHS. 2' X 4"X T STAKES BURIED 3" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. 'III LC .• *;p:j, : - „- )— - (”' BACKFlLL SOIL TO BE 50/50 MIX OF COARSE SAND (I.0. 2.0 MM) AND EXISTING SOIL CONTRACTOR SHALL AS URE FREE DRAINAGEJPEROO ATION (2 " /HR) OF ALL PLANTING PITS P01OR TO INSTALLATION. PROVIDE AUGER HOLES TO BREAK THROUGH COMPACTED FILL LAYER IF PITS DO NOT Gumbo Limbo Tree DRAIN FREELY. A4SCALE - N0OTTO SCALE GUMBO LIMBO SPECIFICATION: FG, 16' -18' HT, 8'-10' SPD, 6' Cr, SINGLE TRUNK, 6- CAL, FULL BALANCED HEAD, STRUCTURALLY SOUND BRANCHING HABIT. NOTES: 1. DURING PLANTING, IF TREE HAS ONE SIDE THAT HAS HORIZONTAL BRANCHING, ORIENT THAT SIDE TOWARD CENTER OF MEDIAN, AWAY FROM TRAVEL LANE. 2. TREE MUST HAVE NO WEAK VEE BRANCHING. 3. TREE MUST HAVE NO CROSSED BRANCHES. 4. TREE MUST HAVE NO MULTIPLE BRANCHES EMERGING FROM SAME BREAK WITH WEAK VEES. S. TREE MUST HAVE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED BRANCHING AROUND THE CENTER OF THE TREE (NO FLAT SIDES) 6. TREE MUST HAVE NO LOW HORIZONTAL BRANCHES. ACCEPTABLE NOTACCEPTABLE I D A I c D CV ( CONTINUOUS SOLDIER COURSE EDGE L 2 3 FIELD: 45 DEGREE HERRINGBONE RN TO MATCH EXISTING PAVERS NUOUS SOLDIER COURSE EDGE TYPICAL PATTERN ADJACENT GROUNDCOVER WIDTH VARIES CONTINUOUS SOLDIER COURSE EDGE NUOUS CONTI '! PA FIELD 1/2" EXPANSION JOINT CONTINUOUS WHEN ADJACENT TO BACK OF CURB FU EDGE EXISTING CURB IIIII1iu�I�IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIiI�p��Innnunl iiiii, iiiii %a iii AND GUrrrER COMPACTED FILL MULCT 6' CONCRETE BASE MORTAR SE r LAST ROW OF PAVERS NOTES: 1. INSTALLATION OF PAVERS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2. PAVER FIELD: 4" X 8"X 2 -3/8' KREHLING KLASSIC #0193 RED /CHARCOAL OR APPROVED EQUAL. PAVER FIELD TO BE HERRINGBONE PATTERN AT 45 DEGREE ANGLE. PAVER SOLDIER COURSE: 4" X 8" X 2 -3/8' KREHLING KIASSIC #0194 OR APPROVED EQUAL FIELD VERIFY PRIOR TO ORDER 3. COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ON -SITE PAVERS. SUBMIT SAMPLES FOR APPROVAL Pavers at Median Ends B� SCALE: N.TS. TYPICAL MEDIAN 3542' WIDTH PLANTING BEDS TILL EXISTING SOIL FILL FROM B.O.C. CUT AND/OR / TO 6" DEPTH FINISHED SOIL LAYER MATERIAL / HP = 12" ABOVE TOP OF CURB PLANTING BEDS FILL FROM B.O.C. CUT AND /OR FINISHED SOIL LAYER MATERIAL — TYPICAL MEDIAN 12' -20' WIDTH Tvpical Grading of Medians SCALE: NOT TO SCALE :rr. NOTES fvnsvec9 See 1..S r MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE PREPARATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2003 EDITION OF THE MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUrOD PART VI, TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION), AS REVISED TO DATE. FOR GENERAL TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REFER TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) BOOKLET "DESIGN STANDARDS" DATED JANUARY 2006 INDEX NOS. 600 THROUGH 660, AS APPLICABLE AND PER COLLIER COUNTY M.O.T. POLICY. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN (T.C.P.), THE COST OF WHICH SWILL BE INCLUDED IN PAY ITEM - MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC THE T.C.P. SHALL BE PREPARED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH THE ADVANCED FOOT "WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL" CERTIFICATION. THIS PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR APPROVAL WITH THE APPLICATION FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT, 26' -69'1 01. see Mat a d dL de :dk __________— —._.._ _ ..lam" — L JI C ec• S P^ d1 dm r !• j'I r 6'for Nesfric Y: CCr. ?:•ions +LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY, PASSENGER VEHICLE C? fer Nonrrsn;cfH Ge•atiens 2010 INTERIM DESIGN STANDARD, INDEX NO. 546 PLAN see YMex AU. !CAD BASED ON 45 MPH DESIGN SPEED, SIGHT DISTANCE IS 430'. Sight Distance at Intersection D'� SCALE: N.T.S, FINISHED GRADE I I /-" CUT T EXISTING SOIL / CUT 3" DEPTH TYPICAL EXISTING GRADE TYPICAL CURB AND GUTTER L HIGH POINT VARIES ACCORDING TO SHELL LAYOUT. SEE SHELL GRADING DETAIL A4/LS502 2. TRANSITION FROM 6'70 12- HT. IN AREAS BETWEEN 20' WIDTH AND 35' WIDTH. 30 290 ?10 no 30 35 JJ0 Z.0 JP0 260 e0 .R40 )>. 99i7. 310 95 430 3UJ 0 J5c 60 9B sac so J.V 53 SJO 3> 6C S) f E60 9J 6.. 61�4i' 1 •) 4— LEGEND I. -.r.e c: 5�tcros;.uctru. -s SHELL MOUND HP = 15" ABOVE TOP OF CURB Tvpical Grading in Shell and Gumbo Limbo Areas /� /� SCALE. NOT TO SCALE 5 6 MEDIAN GRADING AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONS' I. INSTALL IRRIGATION MAIN LINES, WIRING, AND SNUB UP VALVE LOCATIONS TO WITHIN EIGHT INCHES OF EXISTING SURFACE GRADE. 2. REMOVE IRRIGATION EXCAVATION DEBRIS, UNSUITABLE EXCAVATED SOILS, EXCESS FILL, AND LIMEROCK, IF ENCOUNTERED. 3. SPRAY EXISTING MEDIANS WITH CONTACT HERBICIDE FOR 100% KILL AS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND MAINTAIN MEDIANS WEED -FREE DURING INSTALLATION UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 4. CUT EXISTING SOIL BEHIND BACK OF CURBING IF REQUIRED TO PROPOSED 2" DEPTH AND SPREAD CUT INWARD TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE MEDIAN AND ROUGH GRADE PER PROFILE. 5. ROTOR TILL MEDIAN TO WITHIN 18 INCHES OF THE BAD( OF CURBING. ROTOR TILLING MEANS 6 TOTAL PASSES OF THE AREA TILLED WITH REVERSE ROTOR TYPE TILLER 6. FINE GRADE MEDIANS TO PROPOSED PROFILES AND REMOVE ALL DEBRIS LARGER THAN 1 INCH IN DIAMENTER FROM WITHIN THE TOP 41NCHES OF THE FINISHED GRADE. 7. ADD FINISHED SOIL LAYER MATERIAL AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR PROPOSED GRADESIPROFILES. 8. INSTALLATION OF SHELL TO TAKE PLACE AFTER IRRIGATION TRENCHING, GRADING & PLANTING AND MULCHING OPERATIONS. TAKE CARE TO KEEP A CLEAN SHELL SURFACE AND AVOID DIRT AND DEBRIS FROM CONTAMINATING SHELL AREA 9. INSTALL EDGING PRIOR TO MULCHING AND SHELL PLACEMENT. BROWN LANDSCAPE EDGING WITH STAKES, MODEL X95340 MASTER MARK TERRACE BOARD, 5- X 40'001L, OR APPROVED EQUAL ROC -KLOTH WHITE NON -WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE LANDSCAPE FABRIC, MODEL #RK- WHr4300 OR APPROVED EQUAL , 3" LAYER I I MULCH TYPIW. SHRUB /GROUNDCOVER COMPACTED FILL UNDER SHELL — Crushed Shell SHELL, CRUSHED AND WASHED FREE OF DUST AND SAND, 1/2" MINUS, BY SUPERIOR STONE OR FLORIDA AGGREGATE SOURCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL. SHELLTO BE RAKED SMOOTH AND COMPACTED. 1/4" BELOW TOP OF CURB (PER 'COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE WBLIC RIGHT -OFWAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ") SHELL, CRUSHED AND WASHED FREE OF DUST AND SAND, 112" MINUS, BY SUPERIOR STONE OR FLORIDA AGGREGATE SOURCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL SHELL TO BE RAKED SMOOTH AND COMPACTED. SHELL MOUND HP = 15" ABOVE TOP OF CURB B CECIL'S COPY EXPRESS 5959 PINE RIDGE RD. NAPLES, FL 34119 Phone: 239-353-4285 Fax: 239-353-1775 I NAME /ADDRESS I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS FINANCE 3299 TAMIAMI TR E. STE 700 NAPLES, FL 34112 -5749 1612 p22 Estimate DATE ESTIMATE # 12/20/2011 14655 PROJECT DESCRIPTION QTY COST TOTAL 2508 POST CARDS 1/1 RADIO ROAD EAST 2,508 0.07775 195.00 ADDRESS AND BARCODE 2,508 0.04 100.32 BULK RATE PRICE WILL GO UP IN ABOUT 2 WEEKS POST 2,508 0.24 601.92 OFFICE IS RAISING PRICES. COST FOR LOCAL POST CARDS IS .24 EACH AND OUT OF STATE IS .27 EACH. I'LL GO BY THE LOCAL PRICE FOR NOW. TOTAL $897.24 A. Cif F� 6 v�f � rl O H M � � M O d � e� 2- Q) QJ ,y ro m N O N n V ce 2 CL a N O O O O A m m m d a v r. O DwIl gi a rte` 1612 a 22 {•J X 4" C •r N N O O O ANN A L H r4 � L L cd cd nn � L V) V) L V) fS$ -a i•) C V) W O O cc •r •r a-J 4-J rr L L W W a L > p U ro ro N O t N tQ o o O c p ro 'o U O C O U "-• .� i = _ O ro>, ro L C U) p ro c t5 A O p V U U) co sp O ro Q a1 �O•� U O Q. a)42 ro� �i.� �� C (a a) U E� N �_ roro >1 Y Q) •{-_ �- �' Q) � d O LOro U iQ ..w c CL 0 c ro o U) proO L) U ca) O _pro O C •— 0 N U a) a O• ma > U U) ,pc •,��, a) U ro 0 � o Co ao cn E" c E ro Lc CU 7 cro a a— DoE Q.= m� c ca c� ro_UC O. O ro •� 06 _ (p > .V O ca c =a � - o m.c? ° roro a w ;� n ro CO � n o 0 ro o o ca a CL ca�a) tea) N a)M O .ca 3: 1-- c > F ro c U) . m ro' (D c -,4 � (D cma '_ °� CL c0c a�i 3: E O r O U > a) -0 O c S2 p a) C E L p O >,Z -0 > Q in2 ro o _ p ma U `. 41 ,L O _0 (D �a C O -L O C) cs _� O o ca �a .0 C)L c cn c roro CU � "- 0 c o LU � c ro co rn o a ro .. � c o ro ro ro U O a) U� m oA aUi m ro ca '� c O 0)- a UC _ p U) L c .c U) L O co mroCnU Co -roU) (D -0 p n O L.. O cu ro _ 05:5ro U !o . ro-a O. a) O• cu p E S L • U p Q L N O - A C lff � Q) g �A to © UA 6� ` C-7 , fu d E�! c to QI ® {•J X 4" C •r N N O O O ANN A L H r4 � L L cd cd nn � L V) V) L V) fS$ -a i•) C V) W O O cc •r •r a-J 4-J rr L L W W 1612 H.S.T.U. Ak:," Co*o- 2995 S. H 4, NZvt Nom, Ft. 34104 February 1, 2012 A 1'1 U XT71 A I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - January 4, 2012 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard A<< RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2012 Board of County Commissioners Fiala ✓ __ Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio VII. New Business VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report — Radio Road MSTU — Sue Chapin IX. Public Comments Misc. Comes: X. Adjournment Date: 3113 If I -2, Item 0: IUZ2 -A22 Copies to: The next meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 1 1612 A +23 Vanda Ndt I;eaeA )K.SJ h. Ad visopy Canomittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 December 1, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: November 3, 2011 V. Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment 0 -Taggvg BY..................... Fiala T Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta : rG The next meeting is January 5, 2012 at 2:00 PAR ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 111'sc- Corres: 625 111TH Ave. D *: 31i 31i Naples, FL Z Item #:1LeXZA-2.� Copies to: 1612A23 VaNdet6iei BmeA Jbt.3.7.61. Advisory Coo,smittaa 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 December 1, 2011 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:03 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Bud Martin County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Mark Sunyak - Public Utilities Others: Robert Kindelan —CLM, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. VII. A. December 2, 2011 Meeting with FPL VII. B. Neighborhood Meeting with Commissioner Hiller IX. A. Attorney Representation Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 40. IV. Approval of Minutes — November 3, 2011 Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2011 as submitted. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 40. V. Budget Report — Discussed under Vi. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported: • Mulching is incomplete due to a equipment malfunction by the Vendor • Turf weed control will take place next Tuesday - Wednesday Budget Report 1612 A23 Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: Budget Report (See attached) • Collected Current Ad Valorem Tax $108,393.24 • Total Available Budget $4,146,010.05 Charles Arthur noted the Reporting error ($2,000,000.00) is unresolved on the Budget Report. Darryl Richard referred to the Adjusted Balance Sheet regarding the $2,000,000.00: Adjusted Balance Sheet (See attached) • The MSTU Cash Balance as of December 1St is $6,085,849.98 • The Report is prepared by Derek Johnson, Clerk of Courts Finance Office Charles Arthur renewed the Committee's request to track expenditures independently for Phase I and Phase II in the Budget Report. Darryl Richard will submit the request to Gloria Herrera. VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur Darryl Richard reported on the Public Utilities Project: • Email from Mark Sunyak on the Water Line Relocation Project is included in the meeting packet (See attached) - Project completion is forecast for early January • Utilities Department is planning minimal down time on water for (2) the affected Properties • Consulting and Construction Expenses are paid by the Public Utilities Department for the Water Line Relocation Project A. December 2, 2011 Meeting with FPL Correspondence from the Clerks Office (Crystal Kinzel) regarding the Counties position on payment to FPL was discussed. (See attached) Darryl Richard stated the meeting is scheduled at 10:30 a.m. at the County Attorney's office with FPL, Clerk of Courts, Michelle Arnold, Darryl Richard, and Charles Arthur. Charles Arthur stated the following: • Is uncertain if he is able to attend the meeting due to a scheduling conflict • Expressed frustration that the Committee was excluded from important meetings with the Clerk's office and FPL by the County Attorney's office • Noted the importance of a MSTU Committee Member attendance at the December 2 "d meeting 2 1612 A 23 o A meeting was held two weeks ago with FPL and the Clerk's Office with no resolution on the prepayment to FPL Darryl Richard stated that the main objective of the December 2nd meeting is to preclude contacting the Attorney General Office by resolving the FPL prepayment issue. Discussion ensued on the prepayment gridlock with FPL and Collier County Clerk Office. Bud Martin suggested the MSTU meet with the Governor in Tallahassee if the issue is not resolved. Charles Arthur stated that a second alternative is that the Committee may file a complaint with PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and the complaint will be routed directly to FPL Executive Offices. B. Neighborhood Meeting with Commissioner Hiller Charles Arthur reported: • It was perceived by the residents that Commissioner Hiller cast blame at County Staff for the FPL prepayment issue - Conversely it is the Clerks Office that is withholding prepayment to FPL (as required by FPL Tarifo • Subsequently a (VBRA) Committee Member visited the Clerks Office regarding the Power Line Burial (FPL prepayment.) After discussion the Committee perceived: • If the Underground Line Burial Project cannot be completed due to the issue with FPL prepayment the MSTU should disband - Subsequently Tax Payers will receive a refund for the collected MSTU Ad Valorem Taxes (pro rata) • The Clerks Office is withholding the FPL payment based on the amount of monies due ($1,800,000.00) Charles Arthur noted: • $600,000.00 was prepaid to Consultants on the Project • Channel Dr. Project was prepaid • The implication that County Staff was responsible for the FPL prepayment issue is not valid • If a decision is not rendered at the December 2 "d FPL meeting the County Attorney must file an opinion with the Attorney General (before the next scheduled Commission meeting) - Charles Arthur requested to review the Attomey opinion prior to submittal to the Attomey General 3 161,2 A 23 Discussion took place on retaining outside Counsel. The Committee restated concern on the FPL nonpayment by the Clerks Office and perceived it was advantageous to hire an outside Attorney (via the HOA.) Darryl Richard stated Staff will email the results of the FPL meeting to the Committee. VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard - Discussed under Vlll. B. B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak reported the Water Line Relocation will impact Pedestrians and Traffic on the following days during the two week Project: • Week 1 - Monday through Wednesday • Week 2 - Friday through Monday - Work will be performed primarily on the East side ATM Department Darryl Richard reported a Public Information meeting is planned January 26th for the Pathways Project (111th and Wiggins Pass.) Charles Arthur noted there is some legitimate room for concern on the proposed concession stands and observation deck as they may impact the existing businesses in the area. Mark Sunyak stated the Greenway Pathways Project is funded in the current Budget. Discussion took place on Phase IV. and the following was concluded: • Conduit will be installed under the Bike Path (by Utilities Department) • The Design Phase will be initiated • The required Survey will be Conducted by RWA - Coordination with Public Utilities for cost sharing IX. Old Business A. Legal Representation - Previously discussed under VII. B. X. Update Report A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman - None B. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - None XI. New Business - None XII. Public Comment - None 2 161 2 A 23 4 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:41 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee F Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is January 5, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111 T" Ave. Naples, FL 5 161 2 4 23 Mitchellian ..—,.From: mprice3663 @aol.com ;ent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:17 AM To: Mitchellian Subject: New On -line Advisory Board Application Submitted Advisory Board Application Form Collier County Government 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -8606 Application was received on: 12/30/201111:17:21 AM. Name: IMICHAEL I PRIC Home Phone: 2393400665 Home Address: R37 TRADEWINDS AVENUE City: APLES Zip Code: 34108 -2374 Phone Numbers Fax: Business: 123934006651 e -Mail Address: n rice3663 aol.con Board / Committee Applied for: ANDERBILT BEACH MSTU Category: INot indicated Work Place: IGERMAIN PROPERTIES OF FLORID How long have you lived in Collier County: 5 -1 Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the law? 'I�c of Indicate Do you or your employer do business with the County? of Indicated NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile acid notify the Board of Cowlty Conunissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Would you and /or any organizations with whom you are affiliated benefit from decisions or 1 recommendations made by this advisory board? ® 1612 A 23 i of Indicate Are you a registered voter in Collier County? Yes Do you currently hold public office? Do you currently or ever served on a Collier County Board or Committee? 901 Not Indicated Please list your community activities: ON Eaucation: BSIE GENERAL MOTORS INSTITUTE EXECUTIVE MBA INDIANA UNIVERSIT AllVl lam. .l - )+ YEARS IN THE METAL RECYCLING BUSINESS AT THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEVEL. EARS INVOLVEMENT IN REAL ESTATE SALES CURRENTLY WORKING ON MAJO OMMERCIAL PROJECTS IN SEVERAL STATES. 2 17, 1612A23 Escrow Agreement This Escrow Agreement ( "Agreement ") is made and entered into this 14th day of December, 2011, by and among Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ( "County "), by and through its Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit (collectively, "County "), the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court ( "Clerk7% Florida Power & Light Company, a Florida corporation ( "FPL ") and Fifth Third Bank ( "Fifth Third "), an Ohio banking corporation and a qualified public depository as defined under Section 280.02(26), Florida Statutes, as escrow agent ( "Escrow Agent "). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the County requested that FPL convert certain overhead electric distribution facilities to underground electric distribution facilities ( "Conversion" or "Project), and to that end, the County paid FPL an engineering deposit in the amount of thirteen thousand twenty seven dollars ($13,027.00) on March 12, 2009, to develop a cost estimate for the Conversion; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 25- 6.115, Florida Administrative Code ( "Conversion Rule ") and FPL's Florida Public Service Commission ( "FPSC ")- approved Tariff Rule 12 ( "Conversion Tariff'), FPL provided the County a Binding Cost Estimate ( "BCE ") for the Conversion along with an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement — Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver Agreement ( "UFCA ") on August 24, 2011; and WHEREAS, the UFCA outlines the total contribution -in- aid -of- construction ( "CIAC ") required for the Conversion in the amount of two million eight hundred twenty -one thousand nine hundred and eighteen dollars ($2,821,918.00); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Conversion Rule and Conversion Tariff, County is eligible for the Government Adjustment Factor Waiver ( "GAF Waiver ") in the amount of six hundred six thousand three hundred seventy three dollars ($606,373.00) which provides a corresponding reduction to the CIAC that would otherwise be due from County for the Conversion; and WHEREAS, the Conversion Rule and Conversion Tariff also provide for other reductions to the CIAC, including a credit in the amount of five hundred fifty -two thousand one hundred fifty dollars ($552,150.00), which represents the cost to install an overhead electrical distribution system at current hardening standards; and WHEREAS, after the net reductions to CIAC outlined above and as more specifically set forth in the UFCA, the BCE that the County is to pay at the outset of the Conversion is one million eight hundred six thousand ninety one dollars ($1,806,091.00) ( "County CIAC Amount "); and Poll 1612A23' WHEREAS, on November 8, 2011, the Collier County Board of Commissioners approved entering into the UFCA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution and Section 28.12, Florida Statutes, the Clerk is the auditor and custodian of all County funds; and WHEREAS, by virtue of the UFCA, Conversion Tariff and Conversion Rule, County, Clerk and FPL desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of establishing an Escrow Account with the Escrow Agent, delivering the County CIAC Amount (the "Escrowed Funds ") to the Escrow Agent in satisfaction of the requirement that County pay the BCE at the outset of the Conversion and providing a procedure for the Clerk to review and approve disbursement of Escrowed Funds. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Establishment of an Escrow Account. FPL and the County hereby authorize and direct the Escrow Agent to establish an Escrow Account ( "Account") and the Escrow Agent hereby accepts such appointment, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The Account shall be a non - interest bearing, Unlimited FDIC Account at Fifth Third Bank and shall be entitled "Escrow Account Fifth Third Bank FBO Collier County and Florida Power & Light Company Account No. The County shall be responsible to pay all costs, fees and expenses of the Escrow Agent, if any, arising from or in connection with the Account. 1.1 The Parties direct the Escrow Agent to place the Escrowed Funds in a Fifth Third Bank account with the same protections as a qualified public depository in the State of Florida. Exhibit "A" attached hereto states the fee schedule that will apply to the Account. 2. Escrow Agent Reporting Requirements. Each month during the term of this Agreement, the Escrow Agent shall issue to FPL, the Clerk and County a current statement of Account activity for the period, including starting balance, deposits in the Account, withdrawals from the Account, and ending balance. County, Clerk and FPL agree and direct Escrow Agent that the Escrowed Funds are owned by the County for tax reporting. 3. Deposit of County CIAC Amount. As a condition precedent to the commencement of the Conversion, County shall fully execute the UFCA and Clerk shall deposit one million eight hundred six thousand ninety -one dollars ($1,806,091.00) in the Account, which represents the net County CIAC Amount due. County shall evidence such deposit by delivering to FPL receipt of deposit within five (5) business days of the full execution of this Agreement and the UFCA. 161&2 A234 4. Progress Milestones — Notice of Completion. FPL shall complete the Conversion in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications set forth in Attachment A of the UFCA, the progress milestone ( "Milestone ") set forth in the escrow disbursement schedule attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and the illustrative timeline attached hereto as Exhibit "C." The initial Milestone is the procurement of certain special order material required for the Conversion. Upon completion of the initial materials procurement Milestone, FPL shall provide County, Clerk and Escrow Agent written notice of Milestone completion along with a purchase order which includes a detailed list of materials and quantities as evidence of the procurement. Upon completion of each of the remaining Milestones set forth in Exhibit `B," FPL shall provide County, Clerk and Escrow Agent notice of Milestone completion along with a signed "redline" drawing as evidence of Milestone completion. Clerk, at its sole discretion, may also make arrangements with FPL for physical inspection of the Conversion, coordinating his inspection with FPL, as further evidence of Milestone completion, in which FPL shall cooperate. Clerk and County acknowledge and understand that, pursuant to the UFCA, Conversion Rule and Conversion Tariff, the County CIAC Amount is a fixed -price contribution toward the Conversion and is not subject to further reduction or payment offset. The Account shall terminate upon the earlier of 24 months from the date of initial deposit or the disbursement of the fourth and final draw in accordance with Exhibit `B," below and any funds then remaining in the Account shall be paid to the County upon written request of the County. 5. Disbursement of Escrowed Funds. The Clerk shall have ten (10) business days after receipt to review each notice of Milestone completion and determine if the notice of Milestone completion is complete, proper and accurate, if the Milestone is complete (which may include physical inspection), if payment to FPL is appropriate and to either: (a) provide Escrow Agent and FPL with notice of approval to disburse Escrowed Funds; or (b) provide Escrow Agent and FPL with notice of rejection of approval to disburse Escrowed Funds. Upon receipt from Clerk of notice of approval to disburse Escrowed Funds, the Escrow Agent shall disburse to FPL from the Escrowed Funds the amount set forth in the applicable notice of Milestone completion (the "Milestone Payment"). In the event that the Clerk provides Escrow Agent with notice of rejection of approval to disburse Escrowed Funds or fails to provide a notice of approval or rejection within ten (10) business days, FPL may, at its sole discretion, issue a stop -work order and discontinue further progress on the Conversion until such time as full payment is received according to the Milestone schedule set forth in Exhibit `B." The Escrow Agent has no obligation or right to disburse funds from escrow unless and until receipt of a written notice of approval from the Clerk. 6. Concerning_ the Escrow Agent. The acceptance by the Escrow Agent of its responsibilities under this Agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions, which the parties agree shall govern and control with respect to the Escrow Agent's rights, duties, liabilities and immunities: 6.1 Limited Obligations. The Escrow Agent shall have only those duties as are specifically and expressly set forth in this Agreement, which shall be deemed (a 1612 A'23 purely ministerial in nature, and shall under no circumstance be deemed a fiduciary for any of the other parties to this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall not be required to take any action hereunder involving any expense unless the payment of such expense is made or provided for in a manner reasonably satisfactory to it. 6.2 Good Faith Reliance. The Escrow Agent shall not be liable for any action taken or omitted by it in good faith and in the exercise of its own best judgment, and may rely conclusively and shall be protected in acting upon any order, notice, demand, certificate, opinion or advice of counsel in such matters (including counsel chosen by the Escrow Agent), statement, instrument, report or other paper or document (not only as to its due execution and the validity and effectiveness of its provisions, but also as to the truth and acceptability of any information therein contained) which is believed by the Escrow Agent to be genuine and to be signed or presented by the proper person or persons. The Escrow Agent shall not be bound by any notice or demand, or any waiver, modification, termination or rescission of this Agreement unless evidenced by a writing delivered to the Escrow Agent signed by the proper party or parties and, if the duties or rights of the Escrow Agent are affected, unless Escrow Agent shall have given its prior written consent thereto. 6.3 Limitations. The Escrow Agent shall not be liable for any error of judgment or for any act done or step taken or omitted by it in good faith, or for anything which it may do or refrain from doing in connection herewith, except for its own gross negligence or willful misconduct. The Escrow Agent may consult with, and obtain advice from, legal counsel in the event of any question as to any of the provisions hereof or the duties hereunder, and it shall incur no liability and shall be fully protected in acting in good faith in accordance with the opinion and instructions of such counsel. The reasonable and documented costs of such counsel's services shall be paid to the Escrow Agent in accordance with Section 9.1 below. The Escrow Agent shall neither be responsible for, nor chargeable with knowledge of, the terms and conditions of any other agreement, instrument or document between or among the other parties hereto, or the requirements of any law, regulation or policy affecting the business or operations of the other parties. This Agreement sets forth all matters pertinent to the escrow contemplated hereunder, and no additional obligations of the Escrow Agent shall be inferred from the terms of this Agreement or any other agreement, instrument or document. 6.4 Interpretation. If the Escrow Agent shall be uncertain as to its duties or rights hereunder or shall receive instructions, claims or demands from the Clerk, County or FPL which, in its opinion, conflict with any of the provisions of this Agreement, it shall be entitled to refrain from taking any action and its sole obligation shall be to keep safely all property held in escrow until it shall be directed otherwise in writing jointly by the Clerk, County and FPL or by a final and non - appealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Escrow Agent 4 1612 A 23 shall have the option, after sixty (60) days' notice to the Clerk,. County and FPL of its intention to do so, to file an action in interpleader requiring the Clerk, County and FPL to answer and litigate any claims and rights among themselves. 6.5 Further Assurances. From time to time, FPL, County and the Clerk shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Escrow Agent such further documents and instruments and shall do or cause to be done such further law acts as the Escrow Agent shall reasonably request to carry out more effectively the provisions and purposes of this Agreement, to evidence compliance herewith or to assure itself that it is protected in acting hereunder. 6.6 Resignation and Removal. The Escrow Agent may resign at any time and be discharged from its duties hereunder by its giving the other parties hereto thirty (30) days prior written notice, and such resignation shall become effective as hereinafter provided. Such resignation shall become effective at such time that the Escrow Agent shall turn over to a successor escrow agent jointly appointed by the Clerk, County, FPL. If no new escrow agent is so appointed within the 30 day period following the receipt of such notice of resignation, Escrow Agent may deposit the Escrow Fund with any court, pursuant to an appropriate court proceeding, it reasonably deems appropriate and advise the County, Clerk and FPL accordingly. The Escrow Agent may be removed (with or without cause) and a new escrow agent may be appointed upon mutual agreement of the Clerk, County and FPL. In such event, the Clerk, County and FPL shall deliver joint written notice to the Escrow Agent of such removal together with joint written instructions authorizing delivery of this Agreement together with the Escrow Funds (including any Escrow Income earned thereon) and any and all related instruments or documents to a successor escrow agent. 6.7 Limited Duties. This Agreement expressly sets forth all the duties of Escrow Agent with respect to any and all matters pertinent hereto. No implied duties or obligations shall be read into this Agreement against Escrow Agent. Escrow Agent shall not be bound by the provisions of any agreement among the other parties hereto except this Agreement 7. The County and FPL shall jointly and severally indemnify and hold the Escrow Agent and its officers, directors, shareholders, affiliates, employees and agents ( "Indemnified Parties ") harmless from and against any liability, loss, damage or expense (including, without limitation, documented attorney's fees adjudged to be reasonable) that the Escrow Agent may incur in connection with this Agreement and its performance hereunder or in connection herewith, except to the extent such liability, loss, damage or expense arises from the Escrow Agent's willful misconduct or gross negligence. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the resignation or removal of the Escrow Agent. This paragraph shall not be construed in any way to alter the County's sovereign immunity or extend the County's liability beyond the limits established in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. [I 1612 A23' 8. UFCA, Conversion Rule, Conversion Tariff. The parties understand and acknowledge that this Agreement in no way alters or diminishes the UFCA, Conversion Rule or Conversion Tariff and that both the County and FPL's rights under the UFCA, Conversion Rule and Conversion Tariff remain unchanged by this Agreement. Escrow Agent has no obligation whatsoever with respect to the UFCA, Conversion Rule or Conversion Tariff. 9. Miscellaneous Provisions. 9.1 Fees and Expenses. All fees and expenses incurred in connection with or related to this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby will be paid by as previously set forth herein at numbered paragraph one (1). 9.2 Amendment and Modification. This Agreement may not be amended, modified or supplemented in any manner, whether by course of conduct or otherwise, except by an instrument in writing signed by each party which states that it constitutes an amendment, modification or supplement (as applicable) of or to this Agreement and, with respect to an amendment or modification, specifies the provisions hereof being amended or modified (as applicable). 9.3 Waiver. No failure or delay of any party in exercising any right or remedy hereunder will operate as a waiver thereof, nor will any single or partial exercise of any such right or power, or any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce such right or power, or any course of conduct, preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or power. Except as provided herein, the rights and remedies of the parties hereunder are cumulative and are not exclusive of any rights or remedies, which they would otherwise have hereunder. Any purported waiver by any party of any provision of this Agreement will be valid only if set forth in a written instrument signed by the party providing such waiver which states that it constitutes a waiver to this Agreement. 9.4 Notices. All notices, deliveries and other communications hereunder will be in writing and will be deemed duly given: (a) on the date of delivery if delivered personally, or if by facsimile, upon written confirmation of receipt by facsimile; (b) on the first business day following the date of dispatch if delivered utilizing a nationally recognized next -day courier service; (c) upon the delivery of an e-mail read receipt confirmation; or (d) on the earlier of confirmed receipt or the fifth business day following the date of mailing if delivered by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. All notices hereunder will be delivered to the addresses set forth below, or pursuant to such other instructions as may be designated in writing by the party to receive such notice. (i) if to the Clerk, sent to: Constance C. Murray General Operations Manager, Finance Department 0 I3 1612 IM 23 Collier County Clerk of the Circuit 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 700 Naples, FL 34112 -5749 Email: Connie.Murray @collierclerk.com Facsimile: (239) 732 -2726 Copies to: Derek Johnssen General Accounting Manager, Finance Department Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 403 Naples, FL 34112 Email: Derek.Johnssen @collierclerk.com Facsimile: (239) 732 -2726 (ii) if to the FPL, to: Florida Power & Light Company c/o John Lehr 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, FL 33408 Email: john.lehr @fpl.com with copies (which will not constitute notice) to: John T. Butler, Esq. / Attention: General Counsel 700 Universe Blvd. (LAW /JB) Juno Beach, FL 33408 Facsimile: (561) 691 -7135 Email: john.butler @fpl.com (iii) if to the Escrow Agent, to: Fifth Third Bank Kimberly Kutlenios 200 East Robinson Street MD MBLE9B Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 999 -3027 Facsimile: (321) 445 -3047 Email: kimberly.kutl'enios. @53.com 1612 A 23 9.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement, and supersede all prior written agreements, arrangements, communications and understandings and all prior and contemporaneous oral agreements, arrangements, communications and understandings, among the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. 9.6 Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure solely to the benefit of each of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns, and nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to or will confer upon any other person any legal or equitable right, benefit or remedy of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement. 9.7 Governing Law. THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ESCROW AGENT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY CHOICE OR CONFLICT OF LAW PROVISION OR RULE (WHETHER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION) THAT WOULD CAUSE THE APPLICATION THERETO OF THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. 9.8 Submission to Jurisdiction. ANY PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ESCROW AGENT AND THE INDEMNIFIED PARTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE BROUGHT AND DETERMINED IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS LOCATED WITHIN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS DESCRIBED IN THE PRECEDING TWO SENTENCES OF THIS SECTION FOR ITSELF AND WITH RESPECT TO ITS PROPERTY, GENERALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY (AND AGREES NOT TO COMMENCE ANY PROCEEDING RELATING THERETO EXCEPT IN SUCH COURTS). EACH OF THE PARTIES FURTHER AGREES TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN ANY MANNER PERMITTED BY SUCH COURTS. EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES, AND AGREES NOT TO ASSERT, BY WAY OF MOTION OR AS A DEFENSE, COUNTERCLAIM OR OTHERWISE, IN ANY PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY, (A) ANY CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT PERSONALLY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ABOVE - NAMED COURTS FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE FAILURE LAWFULLY TO SERVE PROCESS, (B) AND TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THAT (I) THE PROCEEDING IN ANY SUCH COURT IS BROUGHT IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM, (II) THE VENUE OF SUCH OR PROCEEDING IS IMPROPER OR (III) THIS AGREEMENT, 1612 X23, OR THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF, MAY NOT BE ENFORCED IN OR BY SUCH COURTS. 9.9 Personal Liability. This Agreement will not create or be deemed to create or permit any personal liability or obligation on the part of any direct or indirect stockholder, member or partner of any party or any representative or elected or appointed official of, or investor in, any party. 9.10 Assignment; Successors. Except with respect to the Escrow Agent as permitted under this Agreement. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under this Agreement may be assigned or delegated, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise, by any party without the prior written consent of the other parties, and any such assignment without such prior written consent will be null and void. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties and their respective successors and assigns. 9.11 Severability. The provisions of this Agreement will be deemed severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision will not affect the validity or enforceability of the other provisions hereof; provided that if any provision of this Agreement, as applied to any party or to any circumstance, is adjudged not to be enforceable in accordance with its terms, the parties agree that such determination will have the power to modify the provision in a manner consistent with its objectives such that it is enforceable, and/or to delete specific words or phrases, and in its reduced form, such provision will then be enforceable and will be enforced. 9.12 Waiver of Jua Trial. THE PARTIES EACH HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY PROCEEDING BASED HEREON, OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THIS AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES EACH ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT IT HAS RECEIVED FULL AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PROVISION AND THAT THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT FOR SUCH PARTY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT. 9.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which will be considered one and the same instrument and will become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other parties. 9.14 Execution. This Agreement may be executed by delivery of a signature by facsimile or other electronic means reasonably acceptable to the parties and such signature will constitute an original for all purposes. 16 1612 p 23 9.15 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with regard to all dates and time periods set forth or referred to in this Agreement. No parry shall be liable or responsible to the other parties, nor be deemed to have defaulted under or breached this Agreement, for any failure or delay in fulfilling or performing any term of this Agreement, when and to the extent such failure or delay is caused by or results from acts beyond the affected party's reasonable control, including, without limitation: (a) acts of God; (b) flood, fire or explosion; (c) war, invasion, riot or other civil unrest; (d) government order or law; (e) actions, embargoes or blockades in effect on or after the date of this Agreement; (f) action by any governmental authority; (g) national or regional emergency; and (h) strikes, labor stoppages or slowdowns or other industrial disturbances. 9.16 No Presumption Against Drafting Party. The parties each acknowledge that each party to this Agreement has been represented by counsel in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Accordingly, any rule of law or any legal decision that would require interpretation of any claimed ambiguities in this Agreement against the drafting party has no application and is expressly waived. 9.17 Further Assurances. Each party covenants that at any time, and from time to time, it will execute such additional instruments and take such actions as may be reasonably requested by any of the other parties to confirm or perfect or otherwise to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 9.18 Termination. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, this Agreement shall continue in effect until ninety (90) days after the date on which all of the contents of the Escrow Account have been released in accordance with Section 5 above and, without any further action by the parties, shall terminate on such date. Such termination shall not affect the liability of any party with respect to any breach by such party of this Agreement occurring prior to the date of termination [remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page(s) follow] 10 17 1612 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. FPL: Florida Power & Light Company By: Name: George K. Hardy Title: Vice President, Distribution Witness: Print Name: Witness: Print Name: ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney 11 A 23 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Fred W. Coyle, Chairman lu 1612 Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Court By: Name: Witness: Print Name: Witness: Print Name: ESCROW AGENT: Fifth Third Bank Corporate Trust Services By: Name: Title: Witness: Print Name: Witness: Print Name: 12 A 23 19 EXHIBIT A: ESCROW ACCOUNT FEE SCHEDULE Escrow Management Fee: $5,000.00 Legal Fees: $3,000.00 13 1612 A 23 200 2 § Lf) to C - k k $ 2 I ■ » � ) k § k k _ Lu E $ § # °_ _ / � I f � ° # § & 2 , 2 0 k k » $. cli � o- - - ® to © U C� � ■ c c C 2 c 2 2 � �� �$. $2� �■. ` �§§ £p §k¥ )2t �2% �2¥ )E �k[ %bE '�E 0 a c 2 8 � � ■ s � # m k f ) k ` ) 0 ` ) ` co k k UA / 1612 C4 18 � A 23 ZI Q I�I L.� J IL OLL N c� t CL ,0 '. C 0 Ae Vs � v v� � C m � L `C 0 V L /0 V 161 & p 23 M M r M r to c 0 �C to N M � N LL o 00.5 r— w (9 0 e in s L �i.1 L � cw L m DD � o �' � a� w 311 M-")%, N Vu 0 u'�3zz N to 65, G N co LO (r0 N r 0 o N m CD r � to COW �(p0 N�tflOM r N � Rn Ln LO X17 Cl In In l, 00 Ot-'O (2r rNcO:� M tp �a co cry M 00 0 eM- r to). r v- V ia 6�9 w 69690 M M r M r c 0 c 0 �C N � N LL o 00.5 r— w (9 0 e in s L �i.1 L � cw L m DD � o �' � a� w 311 M-")%, >.iz Vu 0 u'�3zz M c 0 �• m �C N LL o 00.5 r— w (9 0Nroa� o _°i _°i z z O IWIL 0 PPL 1612 A23 OH / UG Conversion - Construction Phase Collier County - Vanderbilt Beach - Phase #1 Illustrative Timeline - * Individual Service Conversions - ( FPL /County ) Up to 180 -days 26 18 Foreign Utilities - County (if required) OH Removal / New Underground 2 to 4 4 Overhead (FPL) - Removal Overhead Facilities removal once 6 to 10 9 all foreign attachments are removed from the poles 65 wk. * This illustrative timeline is provided solely for the purpose of a general estimate for the completion of the Conversion project and in no way supersedes or alters the UFCA, or FPL's general construction practices. The parties understand and acknowledge that the illustrative timeline is subject to weather conditions (e.g. storm events, hurricanes, cold snaps, etc.) labor or material shortages, or other acts of God that may affect the timing of the project and hold FPL harmless for any delays to the project that may occur outside this illustrative timeline. 23 Estimated Time Total (wk.) Time Bid Process (if required) Underground Work - 8 to 10 10 Underground ( FPL ) Install new underground system 16 to 28 20 Overhead (FPL) - (Make Ready if required) Make Ready Work 4 4 Individual Service Conversions - ( FPL /County ) Up to 180 -days 26 18 Foreign Utilities - County (if required) OH Removal / New Underground 2 to 4 4 Overhead (FPL) - Removal Overhead Facilities removal once 6 to 10 9 all foreign attachments are removed from the poles 65 wk. * This illustrative timeline is provided solely for the purpose of a general estimate for the completion of the Conversion project and in no way supersedes or alters the UFCA, or FPL's general construction practices. The parties understand and acknowledge that the illustrative timeline is subject to weather conditions (e.g. storm events, hurricanes, cold snaps, etc.) labor or material shortages, or other acts of God that may affect the timing of the project and hold FPL harmless for any delays to the project that may occur outside this illustrative timeline. 23 DAITA INC. CONSULTING 1 t / Il 1 Planning • Visualization Civil Engineering - Surveying & Mapping August 8, 2011 Darryl Richard Collier County Government Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 1612A23 Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU — Phase IV (RWA, Inc. File No. 080010.00.05) Dear Darryl, RWA, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. This proposal has been prepared with the knowledge and experience gained through the successful completion of the Phases I, IIA and Phase III of the project. It is worth noting, that should the Board consider undertaking the remaining phase concurrently, the timing will help us compress the time schedules for completion, and avoid subsequent mobilization time and expense. PROJECT PROFILE • Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. • The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services. • RWA shall provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility locations within Phase IV, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU power line - underground installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008, and amended to divide Phase II. The surveying limits are 10' outside of the existing right -of -way. • Phase IV shall include Vanderbilt Drive from Bluebill Avenue, northerly to just south of the intersection with Wiggin's Pass Road. (7,900 linear feet) • The Client desires to retain the services of RWA, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. • The project will be permitted, designed and developed in three subsequent phases. • Phase I of the project (approximately 10,200 linear feet) included an additional services (change order) to utilize vacuum excavation methods to obtain vertical information on twenty seven (2 7) specific locations at the request of FPL, or one hole per 400 linear feet. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34109 • (239) 597 -0575, fax: (239) 597 -0578 www.consult- rwa.com 2g' 16 It 2 p'23 This proposal for services factors in the use of vacuum excavation at a rate of one hole, per 300 linear feet for each of the subsequent phases The use of vacuum excavation is to clarify potential utility conflicts. This shall be billed on a per hole basis at the rate of $625 per hole. The line item listed in the Professional Fee section is only an estimate based on the number calculated at one hole per 300 linear feet PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS • The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including, but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other available documents. • The vertical datum will be collected in NAVD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929. • Any additional surveying services, additional underground soft digs or the use of ground penetrating radar, beyond the Scope of this Proposal, shall be billed on a time, material and expense basis as per the approved rate codes stated within Annual Contract # 09 -5262. • This proposal includes performing all services described within on a one -time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Control Survey 1.1. Reproduce the recorded right -of -way and baseline information. Right -of -way shall include the intersecting road within the project limits. The right -of -way information shall be labeled, including, date, bearings and distances. In addition the following information shall be noted: a. Horizontal datum — tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. RWA will provide project control network sheets for the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points. b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) — 1988 (NAVD 88), set eight per project area. c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right -of -way. d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. — iron pipe, concrete monuments, etc.) e. Tie buildings located within 20' of the proposed limits of the project to the existing right -of -way. 1.2. Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever possible. The MSTU will provide or make available to the surveyor the identifying property owner information and easement report upon request. 2.0 Topographic Survey 2.1. Locate and collect spot elevations of the above - ground visible improvements located within the project limits. Improvements include, but are not limited to: Page 2 of 5 G:WSTU 2012\ALL MSTU\1_VANDERBIMPROJECT LIS'I101 -05 -12 meeting prep\Phase 4 survey\2011- 08- 08 -PSA -D Richard -Ph Mdoc 16 19 A'23 drive aprons, sidewalks, pathways, exiting utility poles and pedestals, fire hydrants, trees, planted hedges, mailboxes, signage, signal poles, street lights, and any other existing feature that could impact, or be impacted by the proposed improvements. 2.2. Locate individual decorative (landscape features) trees 4" in diameter and up. 2.3. Locate the outline of hedgerows and planted areas. 2.4. Collect sanitary and storm structure data; rim elevations, inverts, pipe sizes directions and condition. 2.5. Locate the elevation of Mean High Water in the areas immediately adjacent to the bridge and associates abutments. It is also possible, that the Consultant may have to perform a Mean High Water Survey, depending upon the elevations of natural ground in the mangrove areas leading up to the bridges. Consultant shall coordinate such activities with both the Collier County Project Manager, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). If it becomes necessary to produce a Mean High Water Survey, suitable for submission to FDEP for approval, during the permitting process, that shall be considered beyond the Scope of this project. 3.0 Underground Utility Location 3.1. Locate all known utilities in Phase IV of this project, using ground penetrating radar and/or radio detection. (To be performed by our subcontractor, Earthview.) 3.2. Paint and flag utilities in accordance with Florida D.O.T. Requirements. (To be performed our subcontractor by Earthview.) 3.3. This proposal does include vacuum excavation, assumed to be at a rate of one hole, per 300 linear feet (To be performed by our subcontractor Earthview, LLC.) The number of holes for Phase IV is estimated to be 27 The line item below in the FEES section, will be billed on per hole basis, and only the actual number of holes will be billed to the client 3.4. RWA, Inc. will field locate underground utilities, as marked in the field by Earth View LLC. The utility locations will include the horizontal locations of all marked lines. Field locations will be delivered in Auto Cadd format. 4.0 Reimbursable Expenses 4.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Page 3 of 5 GAMSTU 2012\ALL MSTU\1_VANDERBILT\PROJECT LISI101 -05 -12 meeting prepThase 4 survey\2011- 08- 08 -PSA -D Richard -Ph IV.doc Scone of Services (Phase 1.0 Control Survey 2.0 Topographic Survey 3.0 Underground Utility Location (27 Soft Digs @ $625 per) 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses 1612 Fee p23+ Type $ 6,800 Fixed $ 36,000 Fixed $ 21,400 Fixed $ 16,900 THE Total $ 81,100 $ 500 T/M/E Note: T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services Deliverables • RWA will submit an Autocad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG format as required by FPL. • The final control survey shall include a detailed and accurate compilation of control points established by a closed traverse loop through the primary control points or with a Global Positioning System -based network, to assure an error -free or closed control network. Relative error or loop closure will conform to requirements of subsection 61G17- 6.003(1) (e), FAC. All control points will be referenced to the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. • Up to four copies of the final control survey will be provided in hard copy print, signed and sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: • Construction Layout Services • Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions • Easement Vacations • Special Purpose Surveys • Radar Topography Page 4 of 5 GAMSTU 2012\ALL MSTUAI VANDERBIMPROJECT LIM01 -05 -12 meeting prep\Phase 4 survey\2011- 08- 08 -PSA -D Richard -Ph IV.doc Z7 1612 AZ' ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal/Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through October 31, 2011. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by RWA, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to RWA, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner /Client Authorization I hereby certify that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certify that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule of RWA, Inc. Accepted this day of , 2011. By: Please Print Name Title For: Collier County Transportation Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, Michael A. Ward, PLS RWA, Inc. Director of Survey, VP Encl.: Collier County Rate Code Billing Address Information Page 5 of 5 G:\MSTU 2012\ALL MSTU\I_VANDERBILT\PROJECT LIST\01 -05 -12 meeting prep\Phase 4 survey\2011- 08- 08 -PSA -D Richard -Ph IV.doc 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 523,400.00 $ 91,469.69 $ 34,374.18 $ 397,556.13 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ 3,662,500.00 $ $ Clerk of Courts $ 3,662,500.00 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 3,662,500.00 $ $ 4700000833 $ 3,662,500.00 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR $ 40,000.00 $ $ Amended $ 40,000.00 38 Actual Available $ Budget Commitments $ 40,000.00 Expenditures Total 1 R AD VALOREM TAX $ (958,300.00) $ $ (768,430.36) $ (189,869.64) C \JL AD VALOREM TAX $ $ $ - $ - 3 FIFTH THIRD O/N INTEREST $ $ $ (423.04) $ 423.04 4 INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (15,100.00) $ $ (4,674.96) $ (10,425.04) INTEREST TAX COLLECT $ - $ $ - $ %05 6 REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (973,400.00) $ $ (773,528.36) $ (199,871.64) 7 TRANSFER FROM APPRAIS $ 52,121.00 $ $ Visa $ 8 TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ $ 9 CARRY FORWARD GEN $ (3,351,300.00) $ $ $ (3,351,300.00) 10 CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $ - $ $ $ - 11 NEG 5% EST REV $ 48,700.00 $ $ $ 48,700.00 12 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $ (3,302,600.00) $ $ $ (3,302,600.00) 13 TOTAL REVENUE $ (4,276,000.00) $ $ (773,528.36) $ (3,502,471.64) 14 LEGAL FEES $ 2,500.00 $ 421.73 $ 2,604.80 $ (526.53) 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 300,000.00 $ - $ 9,830.00 $ 290,170.00 16 SURVEYING FEES $ 50,000.00 $ $ - $ 50,000.00 17 INDIRECT COST REIMBURS $ 11,200.00 $ $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 18 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ 40,000.00 $ 5,155.00 $ 845.00 $ 34,000.00 19 OTHER CONTRACTUAL $ 66,000.00 $ 47,440.00 $ 7,560.00 $ 11,000.00 20 POST FREIGHT $ - $ - $ - $ - 21 POSTAGE $ - $ - $ - $ - 22 ELECTRICITY $ 200.00 $ 78.23 $ 21.77 $ 100.00 23 WATER AND SEWER $ 33,500.00 $ 23,996.77 $ 5,303.23 $ 4,200.00 24 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 1,300.00 $ - $ - $ 1,300.00 25 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAIM $ 2,500.00 $ 1,839.54 $ 201.70 $ 458.76 26 MAINTENANCE LANDSC $ - $ - $ - $ - 27 MULCH $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ $ 1,000.00 28 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ $ - 29 CLERKS RECORDING FEES $ 500.00 $ - $ 23.20 $ 476.80 30 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 400.00 $ - $ - $ 400.00 31 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,000.00 $ 6,658.60 $ 841.40 $ (2,500.00) 32 FERT HERB CHEM $ 5,000.00 $ 1,579.82 $ 1,543.08 $ 1,877.10 33 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLY $ - $ - $ - $ - 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 523,400.00 $ 91,469.69 $ 34,374.18 $ 397,556.13 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN $ 3,662,500.00 $ $ Clerk of Courts $ 3,662,500.00 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY $ 3,662,500.00 $ $ 4700000833 $ 3,662,500.00 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR $ 40,000.00 $ $ $ 8,405.00 $ 40,000.00 38 TRANSFERS $ 40,000.00 $ $ Electricity $ 40,000.00 39 Budget Trans from Appraiser $ 8,600.00 $ $ 2,128.22 $ 6,471.78 40 Budget Trans from Tax Collec $ 24,000.00 $ $ 15,618.60 $ 8,381.40 41 TRANSFER CONST $ 32,600.00 $ $ 17,746.82 $ 14,853.18 42 RESERVE FOR CAPITAL $ 17,500.00 $ $ - $ 17,500.00 43 RESERVES $ 17,500.00 $ $ - $ 17,500.00 44 TOTAL BUDGET $ 4,276,000.00 $ 91,469.69 $ 52,121.00 $ 4,132,409.31 VANDERBILT MSTU FUND 143 January 05, 2012 PO's FY 12 Vender Name Item P # Femaining Paid Clerk of Courts Recording fees N/A $ - $ 23.20 Collier County Util. Water & Sewer 4700000833 $ 23,996.77 $ 5,303.23 Commercial Land Ground Maint. 4500130493 $ 52,595.00 $ 8,405.00 Florida Irrigation Sprinkler Maint. 4500130325 $ 1,839.54 $ 160.46 FPL Electricity 4700000766 $ 78.23 $ 21.77 Florikan Fertilizer 4500130426 $ 1,579.82 $ 1,543.08 Forestry Resources Mulch 4500130415 $ 4,000.00 $ - Indirect Cost Reim Collier County IGC $ - $ 5,600.00 Insurance General Insurance IGC $ - $ - Juristaff Inc Clerical Services 4500130350 $ 6,658.60 $ 841.40 Nabors Giblin & Nickerson Legal Fees 4500133370 $ 421.73 $ 2,604.80 Pelican Engineering Closed FPL Phase 1 Project 4500132372 $ - $ 9,830.00 Staples Office Supplies 4500130390 $ 300.00 $ - Visa Misc Charges FIS Direct $ - $ 41.24 Is $ - $ 91,469.69 $ 34,374.18 2,225,039,681 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 2,068,487,415 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 2,005,897,752 F Y I 1 f=inal Taxable Value 1,916,508,715 FY 12 . my 1st Taxable Value 11 Levy -4.46% Adj. 11 to 12 Rolled Back Rate (less FY 12 FY 11 village 0.5000 0.5000 Extension 958,254 1,002, 949 Property Tax Limitation Impact Value VIVJ, Ipn�u'c 1,916,508,715 Minus: New Const.Annex. 4,101,729 Plus: Amendment #1 TV Component 0 Adj. Taxable Value 1,912,406,986 11 Levy 1,002,949 Rolled Back Rate (less Amend. One) 0.5244 91 % of Rolled Back Rate 0.4772 Millage Cap = .5000 16`I ZA 25 VaNdsrldieE BmeA M.S.7A Advisory Coximmittae 2705 Horseshoe Drive Soudi Naples, FL 34104 January 5, 2012 1. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda AGENDA 1 JAN 3 212 IV. Approval of Minutes: December 1, 2011 V. Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment BY: ....................... Fiala Hiller Henning _- Coyle ColettaG Misc. Corres: The next meeting is February 2, 2012 at 2:00 P.Nbato: ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Item Naples, FL r^nies to: 161L2 A 23 Vandwdidt Beach MAYA Advisory coo"nolttee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 November 3, 2011 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:01 p.m. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Bud Martin County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold— Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Mark Sunyak - Public Utilities Others: Robert Kindelan —CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. VII. A. Legal Representation Vll. B. Public Relations IX. A. New Committee Member Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — October 13, 2011 Change: Pg 5, reminder for next meeting date should read. "November 3" Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of October 13, 2011 as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Budget Report Gloria Herrera reviewed the following Reports: (See attached) Fiscal year end -September 30. 2011 o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $968,251.07 Bud Martin arrived 2:06 p.m. • FY11 P.O.s were paid in full and closed • Total Budget Available $5,816,517.56 161 2p 23 Charles Arthur proposed tracking Expenditures by Phase(s) on the Budget Report. Bud Martin suggested tracking expenses by Total Expenditure Categories in addition to Phase Tracking. Michelle Arnold noted: • The Committees request to identify the monies spent to date on the Project was established and will be provided to the Committee • A tally on Expenditures by Phase(s) and Categories will be maintained by Staff and provided to the Committee Michelle Arnold reviewed documents addressing the reporting error on the FY11 Carry Forward discussed at the October meeting: (See attached) • Budget Amount - $5,700, 000.00 • Forecasted to spend - $2,300,000.00 • Actual monies spent - $133,000.00 • The difference from Forecasted and Actual monies spent ($2,186,544.00) did not roll into FY12 Carry Forward and reviewed the following options: - Cary Forward will automatically be adjusted at the year end - A Budget Amendment is needed to reflect the Cary Forward monies in the monthly Fiscal Reports Gloria Herrera clarified the true Carry Forward monies consists of the following two amounts: • November 3, 2011 Budget Report Line Item 9 - $3,351,300.00 • Carry Forward omitted balance - $2,186,544.00 VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Robert Kindelan reported: • Fertilization is complete • Installation of Mulch is scheduled at the end of November Dick Lydon reported the Hedges (north of Tradewinds) are high. Robert Kindelan responded that Ficus Hedge will be trimmed as requested. VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur A. Legal Representation - Discussed under Vlll. B. B. Public Relations - Discussed under Vlll. B. VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard - Discussed under Vlll. B. 2 161 2A 23 B. Public Utilities Department - Mark Sunyak: Darryl Richard stated a preconstruction meeting was held. Mark Sunyak reported: • The ordering process is underway for Materials • Contractor's tentative schedule is 4 weeks (Thanksgiving to Christmas) • Recommends retaining Malcolm Pirnie Consulting Services for the following - Engineering Services during Construction phase - Engineering Services to Certify completion to DEP • Water Department is verifying the operation of Valves - (2) connections may be without water for several hours - (2) Property Owners will be notified if an outage will occur Discussion took place on notifying Residents via email on the Project schedule (by the Vanderbilt Beach Resident Association) It was concluded Mark Sunyak will provide the Project schedule and a brief description to the Committee (for distribution by the VBRA.) Discussion ensued on the possibility of a boil water order. Mark Sunyak stated the following: • It was not anticipated that a boil water order will be necessary - A boil water order (for drinking water) may be issued if a problem is encountered during line testing • A boil water order is valid for 24 - 48 hours - If required will take place between Thanksgiving and Christmas Utilities Report Darryl Richard reviewed the following schedule: (See attached) • FPL Payment is scheduled for BCC approval on November 8th • The Project Schedule is contingent on the BCC approval of payment to FPL (See attached) • Comcast payment is due March 2012 The Legal opinion by Nabors, Giblin, and Nickerson Attorneys at Law regarding the possibility of limiting other prospective permittees from obtaining ROW permits that may interference with the Underground Line Burial was discussed. (See attached) Based on the Attorneys Legal opinion Charles Arthur deemed that a moratorium can be imposed to avoid potential conflicts during the Underground Line Burial. Michelle Arnold stated the Attorneys opinion provides (2) options: o Moratorium o Reservation (Reserve the ROW) 3 1612 A 23 Dick Lydon moved that the 1st alternative as outlined in the letter of November 1St be approved and request that the County put said Moratorium in place. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion was amended to read: and request the County "take steps to protect the installation including but not limited to alternatives 1 and 2 " Motion carried unanimously 40. Pre - Payment to FPL Charles Arthur stated he spoke with Crystal Kinzel - Collier County Clerks Office on numerous occasions concerning pre - payment to FPL with no resolution. Subsequently he contacted Florida Public Service Commission and reviewed the following: • FPL Rates are regulated • FPL has the ultimate decision making power with undergrounding utilities (per the tariff) • A Tariff formula is used to determine charges and is non- negotiable • FPL can dictate the method and time of payment • The Project is located in FPL territory • A copy of the applicable Florida Statue(s) was requested from Crystal Kinzel and (2) documents were received (See attached) - 2011 Florida Statutes - Attorney Generals Opinion (pg 16) • Email communications - Crystal Kinzel - Response RE: Status of FPL Payment (See attached) - Commissioner Hiller's response to RE. Status of FPL Payment (See attached) Discussion ensued on the withheld FPL pre - payment Charles Arthur expressed concern that the Project Schedule, Design, and Cost Estimates are in jeopardy if the pre - payment is not made. It was deemed that the Clerks Office concern with FPL pre - payment is the amount that is due $1,800,000.00. Sections of the Florida Statue were discussed and the following was determined: o The County Clerks Office should Provide the Florida Statue Rules and Procedures to the Committee C. Legal Representation Charles Arthur suggested retaining an Attorney to represent the Tax Payers on the withheld FPL payment by Collier County Clerks Office. Discussion ensued on the Florida Statue(s) and previous pre- payments by Collier County Clerks Office. El 161 2A 23 .1 Staff noted that previous pre - payments were made by the Collier County Clerks Office for an FPL Pilot Project. Bud Martin stated: • Based on the pre - payment on the FPL Pilot Project pre - payment the County Clerks office set precedence • Mr. Martin questioned if FPL previously performed Underground Utilities Burial Projects in other areas Charles Arthur responded affirmatively and noted the FPL payment(s) were pre -paid for previous Underground Utilities Burial Project(s). After much discussion it was deemed: o The previous pre -paid FPL Underground Utilities Project(s) were regulated by Florida State Statue - Therefore the proposed MSTU Underground Line Burial Project is not in violation of the Florida State Statue Michelle Arnold perceived that Crystal Kinzel's concern is the previous FPL pre -paid Underground Utilities Projects were within the jurisdiction of Municipalities (not Counties.) Charles Arthur reviewed communications with Commissioner Hiller concerning the FPL pre - payment: • Mr. Arthur emphasized that if pre - payment is denied by the Clerks Office the item (approval of FPL Payment) should remain on the BCC Agenda - Staff encouraged substantial Public presence at the BCC meeting • Via email Commissioner Hiller suggested meeting with the County Clerks Office, Charles Arthur, Jennifer Rainey, and the County Attorney to discuss the issue Discussion continued and Committee assignments were summarized: • Charles Arthur previously contacted Lew Schmidt and Jackie Bammel to coordinate an email blast encouraging the VBRA Residents to attend the BCC meeting • Charles Arthur will contact the Public Service Commission and the Attorney (representing the Tax Payers) - Subsequently will meet with Commissioner Hiller, Dwight Brock, and the County Attorney • Charles Arthur will Submit a Formal request to hire an Attorney (outside firm) to represent the Tax Payers (Funded by the MSTU) • Dick Lydon will contact Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta It was noted the Vanderbilt Residents approved a voluntary Tax to improve the quality of life and the safety and security in the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU area. 161,2 A 23 • Charles Arthur will contact Commissioner Henning • Dick Lydon will coordinate with Jeff Lytle - Naples Daily News to publish a Letter to the Editor (drafted by the VBRA) Discussion ensued on an email from Commissioner Hiller. It was concluded that approval from Jeff Atwater -State CFO is required for FPL pre - payment. Michelle Arnold reported the County Attorneys Office sent an email to Miss Williams -State CFO's Office concerning the pre - payment issue. Charles Arthur volunteered to contact Jeff Atwater -State CFO. D. Public Relations - Discussed under Vlll. C. IX. Old Business A. New Committee Member A brief discussion took place on the Committee Vacancy. X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman — None B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin — None XI. New Business — None XII. Public Comment —None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:53 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee L Charles Arthur, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is December 1, 2011 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL 1612 q23 RichardDarryl From: Crystal K. Kinzel [ Crystal .Kinzel @collierclerk.comj Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:33 PM To: John.Lehr@fpl.com; Charlotte.R.Miller@fpl.com; jordan.whyte @fpl.com Cc: TeachScott; Anthony Pires; Dwight E. Brock; ArnoldMichelle; RichardDarryl; Bonnie L. Baer; Connie C. Murray, FederNorman; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Clerk's information as requested Attachments: FPL Vanderbilt final response.docx Importance: High John /Charlotte /Jordan; Attached please find several referenced citations, many as we discussed in the meeting. Sorry for not getting this to you on Friday but we wanted further review. We appreciate the time you spent at the meeting hopefully working to a positive resolution that works for the MSTU, the County and FPL and provides a mechanism for the Clerk to legally pay. If you have any further information on the issue, please provide that as soon as possible as County staff is working toward the December 13 BCC meeting if any additional agreements or information requires their approval. If you need any additional information from our office please let me know as we too would like to reach resolution for proper payment. Thank you again for meeting with us last Wednesday, have a Happy Thanksgiving and we hope to hear from you as soon as possible. Crystal K. Kinzel Director of Finance and Accounting Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Government Center 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Bldg F 4th Floor Naples, FL 34112 (239)252 -6299 CrVstal.Kinze[@Collierclerk.com Please visit us on the web at ww %v.collierclerk.com This electronic communication is confidential and may contain privileged information intended solely for the named addressee(s). It may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has been sent. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action induced by or in reliance on information contained in this message. Unless expressly stated, opinions in this message are those of the individual sender and not of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Clerk's Office by emailing helpdesk coil ierclerk. com quoting the sender and delete the message and any attached documents. The Collier County Clerk's Office accepts no liability or responsibility for any onward transmission or use of emails and attachments having left the CollierClerk.com domain. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1612 A23 The role of the clerk of court as custodian of all county funds is established by the Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes and case law, as noted previously. The case law includes, but not is not limited to Alachua County vs. Powers ; Brock v Board of County Commissioners of Collier Count, 21 So.3d 844 (Fla. 20 DCA 2009); Mayes Printing Company vs. Flowers, 154 So.2d 859, (Fla. I' DCA 1963); and W and F Limited vs. Dunkle, 444 So.2d 554 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1984),and the cases cited therein. Some of the statutes are: A. Article VIII. section 1(d) of the Florida Constitution provides that "[w]hen not otherwise provided by county charter or special law approved by vote of the electors, the clerk of the circuit court shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, auditor, recorder and custodian of all county funds." There is no special law or charter provision in Collier County divesting the Clerk of the duties specified in this constitutional provision. See also Art. V. 4 16 of the Florida Constitution. B. Section 28.12, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that the "clerk of the circuit court shall be clerk and accountant of the board of county commissioners". C. Section 28.235, Florida Statutes (2011), The Clerk of the circuit court is authorized to make advance payments on behalf of the county for goods and services, including, but not limited to, maintenance agreements and subscriptions, pursuant to rules or procedures adopted by the Chief Financial Officer for advance payments of invoices submitted to agencies of the state. D. $ 116.07, Fla. Stat. (2011) requires that the Clerk must keep "books of account and of record in accordance with s. 218.33. ". E. Section 125.17, Florida Statutes (2011), provides, "The clerk of the circuit court for the county shall be clerk and accountant of the board of county commissioners. He or she shall keep their minutes and accounts, and perform such other duties as their clerk as the board may direct. F. Section 129.09, Florida Statutes (2011), imposes both personal civil liability and criminal liability on any clerk of the circuit court acting as county auditor who signs a warrant for any illegal or unauthorized payment of county funds. G. Section 136.01, Florida Statutes (2011). requires that each county depository shall be a qualified public depository as defined in Section 280.02, F.S. (2011). H. Section 136.05, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that "[Qhe board of county commissioners shall keep an accurate and complete set of books showing the amount on hand, amount received, amount expended and the balances thereof at the end of each month for each and every fund carried by" the board. I. Section 136.06(I), Florida Statutes (2011), requires that checks or warrants drawn on county accounts shall be "attested by the clerk ". J. Section 136.08, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that the "accounts of each and every board and the county accounts of each and every depository ... shall at all times be subject to the inspection and examination by the County auditor." The Clerk is the "County auditor". n 1612 p23 K. Section 215.422(14), Florida Statutes (2011) provides that the Chief Financial Officer may adopt rules to authorize advance payments for goods and services, including, but not limited to, maintenance agreements and subscriptions. Such rules shall provide objective criteria for determining when it is in the best interest of the state to make payments in advance and shall also provide for adequate protection to ensure that such goods or services will be provided. L. Bureau of Auditing Rule 69I- 40.120(3)(a)(4), Advance Payments provides for approval of the Chief Financial Officer Attempts to authorize the requested advance payment utilizing the statutes and rules noted in C, K and L above have been unsuccessful. However, in the absence of such approval, for the advance payment, the Clerk is able to process progress payments for actual construction based upon submission of evidence that the work has been completed. This will include but is not limited to: 1. Copies of competitive bid documents for the contractors and subcontractors used on the project. 2. Copies of invoices for materials purchased and stored for the project. FPL has indicated that many of the materials are available from stocked materials. To validate the value of these items we would need a schedule of materials values that are applied to the project, and confirmation that they have in fact been used on the project. 3. Copies of invoices submitted for payment by subcontractors, material men and laborers and any applicable releases for the subcontractors. 4. Submission of an engineer's or other certification that the work billed has been completed. 5. Any other evidence to support cost reimbursement. Additionally, should an escrow account be required it must be a qualified public depository in Florida, under the control of the Clerk as the custodian of all county funds, with withdrawals authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, the Clerk and FP &L. _ �6 2 AZT � p�r'tns�� DF mrp���3 �" a Sc �a.°+am �� 3v <°� O N 11"i p n a 3 6 '� tU I. 6 A 5 m 7 7 G -0 -�i M 6 O N � W < ? A y n O K ® n' a f° N N C m O N N .N-•, O O O a oNN�mm6 ^c cr �6� 0063 ^�3c�ocoom oco� nmm N 3�3a<,O 0 0 0 t! a 0 m 7 N ,may, ; O 'D -y3, � N N n N -n -1 "O ,O„ ® Cfl N .N+ 6- O N !�! G 6< G a tj O O lo. N COj y -w N a p D y O CD 6 N N CD C N c n' S a• co S v' C o o i N C. W 3 y 6 n W 3 0 O CD j ,� 3-0 0 ^ N � 3c m :y � cr '" mm uaiDO < S m 6 n c NO' v 6 3 G f! 3 C) s O 0 y 6 CL Q. �i 'O ID :3 N O p O 6 = a 6 0 N + _ N C. C Q1 6 O 6 N a c a 0 r: ID G 6 6 lw m =� c a 0 6 a � - m a Sig 4A t� En tT N CT _ CT CT CT C N00 sn W m .C�Jt O N W -'+ W C37 ^-1 m 00 A W W W OOO W V O (n s W N N N N O. N IV N O IV CT 00 O Ut M .p m W N 0 0 0 O CO V N V IV fJ -� O O? W? O CO .p. O N V CT W W CD W O N W V V O N W A O V co O co N CNO 'O* A N 0 0 Ut (T W W V O CO W m O !> m W co Cl .A. W CO A C, O CD �I V 4a A O N ..• a N O N V C�II 0011 V0 O •..� :I] N N CD CO Ut V O V CJt _+ W pW ? O ? O :> :. :1 O �--- CD A, O O 0 0 v CO N Jam. N O O CA W N 69 y9 {q H3 t :J7 N V Cn _CT CT CT N O O V V _ V _j D W N W m O V .-. N - CJt CO A N O v m N CD N -1 N m O N CT m (O O j Cb A O 0 N N ONO O O-4 0 co 00 O to W O O W N W O JO O CA CT W CT ..� CNJi CWJ7 O OWo b O O �O V <T O O A W 0 CO CA) V CJ CT v v O m y O O A co O O W OO A fn 'bi ffl A N co CT 03 m r W N m O O W V O M - CO 1 N A CO .n OO Cn W c0 V - OO N ^. w CT CO W N N N co O) N CWT N b N co 0 � (n ^ ,prl, 0 00M co C) N ? OVN ODD .P. co to W O W N O NOOD A O (04A- o O O CT.P. W V V A.W O CTO A P O O p W co W V V OOr p O v -I � CO 71 N v N O 0 co 0 0 ' , O , O ' .-S COT to CD O W .P. _ O O W O H Efl {f} GH &9 {p � W W N � N N W CO O O co O co N CO to 9 4A 69 CA 69 U7 W v N_ N N W 00 CO O O c q fR � '►1 U7 fA -69 n v C N W cO N N WO O N O • CO 3 N G t�9 rn a cn W V A a NfV_V O CD CO _ W i 0 i N G.1 W i ICD CO y a w 0 � o 0 N tD -� N a laD ? 0 m W n = Q CL N m 0 CG S Co fD -4 G: , ,c m c G Q m CL I X 161 2 p 23 Date: December 1, 2011: Current Schedule Projection CURRENT SCHEDULE CONTINGENT UPON Date of actual PAYMENT TO FPL for 1.8 mill. For Phase One Project Activity Date BCC Approval of payment of CIAC November 8, 2011 Check is issued to FP & L for 1.8 mill. December 9, 2011 John Lehr orders equipment December 12, 2011 (note: John will not place the order until he confirms check has been processed —this has taken up to 2 weeks previously) 16 week order time -line for eauipment Shipment received for material Construction Start (FPL) Construction Completion (FPL) Comcast - Construction Start Comcast - Construction Completion Completion of Pole Removal Project Completion December 12 (order is placed with vendor(s)) April 2, 2012 April 3.2012 [BEGIN CONSTRUCTION] January 1, 2013 (based on 9 months construction) June 30, 2012 (NOTE: WE NEED TO PROCESS A CHECK FOR COMCAST PER THE JUNE 14 BCC APPROVAL FOR $331,351.25; Upon BCC approval of UFCA on Nov. 8, 2011 BCC meeting staff will request payment to Comcast in the amount of $331,351.25 August 30, 2012 August 30 to September 13, 2012 (per discussion with FP & L poles will be removed within 2 weeks after Comcast completion) January 1. 2013 (includes complete site restoration) i i) Richa From: SunyakMark Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:33 PM To: RichardDarryl Subject: Notification to Vanderbilt MSTU 1612A23 Darryl, will you please forward the following to the MSTU so they can distribute to their members. Thanks. The Public Utilities Division is performing maintenance activities in advance of Florida Power and Light's project to place their power lines underground. This work will consist of the abandonment of various sections of water mains in three locations between the addresses of 10352 and 10540 Gulf Shore Drive, just North of Seabreeze Avenue. Work will begin on MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011; final restoration work is expected to be completed in early January. During construction please observe all posted warning signs to ensure the safety of those working along the roadway. If you have any questions please contact Public Utilities Project Manager, Mark J. Sunyak, P.E., at 252 -6083. Mark J. Sunyak, P. E. Principal Project Manager Collier County Public Utilities Division 3339 Tam iami Trail East, Suite 303 Pr Naples, Florida 34112 office: 239.252.6083 mobile: 239.784.1093 fax: 239.252.2814 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Vanderbilt MSTU - FP &L Project Expense 2008 to 2011 1612 A 23 Total Paid Vendor Paid Amount PO # Amount Comcast $ 4,000.00 4500114151 $ 4,000.00 FP &L $ 8,861.00 Check #854647 FP &L $ 27,042:00 Check #854646 FP &L $ 2,266.36 4500108372 FP &L $ 13,027.00 4500105390 FP &L $ 23,242.00 4500113762 FP &L $ 2,832.95 4500116848 FP &L $ 5,665.90 4500116847 FP &L $ 5,099.31 4500116846 FP &L $ 3,966.13 4500116782 $ 92,002.65 Harts Electric $ 4,882.00 4500107832 Harts Electric $ 650.00 4500114725 Harts Electric $ 1,950.00 4500115010 $ 7,482.00 Itran Partners, Inc. $ 48,539.00 4500116849 $ 48,539.00 Malcome Pirnie $ 7,600.00 450093126 Malcome Pirnie $ 32,400.00 4500098566 Malcome Pirnie $ 80,000.00 4500113620 Malcome Pirnie $ 49,920.10 4500108136 Malcome Pirnie $ 69,360.00 4500105066 $ 239,280.10 Nabors Giblin & Nickerson $ 953.95 4500114062 Nabors Giblin & Nickerson $ 520.00 igc $ 1,473.95 Naples Daily News $ 400.70 4500106328 Naples Daily News $ 266.54 4500114103 $ 667.24 RWA $ 104,550.82 4500092247 RWA $ 50,015.15 4500103184 RWA $ 944.50 4500101773 RWA $ 50,015.15 4500103184 RWA $ 19,006.75 4500115366 $ 224,532.37 St. John The Evangelist $ 500.00 4500104949 $ 500.00 Suntrust /visa $ 30.18 $ 30.18 Bentley Electric $ 24,610.00 4500118114 Bentley Electric $ 17,216.00 4500125769 $ 41,826.00 Pelican Engineering $ 9,830.00 4500132372 Total Amount Paid Out $ 670,163.49 33 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLY 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 523.400.00 $ 100,913.19 $ 24,530.68 S 397.956.13 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN S 3,662,500.00 $ $ Paid $ 3,662,500.00 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY S 3,662.500.00 � V $ Collier County Util. $ 3,662.500.00 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR S 40,000.00 S $ Ground Maint. $ 40.000.00 Amended $ 40.000.00 $ Actual 4500130325 Available 39 Budget Trans from Appraiser $ 8,600.00 Budget Commitments 2.128 -22 Expenditures 40 Budget Trans from Tax Collec Total 1 CUR AD VALOREM TAX $ (958,300.00) $ $ (108,393.24) $ (849,906.76) 2 DEL AD VALOREM TAX $ 42 RESERVE FOR CAPITAL $ $ - $ - 3 FIFTH THIRD OIN INTEREST $ S $ $ (218.22) $ 218.22 Cl1%j INVESTMENT INTEREST $ (15.100.00) $ $ (2,720.89) $ (12.379.11) 5 INTEREST TAX COLLECT S - $ $ $ - $ - +awana6 REVENUE STRUCTURE $ (973,400,00) $ S (111,332.35) S (862.067 65) 7 TRANSFER FROM APPRAIS $ $ $ (1,174 00) S 1,174.00 so TRANSFER FROM TAX COL $ $ $ (8,084.16) $ 8.084.16 FORWARD GEN $ (3.351.300.00) $ $ $ (3,351.300 00) V4CARRY CARRY FORWARD OF ENCI $ - $ $ $ - 11 NEG 5% EST REV $ 48700.00 $ $ $ 48.700 00 12 TRANSFERS & CONTRIB $ (3,302,600 00) $ S (9,258 16) $ (3,293,341.84) 13 TOTAL REVENUE $ (4,276,000,00) $ $ (120,590.51) $ (4,155_,409.49) 14 LEGAL FEES $ 2,50000 :. 2,626.53 $ - $ ('126.53) 15 ENG FEES OTHER $ 300,000.00 $ - $ 9,830.00 $ 290,170.00 16 SURVEYING FEES $ 50,000.00 $ $ - $ 50,000.00 17 INDIRECT COST REIMBURE $ 11,200.00 $ $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 18 LANDSCAPE INCIDENTAL $ 40,000.00 $ 5,155.00 $ 845.00 $ 34,000.00 19 OTHER CONTRACTUAL $ 66,000.00 $ 51,600.00 $ 3,400.00 $ 11,000.00 20 POST FREIGHT $ - $ - $ - $ - 21 POSTAGE $ - $ - $ - $ - 22 ELECTRICITY $ 200.00 $ 85.58 $ 14.42 $ 100.00 23 WATER AND SEWER $ 33,500.00 $ 26,205.60 $ 3,094.40 $ 4,200.00 24 INSURANCE GENERAL $ 1,300.00 $ - $ - $ 1,300.00 25 SPRINKLER SYSTEM MAIN" $ 2,500.00 $ 1,860.66 $ 180.58 $ 458.76 26 MAINTENANCE LANDSC $ - $ - $ - $ - 27 MULCH $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ $ 1,000.00 28 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ $ - 29 CLERKS RECORDING FEES $ 500.00 $ - $ 23.20 $ 476.80 30 LEGAL ADVERTISING $ 400.00 $ - $ - $ 400.00 31 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS $ 5,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ - $ (2,500.00) 32 FERT HERB CHEM $ 5,000.00 $ 1,579.82 $ 1.543.08 $ 1,877.10 33 OTHER OPERATING SUPPLY 34 OPERATING EXPENSE $ 523.400.00 $ 100,913.19 $ 24,530.68 S 397.956.13 35 IMPROVEMENTS GEN S 3,662,500.00 $ $ Paid $ 3,662,500.00 36 CAPITAL OUTLAY S 3,662.500.00 $ $ Collier County Util. $ 3,662.500.00 37 TRANS TO 111 UNINCOR S 40,000.00 S $ Ground Maint. $ 40.000.00 38 TRANSFERS $ 40.000.00 $ $ 4500130325 $ 40,000.00 39 Budget Trans from Appraiser $ 8,600.00 $ $ 2.128 -22 $ 6,471.7E 40 Budget Trans from Tax Collec $ 24,000 00 $ $ 2,417.86 $ 21,582.14 41 TRANSFER CONST $ 32,600.00 $ $ 4,546.08 $ 28,053.92 42 RESERVE FOR CAPITAL $ 17.500.00 $ $ - S 17,500.00 43 RESERVES S 17,500.00 S S - S 17,50t100 44 TOTAL BUDGET $ 4,276,000.00 $ 100,913.19 $ 29,076.76 $ 4,146,010.05 VANDERBILT MSTU FUND 143 December 01, 2011 PO's FY 12 Vander Name Item POW Remaining Paid Clerk of Courts Recording fees N/A S $ 2320 Collier County Util. Water & Sewer 4700000833 $ 26-20560 $ 3.094.40 ' Commercial Land Ground Maint. 4500130493 $ 56 i5b uu $ 4,245.00 Florida Irrigation Sprinkler Maint 4500130325 $ 1 86066 S 139.34 FPL Electrici ty 4700000766 $ 8558 $ 14.42 Florikan _ Fertilizer 4500130426 $ 157982 $ 1,543.08 Forestry Resources _Mulch 4500130415 $ 4 000 00 $ - Indirect Cost Reim Collier County IGC $ $ 5.600 00 Insurance General Insurance IGC $ - $ Junstaff Inc Clerical Services 4500130350 $ 7 500 00 $ Nabors Giblin & Nickerson Legal Fees 4500133370 $ 2 626 53 $ - Pelican Eno_ineering Close, FPL Phase 1 Project 4500132372 $ - $ 9,830.00 Staples Office Supplies 4500130390 $ 30000 $ - Visa Misc Charges FIS Direct S - $ 41.2W S J4 36 = * 100.913.19 2,225,039,661 FY 09 Final Taxable Value 2,066,467,415 FY 10 Final Taxable Value 2,005,697,752 FY 11 Final Taxable Value 1,916,506,715 FY 12 July 1 st Taxable Value 4.46% Adj 11 to 12 FY 12 FY 11 Millage 0.5000 0.5000 Extension 956,254 1,002,949 Property Tax LimUtion Impact Value ,,, a^aL'4 1 916 508,715 Won; New r.anst. Annex 4101,729 Plus, Amendment #1 TV Component 0 Adj Taxable Value 1912 406,986 tt Levy 1002,949 Rolled teach Rate (less Amend. One) 0.5244 911m M Rolled 8act Rate 0.4772 Mileage Cap - 5000 161 Z #A 24 August 8, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY IN Naples, Florida, August 8, 2011 J AN LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Water and Wastewater. " "., ° -,, , Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building Conference Room 609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jerry Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles Lowell Lam Dr. Sherwin Ritter (Excused) ,.,, �; (Vacancy) Fiala —� 1 w(; r ccylc - G I�n,Ua ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD P &R Ken Kovensky, Operations Manager Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres: Date: 't) I 3112 Item #: I U --r-:2-A ZL I 1 Copies to: 1612 August 8, 2011 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda — Meeting of August 8, 2011 Mr. Lam moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Dr. Biles Carried unanimously 3 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of May 23, 2011 Dr. Biles moved to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority A. Orange Tree Utility Company 2011 Price Index Jamie French distributed "Final Order No. 2011 -03 — Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority." He noted the Utility is requesting approval of an increase of 1.07% to its potable water rates and 1.16% to the wastewater rates. Staff recommends adoption of the Order. Kim Wilber, Orange Tree Utility addressed the Authority noting: • There are 1956 active connections. • There are 120 accounts that have been "locked" for greater than 4 months. 5% of the service district is in foreclosure disconnect. • The Utility continues to lose money and employs all attempts to provide quality service without burdening its customers. Mr. Lam moved to approve Final Order 2011 -03 as presented. Second by Dr. Biles. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. B. Orange Tree Utility Company Expansion of Water Service Jamie French distributed "Final Order No. 2011 -04 — Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority." The Order requests the Authority approve a territorial expansion of its service to accommodate potable water service filed to a property owner at 421 33`d Ave NE, Naples Florida. Staff has no objection to the request. Dr. Biles moved to approve Final Order No. 2011 -04 as presented. Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 3 -0. V. Staff Discussion A. Ave Maria Utility Company Developer Agreements Jamie French submitted a copy of the document "Developer Agreement — Del Webb Parcel 102 — Phase P' executed between Pulte Home Corporation and Ave Maria Utility Company, LLLP for information purposes. VI. Open to Public None 2 16 1i 2 A "24 August 8, 2011 VII. Authority Member Discussion Jamie French noted: • Goodland Isles, Inc. Utility is still providing service to its customers. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 2:43 PM. COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY 4ir M o 4ra C !h- a on� t,= These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on as presented t/ , or as amended M 161 ZA24 October 24, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Naples, Florida, October 24, 2011 1 20% LET IT BE REMEMBERED the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building Conference Room 609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD P &R Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney 1 Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: CHAIRMAN: Jerry Morgan VICE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Fay Biles Lowell Lam Dr. Sherwin Ritter (Excused) (Vacancy) Hiller Flenrf n € Coyle ✓ �_ _---- t-�c7ieL__— --- ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD P &R Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney 1 Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: 1612 A 24 October 24, 2011 I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) and Roll Call Chairman Morgan called the meeting to order at 2:03 PM. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Approval of Agenda — Meeting of October 24, 2011 Mr. Lam moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Dr. Biles Carried unanimously 3 -0. III. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of August 8, 2011 Dr. Biles moved to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2011 meeting. Second by Mr.. Lam. Carried unanimously 3 -0. IV. Items Requiring Action by Authority None V. Staff Discussion A. Orange Tree Utility Company Jamie French, Operations Director, GMD P & R reported: • It has come to his attention the Orange Tree Utility Company, Inc. may be filing a "Rate Case." • If this request is filed, the Authority has 60 days to respond. • In anticipation of this event, Staff proposes to retain a "rate consultant' to assist the County in the case. • The concept is for Staff to "retain" the consultant with no funds being incurred by the Consultant until such time their services are required. He requested the Authority endorse the request by Staff. Dr. Biles moved to direct staff to take all necessary actions required to retain a "rate consultant" or other qualified individual and/or firm for the purposes of assisting the County in reviewing a potential "Rate Case" which may be filed by the Orange Tree Utility Company, Inc. Second by Mr. Lam. Carried unanimously 3 — 0. VI. Open to Public None VII. Authority Member Discussion Staff continues to attempt to identify potential candidates who may be interested in filling the vacant position on the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 2:27 PM. 2 1612 A 24 October 24, 2011 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY Jer Morg n, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on / l�p3 la , as presented ✓ , or as amended 3