The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 05/22/2012 Item #16I161 1 " BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE May 22, 2012 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Miscellaneous Correspondence: 1) Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District: Special District Facilities Report March 19, 2012 2) City Gate Community Development District: FY 2011 -2012 Meeting Dates 0 S`& 81131 R p PR (N T-9 9 RW3 MAR 2 ., 0 GOLDEN GATE FIRE COVNQk.AND. RESCUE 14575 Collier Boulevard • Naples, FL 34119 • (239) 348 -7540 • http://www.gcifire.com SPECIAL DISTRICT FACILITIES REPORT March 19, 2012 1611 iSTRLST c 34j +75gFAY-4 -� 0 C1 �.:rn p v+ cn The Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District currently operates out of four (4) stations. Station 71 is located at 100 13`h Street S.W., Station 72 is located at 3820 Beck Boulevard and Station 73 is located at 14565 Collier Boulevard. Stations #71, #72 and #73 are owned by the Fire District. The fourth station, Station 70 is located at 4741 Golden Gate Parkway. In 1991 this station was replaced and expanded in a joint venture fanned by both the Fire District and Collier County to now include space for a sub - station for Collier County Sheriff and Collier County EMS. The Collier County Sheriffs Department moved out and into a larger facility during April 2002. The County and the Fire District signed a lease agreement that includes an option to buyout the County and lease space back to them. On March 5, 2007, the administrative offices housed at Station 70 moved to their new location at 14575 Collier Boulevard. Administrative staff is currently at six (6). In addition to the administrative staff the District currently has one (1) 40 hour training captain, one (1) 40 hour facilities manager, two (2) 40 hour fire inspectors and two ('2) 40 hour fleet- KehjcjeJechnicians. An operations facility (Station 973 - 14565 Collier Blvd.) which opened in -April 2007 is located on the same site- as,, the. adxniui$trative offices. Station 473 has the capacity to house ten (10) fi.refighting.personnel. Currently Station 73 includes an assigned staff of four (4) shift personnel twenty -four hours a day. Equipment assigned to Station 73 includes the following: one (1) Class A engine, one (1) 6x6 brush trick and one (1) USAR Type II Light Technical Rescue Trailer, one (1) Haz -Mat decors trailer, as well as a Ford pickup towing vehicle. Station 70 includes an assigned staff of three (3) paid personnel twenty -four hours a day. Currently the apparatus assigned to Station 70 includes the following: one (1) Class A rescue engine, one (1) mini - pumper, and one (1) :3,000 gallon tanker with fire fighting capabilities. Station 71 includes an assigned staff of four (4) paid personnel twenty -four hours a day. Equipment housed at this station includes the following: one (1) Class A engine, one (1) 4x4 brush truck with CAFS system, one (1) 3,000 gallon tanker with fire fighting capabilities and two (2) reserve Class A engines. The expansion cif this station was completed in July 2002 and has the capacity to house eight (8) firefighting personnel. The expansion of Station 71 also provided a. workshop area i6or the District's two (2) fleet vehicle Technicians. JMisc. Correa:, Fiala �,-, -, Deli- Hiller Henning 11em I�OZ' Coyle ✓ Our Family Protecting Yours Coletta IG Copies to: Al 161 J Al Special District Facilities Report Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District Page 2 March 19, 2012 During 2003, the Golden Gate Fire District was successful in purchasing property and securing permits for the construction of Station 72 located at 3820 Beck Boulevard which has the capacity to house nine (9) firefighting personnel and officially opened its doors in February 2004. Currently Station 72 houses an assigned staff of three (3) paid personnel twenty -four hours a day. Equipment housed at this station includes the following: one (1) eighty -five foot tower Class A engine, one (1) Class A rescue engine, one (1) 6x6 brush truck and one (1) reserve Class A engine. During 2005 the Fire Board approved purchase of the GIS software to use in targeting the location of new fire stations. The goals are for all residents to be within a five mile driving distance of a Golden Gate Fire Station. During 2006 the Fire District was reviewed by Insurances Services Organization which included the approval of a tanker shuttle program that covers areas in the District that are within 5 driving miles from a fire station but do not have hydrants installed. These areas now have a new ISO rating of 4 in place of the 9 they previously were rated at. All homes beyond 5 driving miles are rated at a 10. Each insurance company independently determines what the actual policy rating number will be. Impact fees and increases in ad valorem taxes will continue to be used to pay for capital growth items plus working with new developers, when possible, to provide facilities and/or equipment. In February 2006, the Golden Gate Fire Board adopted a resolution to accept the 2005 Impact Fee Study which recommended an increase in impact fees. In fiscal year 2008/09 the District's ad valorem tax dollars declined by approximately $212,000.00. This is the first time tax dollars have decreased since its creation as an independent fire district in 1983. This was caused by the decline of property value and new State legislation. In fiscal year 2009/10 property values continued to decline. The fire board approved an increase in the District's taxing millage rate which increased the declining ad valorem tax dollars over the previous fiscal year by approximately $392,000.00. Property value continued to decline in fiscal year 2010/11 which caused a decrease in tax dollars by approximately $944,346.00. The poor economy has caused a significant decline in new construction which has drastically cut the amount of impact fees received by the District. This in turn has created the need to make almost all capital asset loan payments with ad valorem tax dollars which had previously been paid with impact fee funds. 16 1i 1 p-1 Special District Facilities Report Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District Page 3 March 19, 2012 Currently no existing facilities are planned for replacement within the next ten years. The Fire District has property set aside for future growth through the G.A.C. Land Trust Fund. One piece is located near the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Desoto Boulevard and the second piece is located in the northwest corner area of Everglades Boulevard and I -75. These properties are not large enough to accommodate a fire station. As a result, the District is seeking alternatives that will secure property for a future station. Location of a fire station in the area of 10`h Avenue Southeast and Everglades Boulevard would help meet the District's goal of covering the eastern part of the District within 5 driving miles of a fire station. Plans to actually construct another fire station continue to remain on hold due to the decline of ad valorem tax dollars and impact fees. In the fiscal year of 2010/11 the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District responded to 5249 calls for service. This represents an increase of 2.2 percent over the fiscal year of 2009/10. The primary reason for the increase of 112 calls for service cannot be readily determined. The Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District remains committed to the goal of having a minimum of four (4) personnel at every fire or emergency scene within five (5) minutes of call out. p )EVERW3 �1 +:� APR 1�1 1 1 lJ AK C-3 , AK i CITY GATE AMIM' � MUNITY rn DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - �t 1415 Panther Lane - Naples, FL 34109 z �„ %0 r- cn CO September 9, 2011 Collier County Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller 3315 Tamiami Trail East Administrative Building Naples, FL 34113 -5324 Fiala Hiller Henning RE: City Gate Community Development District Coyle _ FY 2011 -2012 Meeting Dates Coletta _ G To Whom It May Concern:: In accordance with Florida Statutes, enclosed is a copy of the meeting schedule for FY 2011 -2012 for the City Gate Community Development District. If you have any questions regarding this matter please call me at (772) 345 -5101. Sincerely, `% d O Nancy . Vogel Enclosure RECEIVED SEP 12 2011 FINANCE ,, ... _t � -J. Date: S `t2i 1 "Z Item \ ''� a Copies to: 10807 SW Tradition Square, Port St. Lucie, FL 34987 (772) 345 -5101 (772) 345 -5104 161 1 A2 EXHIBIT "A" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATES CITY GATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2011 -2012 October 5, 2011 November 2, 2011 December 7, 2011 January 4, 2012 February 1, 2012 March 7,1012 April 4, 2012 May 2, 2012 June 6, 2012 July 11, 2012 (second Wed. due to 7/4 holiday) August 1, 2012 September 5, 2012 Meetings of City Gate CDD will convene at 1:30 p.m. at 9010 Strada Stell Court, Suite 207, Naples, FL 34109. 1612 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES May 22, 2012 2. ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of 10.19.11; 1. 18.12 Minutes of 10.19.11; 1. 18.12 2) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of 2.9.12 3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.3.12 (Special Magistrate); 2.17.12 (Special Magistrate); 2.23.12; 3.2.12 (Special Magistrate) 4) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of 2.16.12; 3.1.12; 3.15.12 Minutes of 1.26.12; 2.16.12; 3.1.12; 3.15.12 5) Contractors Licensing Board: Minutes of 2.15.12 6) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of 11.9.11 (Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee); 11.16.11; 1. 18.12 Minutes of 11.9.11 (Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee); 11.16.11; 11.29.11 (In- sourcing/Out- sourcing Subcommittee); 1. 18.12 7) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of 2.1.12; 3.7.12; 3.19.12 (Land Development Regulations Subcommittee) 8) Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of 2.1.12; 3.7.12 9) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee: Agenda of 2.8.12; 3.14.12 Minutes of 1.11.12; 2.8.12 1612 10) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 11.8.11; 12.13.11 Minutes of 10.11.11; 12.13.11 11) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of 1.3.12; 2.6.12; 3.5.12 Minutes of 1.3.12; 2.6.12 12) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Minutes of 2.15.12 13) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee: Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.3.12; 2.16.12 14) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 2.16.12; 3.15.12 Minutes of 1.19.12; 2.16.12 15) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of 2.15.12 16) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda of 1.10.12 (Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 2.1.12; 2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 3.7.12; 3.26.12; 4.11.12 Minutes of 1.10.12 (Landscape Water Management Subcommittee); 2.1.12; 2.13.12 (Budget Subcommittee); 2.21.12 (Clam Bay Subcommittee); 3.7.12 17) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of 2.13.12; 3.19.12 Minutes of 1.9.12; 2.13.12 18) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory Committee: Minutes of 2.1.12 19) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of 3.1.12 Minutes of 2.2.12 1 1612 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda October 19, 2011 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Opening Remarks Roll Call Voting Members: Al i Chairman MAR 0 i BY: ....................... Sheriff's Office MRC Fire Chiefs USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council Fiala �L— -- Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce Hiller ✓ Henning — g _ on -Votin Members: Coyle Coletta 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 3:15 New Business Chairman Nominations for 2012 review Hurricane Season Update /new EM Staff EM FNSS tasking (Functional Needs Support Services) Review of attendance requirements 3:35 Old Business Chairman CERT RSVP CAP Individual Reports Members Misc. Cones: 4:00 Next Meeting /Adjourn C irman S12 -z-1►2 htt-o• / /www citizencorps .gov /cc /CertRegWizard.dftn t " -= 2. "2' 1 Copies to: i Citizen Corps Advisory Committee 16 t MA Agenda January 18, 2012 BY:. ...................... 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Opening Remarks Roll Call Voting Members: Sheriff s Office MRC Fire Chiefs CERT USCGA Red Cross Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Chamber of Commerce CAP Fiala Non - Voting Members: Hiller Henning EMS EM Health Dept Coyle _------- Medical Examiner City of Naples Everglades City Coletta Neighborhood Watch Physicians Regional NCH City of Marco Island LMS 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman 3:10 Threat Update CCSO 3:15 New Business Chairman Sunshine Law DVDs Voting for 2012 Fire Season Update /new EM Staff EM LMS Report FNSS tasking (Functional Needs Support Services) Discuss idea for next meeting by USCGA Chairman 3:35 Old Business Chairman Individual Reports Members 4:00 Next Meeting /Adjourn Chairman Misc. Corres: http:// wvN,,,v.citizencoLps.Qov /cc /CertRe Wizard.dQc htt / /trainin .fema.aov ate: p � � —� Item #:'.�� 2*A i copies to: Voting Members Present: Voting Members Absent: Expert Consultant Present: Collier County Citizen Corp Committee October 19, 2011 Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Aux. Jerry Sanford, CC Fire Chief's Assoc. Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol. Russ Rainey, C.E.R.T. Lt. Mike Jones, CC Sheriff Office. Steven Smith, R.S.V.P. Kathleen Marr MRC for Dr. J. Neiween. Reg Buxton, Chamber of Commerce. Heidi Ruster, American Red Cross. Chris Nind, Salvation Army. Judy Scribner, CCEM. Rick Zyvoloski, CCEM. Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes 16149�1 pl Doug Porter amended the minutes from the August 16th, 2011 meeting as to number of CERT members in the Naples Squadron from 70 to 13. A motion to approve the minutes was followed by a unanimous vote. Threat Update Lt. Jones reported that there are no alerts in the country. Americans have been cautioned to be alert as they travel. If a credible threat occurs, a hand out will be given out (NTAS Guide). Russ asked Mike about a B 10 alert. He had not heard of such an alert. New Business Nominations for 2012 review Nominations were accepted for the following officer's positions for 2012 and will be voted at our next meeting in January. Chairman: Russ Rainey Vice Chairman: Steven Smith. Secretary: Jerry Sanford. Hurricane Season Update 16 112 Al Rick Zyvoloski reported that a system might form in the western part of the Caribbean off the Southwest Coast of Cuba. Probably nothing to be concerned with. We are wrapping up our hurricane season. La Nina could cause trouble for us in the upcoming 2012 wildfire season. We have recently had a lot of rain. FNSS Tasking Judy Scribner reports that FNSS (Functional Needs Support Services) need the support of the Citizen Corp and Medical support. All medical needs have to be included in all shelters. Many needs will have to be addressed. Ex: Bathing, feeding, crutches etc. The ADA act must be addressed. We need help by all and ask the Citizen Corp to provide support. We will need vendors to help supply the shelters as well as the county. The school system must be involved as we use their schools as shelters. If ADA is not complied with, who does a person sue? The legal department has been consulted to put a waiver in to protect us and will release us from liability. Training has to be arranged with supplies a must, the ADA act says. If one person shows up, the shelter must provide for them. We would only open up certain shelters where all the services can be provided. The Red Cross will not help because of the new surge maps. Question arose from Walt Jaskiewicz - who pays for all of this and who is responsible for all of this? Judy cannot answer the question. Mike Jones has volunteered to represent the Citizen Corp with Steve Smith to serve as the alternate. Review of attendance requirements. Russ Rainey began by suggesting that we meet every other month instead of 12 meetings a year. Section eight of Ordinance No. 2001 -55, paragraph A states: Any board member who is absent for more than one -half of the Board's meetings in a given year shall be deemed to have tendered his or her resignation from such board. The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after such resignation, declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six herein. The Board members shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position is declared vacant by the Commission. This applyies whether you attend or are excused. Excusals do apply. This is to take effect January 2012. If you have a replacement for your group, it would count as an appearance and the covering member could vote in your place. You must attend at least three meetings. Judy forwards our attendance sheets to Mr. Ian Mitchell. We all should make six meetings in a year and be sure your agency is represented. Old Business L.M.S. (Local Mitigation Stragedy) Rick Zyvoloski reported that Victor Hill is the Chairman of the group. The next meeting is Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. Rick supplied us with a list of the Mitigation Action Items and will make a nomination for the new Action Group Chair. 1612 'A 1 " Individual Reports Walt Jaskiewicz reports that the Coast Guard will share a program with us durindisaster. Forty members are qualified by the Coast Guard in our area. The Ambrose prograin handles the command positions with 30 auxiliary members to act at an ICS event with 16 more members in training. They also have an interpreter available to assist us. Jerry Sanford reports that progress is ongoing at the Freedom Memorial. We recently ordered three flag poles for the site. The various September 11th services that were conducted throuthout the county were very well attended by many people. Doug Porter reports the CAP is trying to rearrange the squadron. Steve Smith reports that he attended an advisory board meeting yesterday with 6 new members added. They have a data base with over 700 names within the group. Steve supplied us a list of new key appointments by President Obama. Kathleen Marr reports that the Health Dept has flu and pneumonia shots available to the public. A quarterly MRC meeting will be held on Friday, October 28th at 10:00 a.m. at the CCSO Training Bureau. Judy reports that Vinny from security is leaving with Norman taking his place at the front entrance. Emergency Management has hired two new people. Parts manager, Mr. Tom Ecker and Mr. Lee Mayfield new coordinator. Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the EOC. Meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Jerry Sanford for approval. Y'jF' r Approved by Russell Rainey, Chad man Date Collier Coun Communication & Customer Relations 1612 A I Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 ,ramiami'lrail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov October 11, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19TH 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, October 19th at 3:00 p.m. in the 3`a 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 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, F1:. 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- ` r 1612 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 17, 2011 President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts WASHINGTON — Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: • Gina Abercrombie - Winstanley— Ambassador to the Republic of Malta, Department of State • Julissa Reynoso — Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Department of State • Wendy Spencer — Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and Community Service • Robert E. Whitehead — Ambassador to the Togolese Republic, Department of State The President also announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts: Robert L. Blazs — United States Commissioner, Canadian River Commission Jayne D. Greenberg— Member, President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition President Obama said, "These dedicated individuals bring a wealth of experience and talent to their new roles and I am proud to have them serve in this Administration. I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come. President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: Gina Abercrombie - Winstanley, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Malta, Department of State Gina Abercrombie - Winstanley, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister - Counselor, currently serves as Deputy Coordinator for Policy, Programs, and Budget in the Office of the Coordinator for Counter - Terrorism. Prior to this role, she was Director of the Office of Egypt and the Levant in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Her previous positions include: Chairwoman for Middle East Area Studies at the Foreign Service Institute, Consul General in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Senior Advisor for Middle Eastern Affairs at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Director for Near East South Asian Affairs, and Director for Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council. Her earlier posts include: Political Officer at the Embassy in Tel Aviv with responsibility for the Gaza Strip, Consul in Baghdad, and postings in Jakarta and Cairo. She joined the Foreign Service in 1985 after serving as a Presidential Management Fellow at the United States Information Agency. Ms. Abercrombie - Winstanley received a B.A. from George Washington University and an M.A. from Johns Hopkins University. Julissa Reynoso, Nominee for Ambassador to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Department of State Julissa Reynoso is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central America and the Caribbean in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Prior to her appointment in November 2009, Ms. Reynoso practiced law with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York, focusing on international arbitration and antitrust law. During this time, she also served as a Fellow at New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School. In 2006, Ms. Reynoso worked as Deputy Director of the Office of Accountability at the New York City Department of Education. Ms. Reynoso holds a B.A. in Government from Harvard University, a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, and a J.D. from Columbia University School of Law. Wendy Spencer, Nominee for Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and Community Service 1612A1 Wendy Spencer is the Chief Executive Officer of the Florida Governor's Commission on Volunteerism and Community Service, an organization that administers AmeriCorps grants throughout the state and is responsible for coordinating volunteers and donation management in times of disaster. Ms. Spencer was appointed to the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation in 2006, and awarded the President's Call to Service Award in 2005 due to her dedication to finding innovative solutions to Florida's community challenges. She previously served as Director of the Florida Park Service, where she oversaw natural resource management for Florida's 158 state parks. Prior to her work with the Florida Park Service, Ms. Spencer was Campaign Director of the United Way of the Big Bend. Ms. Spencer has also worked as Director of Marketing for the Macon County, Georgia, Chamber of Commerce and as a District Representative for Congressman Charles Hatcher of Georgia. She is the current Chair of the American Association of State Service Commissions. Ms. Spencer holds a B.A. in Fine Arts and Speech Communications from Valdosta State University. Robert E. Whitehead, Nominee for Ambassador to the Togolese Republic, Department of State Robert E. Whitehead, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, has served at the Department of State for 27 years. From 2009 to 2011, Mr. Whitehead served as the Charge d'Affaires in Khartoum, Sudan. Other overseas assignments have included Deputy Chief of Mission in the Central African Republic, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Additionally, Whitehead served briefly as Charge d'Affaires ad interim in Rwanda in 1994 and as the first consul general in Juba, Southern Sudan in 2006. His assignments in Washington have included Director of the Office of African Analysis in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Senior Inspector in the Office of the Inspector General, and Desk Officer in the Office of West African Affairs. Before entering the Foreign Service, he was a Fulbright lecturer at the University of Zaire. Mr. Whitehead received a B.A. from Taylor University and an M.A. from Southern Illinois University. President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts: Robert L. Blazs, Appointee for United States Commissioner, Canadian River Commission Robert L. Blazs is a professional engineer who recently retired from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). Prior to his January 2010 retirement, Mr. Blazs spent the last decade of his career as the Assistant Director and Data Operations Chief at the Oklahoma Water Science Center. He also previously served as the Field Office Chief for Water Sciences in Washington State from 1982 to 1990 and in California from 1976 to 1982. Mr Blazs began his career with USGS as a Hydrologic Technician. Prior to joining the USGS in 1970, he spent four years in the United State Marine Corps. He has served as the Chairman of the Arkansas - White -Red River Basins Interagency Committee, and has represented the USGS on multiple river compacts including the Canadian River Commission. Mr. Blazs received his B.A. from California State University, Long Beach in 1975. Dr. Jayne D. Greenberg, Appointee for Member, President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition Dr. Jayne D. Greenberg is the District Director of Physical Education and Health Literacy for Miami -Dade County Public Schools. Previously, she served as Special Advisor on Youth Fitness to the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and as President of the Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Dance, and Driver Education. Dr. Greenberg assisted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in developing the "I Can Do It, You Can Do It Program," addressing physical activity for youth with disabilities. Dr. Greenberg received the March 2009 Point of Light Award by the Governor of Florida and was appointed to the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness in 2009. She was named the 2005 National Physical Education Administrator of the Year by the National Association of Sport and Physical Education and received the 2005 Highest Recognition Award by the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Dr. Greenberg has a B.S. in Physical Education from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; an M.S. in Sports Psychology from Florida International University; and an Ed.D. in Instructional Leadership in Physical Education from Florida International University. 40P [atiii NTAS GUIDE National Terrorism Advisory System Public Guide April 2 01 1 15A Homeland SAND SEGJ4- Security ry - _ 4 L 1: 0% A 4 The National Terrorism Advisory System The National Terrorism Advisory System, or NTAS, replaces the color -coded Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). This new system will more effectively communicate information about terrorist threats by providing timely, detailed information to the public, government agencies, first responders, airports and other transportation hubs, and the private sector. It recognizes that Americans all share responsibility for the nation's security, and should always be aware of the heightened risk of terrorist attack in the United States and what they should do. WAS Alerts After reviewing the available information, the Secretary of Homeland Security will decide, in coordination with other Federal entities, whether an WAS Alert should be issued. WAS Alerts will only be issued when credible information is available. These alerts will include a clear statement that there is an imminent threat or elevated threat. Using available information, the alerts will provide a concise summary of the potential threat, information about actions being taken to ensure public safety, and recommended steps that individuals, communities, businesses and governments can take to help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat. The NTAS Alerts will be based on the nature of the threat: in some cases, alerts will be sent directly to law enforcement or affected areas of the private sector, while in others, alerts will be issued more broadly to the American people through both official and media channels. WAS Alerts contain a sunset provision indicating a specific date when the alert expires - there will not be a constant WAS Alert or blanket warning that there is an overarching threat. If threat information changes for an alert, the Secretary of Homeland Security may announce an updated WAS Alert. All changes, including the announcement that cancels an WAS Alert, will be distributed the same way as the original alert. rage 1 2 +,1 C a. 1612 The WAS Alert - How can you help? Each alert provides information to the public about the threat, including, if available, the geographic region, mode of transportation, or critical infrastructure potentially affected by the threat; protective actions being taken by authorities, and steps that individuals and communities can take to protect themselves and their families, and help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat. Citizens should report suspicious activity to their local law enforcement authorities. The "If You See Something, Say SomethingTm" campaign across the United States encourages all citizens to be vigilant for indicators of potential terrorist activity, and to follow WAS Alerts for information about threats in specific places or for individuals exhibiting certain types of suspicious activity. Visit www. dhs. gov /ifyouseesomethingsaysomething to learn more about the campaign. Alert Announcements WAS Alerts will be issued through state, local and tribal partners, the news media and directly to the public via the following channels: • Via the official DHS NTAS webpage — http: / /www.dhs.gov /alerts • Via email signup at— http: / /www.dhs.gov /alerts • Via social media • Facebook— http: / /facebook.com /NTASAIerts • Twitter— http: / /www.twitter.com /NTASAIerts • Via data feeds, web widgets and graphics o http: / /www.dhs.gov /alerts The public can also expect to see alerts in places, both public and private, such as transit hubs, airports and government buildings. Sample WAS Alert A sample WAS Alert is provided at the end of this booklet. Page j 3 a i -� 1612� Frequently Asked Questions 1. Q— What will happen to the color -coded advisory system? A - The new National Terrorism Advisory System replaces the Homeland Security Advisory System that has been in place since 2002. The National Terrorism Advisory System, or NTAS, will include information specific to the particular credible threat, and will not use a color -coded scale. 2. Q— How does the new system work? A —When there is credible information about a threat, an NTAS Alert will be shared with the American public. It may include specific information, if available, about the nature of the threat, including the geographic region, mode of transportation, or critical infrastructure potentially affected by the threat, as well as steps that individuals and communities can take to protect themselves and help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat. The advisory will clearly indicate whether the threat is Elevated, if we have no specific information about the timing or location, or Imminent, if we believe the threat is impending or very soon. 3. Q— As a citizen, how will I find out that an NTAS Alert has been announced? A —The Secretary of Homeland Security will announce the alerts publically. Alerts will simultaneously be posted at DHS.gov /alerts and released to the news media for distribution. The Department of Homeland Security will also distribute alerts across its social media channels, including the Department's blog, Twitter stream, Facebook page, and RSS feed. 4. Q- What should Americans do when an NTAS Alert is announced? A —The NTAS Alert informs the American public about credible terrorism threats, and encourages citizens to report suspicious activity. Where possible and applicable, NTAS Alerts will include steps that individuals and communities can take to protect themselves to help prevent, mitigate or respond to the threat. Individuals should review the information contained in the alert, and based upon the circumstances, take the recommended precautionary or preparedness measures for themselves and their families. 5. Q— How should I report suspicious activity? A — Citizens should report suspicious activity to their local law enforcement authorities. The "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign across the United States encourages all citizens to be vigilant for indicators of potential terrorist activity, and to follow NTAS Alerts for information about threats in specific places or for individuals exhibiting certain types of suspicious activity. 6. Q- I get my news online, so how will I find out about an NTAS Alert? A— Americans can go to DHS.gov /alerts to see the most recent advisories. Additionally, advisories will be sent out widely through social and mainstream media. F A p r- 4 12 Al 7. Q - How will WAS Alerts be cancelled or updated? A —The WAS Alerts carry an expiration date and will be automatically cancelled on that date. If the threat information changes for an alert, the Secretary of Homeland Security may announce an updated WAS Alert. All changes, including the announcement that cancels an WAS Alert, will be distributed the same way as the original alert. 8. Q -Do these alerts apply to Americans in other countries? A — WAS Alerts apply only to threats in the United States and its possessions. The Department of State issues security advisory informatig� for U.S. citizens overseas or traveling in foreign countries. P a g 6 p 4 l l t,. 1 7. Q - How will WAS Alerts be cancelled or updated? A —The WAS Alerts carry an expiration date and will be automatically cancelled on that date. If the threat information changes for an alert, the Secretary of Homeland Security may announce an updated WAS Alert. All changes, including the announcement that cancels an WAS Alert, will be distributed the same way as the original alert. 8. Q -Do these alerts apply to Americans in other countries? A — WAS Alerts apply only to threats in the United States and its possessions. The Department of State issues security advisory informatig� for U.S. citizens overseas or traveling in foreign countries. P a g 6 SUMMARY The Secretary of Homeland Security informs the public and relevant government and private sector partners about a potential or actual threat with this alert, indicating whether there is an "imminent" or "elevated" threat. DETAILS • This section provides more detail about the threat and what the public and sectors need to know. • It may include specific information, if available, about the nature and credibility of the threat, including the critical infrastructure sector(s) or location(s) that may be affected. • It includes as much information as can be released publicly about actions being taken or planned by authorities to ensure public safety, such as increased protective actions and what the public may expect to see. HOW YOU CAN HELP STAY PREPARED • This section provides information on ways the public can help authorities (e.g. camera phone pictures taken at the site of an explosion), and reinforces the importance of reporting suspicious activity. • It may ask the public or certain sectors to be alert for a particular item, situation, person, activity or developing trend. • This section emphasizes the importance of the public planning and preparing for emergencies before they happen, including specific steps individuals, families and businesses can take to ready themselves and their communities. • It provides additional preparedness information that may be relevant based on this threat. 4 DURATION An individual threat alert is issued for a specific time period and then automatically expires. It may be extended if new information becomes available or the threat evolves. AFFECTED AREAS ■ This section includes visual depictions (such as maps or other graphics) showing the affected location(s), sector(s), or other illustrative detail about the threat itself. STAY INFORMED • This section notifies the public about where to get more information. • It encourages citizens to stay informed about updates from local public safety and community leaders. • It includes a link to the DHS NTAS website http: / /ww- w.dhs.gov /alerts and http://twitter.com/NTASAlerts F • fie. i� �i `,t w 9 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION, OF EMERGENCY RICK SCOTT Govemor July 26, 2011 1612 IFl MANAGEMENT BRYAN W.KOON Director MEMORANDUM TO: Key Stakeholders FROM: Bryan Bryan W. Koon, Director, Florida Divisi of Emergency Management RE: FNSS Guidance Florida has a long history of helping those in need during natural and man -made disasters. Through the concerted efforts of government agencies, charitable organizations, and most importantly, Florida's citizens, we have developed plans and established the means to aid those who are most vulnerable. Achieving this success requires a dedication to engaging all appropriate stakeholders to develop and test the plans that will be carried out during a disaster. Understanding, adapting, and refining our practices as concepts and standards evolve is part of this process. The vigilance to keep abreast of and gain insight into these changes is at the core of our shared planning mission. The publication by FEMA of the "Guidance on Planning for Integration of Functional Needs Support Services in General Population Shelters" is one such event that requires these efforts. In order to determine the best path forward and begin the process of addressing and understanding what is necessary to ensure that Florida's shelters and procedures meet the requirements as outlined in FEMA's guidance, an inter - agency committee composed of representatives from the Florida Division of Emergency Management, multiple County Emergency Management Agencies, charitable organizations, and partner organizations was formed. The purpose of this committee was to develop a road -map to ensure an expedient and logical process. The attached document is the result of their work. I am pleased to endorse their recommendations, and look forward to our continued partnership to ensure that all Floridians and visitors are able to find safe harbor when it is needed most. :.1• I FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE - DIVISION HEADQUARTERS - STATE LOGISTICS RESPONSE CENTER 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2702 Directors Row Orlando, FL 32809 Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 Orlando, FL 32809 -5631 Tel: 850 -413 -9989 • Fax: 850 -488 -1016 www.FloridaDisaster.oro a a a � s WHITE PAPER: 1612 Al GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL NEEDS SUPPORTtERVICES (FNSS) IN GENERAL POPULATION SHELTERS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEVELOPED BY: The Policy Sub - Committee of the Florida Department of Health Special Needs Shelter Interagency Committee August 19, 2011 Previous versions considered obsolete TABLE OF CONTENTS 1612 Al TABLEOF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ..............................3 BACKGROUND& CHALLENGES ..................................................................................... ..............................7 FACTS & PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................. ............................... 9 TERMS& DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. .............................11 COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS .......................................................................... .............................13 EVACUATION SHELTER ESSENTIAL RESOURCES ........................................................... .............................15 PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION ................................................... I..... .............................17 TRAINING& EDUCATION ......_ ...................................................................................... .............................19 RESOURCELINKS .......................................................................................................... .............................20 1 8/19/2011 3 7 , 1612 a + BACKGROUND & CHALLENGES According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 54 million Americans have a disability which requires some type of functional and access need support services. The intent of this document, Guidelines for the Implementation of Functional Needs Support Services (FNSS) in General Population Shelters in the State of Florida, is to ensure that individuals with functional and access needs are afforded reasonable accommodations to general population emergency sheltering. Addressing these issues will aid in the planning, training, exercise and implementation in response to natural disasters, environmental issues, viruses and biological events, technological dangers and homeland security issues. All of these dangers have shifted the focus of first responders from the days of Civil Defense. Emergency management must now be ready to confront all hazards — realized and unrealized. It is never a matter of "if" a disaster will happen, it is a matter of "when" and how prepared will the organization be when the unthinkable occurs. During these types of events, the whole community must be engaged to provide for the functional and access needs of persons with disabilities. In 1982, the Florida Legislature created the Local Health Planning Councils, under Florida Statutes §408.033, as a network of non - profit agencies that conduct regional health planning and implementation activities. The activities undertaken by the health councils are designed to improve access to healthcare, reduce disparities in health status, assist state and local governments in the development of sound and rational healthcare policies, and advocate on behalf of the underserved. Currently, there are eleven (11) councils providing services to eleven (11) districts across Florida. Local planning councils could also be utilized in conducting countywide assessments for functional needs shelter services withA the county. It is essential that trained health care professionals analyze and assess the functional needs within their health care jurisdiction and provide that information to the local government, the sheltering agent, and the health care and local partners of the functional needs community. This analysis becomes the basis for the county -wide assessment to determine the needs within each community. There are many obstacles that emergency management faces throughout the Country. Economic challenges, threats to the homeland, conflicts between homeland security and natural disaster funding and diminishing grant opportunities are all challenges that must be overcome. These issues play a critical role in how Federal, State and local governments can prepare for and respond to disasters, and provide for the needs of the whole community. Alternatives must be developed to overcome these challenges. New partnerships must be forged with private, non - profit, faith - based, community, and health - related organizations. Doing more as required by Federal and State statutes with less funding continues to be a challenge for emergency management professionals. While the threats of disasters continue to increase, the grants and pre- disaster funds for maintaining resources, training personnel, providing exercises, and purchasing additional equipment, continues to decrease. An additional challenge of emergency management is 8/19/2011 7 Al " 1612 Vi instilling a behavior for personal accountability and preparedness in all citizens. Developing a "culture of preparedness," which applies to all catastrophes and all hazards, rests on four principles: planning for all vulnerabilities in the community, creating disaster supplies kits, staying informed by using new technology, and volunteerism. Although Functional Needs Support Services may be looked upon as a new and unfunded mandate to local government, these are responsibilities that are shared as part of our Community of a Whole concept. Funding will be needed to help local government for modification of facilities, plans, assessments, analysis, training, equipment, and to ensure a well thought out plan can be executed when required. Counties cannot rely on the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) or similar grant programs to provide funds for the needed implementation and modification of facilities.. Current and potentially new Federal and State funding mechanisms /sources should be looked at for funding and supporting the modification of facilities, plans, assessments, analyses, training, and equipment to ensure local governments meet the needs requirements of their own assessments of the FNSS services. �5 c-0 The purpose of this document is to assist with planning for the provision of FNSS in general population shelters. Initially, in those counties with formal sheltering plans, at least one general population shelter should provide FNSS with legitimate plans to provide FNSS in all general population shelters. Persons presenting with needs greater than can be safely accommodated in a general population shelter I be-triaged to a more appropriate facility. s «:Id Further, the recommendations detailed in this document should be integrated into the Division of Emergency Management's Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan and the State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan as these are the implementation documents for statutory requirements under Chapters 252 and 1013.372, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9G -2, Florida Administrative Code. q GS . �e9Yale �- P � -�'=✓E c�Q X - �C-�o �c-� -� w- c�E ---?�- y� � �c).s � .�. /� c.ti; �J� %dFd 6 *11, 3 �.S S 8/19/2011 8 04 1612 Al FACTS & PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS FACTS /PRINCIPLES: • Life safety supersedes accessibility issues. • This document should not be considered a one -size fits all plan; it is a framework outlining guidelines. • More than 50% of Florida's population has one or more functional or access need. o Data on vulnerable population can be found at www.floridashealth.com /prepare • No person will be. denied shelter; every person will be afforded emergency shelter in the most appropriate and integrated setting possible, appropriate with the person's needs. • County governments are defined as TITLE II Entities in 28 CFR PART 35 — Non- discrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Governments o County emergency management agencies are a branch of County Governments and by extension are Title II entities. As such, they are the lead agencies in ensuring FNSS issues are addressed in the emergency planning life cycle. • Under Florida Statutes §252, county emergency management agencies are responsible for sheltering operations. • The Policy Sub - Committee of the Florida Department of Health Special Needs Shelter Interagency Committee is a temporary ad hoc committee intended to address policy issues and develop this document. The Interagency Special Need Sheltering Committee is the overarching committee for statewide FNSS planning that shall oversee the long -term implementation of this document. PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS: • This plan distinguishes between pre -event [evacuation] and post -event [recovery] as the levels of functional and access needs service provided will differ due to resource availability, time constraints, and hazard conditions: • Federal, State, and regional resources will not likely be deployable for local evacuation [pre - event] shelters. • Some local resources may not be readily available, or in very limited supply, for local evacuation [pre- event] shelters. o Federal and State resources will support county emergency management and partners for standard /short -term [post- event] and recovery shelter operations. 8/19/2011 9 161ZA1 -I • FNSS- related pre - planning for resources [human and material] during shelter operations (i.e., general population and special needs, risk and host shelters), is a "community" responsibility involving a myriad of resources and professional skill sets (e.g., medical, social service). It is a team effort requiring active participation of all partner and responder stakeholders. Key partners include healthcare, social service, and advocacy agencies. • As such, county emergency management agencies must engage stakeholders in the development of a coalition of partners to address functional and access needs in moving forward; and partners must answer the "call." • This document assumes support and buy -in from the State response agencies /partners (i.e., SERT members such as DEM, DOH, DCF, APD, ARC etc.). • County EM and partners will communicate local FNSS capabilities to their community. • Those with functional and access needs bear personal responsibility to create and provision an emergency plan pursuant with their individual capabilities. 8/19/2011 10 r z 161 '2 A-41 TERMS & DEFINITIONS The following is a list of terms and definitions that are relevant to this document. To the extent possible, the authors worked to keep them consistent with existing terminology. Shelter: A designated place or building of relative safety that temporarily provides essential support services with the goal of preserving life and reducing human suffering. General population shelter with FNSS capability: General population shelters provide protection from harm and physical safety in the event persons must evacuate their homes and who have no other option for sheltering. They provide basics such as food, water, and basic first aid. Persons evacuating to a general population shelter should bring their own supplies such as blankets, toiletries /hygiene items, medications, and clothing. To the extent possible (based on availability, cost, and need), portable generators will be made available in general population shelters. Special Needs Shelter with FNSS capability: are locations that are, in whole or part, designated under Chapter 252, F.S., to provide shelter and services to persons with special needs who have no other option for sheltering. These shelters are designated to have back -up generator power and are capable of providing safe refuge for people who require assistance with the management of a health condition or supervision of that condition by a health care professional during the time of a disaster. Optimally, the auxiliary power should support heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and electrical power for necessary medical equipment. Evacuation Shelter: A pre -event public shelter that serves as a safe haven for life protection for those with no other alternative'. The structure must meet American Red Cross (ARC) 4496 and Enhanced Hurricane Protection Area (EHPA) standards. For planning purposes, the operational period of an Evacuation Shelter is from 24 hours prior to landfall until 72 hours after landfall of a hurricane or severe storm. There are two (2) types of evacuation shelters: 1) Evacuation Risk Shelter: Facilities designated as Risk Shelters lie in the forecast path and associated error cone of an approaching hurricane or severe storm or other sheltering event. The designation does not imply that a facility is capable of affording complete protection or is free from hazards but only that it meets established minimum safety criteria. A total of 20 square feet of usable floor space per person is recommended in the calculation of shelter capacity. (2010 Florida statewide Emergency Shelter Plan). A person needing FNSS may require more than 20 square feet of usable floor space. 2) Evacuation Host Shelter: A facility that is relatively safe and provides essential support services. Facilities are designated as Host Shelters when they are located in an area 1 Author's note: some jurisdictions have formal Refuges of Last Resort, or facilities that are opened up at the last- minute to accept evacuees that, for example, may be stranded on clogged evacuation routes. The intent here is not to confuse these two types of shelters, but rather to emphasize that Evacuation Shelters should be considered only after all other protective action alternatives (e.g., sheltering with family, friends, co- workers, hotel, or out -of -area evacuation, etc.) have been ruled out. 8/19/2011 11 f� y 16 12 Al' It a that is outside the projected path of an approaching hurricane or severe storm or other sheltering event. As local conditions are not expected to present hazards such as surge inundation, rainfall flooding, high winds, or hazardous materials which exceed the building codes of the facilities in use, shelter selection guidelines in ARC 4496 do not have to be considered. A total of 20 square feet of usable floor space per person is recommended in the calculation of shelter capacity. (2010 Florida Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan). A person needing FNSS may require more than 20 square feet of usable floor space. Recovery Shelter: Also known as "standard" or "short- term" shelter. A facility that is relatively safe and provides essential support services. Facilities designated as Recovery Shelters are used after there is no longer a risk /threat in the area. All Host Shelters and those Risk Shelters that have essential support services may be used as Recovery Shelters. As local conditions are not expected to present hazards such as surge inundation, rainfall flooding, high winds, wildfires, or hazardous materials which exceed the building codes of the facilities in use, shelter selection guidelines in ARC 4496 do not have to be considered. The shelter population may include evacuees from the local area or evacuees who flee from the threat of hurricane or severe storm in their home counties and are not yet cleared to return to their homes. For planning purposes, the operational period of a Recovery Shelter is from 72 hours after landfall and beyond. A total of 40 square feet of usable floor space per person is recommended in the calculation of shelter capacity. A person needing FNSS may require more than 40 square feet of usable floor space. " MW triWW peg 8/19/2011 12 1612 Al COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS A comprehensive community assessment is a valuable strategy for obtaining a clear picture of a community's functional and access needs and the ability to support those needs with facilities, equipment, personnel, and support agencies. This document should serve as a guide to help county emergency managers identify local assets, as well as problem areas. It can serve as the starting point for developing a shared vision and strategies for change within the community. A comprehensive "whole community" assessment will help identify: • How to build your team to address functional and access support services. • Community assets to provide logistics and support for functional needs issues within emergency sheltering. • Organizations or coalitions in your community that include schools, faith institutions, policy makers, employers, government agencies, community members, families, and other key players. To conduct a quality community assessment: 1. Recruit committed stakeholders to identify issues, conduct research, and report results. 2. Involve support agencies, including State, local and community groups (i.e., local health planning councils) in planning, implementation, and results dissemination. 3. Integrate the community's way of life and practices into the assessment. Community assessments are not conducted overnight. There must be time to recruit partners, complete preliminary research, set up design, conduct the assessment, identify gaps, evaluate the results, craft strategic plans, and implement the action plan. Facility Assessment: Shelters maybe located in schools, community centers, places of worship, recreation centers, private sector facilities, and certain government buildings. In conjunction with the sheltering agent (e.g., local school districts, community and faith -based organizations, public and private sector agencies), the county emergency management agency will facilitate the assessment of facilities for accessibility. American with Disabilities Act / Florida Accessibility Code Checklist and American Red Cross (ARC) 6564 will be used to evaluate the shelter for compliance. These facilities will be reviewed for accessibility, emergency power, food service areas, restrooms and showers, and other services (See Chapter 11, Florida Building Code). Plans will be developed to make reasonable accommodations for facilities that do not comply with these codes. 8/19/2011 13 161 Z Al II. Community Engagement & Support a. County /Local Government: County and municipal governments will coordinate the planning for functional and access needs before, during, and after disasters. This includes but is not limited to equipment, personnel, health professionals, and mutual aid agreements. b. Agency Assessment: Partner community and faith -based agencies will be assessed to determine levels of services, staffing, and volunteer support for functional needs support services. Regularly scheduled meetings should be established with support agencies to coordinate resources before, during and after disasters. Key partners include healthcare, social service, mental health services, volunteer connector organizations, and advocacy agencies. c. State Agency Involvement: State agency engagement and support of planning for functional and access needs before, during and after disasters at the local level. This includes but is not limited to equipment, personnel, health professionals, and mutual aid agreements. Identify mutual aid agreements, contracts, and staffing needed to support functional needs at the local level as well as legislative support for developing FNSS sheltering at the local level and funding to support local government. III. Needs Assessment & Gap Analysis a. Needs Assessment: determine population at risk, vulnerabilities, identification of functional and access needs, evaluation of existing plans to support needs. b. Resource Assessment: identify resource providers and their availability, resource quantities, and identify mutual aid agreements, contracts, and staffing needed to support functional and access needs at the local level. c. Gap Analysis: identify shortfalls for potential resource requests and determine process for requesting assistance. 8/19/2011 14 1612 Al EVACUATION SHELTER ESSENTIAL RESOURCES Evacuation shelters are facilities that are relatively safe and provide essential support services pre- event. Unlike recovery shelters, evacuation shelters serve as a refuge of last resort. As such, the levels of functional and access needs service provided will differ due to resource availability, time constraints, and hazard conditions. The following list provides guidance as to the minimum essential functional and access needs resources that emergency managers and shelter agents should plan for in evacuation shelters: • Triage: The American Red Cross /Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) Initial Intake and Assessment Tool intake form should be completed to facilitate triage and assess the functional and access needs of shelter clients. Once functional and access needs are identified, reasonable accommodation will be made to the extent possible as outlined below. • Communication: At a minimum, provide effective communication devices or methods in order to communicate essential information messages (i.e., picture boards and note taking supplies). 1 • Food /Water: At a minimum, provide a variety of snacks and water to shelter clients. Those with special dietary requirements should be prepared to bring their own supplies. • Billeting: At a minimum, 20 ftZ standard space allowance /person. Shelter clients are encouraged to bring their own billeting supplies. To the extent possible, additional space accommodations will be made based on need. • First Aid /Medical /Medication: Basic first aid and basic medical supplies will be available. Individuals are responsible for bringing their own medications to the shelter. The shelter will provide reasonable accommodation for those medications that require refrigeration. Anyone with a deteriorating medical condition will be treated and transported as appropriate via the community's EMS system, hazard condition permitting. • Staffing: The sheltering agent will provide staffing (e.g., shelter manager(s), registrars, support staff /volunteers, etc.) that meet the needs of the shelter population to the extent possible. • Animals: Service dogs must be allowed access to shelters. Handlers should be prepared to bring their own supplies. All other animals should be referred to a pet - friendly shelter. Pets should be accompanied with veterinary records, kennels, leashes, and food. 8/19/2011 15 16 It 2 Al • Transportation (to /from shelter): At a minimum, there should be a process in place to provide accessible transportation service for those that are transportation disadvantaged. There should be consideration for providing support personnel to assist those needing mobility assistance or those requiring assistance in moving their personal supplies. Policy modifications should be made in order to allow a driver or assistant to enter a person's home to assist upon request by that person. • Personal Assistance Services: Those requiring assistance with activities of daily living should be prepared to bring their own caregiver. At a minimum, emergency managers and shelter agents should plan for providing assistance with basic, essential activities of daily living such as eating, drinking, toileting, medications, transferring, and maintaining health and safety. 8/19/2011 16 ` 1bi s . 2 Al A 1 PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION It is recognized that before, during, and after disasters, accurate and timely information is essential. Some people in the community will have difficulty accessing emergency public information and communications. Crisis communication and public information planning and preparedness are necessary to better meet the needs of people with functional and access needs within the community. Disaster - related information should be provided through multiple venues, methodologies, and technologies in order to reach the entire community. Emergency managers should collaborate with community partners to provide health /risk information to the public by: • establishing critical baseline information about functional needs populations and organizations that serve them; • providing basic preparedness information about developing their personal preparedness plan for evacuationAand sheltering (e.g., alternatives to public shelter, supplies to bring, medications, caregiver support, etc.); • communicating accurately the sheltering environment and their purpose; • identifying effective channels of communication for preparedness information and during disasters; • providing access and assistance to individuals with functional needs after a disaster (e.g., FEMA assistance, SBA application, and case management support); • providing various types of public information to support those with functional and access needs. In disaster preparedness, information should be sent to functional and access needs populations through the support of health care and community service agencies. This information should include groups that may feel they cannot comfortably or safely access and use the standard resources offered in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. This includes, but is not limited to: • those with disabilities (sensory, cognitive, physical, developmental) • limited or non - English speaking • geographically and culturally isolated • transportation disadvantaged • frail elderly • children County -wide sheltering teams should work toward identifying barriers and current communication needs with individual communities and identifying effective channels of communication that will reach the general public and vulnerable and at risk populations during emergencies. The main planning goal is to ensure the inclusion of considerations for functional and access needs in response planning. 8/19/2011 17 Ai i . I � 1 16 12" Finally, emergency managers and public information officers should be sensitive to the capabilities of social media. They should consider incorporating social media into outreach programs and monitor social media as a means of rumor control. 8/19/2011 18 a. 161 _ 2 TRAINING & EDUCATION Training /educating stakeholders will provide the adequate knowledge, skills, and motivation to facilitate the provision of functional and access needs in sheltering situations. The goal is a coordinated preparedness strategy integrating comprehensive planning, innovative training, and realistic exercises to strengthen stakeholder awareness for all hazards events. To accomplish this goal it is recommended that training and education be accomplished in two forms: 1) general awareness training, and 2) operational training. The audiences for these two trainings will be slightly different: i 1) General awareness of FNSS: the general FNSS awareness training will provide basic, introductory awareness -level training to stakeholders to assist them in identification of clients with basic functional or access needs and assisting them with linking them to essential resources to the extent possible. • Statewide conferences • Elected Officials • County Emergency Managers • Citizens Information Line • First Responders (e.g., police, fire, EMS, public works, transportation) • Shelter Agents (e.g., American Red Cross, School District staff) • Shelter Staff • VOADs, NGOs, PNPs, faith -based organizations • Advocacy agencies /groups • Local health planning councils /health care coalitions 2) Implementation of FNSS procedures in general population shelters (operational): the operational FNSS training will provide responders with more in -depth information and skills in assisting those with functional and access needs while managing /staffing shelters. "Serving People with Functional and Access Needs in Shelters" • County Emergency Managers • First Responders (e.g., police, fire, EMS, public works, transportation,) • Shelter Agents (e.g., American Red Cross, School District staff) • Shelter Staff • County health departments (including medical reserve corps) • Disaster case managers 8/19/2011 19 f i RESOURCE LINKS 16 I ft I The following are links to planning related resources that may be helpful to emergency managers in planning for FNSS: FNSS Guidance Document: The federal document developed by FEMA to provide planning guidance that can be incorporated into existing shelter plans to State emergency managers and shelter planners to meet access and functional needs in general population shelters. This document provides guidance to assist emergency managers and shelter planners in understanding the requirements related to sheltering children and adults with functional support needs in general population shelters. Functional Needs Support Services (FNSS) and the guidance provided are designed to assist in the planning and resourcing of sheltering operations whether government, NGO, faith- or private -based to meet the access and functional needs of children and adults. The 166 page document can be downloaded from the following site: http: / /www.fema.gov /pdf /about /odic /fnss guidance.pdf FNSS Operational Document: To provide planning guidance to local emergency management and shelter planners, the State of Texas FNSS Integration Committee has created a toolkit that can be incorporated into existing shelter plans to meet access and functional needs in general population shelters. This toolkit provides guidance to assist planners in understanding the requirements related to sheltering children and adults with and without disabilities who have access and functional needs in the State of Texas. While relevant to Texas, it does offer some good information on operational planning, including suggested staffing, intake assessment form, triage process, DME /CMS planning tools, etc. The 105 page document can be downloaded from the following site: https•/ /www preparingtexas org /preparedness aspx7 pape= 32137bc8- eed7- 42bb- ad7e- 2765fdgabdbg Health Planning Councils: Section 408.033, F.S. establishes local health councils as a network of non- profit agencies that conduct regional health planning and implementation activities. Local health councils study the impact of various initiatives on the health care system, provide assistance to the public and private sectors, and create and disseminate materials designed to increase their communities' understanding of health care issues. http: / /www. doh. state. fl. us /Workforce /HealthCouncils /LHC Index.html Community Assessments: County health departments conduct community assessments on a regular basis which can be found by county at the following link- http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Planning eval / CHAI/ CountyAssessment /CountyContent /lndex.htm 8/19/2011 20 16 2 f r� A 1 r� Vulnerable Populations Profiles & Assessment Tools: This website is a tool kit for community planners who seek to better understand the needs of vulnerable populations before, during and after a disaster or incident. These tools are designed to enhance awareness and assessment of, and communications to those most at -risk in communities. http: / /www. doh. state.fl.us / DEMO /Php /VulnerablePopulations.html CHARTS County Health Profile: The County Health Profile answers the questions, "How healthy are our residents ?" and "What does the health status of our community look like ?" http: / /www.floridacharts.com /charts /mapp report.aspx Durable Medical Equipment Supplier Locator: Providers can be located by entering zip code. Once a zip code is entered search can be refined by type of equipment desired. http: / /www.medicare.gov/ Supplier /Include /DataSection/ Questions /SearchCriteria .asp ?version= defauI t& browser= lE %7C7 %7CWinXP &Ianeuaee= Enelish &defaultstatus= 0 &paeelist= Home &CookiesEnabledSt atus =True (If this link does not work use the following link and select "Medical Equipment Suppliers" from the side bar. http: / /www.medicare.gov /navigation/ resource - locator /resource- locator- overview.aspx) PLEASE NOTE: This list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of FNSS planning tools and resources. As additional resources /tools are identified, they will be added to future revisions. 8/19/2011 21 �.z 161'2' Al SPECIAL NEEDS SHELTER INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE Department of Health 4042 Bald Cypress Way Room 301 Tallahassee, FL 32399 August 30, 2011 9 :3o AM - 12 noon Vftbm 141�ti� �1tlt�l�Qx, �� Q� 1�A�t Iaa�x��QCC� s tiro dQ� �Qt r� a P�werd.� I, COQ tQ �1ttP[lQt�fl.� a-, WW"WOUMM4 W4 . 4" "J1Qi[4 Wftwe, Cd ftwi , CQ eMM t0ft 4747 Purpose: Receive updates from the Functional Needs Support Services WorkQrouns Identify next steps - 9:30 a.m. Call To Order Jean E line, R.N., BSN, MPH Director, Division of Emergency Operations Welcomes Housekeeping and Meeting Materials 9:45 a.m. Opening Remarks /FNSS Guidance Belinda McClellan, RN. Statewide SpNS Coordinator Susan Bulecza, MN. Bureau of Preparedness and Response 10:00 a.m. Assessment Workgroup Report Michael Whitehead, DBPR 10:45 a.m. Policy Workgroup Report Mike DeLorenzo, DEM 11:30 a.m. Open Discussion /Next Steps ` Susan Bulecza, R N. 12 noon Adjourn x .. 162 az ORDINANCE NO. 2001- s; w RDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR CREATION AND REVIEW OF COUNTY BOARDS AND PROVIDING FOR zz tZdyBti� A POLICY DECLARATION; PROVIDING DEFIN'iIONS; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF NEW . BOARDS; PROVIDING EXEMPTION; PROVIDING QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP; PROVIDING PROCESS OF APPOINTMENT; PROVIDING TERMS OF OFFICE; PROVIDING ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW OF BOARDS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 86 -41, AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ri' ORDAINED BY THE BOARD ?; COS{ NTH COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 'r r SECTION ONE: Policy Declaration. sy LO It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Board of County Comml ee of Collier County, Florida, to promote economy, efficiency and Improve service In the transaction of the public business by County Boards. Nothing In this Ordinance shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the County Commission from amending or abolishing, at any time, any Board currently In existence or thereinafter created. SECTION TWO: Definitions. The term 'Board" is defined 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; The term "Commission" is defined as the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. SECTION THREE: Creation of New Boards. A. All Boards created after the effective date of this Ordinance shalt be created by ordinance only, except for Ad -Floc or Task Force Committees. Such ordinance shall set forth the Board's purpose; functions; powers; responsibilities; jurisdiction, membership requirements and restrictions; berms and conditions of appointment to and removal from the Board; and the specific staff support necessary to prepare an annual report, either oral or written, to be presented to the Commission. B. Prior to the advertised public hearing held for the adoption of said ordinance, the County Manager shall submit to the Commission a report setting forth following Information concerning the proposed new Board: 1) Whether the establishment of the board will create sufficient betterment to the community to justify the Commissions delegation of a portion of Its authority. 2) Whether another Board, either public or private, already In existence, could serve, or Is serving the same purpose. �. 161.2 4Q candidacy shall be deemed a tender of resignation from such Board and the Board "shall immediately advise the Commission in writing of said resignation. The Commission shall deem the position vacant upon receipt of written notice of said resignation. The Board member shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position becomes vacant pursuant to this Ordinance. F. The commencement of a legal challenge by a Board member as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Collier County shall constitute a conflict of Interest with Collier County and shall be deemed a tender of resignation from such Board. The County Board member's position shall automatically be considered vacant and the Commission shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six, herein. G. No member of any County Board, as defined herein, shall print or create, or have printed or created, or use or distribute any business or informational card depicting the County logo or in any way representing such Board member as a representative of Collier County or as a County Board member. The County Manager or his or her designee may, upon request and prior approval In writing, authorize the County Board members to obtain a County photo identification card identifying such members as a County advisory Board member. SECTION SIX: Process of Appointment. A. Vacancies occurring on any Board shall be publicized, but need not be advertised, In a publication of general circulation within the County, and vacancy notices are to be posted in the County libraries and the County Government Center. B. Prior to making appointments to Boards, staff shall provide the Commission with a list outlining the qualifications and demographic background of each candidate for Board membership, along with a list detailing the qualifications and demographic backgrounds of present members seeking reappointment on each board to which an appointment Is being made. SECTION SEVEN: Term of Office. A. Terms of office shall be staggered. B. Terms of office for Board members shall be limited to two consecutive terms of service on any one Board; provided, however, that appointment of a Board member to an initial term of one year shall not be considered a "berm of offloe" for purpose of the limitations set forth in this Section, and such members shall be entitled to serve two additional terms If so appointed. C. Appointments to fill a vacancy for the remainder or balance of a term of office shall be considered a term of office for the purpose of the limitations set forth In Section Seven 8, above, only if the remainder of the term to be served exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the full term. D. By unanimous vote of the Commission, the limitations set forth in Section Seven B above may be waived. E. Nothing set forth In this Section shall prohibit any Individual from being reappointed to a Board after a hiatus of two (2) years. 3 1612.. Al F. All members of Boards created by the Commisslon shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission and may automatically be removed by a majority vote of the quorum of the Commission. SECTION EIGHT: Attendance Requirement It is the intent and strong desire of the Commission that there be full attendance of advisory Board members at all meetings of the Boards, recognizing, however, that it may be necessary for Board members to be absent from a meeting due to unusual or emergency circumstances. Nevertheless, full attendance at Board meetings is encouraged and necessary for the proper operation of the Boards and In furtherance thereof the following requirements are established: A. Any Board member who is absent for more than one -half of the Board's meetings in a given fiscal year shall be deemed to have tendered his or her resignation from such Board. The Commission shall, as soon as practicable after such resignation, declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six herein. The Board members shall not serve at any meetings after his or her position Is declared vacant by the Commission. B. In the event that any Board member is absent from two consecutive meetings without a satisfactory excise acceptable to the Board chairperson, the Board chairperson shall state such fact at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and shall thereafter notify, in writing, the Executive Manager to the Commission of the Board member's failure to attend without a satisfactory excuse. The Commission shall review the Board chairperson's notification at the Commission meeting and shall declare the Board member's position to be vacant If the Commission concurs that the Board member was absent from two consecutive Board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, and shall promptly fill same pursuant to the provisions of Section Six herein. The Board member shall not serve at arty meetings after his or her position Is declared vacant. C A member of a Board shall be deemed absent from a meeting when he or she Is not present during at least seventy five percent (75°%) of the meeting. SECTION NINE: Review of Boards. Each Board shall be reviewed In the following manner: A. All Boards shall be reviewed every four (4) years from the year the Board was first established. B. The County Manager or his designee shall provide notice to the Board prior to Its date of review. On or before January 15"' of the year in which a Board Is to be reviewed, Its Chairperson shall submit to the County Manager a report setting forth the following intonation regarding the Board: 1.) Whether the Board Is serving the purpose for which It was created. 2.) Whether the Board is adequately serving current community needs. 3.) A list of the Board's major accomplishments for the preceding twelve month period. 4 d � r _. .� 161 2 '--A 4.) Whether there is any other Board or agency, either public or private, which is serving or would better serve the purpose for which the Board was created. 5.) Whether the ordinance creating the Board should be amended to allow the board to more adequately serve the purpose for which It was created. 6.) Whether the Board's membership requirements should be modified. 7.) The cost, both direct and indirect, of maintaining the Board. C. On or before February 1P of the year in which a Board Is to be reviewed, the County Manager shall deliver to the Commission the report submitted by the Chairperson of each Board, pursuant to Section Nine (B) of this Ordinance, together with any recommendation or comments the County Manager may have. In order to assist the County Manager and the Commission in the evaluation of the Chairperson's report, the County Manager and Commission may review applicable minutes of meetings of the Boards. -All Boards shall be required to forward the minutes of all Board meetings to the Commission in a timely manner. D. During March of the year in which a Board Is to be reviewed, the Chairperson shall make an oral presentation to the Commission. Said presentation shall be based upon the report submitted to the County Manager pursuant to Section Nine (B) of this Ordinance. At the conclusion of said oral presentation any Commissioner may request the formation of a subcommittee consisting of three (3) members of the Commission. Said subcommittee shall evaluate the Chairperson's report, the County Manager's recommendations and any other Information It deems relevant to determine whether the Board shall continue in Its present form. The subcommittee shall report to the Commission not later than within ninety (90) days after their initial meeting. E. At the conclusion of this review process, the Commission shall determine whether to abolish, continue, consolidate or modify the Board for the ensuing four years. SECTION TEN: Repeat of Ordinance No. 86 -41, As Amended. Collier County Ordinance No. 86141, as amended by Ordinance No. 92-44, 98-46, and 2000 -24, is hereby repealed In Its entirety. SECTION ELEVEN: Conflict and Severabdity. 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. SECTION TWELVE; Inclusion In the Code of Laws 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 Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,° "article," or any other appropriate word_ Ail references in the 5 16 12 "A 1 Code of Laws and Ordinances to Ordinance No. 86-41 and Its amendments shall be changed to reflect the number assigned to this Ordinance. SECTION THIRTEEN: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of notice from the Secretary of State that this Ordinance has been filed with the Secretary of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida thls;934 day of October, 2001. ATTESP ' �� . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DY1�i�1tT,_,8t6E<, Cjerlct COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. By o �' - Deputy erk JAMES WtARTER, Ph.D., Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: David C. Weigel County Attorney h:puhli0kaylordinances 6 This ordinance filed with the Secretary of to I s Office the &29%.ay of A-0/ and acknowledgement of that filing received this 4QA%(d day of X00 By o.o..N a«*• 161 'A1 Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Contact: 239 - 252 -8848 3299 'Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 www.colliergov.net Naples, FL 34112 -5746 www.twitter.com /CollierPIO www.facebook.com /CollierGov www.youtube.com /CollierGov January 9, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18TH 3:00 P.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will meet Wednesday, January 18th 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 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 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- 14 16 IT Al ColeMaryAnn From: scribnerJ Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:58 AM To: Alfonso Elizabeth; Anderson, Dan; Baer, David; Bernaldo, Maria; BowmanDan; Buxton, Reg (Chamber of Commerce); ColeMaryAnn; Elson, Jim(Veterans Council); FoordMarlene; Frost, Ryan; Jones, Mike(Lt); Lauzon, Peggy(RSVP); Marr, Kathleen; Missey, Michael (Lt)( Salvation Army); Murphy, Mike; Neiween, Joe(MRC /DOH).; nfn11555; Nind, Chris(Salvation Army); Porter, Doug(Civil Air Patrol /CAP); Rainey, Russ; Reid, Phil; Ruster, Heidi(ARC); Sanford, Jerry(Fire Chiefs' Assoc); SmithSteve; Soliday, Ted; Speers, Greg; Wilkins, Joe; Zunzunegui, Dan; zyvoloski_r Subject: Info sent by request of Russ Rainey I wanted to let all of you know that Walt Jaskiewicz with USCGA has resigned from Citizen Corps. The office of the Board of County Commissioners will send a letter to USCGA to learn if they have another who may be interested in representing them on Citizen Corps. His input and insight will be a loss. Thank you, 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 "AS ColeMarvAnn From: scribnerJ Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 8:47 AM To: Alfonso Elizabeth; Anderson, Dan; Baer, David; Bernaldo, Maria; BowmanDan; Buxton, Reg (Chamber of Commerce); ColeMaryAnn; Elson, Jim(Veterans Council); FoordMarlene; Frost, Ryan; Jones, Mike(Lt); Lauzon, Peggy(RSVP); Marr, Kathleen; Missey, Michael (Lt)( Salvation Army); Murphy, Mike; Neiween, Joe(MRC /DOH).; nfn11555; Nind, Chris(Salvation Army); Porter, Doug(Civil Air Patrol /CAP); Rainey, Russ; Reid, Phil; Ruster, Heidi(ARC); Sanford, Jerry(Fire Chiefs' Assoc); SmithSteve; Soliday, Ted; Speers, Greg; Wilkins, Joe; Zunzunegui, Dan; zyvoloski_r Subject: Follow up Re: Walt I am very pleased to share with you that Walt has rescinded his resignation and has opted to remain on Cit Corps. 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 Division, s 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 r. Al ColeMaryAnn Subject: FW: Citizen Corps Weekly Digest From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [ mailto :fema @service.govdelivery.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 20114:47 PM To: McWhorter, Linda Subject: Citizen Corps Weekly Digest Give the Gift of Preparedness this Holiday Season, Whole Community and You, Flood Risk Mapping Around Levees, and more! This Citizen Corps News Digest is provided by FEMA's Individual & Community Preparedness Division to highlight community preparedness, resilience resources and activities recently announced by federal agencies and Citizen Corps partners. This week's News Digest includes: Give the Gift of Preparedness this Holiday Season Whole Community and You Release of New "If You See Something, Say Something Campaign" Spanish - Language PSAs FEMA Stresses Preparedness as we Reflect on the 200th Anniversary of the New Madrid Earthquake Events CERT Basic Training Participant Manual Now Available in Braille and Screen - Reader Versions Seeking Input on a New and Improved Approach for Mapping Flood Risk Around Levees DHS and FEMA Updates Give the Gift of Preparedness this Holiday Season This holiday season, one of the best gifts you can give your loved ones is the gift of disaster preparedness. Giving emergency supplies to help build a disaster supply kit and having an emergency communications plan can go a long way to ensure that your family is prepared for any emergency. A list of possible gifts that may assist in disasters includes: • Disaster kits for homes, offices and cars (first aid kits; food, water and prescription medications for 72 hours, extra clothing, blankets, and flashlights) • NOAA weather radios with extra batteries • Enrollment in a CPR or first -aid class • Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors • Fire extinguishers (for the kitchen, garage, car, etc.) • Foldable ladders for second -story escape in a fire • Winter car kits (emergency flares, shovels, ice scrapers, flashlights and fluorescent distress flags, jumper cables) • Pet disaster kits (food, water, leashes, dishes, toys, and carrying case or crate) • Battery powered lamps 1612 Al Emergency supplies are important, but it is also essential to discuss what your family will do in case of an emergency. This year, consider at least one of these gift ideas. You just may save the life of a friend or family member. For more information and preparedness tips, please visit Ready.gov and FEMA.gov. Whole Community and You Over the past year or so, FEMA has engaged many of its emergency management partners – including local, tribal, state, territorial representatives; academia; nongovernmental organizations; community members and the private sector — in a dialogue on a whole community approach to emergency management. Based on these many meaningful and substantive conversations, FEMA synthesized what it has learned, and published A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action on its website. This document reflects some of the successes of a whole community approach across the country. We share this with you today in an effort to enhance the resiliency and security of our Nation through the whole community approach. As always, FEMA will continue to support a national dialogue to exchange ideas, recommendations, and success stories, and we encourage you to continue to send feedback about the whole community document and approach to FEMA- Community- Engagement(Dfema.gov. Release of New "If You See Something, Say Something Campaign" Spanish - Language PSAs Secretary Napolitano this week unveiled new Spanish - language Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for the department's "If You See Something, Say SomethingTM11 public awareness campaign during a roundtable meeting with Hispanic law enforcement groups at the White House. The PSAs are aimed at reaching out to the Spanish- speaking public to encourage them to report suspicious activity to local law enforcement. The new campaign of radio and television Spanish - language PSAs inform viewers about how to notify authorities regarding potential threats. The PSAs will be distributed to Spanish - language television and radio stations across the country in California, Colorado, New York, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. The PSAs are available for viewing at www. dhs. gov /IfYouSeeSomethingSaySomething. FEMA Stresses Preparedness as we Reflect on the 2001th Anniversary of the New Madrid Earthquake Events Last Friday marked the 200 -year anniversary of the first event of the New Madrid Earthquake sequence, which is considered to be most powerful quake- series the U.S. has ever experienced. According to the U.S. Geological Survey U� SGS), during 1811 -12, the central Mississippi valley was violently shaken by a series of three earthquakes above a magnitude 7, and up to 200 substantial aftershocks. Today, a similar risk still exists across the nation including within the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The 2011 East Coast earthquake and the recent Oklahoma earthquake illustrate the fact that it is impossible to predict when or where an earthquake will occur, so it is important you and your family are prepared ahead of time Would you know what to do in the event of an earthquake? How can you rp epare yourself, your family, and your community for a possible earthquake? For the answers to these questions, and many more, visit the Ready.gov website. Citizen Corps Partners and Affiliates Updates 161 Z Al CERT Basic Training Participant Manual Now Available in Braille and Screen Reader Versions The National Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program is pleased to announce the release of the CERT Basic Training Participant Manual in Braille and in PDF screen reader. Each version includes the same nine units of course content and 13 hazard annexes as the standard version of the Participant Manual. These two releases also compliment the recent announcement of the low vision and Spanish versions of the CERT Basic Training Participant Manual. Local CERT program coordinators /managers can request copies of the Braille version of the Participant Manual by calling the FEMA Distribution Center at 1- 800 - 480 -2520 or emailing FEMA- Publications- Warehouse(a)-dhs.gov. Use Publication Number P -856 and Catalog Number 11189 -2 to order the Participant Manual (four volumes in Braille). Please be sure to allow 6 — 8 weeks for delivery. The screen reader version of the Participant Manual can be accessed directly through the National CERT website. For additional tools for communicating with all audiences, including people with disabilities, please visit the FEMA Office of Disability Integration and Coordination Preparedness Resources web page. Seeking Input on a New and Improved Approach for Mapping Flood Risk Around Levees As part of its ongoing efforts to reform and strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA has been working with members of Congress and other stakeholders to revise its process for mapping the flood risk of communities and families living behind levees. FEMA's goal is to improve the way it maps this flood risk so families have more precise information when making decisions about how to protect their homes and properties. FEMA has worked extensively with stakeholders, technical experts and the public on this new approach and continues to seek comments from stakeholders and the public on this proposal. This public comment period is open until January 30, 2012. For more information about this proposed approach to help communities demonstrate the degree of protection a levee may provide to the surrounding communities, please visit the federal register. The full blog is also available online: Seeking Input on a New and Improved Approach for Mapping Flood Risk. And as FEMA continues to work to improve its flood mapping process, families and businesses are encouraged to better understand the flood risk they face within their own communities and take steps to protect themselves and their homes against a potential flood. Steps can include flood proofing techniques to mitigate flood risk to their own homes, supporting good land use and building codes in their communities, developing a family communications plan, putting an emergency kit together, and investing in flood insurance. We encourage families and businesses to learn more by checking out http: / /www.floodsmart.gov /. The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Individual & Community Preparedness Division 161 ;Y Al Regular Meeting Agenda Collier County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS) Working Group South Regional Library 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy, Naples, FL 34113 Friday, January 20, 2012, 9:30 AM 1. Introductions 2. October 21, 2011 Meeting Minutes Approval: http: / /www.colIiergov.neVindex.aspx ?page =1544 3. Membership: Mr. Jim von Rinteln, CC Growth Mgt., replaces Mr. Ybaceta and the alternate for Mr. James French. 4. Project(s) submitted for Review: None at this time 5. Known/Potential Grant Opportunities: No currently open opportunities. However, read the requirements and prepare you application for the next opportunity. ➢ Pre Disaster Mitigation — Annual Opportunity — Nationally Competitive http: / /www.floridadisaster.org/ Mitigation /PreDisaster /index.htm ➢ Residential Construction Mitigation Program — Annual Opportunity — Statewide Competitive http: / /www.floridadisaster.org /Mitigation /RCMP /index.htm ➢ Hazard Mitigation Grant Program — Occurs after each Presidentially Declared disaster in the State http: / /www. floridadisaster .org /Mitigation/Hazard /index.htm ➢ Flood Mitigation Assistance Program — Annual Opportunity http://www.floridadisaster.org/Mitigation/FNtAPiindex.htm ➢ Repetitive Flood Claims Program — Annual Opportunity http://www.floridadisaster.org/Mitigation/RFCP/i dex.htm ➢ Severe Repetitive Loss Program - Annual Opportunity & must have had two separate claims http: / /www. floridadisaster .org /MitigatiorL /SRLP /index.htm 6. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS — ➢ Wildfire -Victor Hill, DoF i. Wildfire Season Update ii. Fund Status for Wildfire Mitigation & FFS Activities ➢ Flood — Update by Robert Wiley, CC Flood Plain Mgr, et al... ➢ Monitoring, Evaluating and /or Updating the LMS — Opportunity for issues, comments and /or recommendations i. Automatic Updates to the LMS — Flood Plain Management Progress Reports & initiatives not addressed in the normal LMS way.... 7. Other Business /Comments: ➢ Status of Current Mitigation Projects in the Works... i. E. Naples Community Center 1 1612 Al ii. Immokalee Area Shelter Enhancement ( Immokalee High School) iii. City of Naples Pre -Wire for Generators — Lift Stations iv. Upgrade Leachate pipe @ Landfill v. Haldeman Creek Stormwater Improvements ➢ Nominations/Election of the LMSWG Vice Chair 8. Next Meeting: The next meeting is 20 April 2012, 0930 at a the South Regional Library Attachment: October 212011 Draft Minutes 2 Formidable Footprint Pandemic Exercise 1612 Al National Community / Neighborhood Exercise Series -1 On January 28 neighborhood, community and faith based organizations across the Sl9H' country will have the opportunity to assess their capabilities in preparing for and j,F responding to an Influenza Pandemic by participating in the Formidable Footprint 00 Exercise. During the past year teams from across the United States have been participating in the internet based series of Formidable Footprint exercises. These exercises have provided participants with the opportunity to assess their capabilities to respond to various disaster threats. Pandemic Exercise — January 28 2022 Exercises have also been scheduled for the following scenarios: Earthquake — Flood — Hurricane — Tornado — Wildfire The Formidable Footprint exercise series has been developed in accordance with Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) protocols. The objectives of the exercises are for CERTs, Neighborhood Watch Programs, Neighborhood Associations, Community / Faith Based Organizations, Citizen Corps, Fire Corps and others to work as a team to become better prepared for the next disaster their community may face. There is NO CHARGE for participation in any of the Formidable Footprint exercises. For additional information or to register for the up- coming Tornado Exercise please access the following web site today: www.FormidableFootprint.org Please Share This Important Disaster Exercise Opportunity With Others 0 Chris Floyd - 850- 241 -3565 Disaster Resistant Communities Group LLC www dre- group.com Office Locations 6224 Wake Robin Ln - Tallahassee FL - 32309 12 Stoneybrook Dr - Sturbridge MA- 01566 r PICAYUNE STRAND STATE FOREST DAY SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4 10 A.M. -4 P.M. 2121 52ND AVE. SOUTH, NAPLES Join in the forest for a fun - filled, family - friendly day to learn about the activities your state forest offers. Meet Smokey Bear, take a tour of the forest, learn about wildfire safety, and crime prevention as we showcase one of the premier ctatP fnrPsts with help from the Collier County Sheriff's Office, local community organizations and businesses. Activities for the Whole Family Include: Nature Tours of the Forest Meet Smokey Bear Bicycle Race (www.tourdepicayune.org) Demonstrations by Collier County Sheriff's Office Bomb Squad Fire Truck Displays Food Provided by Boy Scouts of America Horse and Pony Rides Meet a Florida Panther Wildfire Prevention and Safety Family Games Crime Prevention Tips Bounce House And More! -s .r f` P '` ", #.!fir,► °..;.- -;`„i « ^t� '.,...t a. .r ,�'., r'"q'_f {"t r+�. r' 'I r i' , °o".i !°s"; Rnta w4rj�Il ,fib^ r, as i a • .. . - RocKn' H Stables 299.29fl.59flb rockinnstables.webs:com/ 4e� !IN J. Rf ............... neat it X refit the 3 The irough of *0 rd )rnando, Earthquake, & >unaml Relief 1612 ©R Collier County Emergency Management Department FREE SKYWARN Spotter Certification FREE Spotter certification being offered twice in Collier County: The National Weather Service Miami will provide FREE Skywarn certifica- tion training, twice. The class is being held on Friday, February 24th and again be offered on Saturday, February 25th, 2012, at South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples 34113. Training will be presented by a meteorologist from the Miami National Weather Service (NWS) Office. Skywarn storm spotters are the "eyes in the field" for the National Weather Service. The Skywarn Certification training is straightforward ... and fun. The class will begin at 10 am and conclude about 3 pm each day. (NOTE. There will be a one -hour break for lunch each day.) The training includes infor- mation and the reporting criteria necessary to report hazardous weather development and/or conditions to the Miami weather forecast office. This class is designed to provide a deeper understanding of hazardous weather effects in South Florida by providing meteorological tools necessary to evaluate the hazardous weather environment. Some of the subjects in- clude thunderstorm classifications, tornadic thunderstorm schematic, and optimum Severe Weather locations within storm cells. FAQs... What is a Storm Spotter? The Skywarn spotter program is a nationwide network of volunteers trained by the National Weather Service (NWS) to report significant weather. Anyone is welcome to participate. Who can attend? Anyone at least 18 years old can be a spotter. Why Skywarn? The NWS's mission is to protect lives and property. When weather conditions are favorable for severe thunderstorms or tornadoes are expected to develop, a severe thunderstorm or tornado WATCH is issued. A Severe Thunderstorm or Tornado WARNING is issued when severe weather has been reported by a Skywarn spotter or indicated by Doppler radar. Skywarn volunteers become the NWS's and local Emergency Management's eyes and ears, helping to provide better weather watch and warning services. Who will activate Skywarn? The NWS and /or the local emergency management authorities may activate the Skywarn net whenever there is a threat of severe weather or the NWS issues a severe thunderstorm or tomado watch. What about dual area spotter certification? If you live or work in an area covered by the Tampa weather office, this training will also certify you to report hazardous weather conditions to that office as well. Al SKYWARK E -mail your request to register to: E mergMa n @.CollierGov. net or Register via the Library's On- Line Registration Program: http : / /www.colliereov.neyindex.lMg pace =1641 Home Page: www.CollierEM.org Collier Board of County Commissioners 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, Fourth Floor Naples, FL 34113 Phone: 239-252-3600 Fax: 239-252-6735 Email: RichardZyvoloslci@CollierGov.net !E C/) R ro C <' -a cn. o Z m G1+ cO =r a' :3 0 —° R �n COD a M e 0 cn :. —I u CD_.. _ Ci m r= o 5< D O CD �� V `-° n� 0 '< m co a cx O =0 �` -n v 0 CD - CCD can p ca cn � cD CD cs cn CD — p' a' -o cr vi - rt_.rs v -.,m �,0 p r 0 ca C :3 cn a. a CD Z7 M ° = CL m m c cn Z cO =r a' :3 03 0 —° n �n COD cn 11 0 ? D D 0) n 6= o 5< D ° 03 =mom CD �� £? n 0� CD Q CD n� 0 A cx CD -n D c� o m CL -a 3 CCD can p ca cn � cD CD cs cn CD — p' a' 0 cr vi - rt_.rs v -.,m �,0 p r 0 3 o n CO) m C :3 cn a. CD Z7 M ° = CL m m CD G7 co C7 � o m m cn --N � .,- -0 -� -ti z� Q N `O CD (p n m � P (h 3 fJ � �� CD `,° _ Hc su �' CD 0 cn CD PU cn Q_ o� � CD Cn Q o =3 ao w� cn cu 0 cn cc rn ° m CD CL Q- Co M 3 tDi�oaCDm CD cn Q cn cn 011 -2012 INFLUENZA VACCINES The 2011 -2012 seasonal influenza vaccines are now available at the Collier County Health Department. This year, in addition to the regular influenza vaccine we are also offering the high -dose influenza vaccine specifically designed for people 65 years and older. All of the influenza vaccine given at the Health Department is preservative free. The pneumonia vaccine continues to be available year round. Please call 252 -8555 if you would like any further information. Cost: Children - 6 months through 18 years of age Free Adults -19 years and older Influenza vaccine - $30 High -dose Influenza vaccine (65 years and older) - $50 Pneumonia vaccine - $70 *The Health department will bill your Medicare or insurance, please bring your card and a photo ID. Times: Monday through Friday 9am -11 am and 2pm - 3pm *No appointment is necessary. Location: Naples Location: 3339 E Tamiami Trail, Building H (Health Services Building) Naples, FL 34112 For Information for the Naples Location, please call (239) 252- 8555 or our Flu Hotline number: (239) 252 -8212 e� r¢ Immokalee Location: 419 North 1St Street Immokalee, Florida For Information for the Immokalee Location, please call (239) 252 -7300 1 9 2 a 11. WR 9 2 CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 16 1 12 Al2 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 3 0 3 9 W Naples, Florida, February 9, 2012 1 MAR 0 8 1'0I2 BY: ....................... 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: VICE CHAIRMAN: Fiala —4 Hiller Henning - — -� Coyle Coletta 1G John Sorey, III Anthony Pires Randy Moity Jim Burke Murray Hendel (Excused) Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples ,sc. Corres: Date: S" 11-2-12— Item 0 u T' -2- f312— Upies to: CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 6 fa 16 2' 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 Mr. Pires chaired the meeting pending the arrival of Mr. Sorey and called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. 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 subject to the following additions: • Item VII.8 — Wiggin's Pass Update • Item VII.9 - Marco Beaches Laser Grading Second by Mr. Waldack. Carried unanimously 7 — 0. V. Public Comments None VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. January 12, 2012 Mr. Moreland moved to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2012 Meeting subject to the following change: • Page 4, paragraph 7, line 1 — from "Mr. Pires abstained from the..." to "Mr. Pires did not concur with the...." • Page 5, paragraph 6, line 3 — addition of sentence "Mr. Pires and Mr. Moity noted their "no" votes were predicated on the issue that not enough time was granted to the consultants for review of the revised conceptual plan and provide a response to the Request for Proposal within the timeframe imposed by the County." Motion carried 6 "yes" — I "no." Mr. Rios voted no; he expressed his concern that members expressing their reason for a "no" vote may set a future precedent for other members wishing to vote "no ". VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FYI Revenue Report" dated through January 31, 2012. 2. Project Cost Report — Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "FY201112012 TDC Category "A: Beach Maintenance Projects" updated through February 1, 2012. CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3of616 112 A^ 3. Collier Creek Dredging Completion — Verbal Update Gary McAlpin noted the issue of the sand placement was resolved with the Hideaway Beach Tax District and the project was completed as proposed. 4. Clam Bay Marker — Verbal Update Gary McAlpin noted Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) decision to deny the request for an administrative hearing in regards to the permit issued for installation of the informational markers proposed in Clam Bay /Pass has been appealed by David Buser. The County is moving forward with placement of the informational signs as proposed on County Beaches and /or other onshore lands. 5. Vanderbilt Bathroom — Verbal Update Gary McAlpin noted there has been a request by various parties for an administrative hearing on FDEP's "Intent to Issue a Coastal Construction Control Line Variance ". 6. RFP Engineering Consultants — TDC Rejection — Verbal Update Gary McAlpin noted the Tourist Development Council (TDC) rejected the recommended "short list of consultants" for engineering and permitting required for the City of Marco Island and City of Naples /Collier County's major beach renourishment project as they had not reviewed the proposed conceptual plan for the project. The tentative schedule is for the CAC to review the proposal today, the TDC on February 27 and the Board of County Commissioners on March 13. 7. Structural Inspection/Repair Clam Pass Bridge a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to authorize structural pilings, inspections and bridge repairs to the Clam Pass Draw Bridge and approve a budget of $72,500 to complete this work" dated February 9, 2012 for informational purposes. He noted the project's recommendations fall under the purview of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, however it was presented to the committee for informational purposes. The Committee recommended the County authorize and complete the necessary inspections of the structural components (pilings, etc.) of the bridge and determine its life expectancy before moving forward with allocating expenditures necessary to complete the proposed repairs. 8. Wiggins Pass — Verbal Update Gary McAlpin and Mr. Moreland (Chairman of the Wiggin's Pass Subcommittee) provided an update on the status of permit applications to revise the dredging template for Wiggin's Pass Mr. Sorey arrived at 1: 56 p.m. and assumed the Chair 9. North Marco Beaches Laser Grading — Verbal Update CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes A 4o 1 6 I °2 A 'G) ' Gary McAlpin provided an update on the FDEP permit application for the County's long term permission to laser -grade the north Marco Beaches. VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Plan /Schedule Collier County Main Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin provided the document "TS Fay FEMA funding renewal discussion" dated February 9, 2012 as a primer to the item. a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin noted the item contained backup material and presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013114 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" dated February 9, 2012. He provided an overview of 4 options available for the major renourishment project for City of Naples /Collier County Beaches proposed by staff (based on previous input from the Coastal Advisory Committee): Option 1— Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $1 OM. This sand placement would only restore damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of the project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue the six -year design project life that most likely could be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctor's Pass. Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $24M. It would also include: removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and for the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (l OOK CY's at $2.8M) that has lost 200 linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. Option 4 — Execute a ten -year project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment for an estimated cost of $31M. This plan would increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as construction width in sections required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten -year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctor's Pass is included to help minimize erosion on down drift beaches. CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5o16 1 2- A2 -A In addition to the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park Beach, rebuild /repairs at Barefoot Beach, the removal of groins at Park Shore Beach, a jetty spur for Doctor's Pass and it addresses additional hot spots by adding critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this option. Speaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Committee recommended the Executive Summary (andlor any other similar presentations) clearly identify the cost savings associated with each Option. Mr. Moreland moved for the Coastal Advisory Committee to recommend that Option 4 be executed. Additionally, proposing the Option 4.A which includes the scope of work proposed in Option 4 and the concept of the County providing stockpiles of sand at strategic locations to assist in the renourishment of "hot spots" or other renourishment emergencies that may come to light overtime. The project incorporates concepts of "Scope Management" as necessary. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. 2. Marco South Revised Schedule/Permit Application Gary McAlpin presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the FY12 113 Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan" dated February 9, 2012 for consideration. Mr. Pires left the meeting at 2:3 7p. m. Speaker Nancy Ritchie, City of Marco Island Mr. Waldack moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the "FY 12113 Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild plan" and recommends that staff contact the Hideaway Beach Taxing District for their renourishment schedule to determine if there would be any cost savings available for the parties via a consolidated renourishment effort in the area. Second by Mr. Rios. Carried unanimously 7— 0. Mr. Pires returned at 2:45p. m. IX. Old Business None X. Announcements 1. Public Notice for 2012 — 2013 Category "A" Grant Applications Gary McAlpin provided the Public Notice "Coastal Advisory Committee Accepting Category "A: Grant Applications Collier County, Florida" dated February 9, 2012 for information purposes. CAC March 8, 2012 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 6 of 6 1612 A2 XI. Committee Member Discussion None XII. Next Meeting Date/Location March 8, 2012 — Collier County 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 2:48 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee ohn Sorey, III, airman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented jl or as amended January 19 2012 1612A3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF EIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 19, 2012 MAR 0 5 2012 Hoard of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having .4 conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Growth Management Division Conference Room 609/6109 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta �k� ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Page 1 Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino (Alternate) Chris Hudson (Alternate) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Misc. Corres: Date: 5-12-24 t 2- Item #: I L& C 2W 3 Copies to: ib 1 x A'3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for January 19, 2012. Notice: Respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per 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 chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts 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 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. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. UESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? Page 2 16 I e'- A3 January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony (sic) Doino -- Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, we do have a full board and full alternates. The alternates will participate in discussions but will not have voting rights for today's session. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, the alternates are? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The alternates are Ron and Chris. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under number 4, public hearings, motions, letter A, motions, we have three -- I'm sorry, two additions under motion for extension of time. Number five will be Collier Realtor Corp., Case CESD20100003739. Number six will be Ruth Ann Powell, Case CESD20110002234. Under B, stipulations, we have eight stipulations. Number one will be Michael Stevens, Case CESD20110002506. Number two, Carlisle /Wilson Plaza, Case CES20110006426. Number three, Carlos Gonzalez and Cynthia Gonzalez, Case CESD20110002124. Number four, Aura Rodulfo, Case CESD20110009942. Number five, Joyce Holland, Case CELU20080009976. Number six, Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault, Case CEAU2011000498. Number seven, Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault, Case CESD20110000448. Number eight, Olga Canova and Rebecca M. Rios, Case CESD2011000003 8. Under C, hearings, number eight, Case CENA20110011180, Radio Road Development, LLC has been withdrawn. 1611 A43 January 19, 012 Number 11, Case CESD20110000237, Friendship Baptist Church of Immokalee, Florida, Inc. has been withdrawn. Number 13, Case CESD20110010697, Norma Gomez and Jose Choy has been withdrawn. Number 17, Case CESD20100018107, Buttonwood Partners, LLC has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes that we have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Moving on to the approval of minutes for last meeting, which was all the way back on November 18th, 2011. Do we have any changes, suggestions? If not, entertain a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) 16 112 A 3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Now moving on to public hearings /motions. Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time. Number one, Rene Zafra and Maria Zafra. Are the respondents here? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR POTTER: For the record, Janis Potter, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read the stipulation into the record, please? MR. KAUFMAN: Extension. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, extension. Apologize. Would you like to explain the circumstances behind the request for the extension, and does the county have any issues with the extension? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I believe Mr. Rene Zafra has requested 120 days. He sent in a letter or e -mail to Ms. Crawley requesting an extension of 120 days. He's not able to make it here today due to work circumstances. The most recent letter from the health department has rejected -- Page 5 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 all of the reviews have been rejected since the inception of getting the permit in place. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the extension? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I don't, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the Board, questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. This started a long time ago, and I believe that first they were asking for a 120 -day extension, then there was a 60 -day extension, another 60 -day extension, and now they're looking for another six -month extension. I think the first extension was a year. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: He signed a stipulation in February of 2011 for 120 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. And then in August, 60 days. And then in November, another 60 days. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: July, 60 days, and October, 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Was the $80.57 cost paid? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, it's been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me that this is going on forever. I'm not for extending this for six months more. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny -- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: Just one comment. Do you feel it's a health issue of -- what you're stating, more so than anything else? MR. KAUFMAN: This is a deal where they were going to -- they added a bedroom and they needed an additional septic system. I don't know whether they're using that or not, that facility. I guess a bathroom was added to the existing system. And that's a violation, J 16 �9�2 N3 o12 according to the health department. I don't think it's a safety, but I wouldn't know. I'd rely on the county. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I know that -- I don't know if it's being used or not. MR. MIESZCAK: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, we'll call to a vote. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously to deny the extension. Next case is going to be case number two, BQ Concrete, LLC. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Could you state your name, please. MR. QUARLES: Buddy Quarles. Q- U- A- R- L -E -S. MR. UESPERANCE: Sir, could you raise the microphone so it's a little closer to your mouth? Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. MR. QUARLES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a receipt of your letter. But since you're here, if you'd like to just plainly tell what's going on and see if we can't help. MR. QUARLES: Yeah, first of all, we had the plans all done to Page 7 �a6 (r2 2 h3 ary 19, build the home and we had some issue with the setbacks of the canal. We had a hidden setback. And we found the setback after we had the house all planned and all built -- not built, but drawn. And then we had to go to the engineer and redo it again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gotcha. And you're asking for six months? MR. QUARLES: Yeah, approximately six months. I'm going through a divorce, and it's taking a little longer. And I have a letter from my lawyer right here, if you guys want to read it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, you can verbally tell us about the letter. But if you enter it into evidence, we would retain that for public record. So it's up to you. I mean, if you want to tell us what it says. If someone wants objects to it and wants to see it then we would have to enter it, but it's up to you. Right now it would just be verbal testimony. MR. QUARLES: Okay, yes, it's pretty much saying that my lawyer says stop everything until the divorce is final. Because she wants to take things. My lawyer said just kind of close it off until, you know, the divorce is final. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any projection on when that will be completed, your divorce finalized? MR. QUARLES: November, approximately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. QUARLES: I mean, the home is all set, the pins are ready. All the plans are ready. I mean, they're all ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, does the county have any objection to six months? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: There's nothing there that's built or -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Only thing on the property is the garage right now, so it's not a health and safety issue. MR. QUARLES: It might take longer than six months. Just to 1612'13 January 19, 2012 let you -- I don't want to keep on coming back here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would the board object to a one -year extension? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd make a motion one year. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any objections with the one year? MR. QUARLES: No, I'm good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously for a one -year extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: One question. Will the violation go away once the permit is pulled, or does he have to have a C.O. for the house? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: He still has to have the house built. MR. LEFEBVRE: It has to be CO'd? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if the divorce is finalized in November, I mean, it would take -- he'll probably be coming back still for an extension of time? 16 112 A3 January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Possibly. MR. QUARLES: I hope no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MR. QUARLES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case, case number three, is going to be Gonzalez. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MS. GARRIDO: Maderline Garrido. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name, please. MS. GARRIDO: G- A- R- R- I -D -O. MS. GONZALEZ: Edileydis Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Since you're here, I know we have a letter, but if you would like to just tell us what's going on and what you'd like from us, maybe we can help. MS. GONZALEZ: We're just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pull the mic down a little closer. MS. GONZALEZ: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. GONZALEZ: We're just asking for a little more extension, because we already have the house already with the roof, the outside, almost -- couple things inside. And we just run out of little bit of position to keep on going with the construction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it a financial issue? MS. GONZALEZ: Yeah, something like that. It's more or less financial than just to finish -- we'd like to finish it as soon as possible, but we don't have the money to do it. So we already have most of the things done, the basics, and -- but not all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Azure, any objection from the county for the extension of six months? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, not at all. I spoke with Mr. Page 10 .�6� 11, Zo�A 3 Gonzalez, and they've made great progress. They have all the exterior walls, the roof is in, windows and doors are in, the interior is sealed, the framing work for the interior walls have been completed. And their last inspection was actually December 15th, and he did explain that. They've exulted (sic) their money at this point in time with just what they've done so far. They need to recoup some finances before they can continue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board, any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to grant the six months extension. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MS. GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for everything. Good luck. Case number four is going to be Hernandez. Are Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez here? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) Page 11 16 12 I A3 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow. I guess I'll speak for the respondent. They're very close to getting done what they need to get done. They just need more time. They have called in their final inspection, so we request that they would give them a little bit more time to take care of what they need to do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is 60 days appropriate? That's what they're asking for. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend. MR. KAUFMAN: It second it; 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And it carries. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next is going to be Collier Realty, Corp. Is there a representative for the respondent here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 12 161 :A3 January 1 , 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. FREEMAN: Ernest Freeman. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good to see you again. MR. FREEMAN: Good to see you guys as well. Haven't seen you since last year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to give us just a little background to what's going on and the reason for it. MR. FREEMAN: Yes. This case here is similar to a case we had before. We have -- there was some sheds that needed to be permitted on the project. And because it's commercial, an SIP was requested by the building department, Site Improvement Plan, as well as the actual drawings for the plans for the property's improvements. Where we are now is we have the plans done but the SIP has taken a little time as well. The previous -- well, the current owner lives in New York. Getting information from him to the lessor and then to me has been sort of like pretty much a little time frame involved in getting everything together. So we're currently working on the SIP on this project. That ought to be done maybe in about another I want to say 45 days, and then from there we'll go into permitting. The permitting issue on it from there to completion to work, I'm thinking probably maybe eight months, maybe 240 days will be a good time frame to say it will take to get this project completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your original letter said 180 days. MR. FREEMAN: I know, I know. And then I thought about it. Because I did one of these here for Mr. Blocker, and when -- it went a little over the six months for the project. Because of the -- I guess the building phase of it is pretty easy to get through now. If code enforcement will remove the I guess violation for just with the building part of it, we can probably get that done in 60 days. But then it's going to be the SIP part of the inspections, which is a totally different department here. Page 13 A;3 16I T January 19, 2012 So I'm dealing with actually two different departments here in this building department. And that was why I wanted to sort of change the time frame requested. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Investigator Walker, any issues with the time? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: None from my vantage point. I mean, he's been forthcoming as a contractor, and I've never had any disputes or discrepancies with regards to getting information as he got it. So as far as I'm concerned, our position is is that it's fine if he needs to get the project completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: You think nine months would be sufficient time to get everything done? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we grant nine months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Thanks for Page 14 i 161 2. "'13 January 19, 2012 coming to see us. Good luck. MR. FREEMAN: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Next one is going to be Powell. Are the respondents here? MR. MARINO: You know, I'm going to have to abstain myself from this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, you already took care of that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have an abstention. That means that Ron, on this one you'll have voting rights. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mrs. Powell. MS. POWELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since you're here, if you'd like to just briefly explain for the record what's going on, what we can do to help. MS. POWELL: Thank you. This property is my rental property, and I have had a lot of problems with this property. My husband and I have had rental properties in the past and there always are issues. This particular property, we have a neighbor that didn't like our tenants. We didn't really like them either. They weren't paying rent and we had a lot of problems. We did eventually evict one particular tenant that didn't want to leave. And it does seem that we've cleared up some of the issues with our neighbor. The tenants that I have in there now are great, they're paying me rent and taking care of my property and it seems like everything is fine now. There were several issues on this property, many of which I have resolved. However, the particular problem here is two sheds on my property. One shed is a wood frame shed that was existing when I purchased the property that did have a permit applied for. However, the paperwork never was finished up and followed up on. I did not know that when I purchased the property. Page 15 i 1612 1': A3 January 19, 2012 We also installed a plastic shed from Home Depot on the property, and my husband, in trying to get these permits, got very frustrated and handed off to me, and I was also frustrated trying to deal with it. So honestly, I dropped the ball. And this is why I ended up having to come in the first place. So it just took a long time. And then I did hire a contractor, KenMark Construction, and they've been working on the permitting process. And it's just taking a lot of time. We applied for the initial permit with both sheds on the initial application. Unfortunately the plastic shed is never going to meet code. So because of that, even though my permit went all the way up the line, it was denied. So now we're applying for a separate permit just for the wooden shed, and we were hoping for a quick turnaround. This is, I would say, early January that this was happening. And it -- still nothing. So we are currently waiting on the permit. I have KenMark Construction working on it. The plastic shed is going to have to be removed. That's where I'm at. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Investigator, do you have any issues with this? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think that you would need to get this thing all resolved? MS. POWELL: I don't know. I work for the government and I know it always takes longer than expected. And I've heard that construction's the same way. So I'm requesting 90 days. I'm hoping it's much sooner. Frankly, I don't like this. I'd like this to go away as quickly as possible. And you will notice, I know this inspector hasn't been with me the whole time, but I have resolved the other issues on the property. So I think I've shown good faith in that. Page 16 16 12 A43 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we extend 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. Very good, thank you. Good luck. That concludes, unless there's anything new, all of our motions for extension of time. We're now moving on to stipulations. Stipulation number one is going to be Stevens, which for everyone on the board was your Case No. 10. Is Stevens here, by chance? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He's not here. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read the stipulation into the record? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I would. For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the Page 17 16 2 A'3 . January 19, 2012 prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining Collier County building permits or a 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. Unpermitted utilities to the building must be 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. The 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 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. In the order or in the stipulated agreement it talks about turning off utilities within 24 hours. That's a pretty tight time frame. However, it's a stipulated agreements, so the respondent already agreed to it. Jean, any issues with the 24 -hour time frame? MS. RAWSON: Well, he knows about it. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He does. And if it helps, I've been in contact with both -- the property manager. The property manager's already pulled the demolition permit or started the process as of the 12th. And I will be meeting his son to confirm that the utilities are shut off tomorrow. So he's on top of it and everything looks good so far. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. Perfect. Any other questions from the board? me—Mob 161e ,. A3 � January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to agree with the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Next case is going to be Wilson Plaza and Carlisle. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: They're not here. (Investigator Patterson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was Case No. 20, for everybody. Would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificate of occupy if attainable, or the sign shall be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the signs within 30 days or $100 per day will be imposed for the each day the violation remains. 161 2 �A January 19, 20 2 The respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site visit to confirm the 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 to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is going to be Gonzalez. Are the respondents here? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) Page 20 16 11 A3 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR SNOW: The investigator is ill and Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez are both working, migrants, so they could not be here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read into the record? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would, sir. This is concerning Carlos and Cynthia Gonzalez, Case Number CESD20110002124. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Number three: Respondents must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And number four: That if the respondents fail 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: Investigator Snow -- sorry, Supervisor Snow, do you think 30 days is enough time to get a permit and get the inspections, even though there's electrical and plumbing? SUPERVISOR SNOW: They're really close. He's going to remove it. It's a demolition permit. So they're very close to coming, but they -- given the length of this case, we just wanted to make sure it gets completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thanks. Anything from the board? Page 21 414 19, 12 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation carries. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Rudolfo. Case number five for everybody on the board. Is the respondent here? (No response.) (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Investigator. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with Ms. Rodulfo who was here this morning but she chose to leave. She has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 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 completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or Page 22 i 16112 A'3 r January 19, 2012 a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. Moving on to case -- stipulation number five, which is Joyce Holland. And that was Case No. 16. Could we have everyone sworn in? And I assume you're Page 23 16 I s2 Q3 January 19, 2012 representation? MR. BASS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, you don't need to be sworn in then. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we do have someone, a public speaker request on this case as well. I'm not sure how you would like to handle that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we go to vote we'll here the public opinion. First let's go ahead and read the stipulation into the record, please. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining an approved Site Improvement Plan, any related inspections, if necessary, and a local business tax receipt /occupational license -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You've got to slow down. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Oh, sorry. Abate all violations by obtaining an approved Site Improvement Plan, any related inspections, if necessary, and a local business tax receipt /occupational license from the Collier County Tax Collector, or cease and desist business operation within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this 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 Page 24 16 11'.2 A3 January 19, 2012 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: Investigator, I have a quick question for you. The location -- if they go to a Site Improvement Plan, is the location zoning appropriate for the type of business they're wishing to operate? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. MS. HOLLAND: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything -- MS. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- that was just read? Great. And if you don't mind, we'll ask some questions to see if the board has anything to ask as well. Anything from the board? (No response.) MR. BASS: I would just say that compliance is eminent. It basically has to do with an amendment to an SIP. And the engineer is working on it presently. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me just ask: Is it an administrative change that has to be made? What kind of change has to be made to the SIP? As 60 days may not be enough to -- MS. HOLLAND: The change is simply to change some of the wording on the site plan concerning the ingress and egress of coming and going on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But you already have an SIP on the property? MS. HOLLAND: SIP has been going on for quite a while. But Page 25 16 12 A3 44 January 19, 2012 unfortunately our SIP was started during the time of the economy breaking down and Collier County was forced to lay off a lot of their people, so they had not enough work and too many people. Now they have too much work and not enough people. And several different people have come and gone working on our site plan, and so that's what has delayed it over the time. MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I ask that is 60 days seems like a very short time for an SIP. Typically it does take longer than that. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. And we've been going with this SIP for some time now. We are working on the final phase right now. I'm hoping that 60 days will take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's submitted to the county -- MS. HOLLAND: Oh, it's been in process -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the county's asked for some changes -- MS. HOLLAND: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- administrative changes, wording changes. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you're -- so basically it was rejected as it stands when it was submitted and now it's gone through a -- MS. HOLLAND: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- making the changes needed. MS. HOLLAND: Correct. We're in reviews. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't want to put words in my esteemed colleague's mouth but what I think he's saying is you should probably ask for more now if you think you're going to need it. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. And I appreciate that. So I would like to have more, just in case. Because it has been going on for so long because of so many different people in the county coming and going on it. I would like to make sure. I was afraid that maybe it would not get done in two months. So if I could get more than two months. I would like to have it done tomorrow, if possible. But if I need more Page 26 16 1 t2 A-3 January 19, 2012 than two months, I would appreciate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before I -- that's what I was getting at, but I wanted to hear the public, a comment from the public. So I wanted to hear it before I made a decision on the time frame. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions for the respondent or the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, we'll hear public comment. You don't need to be sworn in, since it's public comment, but if you would, state your name, please. MS. DIVINE: My name is Valaria Divine, and I'm the contiguous property owner. At the time that Ms. Holland applied for this SIP, she failed to disclose that there was an easement granted to my property. And that easement goes along the perimeter of the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You can't show us that unless you plan on providing it for full public record. MS. DIVINE: I'm more than happy to provide it for full public record. This SIP has been going on for over three years, okay? There have been three years of constant, constant extensions. The county had approved the plan with her having an egress, including putting up one -way signs, exit signs, stop signs on my driveway. The driveway -- the easement was created for me to be able to ingress and egress my property. That easement is not wide enough for commercial vehicular traffic or even two standard cars to pass each other because of telephone poles, her fence, you know, and other -- and assorted sundry things. Every time I'm going in and out of my driveway I'm coming head on onto horse trailers pulling big trucks, horses being ridden. And there's a sharp turn in the easement. I cannot abide this going on another 60 days, 90 days or Page 27 16 F2 { January 19, 2 whatever. I need those signs, the one -way exit. The county has now rescinded that requirement since they discovered that it was an easement that she had failed to disclose in her land plan. I need those signs down immediately. I need the commercial traffic off. I do intend to file a lawsuit for the civil matters of her overburdening the easement. She's in violation of all kinds of Florida statutes on the use of the easement. But what I need is the county to enforce their end of the land planning thing, refuse to allow this to continue. It doesn't take 60 days or 90 days to get those signs down. We're coming in and out of there at night, she's running church traffic at night, day camps, all kinds of other activity that's unlicensed. We have another issue of these barns are 40 feet off of the driveway easement. If this barn -- if there's a wind, it blows over. I have no way at all to egress my property. I am trapped. In case of an emergency evacuation, I cannot get out. She has removed my private gate, she's removed my house numbers, she has removed the private drive sign. She is treating it as though it's a highway. She is -- I have been -- we're just having all kinds of problems. And this has already been going on three years. So to say well, gee, she needs more time, more time. I want my driveway gates back up, I want my sign back up. Because I'm in code violation for not having house numbers. They took them down, and I think because code enforcement did something about it they stuck a paper sign up 15, 20 feet high on a telephone pole with house numbers and a pointing arrow. If there's a fire, if there's an emergency, nobody can find my house. Right now it looks -- because she's got a stop sign at the end of my driveway it looks like a public road. So we're getting all kinds of people coming back there. We've had two very, very unfortunate instances, somebody walking into my house. Just they thought -- you know, they just walked into my house. Baby and myself in the living room. Man disoriented walked in. He thought it was a road. A girl 1612 A � January 19, 2 2 high on some kind of drugs that the police had to arrest came walking down the driveway. This never happened before when my private drive, my gates and my house number were up. But because Ms. Holland wants to make it appear as though it's a public highway so that she can run this commercial traffic in and out. I almost had a head -on with a truck delivering hay. There's no way. Somebody's got to back up. A school bus filled with children for a church they're running. Somebody must back up. There's a 90- degree turn in this driveway. There are no lights. There's no way to see somebody coming around the curve. Her fence comes right up almost to the edge. So you're totally blocked. A head -on crash -- I've said to the county, how many dead bodies do we need before you really enforce? I don't want 60 more days, I want these signs down now. I want her in compliance now before somebody's hurt or somebody's killed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am, we limit usually this to about three to five minutes. So I appreciate all of your comments. We've all heard them and we'll take them into consideration. It will be entered, if you will, as public record testimony towards the case. So it has been heard. However, I think some of the issues that you have brought up are outside our jurisdiction. That would lay more I believe with the county department that handles the approval of the Site Improvement Plan. And if you want to follow that process and make sure you also let them know about your objections at that time, that would be appropriate as well. MS. DIVINE: I have been in touch with them. We're talking. They were not aware of the easement as Mr. Holland was disingenuous in her original site plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we also want to hold, you know, the personal attacks and lead it more towards just facts. If you could just say -- Page 29 161 1 2 h-5 January 19, 2012 MS. DIVINE: Those are the facts. It was not disclosed on the land plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was a fact. However, saying that a person is disingenuous is an opinion or a feeling, and we don't really want those type of slanders being thrown across the room. So we appreciate the facts -- MS. DIVINE: She failed to disclose it. Call it -- she knew it was there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you very much for your comments. Now, for the board, is there any discussion amongst the board ?, MR. MARINO: She need to turn in that site plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We never admitted the site plan into evidence so it's not part of the record. (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a good reminder for everyone to please silence their cell phones. MR. KAUFMAN: I take that as a -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments about the case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, if someone would like to lead a motion to either accept, change or withdraw the -- or reject the stipulated agreement. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question before we do that. This has gone to the county, I'm assuming. We obviously couldn't see the picture of the road or we know none of the circumstances. I have no idea what the public speaker was referring to, signs on the property. So is this scheduled anyplace before the county? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It has been heard by the engineering and whatnot. The County Attorney has been involved with the easement portion of the Site Development Plan. ME E AO 16 12 . January 19, 2012 Some of those signs were required by the county and that's why they were up at the time. Since the easement issue has been brought up, that's why the Site Development Plan is taking longer, because those changes are being added. She has made some -- her engineer has made some of the changes, but there's some things that they need to tweak on the plans. And that's why we couldn't -- it just hasn't been approved today because of the easement issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we wanted to, is there any way to pull this from being stipulated to actually hearing the case? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can. If we as a board reject the stipulated agreement, it would go on to our normal case load as its original position would have been. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask a question. If we do it in 60 days, I mean, it's on record now. I don't know how long it took before, but here it's 60 days, two months, and it's going to come to a head. So I kind of like the stipulation myself. I mean, that's what we're here to decide, just this issue, not that issue. Because we haven't heard that. That's not privy for us to hear that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with you. MR. MIESZCAK: So I make a motion we accept 60 days as a stipulation. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor with accepting the stipulated agreement as written at 60 days, signify by saying aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 31 16 112" A3 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. So you've been given 60 days to get it rectified. If you have any problems, please let us know ahead of time. Moving on to the next case, we have two of them for the same respondent. Last name of Arsenault. Is the respondent here? We can talk about them together, but we need to vote separately and we'll have to swear you in separately. (Christina Arsenault and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the board, this was case number two. And then it will be case number three right after that. Investigator, would you like to read the stipulated agreement into the record? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sure. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of Page 32 I 161!2 A3 January 19, 2012 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: Thank you. Ma'am, for the record, would you state your name, please. MS. ARSENAULT: Christina Arsenault. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion carries. Now, for the record, did you read the case number into the record? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I did not, sir. Page 33 1612 A 3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's -- just so you have it, Cherie', let's read that case number, please. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Case number CEAU20110000498. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, do we need to re -swear in for this case? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) (Christina Arsenault and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And for the board, this will now be case number three. And Investigator, could you start with the case number? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is in regards to case number CESD20110000448. Therefore, 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: Obtaining all required Collier County building permit 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. 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 violations 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: Mrs. Arsenault, do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything from the board? Page 34 16 12 1 January � MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Ma'am, if you run into any issues, please try to come to us beforehand and maybe request an extension with the circumstances and see if we can't give you some time as needed. But what will happen is if it runs out, you will start to be fined. MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, cool. Thank you. MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. One last stipulated agreement is going to be for Rios. MR. UESPERANCE: What number was that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was number 19. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. (Vanessa Canova, Rebecca Rios and Investigator Walker were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. CANOVA: Vanessa Canova. I'm her sister; she's hard of Page 35 1612 A3 January 19, 2012 hearing. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Weldon Walker, Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Walker, would you like to read the stipulated agreement into the record? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, I will. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all violations by: Obtaining a required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificates of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the 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. And 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Good morning. MS. CANOVA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. CANOVA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you feel as though 90 days will be enough time to complete everything? MS. CANOVA: We'll find out. We're trying to work on it. If not, you know, I understood that we have to submit a letter if we need an extension. Page 36 F� 16 3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's correct. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Walker, could you read the case number, please? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes. It's CESD201100000 --1 think that's five -- 3 8. MR. MARINO: Did you say 538? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it's five zeros, 38. Sorry for the confusion. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, could we just make a clarification on the stipulation that Rebecca Rios is signing on behalf of Olga Canova as well? MS. CANOVA: That's our mom. MS. BAKER: And she's aware that -- MS. CANOVA: Yes. MS. BAKER: -- you're signing on her behalf? If we could change the stipulation to reflect that, we'll just add a comment on the bottom. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When they add the comment, if you can just initial it, that would be great. MS. CANOVA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 37 16112 2 A 3 January 19, 2012 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Good luck, and let us know if you need anything further from us. Thank you. Colleen, are there any more stips? MS. BAKER: Yeah, there's one more stip. It will be number nine under stipulations, but it's number six from hearings. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Griffin? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're going to move Griffin up to stipulations. Can I get an amendment to the agenda, please? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. So what we're going to do now is we're going to hear the case for 16 12 A 3 January 19, 2012 Mr. and Mrs. Griffin. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He is not here. He was here earlier. He's gone home; he's not feeling well. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20100002858. Therefore, 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: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 365 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $250 a 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 by 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: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. This thing originally was date of violation observed March 2nd, 2010. It's for a whole house? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It is for a house, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: There were no permits pulled at all? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The way it started was the original permit was pulled in 2002. It was not satisfied and it was observed by a former investigator in 2010. So it was reapplied for. In 2011 when I received the case it had gone -- expired again. Page 39 16 I t .A3 January 19, 2012 Some of the -- approximately half of the inspections were performed on the property. But there's at least 16 inspections left on it at this point. It's closed up, there's no utilities, all the windows and doors are locked shut. MR. KAUFMAN: My question then is why 365 days to get this done since the house is built but just waiting inspections? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what he said he felt comfortable with, he would be able to get everything done within that 365 -day period of time. 0 �W ' MR. MIESZCAK: The home is built and done, right? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's -- yes, it's -- it's a shell of a house. MR. MIESZCAK: The time frame just seems long to me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a lienholder or a mortgage on the property? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay, I don't mean to interrupt. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may clarify. It's -- the shell of the house is there. All the interior, everything that has to do with electric, so on and so forth, has not been permitted, so all of that needs to get done. Footing inspections that need to be done, some roofing I guess inspections that are still pending on this. So like I said, about 16 to 18 inspections still need to be performed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if there's a lien or a mortgage on the home? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, there is no lien on the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you gain access to the property? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Just from the outside. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you can't tell what's been completed on the inside? 16Jn, .44 3 419-2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, I can't. MR. MIESZCAK: Is it like boarded up? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, it's intact. It has, you know, doors, windows. They're all locked and enclosed with glass. MR. KAUFMAN: So the permits have been pulled? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The permits are pulled right now. They are active right now. A notice of commencement has been issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: And he was -- MR. KAUFMAN: Notice of commencement is generally good for one year, I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. But the permits will only be good for about six months, correct? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Well, as long as he continues -- well, if he passed, you know, every inspection he would get an extension, you know, another six -month extension. But he definitely is very strong that he will have this done in a 365 -day period of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may add, I was just told that there was a lis pendens that was filed the 13th of this month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Cristina Perez. Page 41 161 12 A-3 January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Five days ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have a motion and a second, unless someone is withdrawing them. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me -- can we talk on it now? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can comment, sure. MR. KAUFMAN: Since there's a lis pendens on it, that throws another light on the situation. I'm -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You withdraw -- MR. MARINO: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have both the motion and the second withdrawn. Back to a clean slate. If somebody would like to comment -- MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion to deny the stipulation. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all we can do is deny it, and then it would go to a hearing? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. Okay, any other -- MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have to go -- could we have this go to a hearing maybe at our next meeting and find out what the intent of the owner of the property is? He may be in a position where he's going to take care of the lis pendens or he may be in a position where he's just going to stop. So I think we probably have to hear from him. MS. RAWSON: In an abundance of fairness, since he was here and he signed the stipulation and then he thought it was settled and he left, we really shouldn't hear this until the next time, because it would deny his due process. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was saying, we'd move it to the Page 42 I A3 16)12 p anuary 19, 2012 next meeting or the meeting after that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't want to make this a precedent. The respondent came here and, correct me if I'm wrong, you tell them strongly to stay, just in case we do not agree to this. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: I do not want to make this a precedent where they can get a 30 -day extension. If they agree to something and we then decide not to accept the stipulation, they got a 30 -day extension. So due process I understand, but they had due process, they were told that they should stay here just in case this wasn't approved. So I like to be careful on telling them they can have a free ride for 30 days. Just my comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I -- to also comment, I agree with Gerald completely. I don't like the idea. The rules are if it doesn't -- if we don't accept it, it goes back to our normal case position. However, Jean's the expert, and I'm going to default to -- MS. RAWSON: No, I understand exactly what Gerald's saying and I agree with him. I do notice that this morning we have a number of cases where the respondent appeared, signed a stipulation and went to work. And so we have a number of them where they didn't appear but entered into a stipulation. This is just one more. They all run the risk, if you're not approving it. And so maybe we need to make that a little stronger at the beginning of the hearing or something saying you entered into a stipulation, if I were you, I'd stick around. MR. LEFEBVRE: The stipulations are heard typically at the beginning. It's not like we're having them stay till the end. So I think that it should be strongly recommended that they do stay. I just don't want to see this be a precedent and them know that they can come back possibly next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We should talk about this maybe at our rules and regs meeting. But maybe we can add language at the top of Page 43 161e" A3 i January 19, 2012 the stips saying this may be rejected by the board, you're encouraged to stay, or something along those lines. On this one, Jean, worst case scenario, could the respondent come back and say that he was denied due process, given the fact that this is our standard process part of our rules and he was asked to stay? MS. RAWSON: He probably would not win on that legal argument. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right, does the board feel comfortable moving forward then? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, we have a motion, we have a second. Let's see where that goes and then we can discuss it when it comes back. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cristina wants to bring more information to this. Now it sounds like we're hearing the case. (Supervisor Cristina Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. In looking at the information, we found that it was a different tract number. It's another parcel that is also in the same area. Same unit, different tract number that is in the foreclosure process. There are four documents of record for this property, and none are for a lis pendens or a foreclosure proceeding. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now I feel like a pendulum. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, troublemaker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Comments? How does that change the situation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we withdraw the second? MR. MARINO: I second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so now we're back to a clean slate. Do you want to go back to your original motion or do you still want to hear the case? 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept the stipulation as presented. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are we sure about this? Are we really, really sure? All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, it carries. We've accepted the stipulated agreement, 365 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: We just make sure that we review the rules and make sure it's strongly encouraged that the respondent stay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll do that. And we actually have a couple of rule suggestions today, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I like the discussion we had. That was good. You've got to bring it out. Thanks for the backup. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is the end of our stipulated agreements. Cherie', do you need a 10- minute break? THE COURT REPORTER: That would be great. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's come back at 10:15. (Recess.) Page 45 11 'r A 3 anuary 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, still good morning. I'd like to call this back to order. We're moving on to hearings, going to be Philippe Quentel. Is the respondent here? which is section C. Case one is (No response.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 5.03.02(A), Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Sections 105.1 and 110.4. Description of violation: Permit 890002500 for pool addition and existing fence has been canceled because a certificate of completion wasn't obtained. Wooden fence hasn't been maintained and is falling over. Location/address where violation exists: 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61481040000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Philippe Quentel, 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: June 10, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 1 st, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 30th, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 14th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Investigator Botts. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110008948 pertaining to the violations of expired permit for pool edition and existing fence located at 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61481040000. 161 A3 January 19, 2012 Service was given on July 1 st, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photos dated June 10th, 2011 taken by myself, and a packet that is the permits that are in question. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos in question. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: On June 10th, 2011, while addressing another violation I observed a swimming pool. After conducting research, I discovered that Permit 89 -2500 for addition to pool and existing fence had expired without obtaining a certificate of completion. I pulled the original permit off of microfilm, which you do have a copy of. The permitted was issued 7/14 of '89. And this was to enlarge the existing pool and permit and existing fence. No inspections had been conducted; therefore, the permit expired. It expired on the 14th of January, 1990. This obviously was done by a prior property owner. Mr. Quentel purchased the property and has been notified of the violation. On July 1 st, 2011, I posted the notice of violation on the property and that afternoon Mr. Quentel had contacted me and I explained the Page 47 A�3 61 1 20"t anuary 19, 2012 violation to him and what needed to be done. On July 25th, 20111 received a letter from Mr. Quentel stating that he's invoking the Sunset law. I spoke with Steve Williams in the County Attorney's Office who is unaware of a Sunset law in the State of Florida. We've asked Mr. Quentel to provide the documentation, which he has not done. Mr. Claw, a friend who is assisting Mr. Quentel who is in France and is unable to get back to the United States, had contacted me. I explained to Mr. Claw just the same, what was the violation and what needed to be done. As of yesterday, the violation still remains. The pool has been expanded. I have taken measurements. The new -- the addition to the pool was to go to a size of 28 by 16. I measured the pool, it is 27 and a half by 16. So the addition had definitely been done without having inspections or a certificate of completion. If you look through the pictures, picture one is just showing you the pool. Picture two would be -- the wooden fence is what's in question here, not the chain link fence. The wooden fence that surrounds the back half of the property, which is also indicated on the blueprints for the '89 permit. Obviously the fence is in disrepair, and he is aware that he either needs to permit and repair the fence to meet Florida Building Code or he needs to remove the fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So real quickly to address the letter that was given to all the board members when we first came in, invoking the Sunset law, there's no Sunset on any of our ordinance provisions requiring permits and inspections. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now we just need to sort through the issue of all these different permits and which ones still exist and which ones don't and whether or not any of them actually finalized or CO'd the addition and so forth, correct? i i p 3 anuary 9'� INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And to your knowledge, you have not found anything that CO's that addition? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. If you look in the packet for the permit on Page 3, in the late 1980's we used a software program called WHIPS. We still have access for that program to at least review permits that were submitted in that software program. And on Page 3 that's the screen shot showing at the very bottom left -hand corner certificate of occupancy date. There is no date filled in there. So if there's any questions about information being lost in the conversion from WHIPS to CDPlus, which is another program that we had used, that would not be the case, because WHIPS shows no date for certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that permit's not for the original construction of the home, that's for the addition? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. That is for the addition of the pool and the existing fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I wanted to read one thing here. I'm not sure I understand it. It says, I do wish to understand how much the county of Naples -- probably means Collier -- would like to program manage my home improvement and honey -do list. And I was just wondering, have you had contact with him? I don't understand his intentions here. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I can't say that I do either. I have spoken with Mr. Quentel at the beginning of this case. I have not actually spoken with him directly, since it's been by letters that he sent to the department. MR. KAUFMAN: And then the last portion of the letter it says, I request you to dismiss the case number so- and -so. I am proactively improving the property at 2979 Francis Avenue to be a nice living space, et cetera. 0,•- i• 16 112, January 19, 2012 Did he take this property over -- I think he said in 2010; is that it? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So he assumed the problems on the property when he took over the property in 2010. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. When the complaint came in and I made the site visit, the property was at the time vacant, and it was in some pretty bad conditions. He did take care of all the property maintenance issues, and obviously that case has been closed as corrected. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any more questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I do. The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 Page 50 16 ! January 19, 2012 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by -- fast? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Every month. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's been a couple months since you've been in front of us so you probably forgot. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm sorry, gentlemen, and ma'am. 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. 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: And you did say the property is vacant, correct? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: started it was vacant, correct. Now it's occupied. When it first CHAIRMAN KELLY: Vacant by the respondent or renter? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: It's occupied by a renter. Property owner lives in France. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the property owner live in France or -- INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe he does half and half. I believe he's over there part of the time and he -- on the property appraiser for this property he shows an address in Michigan. However, at this time I do know he is in France. MR. KAUFMAN: Basically we're looking for two things: How Page 51 to" A3 16 January 19, 2012 much time to pull the permits and what the fine would be after that time frame is completed. I'd like to throw some numbers in and see what happens. I would say 120 days should be more than sufficient to get it completed. And a fine of $150 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. We're accepting the county recommendation with 120 days on the time frame or a fine of $150 per day. Is there any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: The 81.72 paid within 30 days as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? It carries unanimously. Thank you, Azure. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Gentlemen, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, moving on to the next case. Is it Deutsche Bank would be the next one? Okay, Deutsche Bank National Trust. Is there representation? (Investigator Musse was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Page 52 A3 � 16 PZ` A3 January 19, 2012 Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Description of violation: A 26 -foot by 30 -foot two -story addition on the side of the residence and an 18 -foot by 56 -foot screen porch on the rear of the residence. Both additions were constructed without valid Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4540 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio number 6661360001. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, care of Carrington Mortgage Services, 10500 Kincaid Drive, Suite 400, Fissures, Indiana, 46037. Date violation first observed: September 27th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 1 lth, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 3rd, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 28th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Musse. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20110013221, dealing with the violations of a 26 by 30 -foot two -story addition on the site of the residence and an 18 by 56 screen porch at the rear of the residence, both additions constructed without valid Collier County permits. Located at 4540 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio number 36661360001. Service was given on October 11th of 2011. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken on September 27th, 2011. Screen shot of an aerial view of the property and the property card. Page 53 161 n' *3 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: An initial inspection was made on September 22nd, 2011. Observed an unoccupied dwelling, conducted some research, checked the aerials and found two additions constructed between 1985 and 2002. A 26 by 30 -foot two -story addition and a an 18 by 56 screen porch addition. No valid Collier County permits were never obtained. As you can see by this photo right here, this is a two -story addition in question. And the unpermitted screen porch you can see from the aerial views. The property was owned by Deutsche Bank. At that time I transferred the case over to the foreclosure team. They did not receive any response from the bank. Case was then returned and I prepared it for hearing. As of right now the violation remains, no permits have been issued. MR. KAUFMAN: This looks like it was a garage area that they closed in and then went up; is that correct? Page 54 161kZ If 3 January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: According to the aerials, that's a whole new addition. Nothing was there before. MR. KAUFMAN: Nothing was there before? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The comment was how did they get away with that. Cherie' was struggling to hear that one. MR. KAUFMAN: It appears that they haven't. I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes. The county recommends 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, inspection, certificate of occupancy within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final Page 55 16 I � A3 January 19, 2012 inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was this close from slowing you down. You almost -- INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Oh, sorry. Apologize. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any comments or would anyone like to take a stab at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I see that you put the 30 days in, not only for the $81.15. But -- INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: My apologies. MR. KAUFMAN: No, no, no don't apologize. I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We ask for your recommendations too. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at it. As we have done in the past, this is owned by the bank and the bank hasn't responded. I'd like to stick with your 30 -day recommendation and a fine of $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion to accept the county's recommendation. MR. MIESZCAK: And the operational costs of $81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: And the operational cost of $81.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 56 16 +2 a3 January 19, 2012 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you. Great recommendation. Next case is going to be Carlos and Teresa Morales. Respondents are not here. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Permits for the pool, 2003101452, and pool enclosure 2002080645 that did not complete all inspections and obtain certificates of completion/occupancy. There is also a shed that was built over the well pump that was not permitted. Location/address where violation exists: 12885 Collier Boulevard, Naples, 34116. Folio No. 37930920003. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Carlos and Teresa Morales, 2861 Fourth Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 8th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 13th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 12th, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 18th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I'd like to introduce Investigator Mucha. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. Good morning. For Page 57 16 lid" A� January 19, 2012 the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20110009549, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Violation location is 12885 Collier Boulevard, Naples, 34116. Folio No. is 37930920003. Service was given on July 13th, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have three photographs taken by myself on January 18th, 2012 I'd like to submit into evidence. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This case initiated back in July of 2011 as a complaint in regards to the swimming pool not being maintained. Made a site visit to the property and observed that that complaint was accurate. Did observe that the property was vacated and possibly in foreclosure. So I came back to the office and did research on the property. Found that it was in foreclosure. And I also found that there was two permits, one for the pool and one for the pool enclosure, that did not complete all the inspections 1 Janu � 112 9, 2012 and were not finalized. And there was also a warning on the system in regards to a shed that was built over the well pump that didn't receive a permit, and this was discovered when they were doing the actual inspections for the pool and the pool enclosure. At that time the case was transferred over to the foreclosure team to work with the bank. The banks actually did come out, as you see in the picture, and did cover the pool. But however, since the bank doesn't have title to the property, they can't pull permits. So that's basically where it's at today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Any idea how far along the foreclosure process is? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: It's in lis pendens. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the lis pendens filed; do you know? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: To be honest with you, I don't have that information with me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 59 16 IA'3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is 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 to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank 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 the 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: Any comments or questions from the board, discussion amongst yourselves? MR. KAUFMAN: This is similar to the previous one. Is the bank diligently working to get a foreclosure on this, or is this one of the ones that's just sitting out there? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I mean, the fact that they came out and they're maintaining the property as far as cutting the grass and they covered the pool pretty quickly, so I mean, I think they're trying to do everything that they legally can at this point. Again, when it comes to permit, until they have title there's not much they can do. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can fill in the blanks. 80.57 paid within 30 days. Since they are working on it, I would give them more time. Sixty days to resolve the situation and pull the permits, and a fine of $150 a day. ff- •1 A-3 16 1 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. We accepted the county's recommendation. Sixty days, $150 per day. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Coutin. Respondent is not here. C- O- U- T -I -N. (Investigator Potter was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.06 -- Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Permit No. 2004102144 expired on April 23rd, 2005. No certificate of completion obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 37805880003. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Milagro M. and Jose A. Coutin, 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 7th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice the violation: July Page 61 16 112,- a3 January 19, 2012 11th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 10th, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 4th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Potter. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case CESD20110007320. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation is located at 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples Florida, 34120. Folio I.D. 37805880003. Service was given on July 1 lth, 2011. I'd like to present a photograph of the following exhibits: One photograph of the swimming pool taken by myself on July 7th, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Potter, I have a question. Through service you have a signature of a Gill Cirillo. Is that in -- are they in relation to the respondent or are they tenants? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: He was a gentleman that was doing -- there was a fire that had happened at the home. He was doing the renovation work on the interior, and Mr. Coutin had given him the authority to sign. He was not present that day, he was out of state. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But Mr. Coutin -- whatever, sorry if I pronounced his name wrong -- but he knows about the meeting, he just -- INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, he was not able to make it today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do we -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 62 1612 A3 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: On July 7th, while conducting background research for another violation on the property, I noted that a permit obtained in 2004 for the swimming pool expired and did not received a certificate of completion. Notice of violation was prepared and service was obtained on July 11th, 2011. Property owner reapplied for a permit which was approved upon August 12th, 2011 but was not issued until yesterday, which was January 18th. Final electrical, final pool deck and final pool inspections remain. Those time inspections have been scheduled for today, January 19th, at 9:00 a.m., for an additional fee which has not yet been paid. The permit remains open without a certificate of completion. MR. KAUFMAN: So the expired permit is on the pool? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, I have. MR. KAUFMAN: Are they working diligently to resolve the situation? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Well, they did get the permit issued back in August. There were some outstanding fees that needed Page 63 16I2 ti3 January 19, 2012 to be paid. I was in contact, left several messages. I finally got through to them the other day, and I said that, you know, you need to take care of this. So -- MR. KAUFMAN: And they said that they would? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. The permit has been issued and time inspections are set today for 9:00 a.m. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Recommendation? Any opposed? The motion carries. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Our recommendation, 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: 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 to be determined number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement i .13niSa 6 I '1� 20A-3 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: Now, you said that the respondent had the permits? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So that portion of the recommendation would get kind of scratched, since they have that? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: They obtained that yesterday. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And we're talking about they have inspections and a CO. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would this be a situation where we're just going on record to say there was a violation? Because now that there's permits there's really not a violation, right? How does that work? MS. BAKER: They haven't obtained their inspections and CO yet. They're in the process. So they still technically are in violation because they don't have a completed permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's an after- the -fact situation? MS. BAKER: They just need to get their inspections and CO per every other permit that's issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But not every other permit that's issued gets Code Enforcement Board orders against them. MS. BAKER: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Part of the process, the CO, or Certificate of Completion, would be the final stage. MS. BAKER: Which is what you always include in all of your orders. So technically they're not in compliance with code Page 65 1612 A3 January 19, 2012 enforcement as of yet. MR. KAUFMAN: And the inspections you said are today, tomorrow? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: They are scheduled for this morning. MR. MIESZCAK: You need to read in the case number. I didn't hear the case -- did you? I'm sorry. I didn't hear the case number. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'm going to take a shot at it. $80.57 paid within 30 days. Sixty days to get the CO, and $150 a day thereafter. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion carries to accept county recommendations, 60 days and $150 a day. MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, it's not just the CO, it's the inspection, CO. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Everything up until. Yeah, we've just accepted the county's recommendation. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess that you can't get a CO without the 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 inspections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pretty good guess. Thank you very much, Investigator Potter. Moving on to the next one. We have two cases for the same respondent. Are the Jenkins' here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have to take each one individually, so we'll start with the first one. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: 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: Pool permit expired without receiving a certificate of completion/occupancy, and no permits on file for the pool screen enclosure. Location/address where violation exists: 260 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 36760921008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Kenneth T. Jenkins and Aundrea L. Jenkins, 620 (sic) Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: September 1 st, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 19th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 1 st, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 2nd, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Ambach. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20110012249, dealing with the violation of pool permit expired without receiving a certificate of completion/occupancy and no permits on file for the pool Page 67 1612 �3 January 19, 2012 screen enclosure. Located at 260 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 36760921008. Service was given on October 19th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph dated September 1 st, 2011 taken by myself. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: After receiving a complaint on September 1 st, 2011 about the condition of the pool, I researched the permits for the property and observed the pool permit had expired without all required inspections performed and a certificate of completion/occupancy issued. I also observed no permits on file for the screen enclosure itself. Further research revealed the property was in foreclosure and this case was forwarded to our foreclosure team. Due to no response the case was prepared for today's hearing. As of January 18th, 2012, no permits have been obtained for the pool or the pool screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with anyone o- • i 16 1,2 A3 January 19, 2012 regarding this? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, sir -- well, I'm sorry, let me correct. The owners know. From the get -go I've not received any returned phone calls. I was speaking with a realtor, actually two or three realtors about the conditions at the property. I know right now there is a preservation company working on abating the next case, the green pool. However, they still can't pull the permits for the pool and the pool screen cage. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that cage, the screen there? Because the pool in the picture looks like it's full of leaves. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I think that's actually mold in there. Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the 161 f2 A'3 January 19, 2012 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 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 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: Would someone like to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot, $80.57 to be paid within 30 days, 60 days to clear up the violation, and $150 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. Page 70 4 ib 1 P' A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, the same one. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, the county is requesting that we withdraw this next case. We have made contact with the bank and they are -- just recently, and they are going to take care of the violations. So we would like to give them the opportunity to take care of this violation first. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is gone. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, I think the next case is all the way down to C- E- N- A- T -U -S, Cenatus. Is the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about the investigator? That would be Joe. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Permit 2008050413 to convert existing lanai to family room with electric that expired without completing all inspections. Location/address where violation exists: 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116. Folio No. 35757280009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Guerda Cenatus, 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 11 th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 18th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 14th, 2011. Page 71 16 1,2 A3 January 19, 2012 Date of reinspection: November 30th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Mucha. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case number CESD20110011215, dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116. Folio No. is 35757280009. Service was given on August 18th, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photograph taken by myself on August 11th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This case initiated back in August, 2011. There was a complaint in regards to the fence on the property. So while researching the property for the complaint received, I found that a permit, permit 2008050413 to convert existing lanai to family room with electric did not complete all its inspections and was now expired. Page 72 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 I've been working with the owner since then. Permit was issued in September, permit 2011090800. As of today, she's only been able to complete one inspection, but it's one that you guys will be happy about, it was electrical inspection. So the electrical has passed, there's no plumbing in the room. Basically owner has advised me that the delay in completing the permit is financial difficulties. And actually I pleaded with her to come today so she could tell her side of the story, and unfortunately she's not here. So that's basically where it's at. Permit's issued, electrical inspection has passed, but she still has about five or six other inspections she needs to complete. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. Page 73 2 A 3 anu ary 19, 2012 My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for permit 2011090080 within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must also notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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: Someone want to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: Quick question. In your discussions with the respondent, did they give you any indication of when they thought they could have this done? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: That's what I was trying to get out of her because I was, you know, wanting to maybe, you know, reach an agreement with her before the hearing, and she just really couldn't give me a time table, because I think she was out of work and she just kind got her job -- her working situation back recently. And she couldn't really tell me, she couldn't say whether it was be three months or six months. And that's why I wanted her to actually be here. And I really thought she was coming today, to be honest with you. MR. KAUFMAN: They went through the expensive portion of paying for the permit. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And the electrical done. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. Page 74 16 F2 RZ January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: So the inspections that are left there shouldn't be much of a monetary. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. I mean, I know that she has to have impact windows and things like that, so I don't know if that's something that maybe she needs to have done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: She could do shutters in lieu of, correct? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Correct. And I know there's not shutters on there now. So that could be part of it too. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it being occupied? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: As far as I know, yes, it is. It's part of her home. MR. KAUFMAN: Not a safety problem? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: The only safety aspect that I would think would be the electrical, and that's passed, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion to pay all operating costs of $79.72 within 30 days, and 60 days, and a fine of $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 75 i 161 2 A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. That concludes our hearings today. We're moving on now to old business. A. motion for imposition of fines and liens. Case number one, Palm Foundation, Incorporated. Is there a representative here? MR. LEFEBVRE: They actually left. I'm not sure if they left, but they're outside the room. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to step aside and recuse myself. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. ARNOW: Thomas Arnow. A- R- N -O -W. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Thomas, if you would, could you state your affiliation with Palm Foundation II, Incorporated. MR. ARNOW: I work for the developer. I build their homes and manage their properties. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you state for the record that they've given you the ability to speak on their behalf today? MR. ARNOW: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Do you want him to say it, Jean, or is that okay? MS. RAWSON: Well, he answered your question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fair enough. Good. Jeff, do you want to read in? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do. Okay, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violations are of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(K)(2), maintenance of landscaping, and Collier County Land Development Code 91 -102, Section 3.5.7.2.5, littoral shelf planting area. Violation location area is Coco Lakes, Tract L -2. Folio Number Page 76 16 12 'A3 January 19, 2012 26169500108. Description: Property was not being maintained with dead required plant material and overgrowth around lakes. Littoral shelf planting area is not being maintained and there was an overgrowth of exotics. Past order: On February 24th, 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 OR 4656, Page 2331 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 30th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between August 24th, 2011 through August 20th, totaling seven days, for a total fine amount of $1,750. Order Item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. The total amount due today, $1,750. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. MARINO: I have a question. It said Page 2336 on our paper. You said 2331. MS. BAKER: It's the other summary. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay there's two cases. MS. BAKER: There's two of them. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yeah, we're on 717, I believe, right? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We had them in reverse order in our -- that's okay, you've read everything on that one right so we'll just go with that. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, that was on the agenda Page 77 16 12 Aj January 19, 2012 first, right, or was I -- MS. BAKER: Yes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was just backwards in our packet. So we're on the case ending in 717. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your motion is still for this case? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second to abate. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That one is carried, so there's no fines on that one. Now we'll re -swear you in and we'll talk about the other case, which is ending in 718. (Supervisor Letourneau and Mr. Arnow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEVR20100020718, Board of County Commissioners versus Palm Foundation II, Incorporated. 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 Violations are of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(x)(2), maintenance of landscaping, and of Collier County Land Development Code 91 -102, Section 3.5.7.2.5, littoral shelf planting area. Location of violation, Coco Lakes, Tract L -1. Folio No. 26169500085. saw Description of violation: Property is not being maintained with dead required plant material and overgrowth around lakes. Also, the littoral plant shelf area is not being maintained, with an overgrowth of exotics. Past order: On February 24th, 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, OR 4656, Page 2336 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 30th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between August 24th, 2011 and August 30th, 2011, totaling seven days, for a total amount of $1,750. Order Item number 5, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $1,750. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 79 1p nj, A3 t1 ry % 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that all of us? Are we all voting? Yes, since Gerald is not here, then Ron, yes, you would be voting. And you're an aye? MR. DOINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Cherie'. And thank you, sir, for taking care of everything, we appreciate it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Jon and Denise Brimmer. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read the imposition of fine. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007090878, Board of County Commissioners versus Jon and Denise T.C. Brimmer, respondents. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and the Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Section 105.1. Location: 561 Seventh Street Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37110760009. Description: Detached garage built in rear yard without first obtaining Collier County permits. 16 f.2 A3 January 19, 2012 Past orders: On July 28th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding 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 OR 4708, Page 1563 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order number one and number two, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between November 26th, 2011 through January 19th, 2012, 55 days, for the total amount of $8,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five, operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $8,250. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. BRIMMER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to speak as to the situation? MS. BRIMMER: Absolutely. After we got the information, the day in July, we immediately paid it. We came over and we thought we had everything done right, and we found out we didn't, it wasn't certified. So we went through the process. We finally got everything we thought correct on November 24th, submitted for a permit, put e -mail, business card and street address. Sent an e -mail. If you would like a copy of that, we can submit that, we have 15 copies of the e -mail we sent to Colleen. Chris responded nicely to my e -mail saying to apply for an extension. We were going to wait to see if we were really denied or if it was approved before applying. We haven't heard anything. Chris did show me today we were denied on several application parts of the permit that we would like to fix, but without that information we didn't know how to move forward. 0-M, I 16 t2" A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically you had -- you'd wanted an extension just in case, but didn't know how that was going to turn out. MS. BRIMMER: Chris suggested we file for an extension, and I did not file for that extension, because I was waiting to see what was denied and what we would have to fix to know what to approach the board for. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I appreciate you being here, because it puts us in a weird situation if you weren't. But now we have to really look procedurally how we're going to handle this. So I assume now you're asking for an extension because you just figured out that you were denied. MS. BRIMMER: Christina just told us, and Christina was going to hand me the papers. I'm, like, please don't yet, because I can honestly say I don't have a copy of it, I haven't read it, I don't know what's in there. And she was, I'll come up and tell you that we just handed them to you. So we didn't know the permit was denied until 8:35, approximately, Chris, this morning? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what you said, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the permit denied? What date? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It was submitted on November 24th, which was be four months after the hearing date, two days before it was due. And bear with me one moment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was it submitted by the homeowner? MS. BRIMMER: Yes, I submitted that. I have the receipt for payment on the 24th. When we first came over with all the permits, not everything was sealed, so we had to go back to get it sealed. But then we came back and the survey that they gave us, the land site was blurrily, so we went back. And then that was incorrect again. We had to contact Chase, our mortgage, to get a copy of the survey. My husband isn't employed right now, so finances are tight. 16 I A-3 January 19, 2012 So finally we got the copy, it took eight weeks to get the copy from the mortgage company. And we didn't know until about the middle of October. So we had everything; we came and submitted it. We knew that the C.O. wouldn't be done, we knew that it wasn't, but we were still trying to comply as best we could. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you take me back to the beginning? You purchased this? MS. BRIMMER: We purchased this house in 2000. When my husband transferred with Wachovia, the real estate agent said oh, here's some houses, and some of them had buildings that were illegally done. We told the realtor we did not want anything that was not done correctly. About five years after we owned the house or so, we found out the back garage was not permitted. We hired DiVosta Homes, the one contractor in there, Mark Ritchards, (phonetic) to do everything for us. We assumed everything was done because we didn't hear anything until July of this year -- last year. So then I figured if I handled it personally, it will get done. But I didn't realize how many different departments are involved in it and how many stipulations to what needs to be certified and what needs to be done here, and try to comply to the best of my ability, plus support the family. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: To answer your question, the application was reviewed on the 29th of November, five days after submittal, and denied on the 2nd of December, three days later. MR. LEFEBVRE: So in fact she's saying that she just found out today that it was denied? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what she's saying, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Wouldn't there be a letter or something? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There would be normally a letter that would be sent, with the exception if you provided an e -mail 161 2 0 January 19, 2012 address. And I have a copy of that application where she provided the e -mail address. And it shows it was sent to that e -mail. She's telling me this morning that's not her e -mail address, although it is her handwriting. MS. BRIMMER: I have very sloppy handwriting. And you can't read the -- it's CoachDenises @gmail, and you can't see the last S. I also gave my business card, which is Askcoachdenise.com with that, and, you know, I assumed everything we've gotten from the county before has been snail mail, so we did not receive anything snail mail. And if I made a mistake on the e -mail -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: How long do you think it will take to complete everything? MS. BRIMMER: I have no idea. I have no idea what we need to do. I mean, we seriously don't have a clue. There's no windows, there's electric, there's two garage doors and an open door. We don't use the garage at all but it was there when we got the mortgage so we have to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I've kind of let this go a lot further than what it should have. MS. BRIMMER: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's the situation: Procedurally we can only rule to either impose the fines or not to impose them. Typically the board does not like to deny imposition if they're not in compliance. If they're not in compliance, then we usually impose them. And then there is one last step before it actually goes to the county attorney's office for foreclosure where you have the opportunity to come back and ask for abatement and that kind of process. But it puts us in a unique situation procedurally. Any suggestion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we -- MS. BRIMMER: Could we look at what's denied to see -- maybe someone knows more about the contracting business to tell me i A3 16 � January 19, 2012 how long it would take. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would almost be like almost rehearing the case or -- MS. BRIMMER: Oh, I understand that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- getting an update on the case. If it was a situation where you'd asked for an extension and we had the same facts that you just gave us, we would take those into consideration, potentially give you an extension at that time, and then we can discuss how long the extension should be based on whatever was denied. MS. BRIMMER: And if I had a letter of denial, then I would have applied. But until I knew that, there was no reason for me to apply. Because there was always that hope and possibility that it was going through correctly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rivht. MR. KAUFMAN: So you paid for the building permit? MS. BRIMMER: Yes, we paid for that. MR. KAUFMAN: Submitted it. MS. BRIMMER: Um -hum. MR. KAUFMAN: Three days later it was turned down. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: You don't know why it was turned down because you never got it. MS. BRIMMER: Correct. The day we did it, we sent an e -mail to Chris and he suggested that we apply for an extension. He was wonderful. We just didn't apply for that because we waited to see if we were turned down. Because this would be a moot point if everything went through, everything would have been done, I assume, by now. MR. LEFEBVRE: When you got notice to come to this hearing, that should have triggered you to call the county and say well, has a permit been approved and can I go pick it up. O-M. • 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 So I'm kind of -- hold on, hold on. I'm kind of questioning the time frames on how the permit was denied and now you just found out today. So we only have two choices: Either to impose fines -- we can't grant an extension, is is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can't grant an extension, because -- well, I guess you could, but generally speaking, what you usually do when you grant extensions is you want to know that they've complied. And you always want to know that they've paid the court costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Court costs have been paid. MS. RAWSON: But, you know, you look at all those factors. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we withdraw this? MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have an option to withdraw for one month. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we can withdraw this and -- it seems like you may need some professional assistance on getting this permit. That's what to me seems like the case. I'd be willing, if the county would like to withdraw this and then come back to us next month with exactly what is -- what are you doing to move forward to this corrected. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may, I'd like to add one more statement, if I could. There's a final judgment of foreclosure for this property, and that was recorded on December I Oth of 2008. I'm not sure if that helps you in this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: 2008? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It doesn't look like the county wants to withdraw it. MS. BAKER: I just have a question for Jean. Procedurally, can they go ahead and grant them an extension of time? Is there anything -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, they could. -1 i 1 161 2 A II January 19, 2012 MS. BAKER: -- in the rules that says that they can't? MS. RAWSON: No, no. No, they absolutely can do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask this: This throws a wrench into the whole thing. Was there a judgment in 2008 for foreclosure? MS. BRIMMER: We were behind and they were going to and we went into a loan modification. MR. LEFEBVRE: So has that been satisfied? I mean -- MS. BRIMMER: We pay monthly. Nothing has changed. They've never foreclosed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually a certificate of title would follow a month or two later. And if that's not the case then it was dismissed, I guess. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm not sure. I know sometimes it takes a little bit longer, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, longer is -- it's been three years. Was there any modification since then? Does it show any loan modification? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually that would show up. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There was something where it went over to -- it was with Wachovia and I'm not sure who the bank is now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Assignment of mortgage? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. The last document that I could find in the court -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if you told me that it was last year, December of last year, I would say, well, a title -- a certificate of title isn't far behind. But being that it's three years ago, more than likely the bank didn't file for certificate of title which they would then lose possession of property. So there probably was some kind of modification to keep them on the property. This really needs to have professional assistance to get this 16 1 AS January 19, 2012 moving forward. I'm kind of oscillating between giving a 90 -day ' extension or just bringing this case back next month to see where they stand and make a decision at that point. I don't know what the board's CHAIRMAN KELLY: The board can't push it back. The county would have to withdraw it and they're not going to. MR. HUDSON: I haven't said anything all day but I feel compelled right now to say something. I think that you have a situation here where they clearly went through the process, going through the process. There's some timing decisions that might have been poor, but I think in general, I think you should probably consider going outside your box here and thinking about an extension. Because I think professional assistance is needed. They paid the operational costs. I don't see any like ill will here. So I would just strongly urge the board to think about this a little bit. MR. LEFEBVRE: On Chris's advice I'm going to move forward with a motion to grant an extension of 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I like it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who wants to second it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) 16 1,p A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. So what we did is we granted a 90 -day extension from today's date. You'll get a completely -- basically it's the same order, just get a completely new set of time frames now for 90 days. But take into consideration if it does go past that 90 days, without having your COs, without having everything complete, the board weighs into consideration these events as to whether or not to grant another extension. MS. BRIMMER: Oh, absolutely. Do we pay again for today? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, there are no court costs for today. MR. KAUFMAN: Question. On the fines, do they continue to accrue? MS. BAKER: Not with an extension of time. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. I hope you have a blessed day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know, I -- if you come in front of us, I probably will not grant another extension. MS. BRIMMER: I do not want to visit you all again, if possible. Have a great day. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is going to be Gloria Perdigon. And I believe we have some paperwork in reference to this case? She's asking for a permit extension for three months. The respondent's not here, right, Cristina? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's go ahead and get her sworn in. (Supervisor Cristina Perez was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. So under oath, now, respondents aren't here, right? 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, they're not here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have an objection to the request for an extension? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: On the letter that they submitted for extension, they specified that it's due to the property loss and bank foreclosure. This property has already been granted 150 -day extension. Originally it was heard in June, and then they requested an extension for 150 days. Oh, I'm sorry, originally it was heard in February. June they requested an extension, and they were granted an additional 150 days. And the compliance efforts on site, there's still multiple structures on the property that need to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And this seems like it's last minute. It was just two days ago that the fax was received. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny. I don't think you can do a motion at the same time, but to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're actually -- you know, back in the beginning of the hearing today this was presented to me, and due to the time frame that it was just received two days ago did not fall within our rules for proper submittal to ask for the request for extension, so it was not added to the agenda. This is just for everyone's information, she did try but did not meet those guidelines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose fines then. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Let's if we can read into what we're voting on so we have it for the record. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20100009141. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Section 22- 26(B), 104.5.1.4.4, and Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1, and Ordinance 04 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 2931 Eighth Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40628400107. Description: Three dog kennels, carports, horse stable built without Collier County permits and a guesthouse with expired Permit No. 2005020427. Past orders: On February 24, 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 OR 4656, Page 2357 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the followings: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between November 21, 2011 and January 19, 2012, 60 days, for the total of $9,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of $83.43 have been paid. Total amount to date, $9,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 91 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries unanimously. Thanks, Cristina. Next case is Pinegate 135, LLC. Is there a representative here? (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB case number CESD20110007295, Board of County Commissioners versus Pinegate 135, LLC. The violations are of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(e)(i). The violation location: Is 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37930510002. Violation description: Alteration of interior office without permits. Past order: On September 22nd, 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 OR 4728, Page 871 for more information. Of the property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of December 9th, 2011. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between November 22nd, 2011 to December 9th, 2011, totaling 18 days, for a total amount of $1,800. Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount due to date, $1,880.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So they are in compliance, however they just never paid their operational costs? Page 92 16 12'* A3 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. According to Investigator Mucha, he's made several attempts to notify them of the operational costs and nobody's made any attempt to call him back or contact anybody. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a remainder to the board, we can't waive those. MR. KAUFMAN: You would think an $80.86 investment could possibly save $1,800. a Make a motion we impose it. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aside from my own, we could abate the 1,800 in fines and just impose the $80.86 in court costs. MR. MIESZCAK: The reason I don't see it is you can't pay the operational costs, we can't abate that, and they don't want to come in and they don't answer a call, I think we did the right thing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, what is your opinion? MS. RAWSON: Well, I can't tell you guys how to vote, although sometimes I'd like to. You can do either. But the operational costs, you can't waive those so they're going to have to do that. Now, what you want to do about the fines is up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 93 16 12 January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Indicating.) Two. It carries, so it's going to be imposed. Next case is Sergio and Sara Garita. G- A- R- I -T -A. Are the respondents here? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse myself, I have an afternoon appointment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's right, yes. Ron, you'll become our full voting member for the rest of the time. Thank you, Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 420 15th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37011920003. Description: Fence around property without all required Collier County permits. Past orders: On October 27th, 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 OR 4734, Page 2811 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order January 19, 2012 item number one and number two, fines at a rate of $100 per date for the period between November 27th, 2011 and January 19th, 2012, 54 days, for the total amount of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order number item five, operational cost of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount due to date, $5,480.57. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, Chris. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is Crescencio Lopez Garcia. Is the respondent here? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. BARRERA: First name is Juan. Barrera. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell it, please. MR. BARRERA: B- A- R- R- E -R -A. (Supervisor Snow and Mr. Juan Barrera were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Kitchell, before you get started. Sir, could you state your relationship to the respondent? Page 95 16 12 A3 January 19, zoia MR. BARRERA: Yes, I'm an associate architect, and I've been working on this project for the past months. We've been pulling permits and -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: He does have permission to represent the property owner. We do have documentation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Perfect. That's what I needed. Thank you, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Sir, this is in case CESD2010005204, Crescencio Lopez Garcia. It's violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). And THE location is 604 Boston Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. The folio is 124120002. Description is two mobile homes, unattached carport with expired permit, a single- family house that was altered /added to without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Past orders: On January 27th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and 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 OR 4651 and Page 589 for more information. An extension of time was granted on July 28th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4708 and Page 1547 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between September 27th, 2011 and January 19th, 2012, 115 days, for a total amount of $28,750. Fines continue to accrue. Item number five, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid, and the total amount to date is $28,750. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. A 3 January 19, 2012 Sir, would you like to tell us the circumstances behind the issues? MR. BARRERA: Yes. We've been working with the owner on drawing this up, pulling permits. We pulled six permits, which was three demos, a permit by affidavit and two new construction permits. We're on the final one, which is the affidavit. We were in here last night trying to get it in the system. And it was issued, the last permit. And we're waiting for tha -- inspection. It was scheduled for today. And that was the last of the -- of getting this closed off and finalized. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, how -- I'm sorry, Supervisor, how close are we? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think we're very close. This was a very extensive project. Unfortunately they didn't come ask for time like we normally do before this board. And they were in here very late last night and early this morning. And his representative and the permit is -- we thought it would be CO'd but it hasn't been, so -- and then we wouldn't be here today. But unfortunately we can't do anything about that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The inspections have passed, it's just a matter of getting someone to CO it? SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the permit -- oh, it's a permit by affidavit so it's already been signed off on, somebody just has to review it and it's done and then they issue the CO. That's all that needs to be done. So it's clearly approaching that final step. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could we withdraw this? MS. BAKER: You could do an extension like you did in the past case, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Apparently the county is against pulling any cases today. So we're going to have to do the legwork, if we want to. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we extend it 30 days till the next meeting. Page 97 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. BARRERA: Could we close it here? Could we end it now? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unfortunately we can't. I'll tell you why MR. KAUFMAN: We could end it, but then you'll be paying $28,750. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's the reason why. If we go ahead and abate right now and we say no, the county cannot impose fines, that means they can never impose fines, and there would be no incentive to ensure that this does in fact close out like it should. So unfortunately no. But what we're going to do is extend -- it sounds like we're going to extend it 30 days and that will give you enough time to get your CO and then there won't be any fines at all and you won't need to come back. MR. BARRERA: Sounds good. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We'll probably have to come back to abate the fines, but there won't be any. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, if we're extending it, there's no fines. I assume we're expending from today, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, so there wouldn't be any if it's within 30 days. Okay, so any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in. favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. 01 mm". MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion carries. W12 20A 3 MS. RAWSON: How many days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was 30, 30 days. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the board. MR. KAUFMAN: Next meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: But again, if you're not in compliance within those 30 days, the fines start up again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hold on a second. That might be a difference in numerical days. Originally the motion and the second were on 30 days, and then after the vote there was comments that it was next meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: I thought that was his motion, next meeting. MS. BAKER: Yeah, the next meeting falls -- MR. LEFEBVRE: On the 23rd. MS. BAKER: Yeah, more than 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it would be okay? MS. BAKER: But normally what we would do is let that 30 days elapse and then we would schedule for the next available hearing after that 30 days, meaning our time frames for mailing and requirements. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so no amendment necessary. All right, thank you very much. Next case is Harry Montz. (Investigator Azure Botts and Mr. Harry Montz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Sure. This is in reference to violations of Collier County Land W- •• 161 A 3 anuary 2012 Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 2547 Barrett Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio number 81730640005. Description of past orders: Extension of roof over carport and front door. Area on August 25th, 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 OR 4718, Page 1677 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October 25th, 2011 to January 19th, 2012, 87 days, for the total of $17,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid as of this morning. Total amount to date, $17,400. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Montz, would you like to tell us what's going on? MR. MONTZ: Well, unfortunately I'm in the same situation as a lot of people. I did do an extension on my carport of 32 inches, and 24 inches on the front walkway. I was in the process of trying to get an engineered drawing. I did pull permits way back in May that it's in the records and that, but we just didn't go through with it because I need an engineered drawing. Went through three different engineers. Evidently it's not a money maker for them, so nobody really wants to come work with it. I did get an engineer from here this morning and I got my drawings and everything. And I would like to get extension, if I could, and follow through with the permitting and the showing the drawings Page 100 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 and everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, any comments? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: The only comments I would like to make is I have not heard anything from Mr. Montz since the original order was provided. We communicated maybe twice, but I have not heard from him since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board? Any comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Vote one way or another? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, originally in the original order it was a stipulated agreement, he signed the stipulated agreement for 45 days, and I see that it's crossed out and at some point he got 60 days. I think that was the case is; am will correct? And we've been very giving in granting extensions. How far off do you think you are from getting approval, getting all the permits and everything? MR. MONTZ: Well, all I've got to do is bring my drawings into planning. And the permit's already filled out, all the paperwork, and I've just got to present it to the front. Now, as far as the planning approve it, I'm hoping everything goes through real quick. I'll make an effort to follow up on this to get this on speed ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing that's a little disconcerning (sic) is you just paid the operational cost today knowing that you're coming here today, instead of paying them when they're supposed to be paid, within 30 days of the hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The process after imposition of fines is such to where the code enforcement department continues to try to work with the respondents until such time where it seems like all communication is either nonexistent or broken down. And at that time you forward it to the county attorney's office for them to start Page 101 161 2 A3 January 19, 2012 foreclosures proceedings if they feel necessary, correct? MS. BAKER: Yes, with your permission. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, with our permission. She said with your permission. That's right, because we have to consent to it. MS. BAKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So there's still one more opportunity for us to stop the process. What about reduction or abatement of fines after the imposition, we still have process as well, don't we? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. And we have a resolution set in place that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners which gives us the parameters to bring that to the Board of Commissioners for their approval to either waive the fines or not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Okay, so if we impose, it's not be- all - end -all, there's still -- MS. BAKER: Correct. MR. MONTZ: Excuse me. Since I came to the hearing, you know, the last hearing and that, I haven't really heard anything from the county. But that's no fault of you guys or code enforcement. I should be following up with it myself. You know, finances is -- everybody's strapped, and the economy is in a situation. But I'm going to make the biggest effort I can to get this followed through and do everything I need to do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As chairman, I try to just watch out for procedure, let the board decide which way they want to go. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 102 16 1,2 A3 January 19, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Very good. So that will be 60s days from today. Keep in mind, as you heard from the last time, usually when we see these type of extensions last minute, if you come back again we're typically not as lenient. MR. MONTZ: Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can tell you for a fact, like I told the other respondent, that I probably will not extend it again. MR. MONTZ: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next is going to be Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Are the respondents here? MS. BAKER: And we do have a document that was submitted to us that we would like to pass to you as well for this case. It was given to us today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to read this into the record, or would you? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just this one page? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Actually, it's two pages of them giving permission, the owner giving permission and the respondent. Page 103 I 161 2!" A3 January 19, 2012 Since they're not here -- the contractor was here, but obviously they chose to leave. But if you would like me to read it or you want it to stand as it is, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think it should be read as part of this. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Okay. This is dated January 18th, 2012. It says 45 -day extension of fines, code enforcement case number -- Dear Code Enforcement Board: This letter is to inform you that Mr. Sanchez has removed two of the three mobile homes. And while trying to start the demo of the last trailer, he could not get the tenants to move out. Mr. Sanchez had to use the authorities to obtain possession of the mobile home, which was recently done. Mr. Sanchez did not realize he had surpassed the deadline of the demo and would like to request 45 days to remove the trailer and the waiver of fines, due to the special circumstances in this manner. And it's signed Earnest Freeman, Jr., President, Freeman and Freeman Construction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you know from your experience in this case that Freeman is in fact representing them and has been hired to handle this? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, I do know that for a fact. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any -- hold off on reading the imposition yet until we engage the board to see what they want to do. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor Snow, am I right to say that these guys are really close, it's just a matter now that the tenants have finally moved out, it's just that one last trailer needs to be removed? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, they did extensive work. It was actually two separate properties and this is the second one. They had to remove the five. They had three on one very small lot and two on another. So I would say they're close. Keep in mind, this is an older case. The compliance date was in Page 104 16 12 a3 January 19, 2012 -- you gave them one extension in August, and the compliance date was November. And we always encourage them to come forward and ask for an extension if it's necessary. I don't know if this was a contractor error, how it was -- whether they had to get the police to actually do an eviction. That's their contention. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. From the board, comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so that is an extension for case number, since we never read it in, CESD20100005061. That's Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Folio No. 73181120001. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's take a five - minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now we'll go on to the next case, which is Anne Jules Delva. (Investigator Azure Botts and Anne Jules Delva were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Reference to Case No. CESD20090015436. Page 105 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(B).104.5.1.4.4. + Location: 3404 Seminole Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio 74411360006. Description of past orders: Permit No. 2008051265 expired on May 4th, 2009 without completing the work. On November 19th, 2009 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 OR 4515, Page 3497 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 20th, 2010 through January 19th, 2012, 670 days, for the total of 1,000 -- apologies, $134,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $134,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MS. DELVA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or good afternoon, technically. Would you like to tell us the situation behind this so we get a feel for what's going on? MS. DELVA: Okay. On 2005, the hurricane was bring the house down. I was pay one guy $20,000 to fix the house. And then he's work on the house out of the permit. He's put me on problem with code enforcement because -- and after that he work out with the money, he don't fix the house. I don't have money to fix the house. Page 106 i,k 2 k3 i 19, 212 I was going to the rehab to ask for help to get -- to help me to fix the house. And they ask me so many question. They say if the house was gutted in 2008, I say yes. They say if the insurance was pay me, I say yes. He say, what you do with the money? I explain that to her. I tell her I was paid out of and I was pay one guy 20,000 to fix the house. And the lady tell me, I don't think they going to help you to fix the house because you already find money from insurance. After one hour they call me again, ask me same question. And then she say that to me, passing in the office, come in to -- bring your divorce paper and sign the paper to get something out. And when I go over there, whose make me sign the paper, tell me, Ms. Delva, you alway say that you find money from insurance. Just sign in here, we have to put you in an order plan to fix the house. I say okay. And then month past, and after that someone call me like who's inside this case call me, Miss Delva, can you can't afford to get your house fix. I say yes. And then she's put one guy to fix the house, and the guy work on the house like two weeks, like that. And after that she call me, Miss Delva, you have -- you get problem. I say, what problem is it? She say, you never say that if you find money from insurance. I say I always said that to you. And then they send me the paper say sorry, talk to the constructor to finish the house for you. And then the constructor send me the letter say I have to pay $40,000 and 500 something, and after that looking for another constructor to finish the house. I don't have any place now because I don't have money to fix the house. If I pay $40,000 and 500, pay the guy and leave the house like that, after that looking for in order to fix the house, I say that one impossible to do that and I stop that. I have no money to fix it. I don't know what you have to say for now. Page 107 161 2 .A 3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, thank you. Azure, how much activity have we seen since? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Let me try to clarify, because I'm sure you guys are pretty confused with money and paying and not paying. Mrs. Delva -- after the case had been brought to the board, Mrs. Delva contacted Housing and Human Services. Housing and Human Services worked with her and eventually approved a grant to help repair her home. Housing and -- and work did begin. A permit was obtained, roofing and other things had began. Inspections were conducted. The last inspection was May 23rd. Unfortunately now that permit is expired as well. Housing and Human Services has -- some other grants had been under review, investigation, whatever words you'd like to put there. And during the review of her grant, the county attorney's office -- from my understanding, there's probably more in detail than what I'm going to say. What she is describing is that she received insurance money from the house being damaged from the storm. She used that money to pay the house off instead of the repairs. In the investigation -- let me rephrase that, that's a harsh word. During the review of her grant, they determined that she should not be qualified for the grant. They claimed the lien but then they released the lien on the 22nd of December. So Housing and Human Services released that lien, and there is money paid to the -- that needs to be paid to the contractor because that grant has been removed. . CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did the contractor actually perform work? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And she thought she was getting grant money but later found out she was not because they pulled it? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The original 20,000 from the insurance 0-111M 16 January 21A312 � company, that was used to pay off the house. But she claims it was given to a contractor who never finished the. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe it's both. I believe that it was to pay off the house and to pay the contractor. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How close are we to finishing this work? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Not close at all. The house is completely gutted. All we have is a concrete block shell, a roof and some interior framing for walls. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And is it occupied? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anymore questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea what the value of the house is now? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, sir, I have no -- MR. KAUFMAN: It's probably worth a lot less than the fines. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I don't want to say one way or the other. I don't know. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if it's just a shell. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, there's no other comments? MR. HUDSON: The only comment I have is that the operational costs were paid. But this is interesting, I've only been on the board now for however many months. $134,000 seems like weird at the precipice of what is scary and what since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, I have -- I just think it's wrong to impose that much. But that is what it is. And I don't feel good about it. Let me ask this question: Mrs. Delva, do you have any plans to fix the house? MS. DELVA: I don't have any plans now, because I was going to the bank to get a loan to fix the house. And then one day the Page 109 1 V �antS�y 192 O 1 Martinez say -- the constructor said I have to pay 40,000 and 500 after that, leave the house like that. I cannot live in the house and then I don't have money to fix the house. I was stopped this one, because I cannot pay 40,000 like that. And I don't know when I have to finish to paid it and stay out of this house after that looking for money to fix the house. I saw that is impossible to do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I just wanted to clarify, maybe I didn't portray it correct or clear the first time. She was denied that grant because she had already received insurance money to repair that house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that came across clearly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, what I'm trying to do is determine whether or not there are plans to move forward with taking care of this abatement or is she going to just let the property go into either foreclosure if there's a loan or maybe the county take it, if that's the case. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Was this a primary residence at one time or is it a rental? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Mrs. Delva would have to answer that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Delva, was this your home at one time? Did you live in it at one time, or is it a rental? MS. DELVA: No, I was living in it like I don't know exactly how many months. I don't know what years I was living there, but I was living there. After the hurricane passed, I was going to my sister house to live. I cannot live over there on 2006 till now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to impose the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. Page 110 161 2 A3 -0' January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Except how remorseful we are for this. Seeing none, all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Ave. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. So here's what we did. We imposed the fines of $134,000, as painful as it is. It is unfortunately what we have to do, unless the building was to come into compliance, unless it was to be fixed. So next, it will be given back to code enforcement to try to work with you in some way. And if not, it may come back to us to go to the county attorney's office for potential foreclosure. I don't know. We can't control that from here on. MS. DELVA: They going to send me a letter, or what? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, they will. So I'm very sorry, and we wish you the best of luck. MS. DELVA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next is Roxan Sorokoty and Walter Sorokoty Trust, or Estate. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, before we read the imposition of fines, we could probably let the respondent speak, because they may ask for an extension as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's get you all sworn in. Are you Page 111 1612 A3" January 19, 2012 representation? MR. MINOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the attorney doesn't need to be sworn in. (Mr. Varsames and Investigator Botts were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. MINOR: My name is Bruce Minor, I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. And I'm here representing Roxan Sorokoty Trust, at her request. MR. VARSAMES: My name is John Varsames from the Construction Managers. And I've been hired to remediate the code violations on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. If you'd like, just speak to us, you know, plainly about what's going on and what we can do to help. MR. MINOR: Did you need any review of this or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, maybe like a two- minute catch -up, that would be all right. MR. MINOR: All right. We had asked for an extension previously because of the code violation. The property is a commercial metal building which is not occupied. We were getting -- we got a previous extension for six months in order to allow a potential tenant to decide whether he wanted to reinforce the existing mezzanine that was there. Had plans drawn, et cetera. And then the tenant moved out, leaving the landlord with the situation with the mezzanine. Came back, we had asked -- we came back after the six months and had asked for an extension because we had made the decision to take the mezzanine out, because I didn't particularly want to have to come back here every three months. We hired Construction Managers to go in and remediate the issue, and I would like to turn it over to John Varsames at this point and let him explain his bumpy road down this street. Page 112 I 6,i��'�1z MR. VARSAMES: John Varsames from the Construction Managers. On July 8th of 20111 submitted a letter to the county requesting a demolition permit, which should have been fairly straightforward, citing both the code violation and a straight demolition permit. We issued three things: Remove and demolish the existing violation; dispose of the debris properly in the Collier County Landfill; and repair any wall penetrations or damage to the adjoining walls. Fairly simple. To that we got a reply, and I met with Gary Harrison. Gary said, John, we understand this lady is in a hardship, just draw up a quick plan, give us some photos, submit it and we'll issue a permit. Which is what I did. The permit came back as denied. So I went down and made an appointment with Gary. Gary had the appointment with me, he couldn't make it and there was another code official there, Tom Umschied, who said the plans you drew up are no good. We need plans. And I said, well, this is what Gary your boss told us to draw. So he said, well, see what else you got. So we took the drawings that were submitted for the remediation to put it in. And we agreed with Tom that we could use those drawings because the owner is under a hardship, it's an elderly lady, let's just mark these up and submit them. Which we did. Those plans were rejected with comments, most of which the comments were answered in the initial letter that we had submitted, that it was a demolition plan. So after some discussion, we got that permit approved by the county building department. It then was sent over to fire. Fire decided that they would reject it on the basis that there was no qualified UL listing for a 30- year -old building to be remediated for the adjacent wall, when our submission was pretty clear that we were going to repair any penetrations to the wall. Page 113 January 19, 2012 So we went back again and dug through old permit records and found a UL supplement to the drawings and submitted them to fire. Those apparently were lost in the correction process. However, I brought them back to fire and fire has issued a permit yesterday to allow for this process to go forward. So today, starting at 8:00 this morning, the final permit has been in typing. Our duration for length of work on this project is about three days, two days. The total amount is $1,400, and it's six months of jumping through what one might consider to be ridiculous hoops to simply tear out something that's there in wood and fix it. But that's where we're at. So it's actually in typing now. We can pick up the permit today. And sometime next week we can bring a dumpster in and remove all the stuff in a day and then repair the walls and call for inspections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just out of curiosity, out of a $1,400 job to remove the wooden mezzanine structure that was never supposed to be there in the first place, how much did it cost the building owner in permits and time and fees to do -- MR. VARSAMES: Well, thus far, because this lady's been in a hardship and I have a good relationship with Kim, I haven't charged her anything. It was a $75 reapplication fee and the original permit fee was like $125. I mean, it's absurd. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. VARSAMES: And by the way, the icing on the cake was they wanted to impose an impact fee, and impacts turned it down because they thought we were building a mezzanine, when everything said remove it. So today I visited with impact, and they criticized building for not making it clear on the plans, but then they approved it today. So we're going to impose an impact fee to take something out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, unfortunately this is mostly the norm for this building. And I say that while I run out of here as soon Page 114 161 2 A-13 �, January 19, 2012 as this meeting's over. I hope some commissioner's are watching this. Anyways, let's move on. Any further questions or comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you would need if we were to extend this? MR. VARSAMES: Less than 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Next meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion that we extend this till the next meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are no fines or anything, because we just extended it. So good luck, gentleman. MR. VARSAMES: And off the record, sir, you've got a serious code violation over here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do? MR. VARSAMES: Yeah. Your audio system is blocking a fire exit. It's a trip hazard. We won't report you. See you in 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: That's awesome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 115 %16) anuary 19, 012 Moving on, the next one is going to be Continental Furnishings, Incorporated. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MR. LANG: Robert Lang. MR. JIAOUTSOS: Tom Jiaoutsos. J- I- A- O- U- T- S -O -S. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you just state your names, please? THE COURT REPORTER: They have given me their names. Do you still -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're good. As long as you have it, that's what I'm worried about. Azure, do you want to read in? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Sure. Reference Case No. CESD 20100017997. I'll make it short and sweet. Violation's abated, operational costs are paid. County recommends waiving the finds. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 116 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it passes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was quick. Sorry for the wait. MR. LANG: It was a pleasure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case, and this is the last one, Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake and Betty Jo Robertson. And we have paperwork placed on your desk this morning saying that this is now in compliance and that the operational costs have been paid. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm going to take the Azure route on this one. Operational costs paid, violation abated, county recommends waiving of the fines. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. That's all the cases that we have for today. Now moving on to new business. Anything new business? I Page 117 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 have some new business, but I don't want to take up Cherie's time. THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For our rules that are coming up here shortly, I think in March, April time frame. We had just today two maybe three ideas floating around. How do we get them to you? MS. BAKER: You can just bring them to the workshop that we have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. MS. RAWSON: When is that? MS. BAKER: We don't have that scheduled yet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: My thought was if I got them to you ahead of time -- MS. BAKER: You can just e -mail them to us as well, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, no problem, we'll do that. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe we don't have to bring them to either one of them. Is it possible when you have the extension of time, can you just put down on that whether the court costs, if you will, have been paid or not? MS. BAKER: On their letter? MR. KAUFMAN: No, on the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Like on our agenda right next to it, quotes, operational costs have been paid. MS. BAKER: Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's take this up in March. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, we'll take it up as part of our rules. MS. BAKER: We could. A lot of times they aren't paid until right prior to the hearing, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: It's a question I ask at every hearing, so I figured we could take that. MR. MIESZCAK: It keeps you entertained. Page 118 16 12 A3 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is -- well, there's nothing forward to the County Attorney's Office through the consent agenda. So reports. MS. BAKER: Just a quick foreclosure update for the week ending January 15th, 2012. $2,628,000 in abatement costs have been paid by the lenders. There were 2,145 violations to date abated by the lenders. For the week of January 9th, 2012, nine violations were abated by the lenders, and saved the county $6,970 in costs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Excellent. Excellent job with the foreclosure task force in helping to keep our community looking beautiful and prevent blight. Good job. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next meeting. I have to publicly say when our next meeting is. It's February 23rd, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're adjourned. Thank you. Page 119 1612 A3 '' January 19, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:31 p.m. E ENFORCEMENT BOARD Lq- N of v } (-e Dv??cV Yv"-R n Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham Page 120 tAl 2 A3 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE - J e�"% ""`— MAILING ADDRESS �� I IS S r/U� /4. THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ❑ CITY OUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY 1 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED J J / MY POSITION IS: O ELECTIVE POINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) �.,t rUNIVI Ob - trr-. 1 /LUUU PAGE 1 161 2 A APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST 1, At-OP hereby disclose that on 20 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: P'4 j -c-yv6 .0 zr'-✓ Date Filed --7 A -r L Signature ,r , by which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 1612 "A3 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST A E —FIRST AME —MIDDL AME � '� MAILIN &ADD ^S /i'�( t `� {y f+ iv Z�� D, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AU ORITY, OR OM TTEE e� CO O v Z? %E�u THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, THORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UN�I,T�O,F�: '� ❑ CITY Qc t�UN T Y ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY hUR COUNTY / o Q !S C It NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH V TE ED y i MY POSITION IS: / ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) k,tz rvKM Ob - trr. 1 /LUUU PAGE 1 1612 A3 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I , ��( v 'v �I� / •% hereby disclose that on f � , 20 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: /�' 16 r ` x, , Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 6 Z 1 Fary 3, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE RECEIVED COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MAR 0 6 2012 Naples, Florida, February 3, 2012 `�O" "d ofCOONY � Ommissiane►s 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: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Fiala ✓ ^ Hiller - ✓ _ Henning ' Coyle ✓ Coletta TG ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Corres: Date: 5l 2'2-. t ► 2 Item 0 L+ Z '2.1A'3 Copies to: A3 161 Z 'A3 February 3, 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 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. Recessed: 9 :15a. m. Reconvened: 9: 35a. m. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under V.B. - Hearings the following case was moved to V.C. — Motion for Continuance • #22 CASE NO: CEPM20110012228 - MICHAEL M. MIR Under item V.B. — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V.A. — Stipulations: • #16. CASE NO: CEPM20110011732 - LIBERIO INC. • #32. CASE NO: CEPM20110008324 - ENCRANACION GARZA AND NANCY O. GARZA • #34. CASE NO: CEPM20120000227 - OWNER: ESMERALDA SALAS • #35. CASE NO: CEPM20110012536 - PHILLIP B. WHITE AND JANET IRENE NEBUS • #38. CASE NO: CEROW20110015292 - ROBERT A. FLICK • #19. CASE NO: CESD20110004309 - OMAR TAVERAS Under item V.B. — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda item numbers): • #l. CASE NO: SO174368- CEEX20120000623 - MARIE JEANLIUS • #2. CASE NO: S0174444- CEEX20110017397 - WILLIAM H. MCCAFFREY • 44. CASE NO: S0174424- CEEX20110016173 - DIAIR CANTISANI • #6. CASE NO: PR047170- CEEX20110017512 - XAVIER HART AND MICHAEL ARMEN • #7. CASE NO: PR047325- CEEX20110017957 - ROBERT N. AYLWIN • #12.CASE NO: CEROW20110011431 - GREGORY M. PENROD AND MICHELLE L. PENROD • #13.CASE NO: CESD20110008191 - RICHARD W. GOOD • #14.CASE NO: CEPM20110014350 - HENRY N. BRAGA AND SALLY J. BRAGA • #15.CASE NO: CEPM20110014371 - BILLY M. JOHNSON • #17.CASE NO: CESD20110011579 - SALOMON MONTEZINOS AND JUDITH A. CASTILLE • #18.CASE NO: CESD20110012944 - ANICETO VILLA AND MARY A. VILLA • #21.CASE NO: CEAU20110015487 - BANK OF AMERICA • #23.CASE NO: CEPM20110015441 -CRYSTAL D. PEPPER • #24.CASE NO: CEPM20110017038 - CHARLES BULICZ AND GERALDINE BULICZ 2 1612! -.1 A 3 February 3, 2012 • #25.CASE NO: CEROW20110015401 - HIGHLAND PROP OF LEE & COLLIER • #27.CASE NO: CESD20110001645 - BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • #29.CASE NO: CEPM20110015108 - JAMES D. MITCHEM AND DENISE MITCHEM • #36.CASE NO: CEPM20110012778 - JOHN M. FERNER • #39.CASE NO: CENA20110015772 -JOSE PALACIOS Under VI.A. — Motion for Imposition of Fines, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda item numbers): • #13. CASE NO: CEPM20110007564 - ELI WALLEN AND DANNIE DEVOL • #14. CASE NO: CEPM20110005397 - KEVIN STREIGHT Under item VII.A. — Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order, the following case was added: • # 1. CASE NO. CEPM201 1001 1725 — NORMAN C. PARTINGTON Under item VII.A. — Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order, the following case was added: • #2. CASE NO: CELU20110009990 — BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 6, 2012 The minutes of the January 6, 2012 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 22. CASE NO: CEPM20110012228 OWNER: MICHAEL M. MIR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 -228 SECTION 10.02.06 (13)(1)(a). PERMIT 2004030870 FOR PLANK SIDING AND AND CHAPTER 110-46. SWALE /CULVERT PIPING SYSTEM COLLAPSED ON 2001050959 FOR A RE -ROOF HAS EXPIRED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62777000009 VIOLATION VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 99TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Investigator Ford represented the County. The Special Magistrate DENIED the respondent's motion for a Continuance. C. Motion for Extension of Time 1. 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 (13)(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 3 1 6ebluag,20.1-A Investigator Botts represented the County and reported she had no objection to the request for an Extension of Time. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's requestfor an Extension of Time with the case heard at a later date, if necessary. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 16. CASE NO: CEPM20110011732 OWNER: LIBERIO INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22- 240(1)(a), 22 -240 (1)(b), 22 -240 (1)(f), 22 -240 (2)(a), 22- 240 (2)(f) 22- 240(2)(h), 22- 240(2)(m), 22- 240(2)(1), 22 -240 (2)(k), 22 -240 (2)(i), 22- 240 (2)0),22-240 (1)(n)(2), AND 22- 242(b). WINDOWS ARE BOARDED WITHOUT A BOARDING CERTIFICATE, SOME BOARDS ARE FALLING OFF. A BEE INFESTATION LOCATED IN THE ROOF OF THE REAR BUILDING. SOFFIT AND FASCIA THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE ROOF ON ALL THREE BUILDINGS ARE MISSING /FALLING OR ROTTING. SOFFIT IS COVERED IN MOLD. EXTERIOR WALLS ARE ROTTING AND BREAKING AWAY. A GLASS DOOR HAS BEEN BROKEN. AN ABANDONED NON- CONFORMING SIGN IS MOUNTED TO FRONT WALL OF BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 67080600007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4628 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES Investigator Botts requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's Representative, Joseph Ciulla on January 30, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Obtain all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion for repair of the glass door, roof, and exterior walls by March 17, 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. Obtain Collier County Boarding. Certificate or remove plywood from all windows and doors by March 17, 2012 or a $250.00 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 4. Obtain the services of a licensed exterminator /bee keeper and have the bee infestation removed from the property by February 10, 2012 or a $250.00 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 5. Remove mold from all exterior surfaces by March 17, 2012 or a $250.00 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 6. Remove the abandoned wall sign by March 17, 2012 or a $ 250.00 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 1611 A 3 February 3, 2012 7. 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 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. 8. 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. Investigator Botts updated the case reporting the Operational Costs have been paid and the bee infestation has been eradicated. Total Amount Due: $0.00 32. CASE NO: CEPM20110008324 OWNER: ENCRANACION GARZA AND NANCY O. GARZA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 242(b) AND 22-23](12)(C). HOUSE IN NEED OF SOME EXTERIOR ROOF REPAIRS, PROPERTY HAS BEEN BOARDED WITHOUT A CURRENT BOARDING CERTIFICATE. FOLIO NO: 52650680006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 218 N 9TH STREET, IMMOKALEE Investigator Walker requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Nancy O' Garza on February 2, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by agreeing to follow through with all Collier County Boarding Certificate requirements and repairing the roof in a safe manner to have no defects which might admit rain or cause dampness in the walls of interior portion of the building, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit, required inspections and Certificate of Completion by August 3, 2012 or a fine of $150.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. 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 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 161,2 February 3, 2012 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 34. CASE NO: CEPM20120000227 OWNER: ESMERALDA SALAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(2), (12)(d), (I 2)(i), (12)(p), AND (19). MOBILE HOME IN A POOR STATE OF REPAIR WITH WINDOWS AND DOORS BROKEN AND INTERIOR FLOOR IS ROTTED AND FULL OF HOLES. INTERIOR WALLS APPEAR TO BE ROTTED. THE INTERIOR OF THE MOBILE HOME IS INFESTED WITH INSECT AND RODENT DROPPINGS AND THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE 1S OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. FOLIO NO: 66221080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 404 13TH STREET SE, IMMOKALEE Investigator Snow requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Esmeralda Salas on February 3, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by repairing all defects to the structure and obtaining all required Collier County Building Permits (f applicable) or a Demolition Permit, with all refuse removed to a site suitable for such disposal, with inspections, and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy by March 3, 2012 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. 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 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. Investigator Snow reported if a valid reason is given, there may be an extension granted to abate the violation. Total Amount Due: $112.56 35. CASE NO: CEPM20110012536 OWNER: PHILLIP B. WHITE AND JANET IRENE NEBUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA A3 16ryt, 22 A3 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (15) AND 2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, RESIDENTIAL SWIMMING POOL BARRIER REQUIREMENT, SECTION 424.2.17 THROUGH 424.2.17.3. AN UNMAINTAINED POOL CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD AND HARBORING INFESTATION. NUMEROUS CINDERBLOCKS SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE POOL AREA CREATING AN UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE. NO RESIDENTIAL POOL BARRIER AROUND THE POOL. FOLIO NO: 67340800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 100 HICKORY ROAD, NAPLES Supervisor Bosa requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Phillip B. White on February 3, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), inspections, and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy for a pool barrier around the pool by February 24, 2012 or a daily fine of $250.00 will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Remove the cinderblocks to a site intended for final disposal or proper inside storage by February 24, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 3. 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 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: $112.73 38. CASE NO: CEROW20110015292 OWNER: ROBERT A. FLICK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 1 10 ROADS AND BRIDGES ARTICLE II, DIVISION 1, SECTIONS 110 -27 DEFINITIONS, AND 110 -32(1) REMOVAL OF OFFENDING MATERIAL. OFFENDING MATERIAL (VEGETATION) IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. FOLIO NO: 405040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS, FOLIO 405040005, NAPLES Investigator Kincaid requested the hearing. 16 h R'3 February 3, 2012 The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Robert A. Flick on February 3, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by removing all vegetation and clean swale or drainage ditch within the right of way to assure there is adequate drainage along the property by March 3, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. 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 this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.29 19. CASE NO: CESD20110004309 OWNER: OMAR TAVERAS 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 I PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. SHED CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY; NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 37392960009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1840 14TH AVENUE NE, NAPLES Supervisor Perez requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Omar Taveras on February 3, 2012. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permits) or a Demolition Permit, inspections, and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy by May 3, 2012 or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 3. 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 tharl � 3 3 Z 12 "A 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 B. Hearings 3. CASE NO: S0174351- CEEX20120000176 OWNER: ANNA M. DELUCA OFFICER: DEPUTY KENNETH ROBINS VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE, PARKED ON STRIPED ACCESS. VIOLATION ADDRESS: THE PAVILION ACROSS FROM ANTHONY'S, NAPLES Deputy Robins represented the County. Anna M. Deluca was present. County Evidence Entered: Exhibit A — photo dated 12/28/11 Exhibit B — 1 photo Exhibit C — 1 photo Ms. Deluca testified: The parking lot was full, and it was in the evening. She was not aware the "white striped" area was included in the portion for the handicapped space. Deputy Robins testified: • On December 28, 2011 he observed a vehicle parked in the "white striped" area of a handicapped space. • There was a phone number on the vehicle and he called it to notify the individual who possessed the number. No one answered the call and he left a voice message. • The party parked in the handicapped space exited the establishment. Due to the parking violation they needed to back out of their space to load the vehicle. • The citation was issued. The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and ordered her to pay a $250.00 fine, $50.00 in Operational Costs and a $5.00 Administrative Fee for a total amount of $305.00 to be paid by May 3, 2012. Total Amount Due: $305.00 CASE NO: S0174355- CEEX20120000225 OWNER: ROBERT G. STABILE OFFICER: DEPUTY KENNETH ROBINS VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA, NOT A DESIGNATED PARKING SPOT. VIOLATION ADDRESS: BAREFOOT BEACH ACCESS, NAPLES Deputy Robins represented the County. 16 F2 A3 February 3, 2012 Robert G. Stabile, the Respondent was present. Respondent Evidence Entered: Exhibit A: Copy of the Parking Citation Exhibit B: Copy of a letter from himself to Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk Composite Exhibit C: 3 photos depicting location in question. Exhibit D: Copy of a letter from Kevin Rambosk to Mr. Stabile. Mr. Stabile testified: • On January 1, 2012, he visited Barefoot Beach and the parking lot was full and he parked in a grass area bordered by a concrete wall. • He assumed the area was to be utilized as overflow parking as there is no sign on the concrete wall indicating "No Parking." • He did not see the sign posted further down the wall that states "Parking in Designated Areas Only. " • Even if he had seen the sign, in his opinion it is vague in nature if it is intended to prohibit parking in this area. • When he returned from utilizing the beach, he found a parking citation on his vehicle, along with citations on approximately 17 other vehicles parked on the grass. • He was in possession of a beach parking sticker at the time and assumed the County, on a busy day, would demonstrate flexibility in enforcing parking violations, such as when the 41h of July is celebrated in downtown Naples. • In addition, the County is charging for the issuance of parking stickers and should provide adequate parking for beach visitors. Deputy Robins testified: • Mr. Stabile was issued a citation as the area is grass, clearly not a designated parking area. • It is a violation of a County Ordinance to park in this area. • The area is signed "Parking in Designated Areas Only. " The Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the violation and ordered him to pay a $30.00 fine, $50.00 Operational Costs and an Administrative Fee of $5.00 for a total of $85.00 to be paid by March 3, 2012. Mr. Stabile motioned to reconsider. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Motion to Reconsider. Total Amount Due: $85.00 Cases 8 —11 were combined as the citations were for the same incident, 4 different animals. 8. CASE NO: DAS12554- CEEX20110014580 OWNER: LEE WEST OFFICER: ANITA MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 1 -B, SEC. 8 TO RUN AT LARGE IN OR UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET VIOLATION ADDRESS: 761 5TH STREET NW, NAPLES H A at�,,,93 9. CASE NO: DAS12555- CEEX20110014582 OWNER: LEE WEST OFFICER: ANITA MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 1 -B, SEC. 8 TO RUN AT LARGE IN OR UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET VIOLATION ADDRESS: 761 5T" STREET NW, NAPLES 10. CASE NO: DAS12556- CEEX20110014583 OWNER: LEE WEST OFFICER: ANITA MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 1 -B, SEC. 8 TO RUN AT LARGE IN OR UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET VIOLATION ADDRESS: 761 5T" STREET NW, NAPLES 11. CASE NO: DAS12557- CEEX20110014584 OWNER: LEE WEST OFFICER: ANITA MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 1 -B, SEC. 8 TO RUN AT LARGE IN OR UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET VIOLATION ADDRESS: 761 5T" STREET NW, NAPLES Officer Martindale represented the County. Witness Louis Estino was present. The Respondent was present and witness Steve West was present. County Evidence Entered: Exhibit A: Letter from Lee West to Louis Estino Composite Exhibit B: 4 photos dated 9/16/11 Composite Exhibit C: 8 photos dated 9/26/11 Officer Martindale testified: • She responded to a complaint on September 15, 2011 regarding loose peacocks on a public street. • When she arrived the peacocks were on the street, then however entered Ms. West's property. • On September 16, 2011, a warning was issued to Ms. West to give her a chance to correct the issue. • She responded to another complaint on September 26, 2011 with the birds present on Mr. Estino's property. • The peacocks, once again, returned to the respondent's property. • On September 26, 2011, citations were issued to Ms. West. Mr. Estino testified: • Ms. West's peacocks are constantly on his property, roosting overnight and defecating on his sidewalk. • They are a constant nuisance to him. • He received a letter from the respondent which was submitted as evidence. Ms. West testified: The peacocks in question are not her peacocks. They are wild peacocks free - roaming the neighborhood, entering and exiting her property voluntarily. ruary 6 . A`� Fe 3, ! 20 • The may be attracted to her property because she does own peacocks (5 total), however hers do no leave her property. • The wild peacocks eat her peacock's food and mingle with them. • She does trap the wild peacocks and relocate them when possible. • She has installed netting on the front of her property in an attempt to curtail the wild peacocks entering onto her property. • There are currently no wild peacocks entering and exiting from the front of her property, however they do enter and exit from the side of her property via a neighbor's property who doesn't object to the activity. Mr. Estino testified: Peacocks were present on his property yesterday (2/2/12). Officer Martindale testified: The Ordinance states "the owner is any person having a right of property in an animal, or any person with the right or duty to control an animal, or any person physically controlling, possessing, harboring or keeping an animal. " She recommends Ms. West "band" her peacocks for identification purposes. The Special Magistrate TOOK THE CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT. Break: 11: 56 a. m. Reconvened.• 12:10 p. m. 20. CASE NO: CEAU20110003326 OWNER: CHANTELL VIDAL AND EVELINA VIDAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AS AMENDED. NEW FENCE HAS BEEN INSTALLED WITH NO PERMITS ISSUED. FOLIO NO: 62520480009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 843 106TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Supervisor Bosa represented the County. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhbit A: 4 photos dated 3/14/11 Evelina Vidal was present. The respondent's were represented by Eduardo Vidal. Respondent Evidence Entered: Exhibits #I - 11 Supervisor Bosa testified: • In March, 2011, a complaint was received regarding construction activity and relocation of a fence on the subject property. • Upon investigation it was determined a fence was being installed /relocated without a permit. • Records indicate in 1998, there was a permit issued for a 5 -6 foot high privacy fence, it was installed on the property, inspected and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. • Under the current renovation, a portion of the fence has been relocated to the rear of the property. • The current code allows a maximum 4 -foot high fence in the area the relocated fence has been installed. • On November 17, 2011, a Notice of Violation was served. 12 1612 3 February 3, 2012 Mr. Vidal provided an overview of his Exhibits and testified: • He purchased the property on Febuary 2, 2011. • The property is under renovation, however, in an oversight the fence construction was not included in the permits for renovation. • He applied for an "after the fact" permit when it was brought to his attention there was not a permit issued for the fence installation. • The application for the permit was denied as a 5 -6 foot fence is not allowed in this location on the property. • The Ordinance does not provide for a variance request. • The neighbor has a 5 -6 foot high fence, as well as other fencing on his property and he wishes to install the relocated portion of the fence at the same height for aesthetics and animal control purposes. • In addition, there is an outdoor spa on the property, State of Florida Statutes require a 6 -foot high barrier be installed for pools and this requirement should be applicable to the spa. 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 $11247 incurred in the prosecution of this case by March 3, 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 new fence installed or obtain all permits (f required) to remove the new fence installed by June 3, 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 within 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 28. CASE NO: CESD20100007028 OWNER: SVEND PETERSEN 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 WITHOUT OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40179400009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3577 RANDALL BLVD, NAPLES Supervisor Perez represented the County. County Evidence Entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 12/14/11 Svend Petersen was present. 13 Fela� 3,10 2 A3 Supervisor Perez noted the there is a shed constructed on the property with no record of a building permit. Mr. Peterson testified the shed was on his property when he purchased it in 1997 and he was unaware it was unapproved. The property is in foreclosure and he has appeared because the property is still in his name. 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 June 3, 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 June 3, 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 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: $112.29 37. CASE NO: CEPM20110013238 OWNER: ADA AURIGEMMA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(i). MISSING POOL ENCLOSURE SCREENS. FOLIO NO: 36447280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3048 50TH STREET SW, NAPLES Investigator Gomez represented the County. Ada Aurigemma was present. County Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 9/22/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 2/2/12 Investigator Gomez testified the property is still in violation as of 2/3/12. Ms. Aurigemma testified the property is in foreclosure and she abated a portion of the violations on the property including the damaged facia and screen enclosure repairs to the side areas of the lanai. She did not realize the roof screening was required to be fixed as Mr. Musse informed her the case was closed. Subsequent to this, she was informed of only a portion of the case closed. 14 161 2 A3 February 3, 2012 Investigator Gomez stated the County does not consider the case closed. 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 April 3, 2012. 2. Make all necessary repairs to the pool cage structure on or before April 3, 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. 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 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 40. CASE NO: CEEX20120001077 OWNER: JESSICA CARMENATE OFFICER: OFFICER ANDRA DOHERTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14 -35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: MARINO CIRCLE, NAPLES Officer Doherty represented the County. Jessica Carmente was present. The respondent was walking her dog, (Summer, a yellow labrador retrievier) off the leash; it is large dog and she came into contact with other smaller dogs. The smaller dogs began barking and nipping at her feet when Summer bit the other dog causing serious injuries that included open lacerations, exposing the intestines. She believes her dog was defending herself as she does not have any history of agressiveness. She currently walks the dog on a leash, with a muzzle and has taken precautionary steps to prevent this activity from happening again. She is on the opinion the dog should not be deemed a "Dangerous Dog. " Officer Doherty testified the dog was deemed a "Dangerous Dog" based on the dog causing severe injuries to another dog. The Special Magistrate DENIED the respondent's appeal of the County's determination Summer be deemed a "Dangerous Dog. " 15 161 13 VI. NEW BUSINESS February , 2012 A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 5. CASE NO: CESD20100020107 OWNER: O'NEILL PARTNERS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) . GARAGES IN DUPLEX HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO EFFICIENCIES, ADDING PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC WITHOUT PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36110200007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5000 24TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneau represented the County stating the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 8/5/11 - OR Book 4712 Page 409 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 12/6/11 — 2/3/12 (60 days) Total Fine Amount: $12,000.00 Total to Date: $12,000.00 Joseph O' Neill, President of O'Neill Partners, LLC was present. Mr. O'Neill testified: • He bought the property in foreclosure and was unaware of the violation of the garage being converted to living space. • He engaged services of consultants who were unable to obtain the necessary permits to permit the conversion. • He now intends to demolish the improvements and return the space to a garage. • He requested a continuance to resolve the violation. Supervisor Letourneau had no objection to a continuance in the case. The Special Magistrated CONTINUED the case to April 3, 2012. CASE NO: CENA20110007164 OWNER: LARRY D. SHIPMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE 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. FOLIO NO: 37926520006 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 4591 PINE RIDGE ROAD, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneua represented the County stating the violations have not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - OR Book 4745 Page 3278 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 1/3/12 — 2/3/12 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 a 1 Fe I ! yA3 ruary , 2012 Total to Date: $3,312.20 Craig Thomas, representative for Mr. Shipman was present and testified the violation has not been abated due to Internal Revenue Service restrictions on the property and Mr. Shipman's financial hardship. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines and assessed Operational Costs in the amount of $112.20 and a fine of $500.00 for a total amount due of $612.20. Said amount to become a Lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. It was noted the Respondent had requested a continuance in the case. The Special Magistrate DENIED the respondent's Motion for a Continuance. CASE NO: CELU20110007170 OWNER: LARRY D. SHIPMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE 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 VIOLATIONADDRESS: 4591 PINE RIDGE ROAD, NAPLES Supervisor Letourneua represented the County stating the violations have not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - OR Book 4745 Page 3272 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 1/3/12 — 2/3/12 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $6,400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $6,512.20 Craig Thomas, representative for Mr. Shipman was present and testified the violation has not been abated due to the Internal Revenue Service has restrictions on the property and Mr. Shipman's financial hardship. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines and assessed the Operational Costs in the amount of $112.20 and a fine of $1,000.00 for a total amount due of $1,112.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. It was noted the Respondent had requested a continuance in the case. The Special Magistrate DENIED the respondent's Motion for a Continuance. Break: 2: 53p. m. Reconvend: 3: OSp. m. 17 161 46,. tA3 February 3, 2012 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) B. Hearings 22. CASE NO: CEPM20110012228 OWNER: MICHAEL M. MIR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 -228 AND CHAPTER 110-46. SWALE /CULVERT PIPING SYSTEM COLLAPSED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62777000009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 99TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/19/12 Investigator Ford presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 9/1/11 The violation remains as of 2/2/12 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 March 3, 2012. 2 Abate the violation by obtaining any and all necessary County right of way permits, inspections and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy by March 3, 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 within 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 26. CASE NO: CEV20110011656 OWNER: ALICIA VIVES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE I11, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130 -95. UNLICENSED VEHICLE PARKED ON THE DRIVEWAY. FOLIO NO: 37114060006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 410 5TH STREET NW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/23/12 18 161 2 A3 February 3, 2012 Investigator Ambach presented the case. Evidence entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo dated 8/19/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 2/2/12 The violation remains as of 2/2/12. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the offending vehicles from the property by February 6, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 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 within 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 30. CASE NO: CENA20110012647 OWNER: IRASEMA LAMBERT PINERO TR AND ZONIA Z. LAMBERT R/L/T EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 54- 181 AND 54 -179. LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES, WOOD, DRYWALL, PLASTIC BUCKETS, LAUNDRY BASKET, ALUMINUM CANS, HOUSEHOLD TRASH, ELECTRONICS, APPLIANCES, BICYCLE RIMS, LARGE PLASTIC CONTAINERS IN METAL FRAMING, AND OTHER ITEMS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 74413960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3450 CHEROKEE STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 Investigator Botts presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos dated 9/13/11 Composite Exhibit 13: 4 photos dated 9/28/11 Composite Exhibit C: 5 photos dated 2/2/12 The violation remains as of 2/2/12. z I 161 2 '3 February 3, 2012 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 March 3, 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 March 10, 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 within 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 31. CASE NO: CEV201 1 001 4863 OWNER: IRASEMA LAMBERT PINERO TR AND ZONIA Z. LAMBERT R/L/T EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130 -95 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.05.03. UNLICENSED VEHICLE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AND A TAN VEHICLE PARKED ON THE GRASS IN THE FRONT YARD OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 74413960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3450 CHEROKEE STREET, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 Investigator Botts presented the case. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 11/2/11 Exhibit B: 1 photo dated 2/2/12 The violation remains as of 2/2/12. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. 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 and park 20 1 1 �A3 Fe ruary 012 vehicles on a suitable surface, or store the vehicles in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the offending vehicles from the property by February 17, 2012 or a fine of $50.00 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 within 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 33. CASE NO: CEPM20110013543 OWNER: EMILIO HERNANDEZ AND EMMA HERNANDEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR KITCHELL SNOW VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -231 (12)(b), (12)(d) (12)(i), (12)(p), AND (19). MOBILE HOME IN A POOR STATE OF REPAIR WITH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE HOME BADLY DAMAGED BY FIRE. WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE BROKEN OUT WITH THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. FOLIO NO: 66221040003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 406 12TH STREET SE, IMMOKALEE Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 Investigator Snow presented the case. The Respondents were not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos dated 1/4/12 The violation remains as of 2/2/12. 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 March 3, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by repairing all defects to the structure and obtain all required Collier County Building Permit(s), if applicable and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to permit the structure, or obtain all required Collier County Demolition Permit(s) to remove said debris and dispose of at a site suitable for disposal by February 10, 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. 21 t61 2 �A3 February 3, 2012 3. 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 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 C. Emergency Cases: None VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: (continued) 1. 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: 82641 160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2647 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 12/1/11 Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: 11/16/11 — 12/1/11(16 days) Total Fine Amount: $800.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $912.38 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 $912.38. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. CASE NO: CESD20110008158 OWNER: CLINT TAYLOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B) (1)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. FOLIO NO: 38168440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3130 58TH STREET SW, NAPLES 22 16 121 ,. A3 February 3, 2012 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 Fine Amount: $$200.00 /day Duration: (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $6400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $6,512.38 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 $6,512.38. Said amount to become a Lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. CASE NO: CEPM20100019517 OWNER: WILLIAM HILDERBRAND AND SANDRA LEONARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) AND SECTION 22- 231(12)(n) . POOL ENCLOSURE WITH RIPPED SCREEN PANEL, AND UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL, CREATING AN UNSAFE CONDITION. FOLIO NO: 56570005408 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 717 CROSSFIELD CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Box presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 11/15/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 10/15/11 - 11/15/11 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $8,000.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,007.30 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $9,119.77 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 $9,119.77. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20110008927 OWNER: HARRY NEVINS AND JACQUELINE NEVINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY 23 1612 February 3, 2012 MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(19). BEE INFESTATION AT THE REAR OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 81628960004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 270 ISLAMORADA LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: (67 days) Total Fine Amount: $16,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $17,462.47 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 $17,462.47. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 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. FOLIO NO: 82640920005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2531 ANDREW DRIVE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/4/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (19 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $2,012.38 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 $2,012.38. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 24 A3 1612 A 3 `) Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/5/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 1/3/12 — 1/5/12 (3 days) Total Fine Amount: $300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $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 $412.56. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 10. CASE NO: CEPM201 1 001 0047 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: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (49 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $5,012.47 25 February 3, 2012 9. 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 II, 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 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/5/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 1/3/12 — 1/5/12 (3 days) Total Fine Amount: $300.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $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 $412.56. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 10. CASE NO: CEPM201 1 001 0047 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: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/24/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (49 days) Total Fine Amount: $4,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $5,012.47 25 161 2t 'A3 February 3, 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 $5,012.47. Said amount to become a Lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 11. CASE NO: CEAU20110012472 OWNER: BENNETT A. FITE AND DENAY M. FITE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 110.4. FENCE PERMIT 2003033233 WAS 013TAINED BUT NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 36241400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2137 51ST STREET SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $3,312.38 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 $3,31238. Said amount to become a Lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 12. 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: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/19/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Condomina presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11: Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 1/3/12 — 2/3/12 (32 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,200.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $3,312.47 26 1612 A3 "" February 3, 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 $3,312.47. Said amount to become a Lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. 15. 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: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/23/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Perez presented the case noting the violation has been abated and recommended the Special Magistrate waive the accumlated fines and assess the unpaid Operational Costs Abatement Date: 1/3/12 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.73 Total to Date: $112.73 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 $112.73. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 16. CASE NO: CENA20110009315 OWNER: MICHAEL L. ROXBY AND NANCY L. ROXBY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI, WEEDS, LITTER, & EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES. FOLIO NO: 35989880002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4463 25TH COURT SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letouneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 12/6/12 Special Magistrate Order: 10/7/11: Fine Amount: $50.00 /day Duration: (53 days) Total Fine Amount: $2,650.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $60.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $2,822.20 27 1612 A3 February 3, 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 $2,82220. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. 17. CASE NO: CEPM20110003647 OWNER: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231 (15), (12)(1). GREEN POOL AND DAMAGED SCREEN. FOLIO NO: 36121840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4973 2IST PLACE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 1/20/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 1/20/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/6/12 Special Magistrate Order: 7/1/11 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 7/9/11 — 1/6/12 (182 days) Total Fine Amount: Part B: $45,500.00 Part C: $45,500.00 Total to Date: $91,000.00 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 $91,000.00. Said amount to become a Lien on the property. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO. CEPM20110011725 OWNER: NORMAN C. PARTINGTON (Withdrawn) B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: 1. 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: 436143 RD AVENUE NE, NAPLES The Special Magistrate reviewed the case and GRANTED the County's Motion. 2. CASE NO: CELU20110009990 OWNER: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON The Special Magistrate reviewed the case and GRANTED the County's Motion. 28 Sbi2 February 3, 2012 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: March 2, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, 3 d 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 3:48 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING (inkda Garrett , Special Magistrate The Minutes were approv d by the Special Magistrate on as presented , or as amended 29 1 161 2 A3 Y ' Februar 17, 2012 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRA Naples, Florida, February 17, 2012 APR l 't B'Y. ................. ....... 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 V, Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta tt== ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Cares: D*: 5122-1 12 I*n t t La = 2 H "� Copies to: 1612 'A February 1 , 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 The hearing was called to order at 9:04a.m. A. Hearing rules and regulations The Special Magistrate reported the hearing was being held because Ioannis Bardis has appealed County Staffs decision to deem his dog a "dangerous dog." II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None IV. MOTIONS None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations None B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEEX20120001854 OWNER: IOANNIS BARDIS OFFICER: OFFICER ANIER MARRERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14 -35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: STANHOPE CIRCLE, NAPLES All those testifying did so under oath. Mr. Bardis testified: • He was walking his dog, an 11 month old white and red Akita, weighing approximately 60 lbs. when he lost control of the dog. • After losing control of the dog, in some manner, the dog was able to shed the leash and ran off, out of his sight. • When he arrived at the scene of the incident, he gained control of his dog and was informed his dog had bitten Ms. Lacy's dog, a toy poodle. • His dog appears to have an" issue" with Ms. Lacy's dog, possibly due to an incident in August of 2011, when he was a puppy and was nipped on the leg by Ms. Lacy's dog. • Additionally, whenever he walks his dog in the vicinity of Ms. Lacy's premise, her dogs constantly bark and yelp at his dog. • He filed a report with Domestic Animal Services which included testimonials on his dog's behavior. However, he was notified the report was not relevant to the case for the County's consideration that the dog should be deemed a "Dangerous Dog." 1612-A` 3 February 17, 2012 Domestic Animal Services Officer Anier Marrero presented the case for the County: Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 7 photos taken by Ms. Lacy's vet, January 5, 2012. Donna Lacy testified: • On January 5, 2012, she was walking 2 dogs outside the line of sight of Mr. Bardis's dog, when his dog came around a corner and unprovoked, attacked her toy poodle. • Tom Shadley, a neighbor was walking his dog across the street, witnessed the incident and immediately arrived on the scene to diffuse the attack. • Her dog sustained serious injuries in two areas; on the neck and left side of the body. • The injuries required treatment by a veterinarian including wound cleaning, sutures and placement of a "drain." • In her opinion, if Mr. Shadley had not subdued the attack, Mr. Bardis's dog would have killed Ms. Lacy's dog. In response to Mr. Bardis questions, Ms. Lacy stated her dogs do bark in her yard at times, but are controlled by a leash while outdoors on her property. Mr. Shadley testified: • When the incident occurred, he was walking his dogs across the street from Ms. Lacy. • He immediately proceeded to the scene to assist Ms. Lacy. • In order to stop the attack, he had to physically kick Mr. Bardis's dog, upon which time the dog released the poodle from his mouth. • After releasing the poodle, Mr. Bardis's dog attempted to re- attack, however the parties prevented any further altercations. • Mr. Bardis arrived on the scene and was able to gain control of his dog. In response to Mr. Bardis's questions, Mr. Shadley stated, at the time of the incident Mr. Bardis's dog ran by his dogs and crossed the street to the scene of the attack, without bothering his dogs. Mr. Bardis's dog has never been aggressive nor shown any ill nature toward his dogs. Dana Alger, Domestic Animal Services Supervisor stated: • The report Mr. Bardis filed was not relevant to the determination. Determinations are based on evidence ascertained in individual incidents(s), not past history of an animal's daily behavior. • The determination was based on two valid affidavits and the severity of the injuries sustained by the animal during the attack. Mr. Bardis concluded, in his opinion the incident is an isolated incident. His dog has an "issue" with Ms. Lacy's poodle due to a previous incident(s). The dog is not a danger to the public or other dogs and should not be deemed a "dangerous dog ". Based on evidence presented and the Ordinance, the Special Magistrate DENIED Mr. Bardis Is appeal. C. Emergency Cases None 1612 A3 February 17 2012 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: None 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 County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: March 2, 2012 at 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 9:53 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING QAJ �- enda Garretson, Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented ✓ , or as amended 1 4 1612 Feruary 23; 2Q12 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD ., Naples, Florida AN 12 2012 February 23, 2012 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: CHAIRMAN: Fiala y Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta C� ALSO PRESENT: Kenneth Kelly (Absent) Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino, Alternate (Absent) Chris Hudson (Absent) Robert Kaufman (Acting Chair) John L. Rauch Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Misc. Cones: Item #: \ U7= -2— V'--4 3 Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board copies to: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist. Page 1 1 6 2 �3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. The code enforcement meeting is now in session. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentations, 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 chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts 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 on 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. And let's have a roll call. MS. BAKER: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman will be acting as Chair today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. UESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. John Rauch. MR. RAUCH: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chris Hudson, Mr. Ron Doino and Mr. Ken Kelly all have excused absences for today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a cozy group Page 2 e§ru[k3' 240 1'2 today. MS. BAKER: Yes. And welcome to the Board, Dr. John Rauch. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome. Okay. Well, let's start out with the approval of the agenda. MS. BAKER: Under number four, public hearings /motions, letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, number five, Case CESD20100006719, Leszek and Henryka Klim, has been withdrawn. We have three additions, two motions for extension of time. Number six under motion for extension of time will be George D. Martin and Debra Martin, Case CESD20100021462. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I stop you right there a second? When you do this, can you give me the item under imposition of fines or wherever they were so I can write it down? MS. BAKER: Sure. Number six, George Martin and Debra Martin was number four from imposition of fines. The next will be number one from imposition of fines. This is Henry and Jan E. Holzkamper, Case CESD20110006971. And the last one will be number nine from imposition of fines, Roger Tovar and Ofelia Delgado, Case CESD20110003266. Under letter B, stipulations, we have three stipulations. The first will be case number 16 from the agenda. Case CESD20110000425, Elidia Garcia. The second will be number 11 from the agenda, Case CESD20110004532, Judson G. White. The third will be case number four from the agenda, Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox. Under letter C. hearings, number two, Case CEVR20110002999, Sean King Trust, has been withdrawn. Number five, Case CESD20110006837, Jose D. Olvera and Elva Olvera, has been withdrawn. Number seven, Case CESD20100019987, Pedro O. Lara, has Page 3 16 12 43 February 23, 2012 been withdrawn. Number eight, Case CEPM20100010033, Pedro O. Lara, has been withdrawn. Number nine, Case CESD20110006746, Jose Quevedo, has been withdrawn. Number 15, Case CESD20110006404, Nian Financing Corp., has been withdrawn. Under old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, number 13, Case CESD20110010017, Jeffrey Lee Smith, Jr., has been withdrawn. And I believe that we have one more stipulation to add. The stipulation will be number six from the agenda, Case CEAU20110013571, Jeff J. and Joan R. Reeder. And that's all the changes I have. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: That's enough. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll take a motion to accept the agenda as modified. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Which brings us to the minutes from the last meeting. Do we 1 §,�, A3 1 ��y z3, 2012 have any comments, changes, additions on the minutes? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. RAUCH: I have to abstain. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One abstention from Dr. Rauch. Which brings us to our motions for extensions of time. The first one is Waste Services of Florida, if I'm not mistaken. MS. RAWSON: Now I can understand why our newest member can't vote on the minutes, but if anybody abstains we're in trouble, because we don't have a quorum. MS. BAKER: Four is a quorum. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the minutes will probably have to be moved to the next meeting because he abstained because he was not present. MS. RAWSON: No, if you've got four and they were all here. Now, are all of you voting members? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. (Mr. Chris Hagan and Investigator Box were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you're on. MR. HAGAN: All right. Good morning, Board. I'm here representing Waste Services. I was in front of you all, oh, back in November to ask for an extension because we had to make some modifications to a building 161 2 i13 February 23, 2012 permit. At that time you granted us a 60 -day extension. I made the assumption that it was 60 days on the end of the existing time frame instead of from that date, and we missed our deadline by a couple of days. But we do have our certificate of completion. And I think we missed it by just a couple of days, maybe 10 or 11 days. But we are complete. We've met the requirements of the agreement and are hoping to close out the case today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County have any comments? INVESTIGATOR BOX: None other than the permit itself, sir, was C.O.'d on the 10th of February, 2012, and there's nothing else. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in all likelihood we grant the extension of time, this goes away and doesn't come out. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: They're nowhere else on the agenda except for the request for extension? INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll entertain a motion for approval. MR. RAUCH: So moved. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion for approval. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. We have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimous. 16 1' 2 i� 3 February 23, 2012 MS. RAWSON: How many days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's already done. MS. BAKER: Till today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, next case is County versus Bruce Blocker. (Mr. Bruce and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It looks like that according to the copy that I have here that you are asking for an additional six months? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, we're in the middle of the SIP application and we received some comments, and we just need more time to complete the application. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're asking for an additional six months? MR. BLOCKER: Correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the $80.29 court costs been paid? MR. BLOCKER: Yes, today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the county? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. No objection. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none -- MR. MIESZCAK: I had a comment, if you don't mind. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MIESZCAK: It says you received comments from the county and that was the end of it. And I would just like to know, what kind of comments is the county giving you? MR. BLOCKER: Mainly it's just additional information regarding landscape, water management, density requirements. We have to meet current zoning standards. Some of them we cannot. The Page 7 16142 A.3 February 23, 2012 ones we cannot, I guess the code enforcement will bring it to the Board of Collier County Commissioners and request approval that way. So we're kind of working out what we can meet and what we can't, how to improve the site to bring it to the current code. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have two questions. That was one of them. My question on that, the comment, is when did you receive those? MR. BLOCKER: I think October -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may clarify for the board, traditionally when they do the SIP's, if it's a nonconforming property or something is wrong with the plan that they submit or they need to make corrections, they get the corrections, they're notified of the corrections. Then a lot of times it takes time for them to research and do what they need to do as far as this property. The process has recently been redefined. So that's part of the problem is we were trying to redefine a process for these nonconforming properties. We're in the process. They know what they have to do. They have been diligent in doing what they need to do. The comments were -- again, one of the things they have to figure out is what current codes can they meet. And if they can't meet them, what they can, and that has to have approval. So they're in the process of doing that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My other question was it said the project was put on hold. I assume that it's off of hold now? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. That was kind of -- we were just trying to get more information as what was required to bring this into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a 0_.: motion? it. 16 � � A3 February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we approve the extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Dr. Rauch. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the Board. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which brings us to the next case, which is Jose Casarez. And Maria Rodriguez is the county. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm not Maria but I'll be speaking for her. (Mr. Jose Casarez and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CASAREZ: Yes, I just need an extension because at the time when I started this process I got laid off from work. And now I'm going back to work, but I'm getting all the permits and everything needed so it would go in compliance with the code. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may offer some clarity? The initial property was viewed as a violation because it had two mobile homes. The respondent has taken his daughter in and they had moved a new trailer on the property, another double wide, so everybody could exist. One of those has to go. The old trailer was permitted, the new one was not. e§jr� 3, 201 Because of the stipulations about wind loads and different criteria that are associated with mobile homes, because he purchased it secondhand, he didn't have all that. So he's had to track all this down this whole time to try to figure out what was the best way and if he even could permit it. He's got that, he's got a contractor, he's almost there. He's almost there. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see 120 days was granted in October. And how much extension of time do you need to complete the process? MR. CASAREZ: Sixty days will be fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: Does the county feel that's an adequate amount of time? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would prefer 90 to be sure. Because they have applied, buy I don't want him to come back again. He has to take off work, he's -- we would prefer 90. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion, 90 -day extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have -- MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a second? We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 10 1612A3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: He has paid operational costs, by the way. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, if we could move the next case, Janet Sneeden, to the end of extension of time, as they went to get payment for the operational costs, and they will be back. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion we move it to the end of the meeting. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Change the agenda? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Agenda's been modified. We're moving that, by the way, to the end of the -- which section? MS. BAKER: Probably to be safe we could move it to the end of the stipulations. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. Which brings us to Leszek and Henryka Klim. MS. BAKER: That was withdrawn. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 11 Fe�ru A 12� 2012 MS. BAKER: It would be George and Debra Martin. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was the imposition of fines, number four, if I'm not mistaken. (Mr. Randy Johns and Investigator Box were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a lot of cases, and I didn't go to page turning school. Okay. This is the ATF permit case? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've asked for an extension of time. Could you explain to the board. MR. JOHNS: At this time we've actually completed it and we've picked up a C.O. for that, so it is completed. We're done as far as anything we need to do. INVESTIGATOR BOX: That's correct. The certificate of completion was filed on the 21 st of February, 2012. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we extend the time till today, this goes away and we're all set -- INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that's correct? Anybody want to make a motion to extend the time limit till the end of today? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have the motion. We have a second. Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 12 Ae6 f A3 bruary 2, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Jen, that brings us to? MS. BAKER: The next will be number one from imposition, Henry and Jan Holzkamper. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Hip replacement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know how you feel. I still have my hip, it just hurts. (Mr. Holzkamper and Investigator Botts were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you let us know why you'd like to extend the time on this. MR. HOLZKAMPER: A year and a half ago, repurchasing a property, we did two repairs which were illegal, not to our knowledge. One, we replaced some drywall. And if every time we replaced a piece of drywall we had to get a building permit and an architect and everything, we'd go crazy. But anyway, we replaced it and we didn't have a permit. So part of the issue is that. The other thing was on an outside stairway we replaced an upright. And according to code -- when I say upright, I mean the post, there's the bannister. According to the code, if you replace one piece of wood on a stairway, you have to get a permit and bring the whole stairway up to code. Well, this is a 30- year -old stairway, which is perfectly good, but we had to do that. And when we were here in August we asked for 90 days to do this. It took over a month just to -- after three rejections by the architect drawing for this new stairway, took over a month just to get the drawings before you could even do the permit. Anyway, we were done very, very close to the 90 days we had. Page 13 11,2 3 6 p Z And I thought that was it. You know, the stairway was up, it was there for the inspector to see. But I had forgotten or didn't realize we also had to get the drywall permit. And it's called drywall by affidavit, is that it? Also, we moved. We're renting. And I didn't receive a notification in November or December that I was in jeopardy or hadn't completed everything. So I only got that a week ago. So I immediately called and said we'll take care of it. And yesterday the drywall contractor was at Horseshoe applying for the permit. So the upshot is we're asking for 60 days to get the drywall affidavit permit and drop the fines. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Mr. Holzkamper has paid the operational costs. And he's actually asking 60 days from today. It would actually be a longer extension time, because his compliance date was the 23rd of November, 2011. I don't know how you gentlemen would like to do those arrangements. But he's actually -- and I explained that to him earlier, I wanted you guys to understand he's asking for 60 days from today. But he has already passed his compliance date. The stairs are done, the permit's been completed with a certificate of completion which was issued on January 17th, 2012. So the last remaining item is just having this permit by affidavit submitted and issued and approved -- completed for the drywall that had been replaced in the unit. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do remember this case in August. I remember you had the pictures. It was a very attractive piece of property that you had rehabbed. Any questions from the board? MR. RAUCH: None. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for 90 days? Page 14 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 MR. HOLZKAMPER: It will probably be done in 30 days, but 60 is for sure. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty is for sure? MR. L'ESPERANCE: According to the county, should the extension be just the 60 or 90 days, or should it extend back to when the first one expired? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm going to say it would need to extend from when the first one expired so that way fines are not accruing. MS. BAKER: We can just grant a 60 -day or 90 -day extension from today. MR. HOLZKAMPER: That would be good. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we give him the 90 -day extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? luck. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Passes unanimously. Good MR. HOLZKAMPER: You're gentlemen, but may I never see you again. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you take care of your hip and don't trip on those steps. Page 15 161'2 13 February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. BAKER: The next will be case number nine from imposition, Roger Tovar and Ofelia Delgado, Case CESD20110003266. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The owner has applied for a demolition permit, she has paid the operational costs, and we're just waiting on the five -day inspection to C.O. the demolition permit. The violation has been abated. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if we extend the time till the end of today, that should take care of this case as well? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: They do not have a C.O. yet. I'm sorry, the violation has not been abated because they don't have the C.O. yet. They will have the C.O. within five days. The carport has been removed and the shed has been removed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So 30 days would make this also go away? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Right. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to extend the time an additional 30 days? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved for 30 days. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 16 161 3 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. Passes unanimously. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, we do have one addition to the stipulations. And it will be number 17 from hearings, Case CESD20110005690, Luis Arteaga and Ruby Osorio. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it will be stip number five? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. So the first stip will be number 16 from the agenda, Case CESD20110000425, Elidia Garcia. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like we have an expired permit from 2005 is this case. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you let us know a little bit about it. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110000425. I'd like to clarify some errors in the stipulation in regards to the dates. It says currently scheduled for February 22nd and that's February 23rd hearing. And the dates on the signature were also the 21st and it was actually done yesterday, the 22nd. So just, you know, for that clarification. I met with Ms. Elidia Garcia yesterday in the office and she agreed to do -- agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, Page 17 E h3 1 2 ebruary 1 23, 2012 inspections and certification of occupancy /completion within 365 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also number three: That the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and rgquest the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance., Number 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent been diligent in working these issues? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The respondent has obtained a new permit. So I explained to her that because of the extension of this time that's granted, she must maintain that permit valid, complete the project, call in the inspections and obtain the certificate of completion/occupancy. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the $80.86 will be paid within 30 days? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It was explained to her as well, yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seeing none, do we have a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion to the stipulation as agreed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. A3 �erI ua 392012 rY VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Cristina. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you, board members. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number 11 from the agenda, Case CESD20110004532, Judson G. White. (Mr. Judson White and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, if I'm not mistaken, you're on first. County goes first. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. A stipulation has been agreed. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs of $81.15 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, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. White, you have Page 19 A3 Februaryl2 , 2012 heard what the stipulation is and you have agreed to all of those clauses? MR. WHITE: Yes, I did. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any problem with the 90 days? MR. WHITE: No, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: the stipulation, second by Dr. Rauch. All those in favor? We have a motion to accept MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number four from the agenda, Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox. (Mr. Larry Fox and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and a certificate of Page 20 'A thrl' 23, 2�2 completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do I understand that if the -- you had two inspections done. One is 24 hours from now? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then after the permits and everything else has been completed. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? You are Mr. -- MR. FOX: Larry Fox. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: --Larry Fox. And do you have any comments on the stipulation that you agreed to? MR. FOX: No. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? MR. MIESZCAK: One question. Is it occupied now? MR. FOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the people will be gone in 24 hours, or whoever the occupants are? MR. FOX: Yes. Page 21 16 12 A3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: If you have any questions, just stay in touch with the county, Mr. Fox, and they'll answer your questions for you. Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the -- or am I looking at the wrong one? This was the sheds? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, the shed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to make a motion we accept the stipulation as presented. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. FOX: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number six from the agenda, Case CEAU20110013571, Jeff J. and Joan R. Reeder. (Mr. and Mrs. Reeder and Supervisor Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20110013571. Page 22 1612 A3 February 23, 2012 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 a required -- obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the r violation is abated. Three: 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. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Mr. Reeder? MR. REEDER: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any comments on the -- MR. REEDER: No, sir, I agree fully. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fully. And you have no problem with the 90 days getting everything done? MR. REEDER: It shouldn't be no problem. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. MARINO: I'll make the motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Page 23 16 I` 2 A'3 February 23, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes u'''nanimously. Good luck. MR. REEDER: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The last stipulation will be number 17 from the agenda, Case CESD20110005690, Luis Arteaga and Ruby Osorio. (Supervisor Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110005690. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 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 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: 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. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 24 161'2' A3 February 23, 2012 This is the chickens case, I guess. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Actually, all's he has left on the property is a carport, just a metal carport structure, that's it. All the chicken coops, all the structures are gone. So he came here today, he showed me pictures of everything that was left and he signed this agreement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So 90 days should be sufficient time frame. I INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Plenty of time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation as agreed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: Okay, Mr. Chair, that brings us back to the extension for Janet Sneeden, Case CESD20110009351. The respondent is not back yet, but we can go ahead and make the recommendation to the board at this time. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the record, please? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 25 16 112 A3 February 23, 2012 (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The respondent originally asked for six months. She went to get a money order to pay for the operational cost, and she's not back at this time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are my questions that I had. How much time was -- which was a -- six months seemed to be a little bit on the long side, if you will. Ninety days was already granted on this. Do you see any progress on this that would -- INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No permits have been applied for and -- no. You know, they are working on it. You know, I know they are going through some, you know, financial hardships at this time. MR. MIESZCAK: But you did say no permits were applied. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No permits or anything have been applied for. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina? (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Initially -- I've had several communications with the respondent's boyfriend in regards to the progress that they've been attempting on this case. I was getting a phone call every other week as to what they were trying to do. Ultimately the mobile home has two additions, one on -- in the front, one in the back. And from what they've expressed is they -- if they remove both of the additions, the mobile home on both sides is exposed to the elements. So not only do they have to come in and obtain a demolition permit to remove that, but then they also have to attempt to repair the mobile home to make it livable for them. So the two options that they were seeking was to demolish the entire thing completely because there's no way that they would be able to salvage what would be left of the mobile home. Page 26 1612 93 February 23, 2012 They've attempted engineering and architectural to try to get blueprints to permit what's already there, but that has also been very expensive for lack of employment. So they're -- when we spoke to her this morning, it was still kind of the intent where she is gearing towards demolishing the mobile home and seeking to replace it with something else in order to have something to live in. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you feel 90 days would+e sufficient time for the respondent to not only decide what they're doing but to have it done? It looks like it's just going to be demolished. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah, I mean, it's a tough decision for them but, you know, ultimately -- oh, she just walked in. MR. MIESZCAK: And they're living in it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they living in it? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: They are still -- you know, she is still living there. Hi. (Ms. Janet Sneeden was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ms. Sneeden? MS. SNEEDEN: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina's been telling us your problem that you're having out there, and she informed us that you were going to try to get a check to cover the court costs, if you will, for this case. And she also said that you were looking for some time to resolve the situation one way or another. So if you would, explain to us what you'd like to do and we'll see if we can come to some agreement. MS. SNEEDEN: I'm not good talking. I got paper. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Cristina thinks that 90 days would be sufficient time for you to have your problems resolved one way or the other. Do you think that is sufficient time for you to take care of what needs to be taken care of based on what they have explained to you? Page 27 1612 13 February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: I don't think she's understanding. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what I'm saying? My wife never does, but do you understand? MS. SNEEDEN: I have paper. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Janet, I explained to them that you have the problem with the mobile home. MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And that you either need to W move the additions that were made to the mobile home -- MS. SNEEDEN: Oh, yeah, yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: -- and if you remove those additions then you have to fix your mobile home or you're trying to buy a new one. So they -- and I've explained to them that, you know, it's a lack of -- you know, of unemployment and not having the sufficient amount of money to be able to do those things now. So that's why you're asking for more time. MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. Eric left. So I'm going to try to do it. That chicken coop, do you see that last time in the window? That's chicken coop. I took it out, it looked awful. I took it out. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Dean, you had -- or Miesczak, whatever you'd like to be called today -- a comment? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I've been on this board a while, and what really bothers me a lot is the safety issue. And you mentioned how livable the property is. And we are always concerned about if the electrical's a problem and some accident does happen. And that's why I can't approve those kind of things. And it's just if it's not livable, it's not livable. And maybe somebody has to step in and help the lady that's trying to live there. So, I mean, I'd like to know your opinion to that. You said it was not livable. Page 28 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, if they removed the additions. If they remove the additions that were built on there without permits, then the -- the mobile home has walls that were removed. The original mobile home walls were removed to put these additions on. So if they remove that, they still have to repair those walls. And that's what -- you know, she would have to then come in to -- you know, and have to expend more funds to fix those holes that would remain then. MR. MARINO: Is it livable at this time? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I personally have not walked into the mobile home. MR. MIESZCAK: I think in this case somebody needs to help her or go there and find out. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I have attempted to call Habitat for Humanity, call different organizations in the area that could possibly assist either with funds or with a different structure, and unfortunately I was unable to find any assistance for them that they would be able to qualify for. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is not a case of 90 days or 120 days, or 60 days for that matter, to find out what's going on. Sixty days probably would be more than enough time, provided that there is no current safety if -- the property would need to be inspected by somebody. Is there electrical in the additions? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: In anything that's always built without a permit, we just don't know. You know, I mean, you always run that risk you don't know. It has been an addition that's been there since the late Nineties, you know, that's been placed on the mobile home. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments? MR. RAUCH: I believe -- I think we need a current inspection by somebody if this (sic) structures are safe at all at this stage before we can give this lady any direction. Page 29 Februa16 ry 23, 2012~ MR. MIESZCAK: I mean, we certainly wouldn't feel comfortable if you gave 90 days and then, you know, behold, if, you know, something happened, a fire or whatever. And that's a common thing throughout the country, that people live in a home where the wiring is not done properly and there's a fire caused. And somebody needs to talk to this person to find out. Maybe like she said, Habitat or something. So I couldn't approve anything here. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Janet, would you allow us to enter the mobile home and look at the additions? I mean, perhaps we can work MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: -- with the building department to, you know, assist us in making that determination and come back to you next month? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that would be great. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Would you be okay with us going onto your property and entering the home and taking a look at that for you? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah, please. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'll -- will you accept a motion for 30 days then or until the next meeting and we'll have more information to make a better decision on. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And we'll try to arrange that as soon as possible, so if there's anything else that we could assist with in that meantime, we will try. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, I'd be comfortable with that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion 30 days, and it's going to be inspected within three. MR. RAUCH: Second. Page 30 1612 A3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have some time. And the county is going to try to help you by bringing somebody in to take a look and see what needs to be done to make sure it's safe. Okay? MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you very much. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. SNEEDEN: I'm done? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're all done. MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may want to touch base with Cristina out in the hall and see what arrangements need to be made. MS. BAKER: Okay, we're now on to hearings. Number one, Case CESD20100008561, Josse Perez and Isabel Perez. (Ms. Isabel Perez and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: No Collier County permits obtained or inspection and certificate of completion for the pool and pool screen cage enclosure. Location/address where violation exists: 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 37221090008. Page 31 161! ? A3 February 23, 2012 Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Josse and Isabel Perez, 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: July 16th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 30th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 14th, 2011. ' Date of reinspection: November 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100008561, dealing with the violation of a pool screen enclosure built without Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion, located at 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Service was given on August 30th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken by myself on August 30th, 2011. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photo? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I will show her now. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept the photos. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 32 16N2 A3 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: This case was initiated as a result of a complaint of code violations on the property. During my research I observed that the pool and pool screen cage enclosure permits had expired without all required inspections performed and certificates of completion issued. I met with the owner, Isabel Perez. We discussed the issues. And Ms. Perez started the process of satisfying permit requirements. In the meantime I requested Contractors Licensing look into the contractors who obtained the original permits to see if they could assist. Reggie Smith from Contractors Licensing contacted me a few days later and advised me due to the age of the permits and only one of the companies being in business currently, he was -- his department was unable to assist with the permits. Mrs. Perez was able to get the pool permit satisfied and a certificate of completion was obtained on November 3rd, 2011. Ms. Perez contacted me early last week and advised due to money constraints she has been unable to satisfy the pool screen enclosure at this time. To date the pool screen enclosure permit remains unsatisfied and this case has been prepared for today's hearing. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the problem with the screen that's up there, other than the permit? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The screen cage is in place. The permit was pulled in '95 but no inspections were ever performed on it. So I couldn't tell you. Not one inspection done. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But your observation on the screen, looks like it's intact? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, it's intact. Looks good. No rips, no tears. Page 33 1612 A3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Ms. Perez? MS. PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Chris has been very helpful through this process. When we bought this home, which is our only home, about 12 or 13 years ago, we didn't know that it was our responsibility to check and make sure that when we bought the house the permits were obtained and completed. So we inherited this. When Chris came out to the property for the first time, we took care of everything that he had on his checklist, as we want to do the right thing. We were able to complete the one for the electrical pool. We got the permit, they went out there, everything's completed. When it comes to the screen enclosure, because the company is out of business, we would have to go to an architectural law firm or place to get like an affidavit. It costs a lot of money. I've researched it. I don't have the financial means to do that. I've explained to Chris and Cristina, who have been very helpful, that our home is approved for short sale. We're going to have to vacate the premises on April 1 st. I still want to do the right thing. I've told my attorney who's been handling the short sale of the one that I completed and of the outstanding pool enclosure so that the person who is buying the home is aware. I have a folder for them. I just don't have the means to hire these architectural companies to come out and do an affidavit and pay for the permit. I do want to come here, I want to do the right thing, I want to work with Chris, I just don't have the means. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, it's -- obviously you've worked hard to resolve the situation, and it's unfortunate that you're in a short sale situation. Does the county have any suggestion on this? Page 34 161? February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I have a recommendation at this point. Again, she has been very diligent. She's done everything that she could do. I think she's gone above and beyond by letting the attorney know that there is an outstanding issue on the property so the new buyer is not in the same boat. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the first thing we need to do is find out if a violation exists and then we can talk further aliou where we go. MS. PEREZ: And this is the only one outstanding, right, Chris -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. MS. PEREZ: -- the pool? Because the electrical was done. County went out there, and I have that for the lawyer and the new owner. And I do want to resolve this. It just costs too much money in my situation now to go forward to make sure I close this for the person coming in. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Do we have a motion to find the respondent in violation? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 35 WA '0 A 3 February 63 12012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That passes unanimously. Which just means that there's no inspections that were done, that it really is in violation. Now, the meat of the matter is how do we resolve the situation. You're going to be vacating the property on April 1 st? MS. PEREZ: That's kind of the date I've been given. And the closing is on April 13th or thereabouts. But I haven't received it in writing yet, like I told Chris. If there's anything that I could still do to resolve this matter and you have any recommendations, I'm willing to do it. I've worked with the county, I've kept in touch. I want to do the right thing. We inherited this. We didn't know that this was like this when we bought the property. And I wouldn't want to do that to the person coming in, but -- VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you said you had a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I do. The county recommends 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 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. That the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct 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 Page 36 16 It 2 A-13 February 23, 2012 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question for the county, if you will. If 60 or 90 days was granted on this case, that would mean the short sale would occur and the liability for the violation will be explained to the new purchaser who would then have the ability or authority going in with their eyes wide open to know what needs to be done ahead of time. MS. FLAGG: Correct. The action that you take today, the order with the time frame that you give will be recorded at the Clerk of Courts. And then when they research, they'll see that there's an order recorded against the property. So if you were to give them three or four months as your compliance date, they can always ask for an extension if that's not enough time for them to comply. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it reasonable to expect that then the bank managing the short sale will possibly make an adjustment to the new purchaser? MS. FLAGG: Purchaser could certainly ask for that. MR. UESPERANCE: That should make you feel better. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would someone like to fill in the blank? It's $80.86 for 30 days. I'll try it. 120 days with $150 a day fine thereafter. I'll make that as a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 37 i.2' A 3 February 21, 2012 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. That means that you've done as much as you can do. Now it's up to the bank and the next person who owns the property. I can understand you not having the funds to put into a property that's going to be sold. MS. PEREZ: Yeah, because I think we determined if the company was still in business it was a matter of reaching out to them and saying research, why didn't you get the C.O. or where do we go from there. But not finding them makes it a lot harder. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And hopefully because of the way this is being handled now, it won't happen to the next person that purchases the house. MS. PEREZ: Here, here. You live and learn. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, thank you very much. MS. PEREZ: Thank you for your time. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number three on the agenda, Case CESD20110010712, Manuel Olvera. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) 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: Permit 2007090908 for reroof that was canceled without completing all inspections, and conversion of a garage to living space without permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1823 43rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35765240002. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Manuel Olvera, 1823 43rd Street Southwest, Naples, Page 38 Febru1623i 2f ' �2 A"� Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 3rd, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 3rd, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 3rd, 2011. Date of reinspection: December 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110010712, dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 1823 43rd Street Southwest. Zip code is 34116. Folio No. is 35765240002. Service was given on August 3rd, 2011. I have two items I'd like to present into evidence. One is a photograph taken by myself on August 3rd, 2011 that will depict the garage conversion from the outside of the house, and a photograph taken from a previous code case on the property that shows what the property looked like before the garage conversion. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 39 16 I 2-' A3 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. He was sworn in; is that correct? 0 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This is a photograph taken from a code case from approximately 10 years ago that shows that it was a garage. And I'll show the photo what it looks like today. This was taken back in August, and it shows that the garage has been converted to living space. This case actually initiated, we had received complaints about the property due to tall grass and litter was on the property. And during normal research of the property I found that there was a permit, a roof permit that hadn't been satisfied from 2007. And also on the property card it noted that -- a metal shed and a garage conversion. So I researched those items, could not locate permits for those items. Because the property is vacant and in foreclosure, the case was worked with the foreclosure team. The bank was able to go out and abate the violation such as cutting the grass and removing the litter. And they also removed the shed from the property, because it just a -- it was an old metal shed. But unfortunately they were unable to do anything as far as the roof permit or the garage conversion, and that's where it sits today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like the floor elevation is the same as the driveway, more or less, so -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the first clue. The roof in this photograph, is that a bad photograph or does that look like -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, there's no issue with the roof. And in fact, in researching the permit, the roof had actually had a partial approval on the final roof inspection. The only thing was 0=1 1 �' §3, Febru�i`y2?2 �� required from the owner at that time was they needed to provide an affidavit for the roof deck nailing. And unfortunately the owner's no longer around, so -- but, I mean, I think as far as the roof goes, it should be pretty much up to code. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion that we find them in violation? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved. MR. RAUCH: Second. 19 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is 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 to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank 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 Page 41 16112 A3 February 23, 2012 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a side question. Have you been in contact, or has the foreclosure team been in contact with the bank on this? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they have already taken care of some of the problems there? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. It's just when the bank doesn't have title, they can't really do anything with permit issues. But everything else that they could have taken care of as far as cutting the grass and removing litter, and like I said, they actually took the shed, it was an old metal shed, off the property. I mean, they were pretty diligent in that regard. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to fill in the blanks on the stipulation -- on the recommendation? MR. RAUCH: Has there been any contact with the owner at all? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. Owner has been M.I.A. the entire time. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to fill in the blanks. I'd like to suggest that the cost of $80.29 be paid; that the bank be given or the owner be given 120 days to fix the violation. If not fixed, $250 per day fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and the 80.29 be paid within 30 days. MR. UESPERANCE: Correct. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. I have one question of the county. I know we've had this discussion many times, Ms. Flagg. Are we better off, since this isn't a Page 42 161E A3 February 23, 2012 foreclosure, to motivate the bank to foreclose on it sooner rather than later? Or it probably doesn't matter one way or the other? MS. FLAGG: Are you asking in terms of time frames? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, obviously we want to get this done as quickly as possible. And the banks sometimes sit on property for years before they do anything. It looks like the bank in this particular case has been diligent in trying to resolve the situation. So sometimes we're better off with a short frame and sometimes a longer frame. MS. FLAGG: Shorter frames serve as motivation. VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, 120 days seems to be short enough, I guess. Any other discussion on this? MR. MIESZCAK: You think that's a long time, 120 days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I said it's short enough. MR. MIESZCAK: You think so? Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's take a 10- minute break, come back at 20 after. (Recess.) Page 43 A3 6 1 Fe ruary 2 , 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Code Enforcement Board is back in session. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 10 on the agenda, Case CEVR20110014528, Leon D. and Joan McCaskey. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INVESTIGATOR JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Mr. McCaskey and Investigator Jones were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54 'Article 6, Section 54- 185.C. Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including but not limited to Brazilian potato, air potato, Downy Rose Myrtle within a 200 -foot radius of an improved property. Location/address where violation exists: 1335 Center Lane, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 75460840000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Leon D. and Joan McCaskey, 1200 Lestrada Lane, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: October 26th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice the violation: December 5th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 20th, 2011. Date of reinspection: December 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. UESPERANCE: Is this a rental property? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's an unimproved property. There's no house on it. And he owns the property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, Februiy 23I'2012 A3 David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CEVR20110014528 dealing with the presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that is located upon an unimproved property, and it's within a 200 -foot radius of any abutting improved property. Initial service was given on December 5th, 2011. I'd like to just present a photograph of the property; shows you the Brazilian pepper. MR. MIESZCAK: Has he seen a -- VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, I did show him earlier. When I spoke with you earlier -- MR. McCASKEY: Yes. INVESTIGATOR JONES: -- I showed you the photographs? MR. McCASKEY: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem with seeing the picture? MR. McCASKEY: No, not at this time, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept the photo. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion, a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: The original initial site inspection was on October 26th, 2011. And as you can see it's, you know, pretty Nol i" 16 Feb 2' A,3 , 2012 much loaded with Brazilian pepper on the property. Brazilian pepper seems to comprise most of the prohibited exotic vegetation. There may be others in there like air potato, but it's hard to tell because it's so dense. On December 20th I did speak with Mr. McCaskey and, you know, he just kind of mentioned that he's not going to put any money into it, the property values have dropped. And he'll elaborate on that` further. But that's kind of where he stands on it. It's not something that's going to get abated any time soon. And at that point the case has just been brought before the CEB. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What size property is this? INVESTIGATOR JONES: What size is it? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Uh -huh. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Let's see. I can tell you that right now. It is I want to say -- Mr. McCaskey, what is it, about a quarter of an acre, half an acre? MR. McCASKEY: Oh, no, no, no, it's less than a quarter. It's about -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Oh, here it is right here. It's .18 acres. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'm not familiar with Center Lane. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Center Lane is -- you take 41 north to Wiggins Pass Road. You turn left going west on Wiggins Pass Road and then it's your first left from there. And you go all the way down and it dead ends. And his property's on the right side. And it's -- you know, it's located next to an approved property. I think it's like a coach home or something like that. So it is within 200 feet of an improved property. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. McCaskey? MR. McCASKEY: Good morning. I hadn't planned to appear Page 46 161`2 A3 February 23, 2012 here this morning. Mr. Jones encouraged me to be here and see what the board might have to say under the situation. As he noted, it's a. 17 acres, was what the size? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's .18, yeah. MR. McCASKEY: Excuse me. It's a very narrow lot, very undersized lot at the end of that street. It is part of the platted subdivision known as Sunny Trail Heights. It's an undersized lot. And I've had it for almost 20 years. It in effect defaulted to me. happened to be a tax certificate holder at that time. The property had, from -- the original owner had abandoned the property; they walked away from it. It defaulted to me because I happened to be a certificate holder, so I've been the title holder for 19 or 20 -- 1993 I think I acquired it. So I've done what I can to maintain the lot, with the long -term intention way back then of maybe building a small unit on it and maybe renting out that residence. Now, it hasn't come to fruition. Over the years I've done the usual maintenance and trimmed things and kept the weeds under control and that, paid the taxes of course up until this year. At this point I just don't see any future value in the land. It's assessed at $445000 by the tax office, which is about four times at least the real market value of the lot. In my opinion, anyhow. I've gotten them to lower the assessment as of last year somewhat, but they have a long ways to go yet. So I wanted to hear what the board might have to say, considering the fact that the value -- the guestimate, if you will, that I have of clearing the lot to comply with the code was something probably over $4,000, okay. And that doesn't include the, what do you call it, spraying -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: There's an additional. MR. McCASKEY: The weed killer or whatever. INVESTIGATOR JONES: There's an additional county code requirement that when you do remove prohibited exotic vegetation Page 47 A -3 Feb 162, 2012 such as this and a base remains, that a visual tracer dye /herbicide be applied to that base to inhibit any future growth that may come out of A it. And that's something that he was also cited for in regards to this property. MR. McCASKEY: As part of the entire package. I have no trouble with the neighbor at all complaining; I wouldn't want to live next to it either. But at this point I just don't see the value of the lot. I've tried to sell the lot several times. I've written letters to first of all the next door neighbor and they weren't interested in buying the lot at all. I've written a letter to Germain Lincoln Mercury, their property acquisition department. And Germain Lincoln Mercury had no interest. Because it was right behind their dealership there, and I thought it would be a perfect place to park some more suitable cars. I've written a letter to North Naples Fire Department, and they own the parcel contiguous to that, and they were not interested in the property at all. So the property's very low, very wet, and heavily overgrown, as you see. The property adjacent to that, in 2004 Norm Feder sent a memorandum to the adjacent parcel saying that parcel was low and it was being condemned because it was wetlands, if you will. And this parcel is virtually the same thing. It's a little dryer now because of the Brazilian peppers keeping it dry. But to build on it or to improve it, you'd probably need at least $10,000 worth of fill in the land, 4,000 or more to clear what's there, okay, and then a building permit perhaps in the range of $35,000. So you're well over $50,000 to do anything with that lot. People don't want -- nobody's interested in buying it, and frankly I'm not interested at this point in maintaining continuing to own the lot. So contrary to what some Naples realtors might have us believe, I don't think all property in Collier County has value. This is one that I would certainly challenge that. Feb 2 12 A45 But at this point my wife has some serious health issues and I don't see where I'll probably be putting any more money into it. So I'd be interested to hearing what other options the board might have for me at this point, if any. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The first thing, we'd have to find out if a violation exists. MR. McCASKEY: Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be the first step of the board. And then we can discuss if a violation exists where we go from there. So -- 44 MR. McCASKEY: The parcel right next to it, as I said, is owned by the North Naples Fire Department, okay. That also is vacant. But that parcel by the fire department is landlocked and they couldn't get -- if they had a building, couldn't get any equipment on to Center Street there, they'd have to go through my lot. So that's why I suggested that they might buy it for long -term plans, it would be perfect. Because it's not practical to go the other way, to exit and get up onto Wiggins Pass Road. So they would go over my lot. But since it's landlocked, the parcel around that is owned by the Boy Scouts and they have no interest in acquiring it. But I thought surely the fire department would have an interest because they cannot exit the property without going over my parcel. So if they're not interested, I question -- I'm not interested either in maintaining the property at this point. So I have serious thoughts about -- go ahead, I'm sorry. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'd like to make a motion that we have a violation. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? Fe��j A3 ary t3�O 12 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, so we have a violation, okay, which is probably something you know about, you're stuck between a rock and a Brazilian pepper. MR. McCASKEY: Many. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your intention is to -- MR. McCASKEY: I ser -- go ahead, I'm sorry. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, I was going to ask you to fill in the blanks. My intention on that piece of property is? And now -- MR. McCASKEY: I have seriously considered abandoning the property. This would be the second time in 20 years then that that property would have been abandoned. I attest to the value, the location, the usefulness, if you will. Because it's so low, it's always wet, it's very undersized and it's at the end of a dead -end street that nobody else can use. And I've attempted, as I said, letters to the adjacent property owners and the county's condemned adjacent parcels because of the drainage problem. MR. RAUCH: I have a question, if I might. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. RAUCH: Is there a chance of donating the property to the county? MR. McCASKEY: Well, I considered that. I considered that this morning. I don't know. What would it cost me? MR. RAUCH: Other than a tax write -off, just probably a big help. Page 50 162t Feb , 2012 LH 2 MR. McCASKEY: Then in this case, then I would execute a quitclaim deed to the county. And would there be any cost on my part beyond that? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that we're in a position to answer that question. MR. MARINO: He has to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'd ask Diane. I don't know whether the county wants it. MR. McCASKEY: That's attest to even more. MS. RAWSON: I don't know that we can make that decision for the county. MS. FLAGG: That would be a decision of the Board of County Commissioners as to whether they wish to accept that donation. But if donation is the discussion, there's some nonprofit organizations that may be interested in it, such as Habitat for Humanity. And /or if you speak in terms of donation to the North Naples Fire District, they may be interested. So those organizations that you mentioned you had previously approached, if you are considering donating the property, you may want to chat with them about donating the property to them. MR. McCASKEY: You said Habitat for Humanity? MS. FLAGG: Correct. Habitat is a nonprofit organization that we've had past code cases where they've donated the property to Habitat. There may be other organizations that would also be interested in that. MR. McCASKEY: From what you've seen then, for instance, for Habitat, is that a tax write -off that people have been able to use? MS. FLAGG: If they're a nonprofit organization, it would be a tax write -off. MR. McCASKEY: And you said North Naples Fire Department. Is there anybody else that you might be aware of that's a county agency? Page 51 Febrjry 239 A3 MR. MARINO: Probably your best bet would be North Naples Fire Department. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put it on Craig's List. MR. MARINO: I would go to the fire department. I would go to North Naples Fire Department. MR. McCASKEY: All right, I'll write them a letter. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I'd like to close the public hearing. My comment on the property would be we probably should come up with a motion that would give the respondent enough time to search out his alternatives for the property. So with that in mind -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, would you like to hear our recommendation? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I would. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Our recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. In addition to that, the prohibited exotic vegetation base stump, any that do remaiii, must be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. Finally, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator Nvhen the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection tc, �;onfirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance -- Page 52 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down, please? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's smoke coming off of Cherie's fingers. INVESTIGATOR JONES: I'm moving too fast, okay. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I mentioned giving sufficient time is because probably if fines start to accrue on the property, it may be more difficult to give it away. INVESTIGATOR JONES: No, that's understandable. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if anybody would like to fill in the blanks here. MR. RAUCH: I'd like to make a motion that he have at least 90 days to take care of these areas, with a fine of 150 a day after that. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to suggest an amendment to your motion to make that 180 days, if that's reasonable for you? MR. RAUCH: Yes, it is. I accept the amendment. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fine? MR. MIESZCAK: And operational costs in 30 days, $80.57. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fine would be? MR. MIESZCAK: $150. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Cherie', you have all that? THE COURT REPORTER: I do, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MS. RAWSON: Could I have a clarification? Is that for both number one and two of the recommendations? In other words, it's 180 days to remove it and then also another 180 days to treat the stumps. Page 53 3 February 6 63, 2012 A So are there two separate $150 a day fines? INVESTIGATOR JONES: May I make a suggestion about that? It would probably be best to just run them concurrently. Because the herbicide is applied right after the exotic vegetation is removed. So it's just going to be like a packaged deal. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's hard to treat the stumps until you take the trees down. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Right. And you have to do it right after they're removed while the wood is still soft, and it will absorb it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're all set on this. Do we have a second on this? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have six months to find somebody before anything starts to accrue, any fines. Hopefully that should be sufficient time. If you have a problem within that time frame, I suggest you come back to us and see if we can offer any sage advice at that time. MR. McCASKEY: Okay, very fair. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones has been very professional about the whole arrangement here. And one way or another, we should have it resolved long before six months, if I had it my way. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number 12 on the agenda, Page 54 6 121 "' A3 Fe ruary 23, 2012 Case CESD20100020576, Shirwin, Inc. Oh, I apologize, that case has been withdrawn from the agenda. I So the next case will be number 13, Case CESD20110014160, Martha Mendez -Cruz. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) 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: Permit No. 2009020960 expired with no certificate of completion/occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 3525; 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 39778000002. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Martha Mendez -Cruz, 740 19th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 10th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October IOth,2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 9th, 2011. Date of reinspection: January 5th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20110014160 dealing with the violation of a house without issuance of a certificate of occupancy located at 3525 47th Avenue Northeast. Folio number 39778000002. Service was issued on October 10th, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photo of the home taken on October 6th, 2011 by prior Investigator Janis Potter. Page 55 Feb 16 I 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: This is a photo of the home that is constructed without certificate of occupancy. This case was initiated during a routine vacant home patrol by prior Investigator Janis Potter. The home appeared to be vacant at the time, appeared to be abandoned at the time. And during the research it was found that the house permit was expired for the third time. The initial permit was issued in 2004 and then again in 2007 to the prior owner. It was issued again to the current owner, Ms. Mendez -Cruz. Because of the lack of routine inspections, the 2009 permit expired in May of 2010. Contact was made on October 10th with the property owner's daughter, Veronica Fernandez. A notice was issued and she advised that her mother was in poor health. The permit was reapplied for within a couple of days, on October 14th, 2011. And the permit remained in ready for issuance status since October 21 st. No progress continued from when that permit was applied for in October, so the case was prepared for today's hearing. On February 10th, 2012, Janis Potter did make contact again with the homeowner's daughter, Veronica, and she advised that they were Page 56 A3 Febru16 - ary t3, 012 going through some personal hard -- family hardships, but she intended to complete the project in order to abate the violation. The permit was issued on February 10th, 2012, but as of today seven inspections remain to be inspected and approved. There are a couple of final inspections: A final septic, final electrical, final plumbing, final building. And also there are landscaping inspections, site drainage inspection and a right -of -way inspection. Once all those inspections are completed and approved,4then the home would be able to complete -- get a certificate of occupancy if there are any outstanding fees. MR. VESPERANCE: In your opinion does it seem that the present owners have an intention to proceed? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: She -- initially when she did talk to Investigator Potter, she did say she wanted to complete the project by February 17th. She did also make some contact and advised that with her family troubles -- her mother's ill and then her father was also very ill up in Tallahassee. And we encouraged her to send us something in writing advising us of her situation and how much time she was requesting. And she failed to do that. So I'm not sure what the current situation may be. But I do believe that they do intend to complete this project. MR. UESPERANCE: You mentioned this was uninhabited, correct? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It is uninhabited. At the time it did appear -- the grass was overgrown, it appeared to be abandoned. But since they've been maintaining the property. So it's not occupied. MR. UESPERANCE: Have you been inside the property? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I have not been inside the property. The home is closed. It is secured. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there electricity on in the house? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: There's no electricity currently on in the Page 57 A 3 house. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That means to me the four - letter word, mold. The respondent, in your conversation with him, thought they'd have it done in February? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: When Janis spoke with her on February 10th, she came in, she gathered up the money in order to be able toj reapply -- you know, to reobtain that permit. I tried contacting her to personally speak with her and I was unable to get in touch with her. The last contact that was made with her was on Friday, this past Friday. And, you know, she explained that she had the issues with her father and she feared that he wasn't going to make it through the weekend, so maybe that's perhaps why we didn't hear from them. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a lis pendens or a foreclosure on this? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No proceedings. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So do we have a violation? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Violation exists. We have a motion that it exists; do we have -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a second? We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 58 Febl§ 2A3 ~ VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. County recommends 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 the required Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank amount 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 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. VESPERANCE: I'd like to fill in the blanks, please. I'd like to suggest that the cost of $80.86 be paid within 30 days; that they be given 180 days to comply with this order or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 59 �j Febr�Td1 ry 21, 12 A3 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number 14, Case CESD20110014484, James A. and Barbara A. White. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) 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 Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Addition made to the front of the principal structure without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3150 36th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 41718160000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: James A. and Barbara A. White, 3150 36th Avenue Southeast, Naples Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 18th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 18th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 17th, 2011. Date of reinspection: January 20th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110014484, dealing with the violation of addition made to the front of the principal structure without Collier County building permits. Located at 3150 36th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 41718160000. 'A3 Febru�fy431 2�2 Service was given on October 18th, 2011 via posting. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken October 18th, 2011. Two aerial photos showing improvements. One photo taken yesterday, February 22nd, 2012. I'd like to present -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That is a picture from the front of the road of the property taken the first -- the first time we went by on that property, foreclosure identification sweep. That's the overhang in question. And the first photo should be a 2006 aerial photo. You can -- that is the 2007 photo that's showing that there is an overhang right -- and I can -- yes. And the next photo will be a 2006 photo that shows that it's clearly not there. And then there's a picture of a photo taken yesterday, February 22nd, 2012. I'd like to present my details of my case. During a foreclosure property sweep, Investigator Potter Page 61 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 observed weeds and litter on an Estates zoned property. While doing the research on the property, was discovered that an overhang to the front porch had been added sometime between the years of 2006 and 2007. There has been a lis pendens that has been recorded on March 18th, 2010. No contact has been made from the owner and the violation still exists. A VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The structure is empty then? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. Appears that the electricity is off as well. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to move that we do have a violation. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the Page 62 Fe�6, 13201 Q 3 prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits and 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. .-A 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that the property is not in foreclosure yet, it's in lis pendens. Has the foreclosure team looked at this, or they don't take it until it's -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, they have looked at it, but the bank will not abate the violation because of the permit issue. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The property right now is being maintained, though. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By? MS. BAKER: They mowed the grass. MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, the regulations of the county does not allow the bank to obtain a permit until they hold title to the property. So the bank is maintaining the property by addressing the grass that you saw in those pictures to make sure that it's in compliance. But the bank until they hold title will not be able to get a permit to address this violation. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any idea from the foreclosure team as to when they will file for foreclosure? Lis pendens was almost March of two years ago. Page 63 I 16 F2 February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No. MS. FLAGG: Your orders have an impact on the speed in which they come into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to say pay operating costs of $80.86 within 30 days and 60 days to comply, and $150 fine if not. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a second on that? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 18, Case CEN20110017054, 2059 East Trail, LLC. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 4, noise, Section 54 -92. Description of violation: Noise exceeding Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 4, Section 54 -92. Location/address where violation exists: 2059 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 77510080006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation A -3 Feb 162 ,22312 H location: 2059 East Trail, LLC, care of Brennan, Manna and Diamond, PL, 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Number 100, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134. Date violation first observed: December 16th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: December 19th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date of reinspection: January 27th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we continue, we have one speaker on this, I'd like to -- has everybody been sworn? (Hector Florez and Corporal Nelson were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Investigator and noise enforcement specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEN20110017054, dealing with the violation of noise exceeding Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 4, Section 54 -92. Located at 2059 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 77510080006. Service was given on December 19th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photograph provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's website showing the source of sound location, the location where the sound level testing was performed and the complainants that are affected. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 65 Feb16 ruary 23, 3 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes u4animously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: In this photograph you'll observe the orange building is the club itself. The yellow structures are the complainant addresses across the street. The purple line is the area from where the noise readings were performed. This case initiated as a complaint on December 9th, 2011 from several neighbors on and around the Mills Lane and Frederick Street neighborhood with regard to loud amplified music coming from the Loft 59 nightclub located at 2059 Tamiami Trail East. After making contact with several complainants, I learned the music in question usually started around 10:00 p.m. and would become louder as the night progressed, specifically between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. On December 16th, 2011 at approximately 11:30 p.m., I performed ambient readings in a similar neighborhood setting approximately 1,000 feet from the nightclub at address 1807 Tamiami Trail East. The ambient readings measured between 65 and 66 decibels. Between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. I performed decibel level readings from the sound affected site which is approximately 450 feet from the nightclub. The readings measured between 71 and 73 decibels. The sound level limit for this time period is 67 decibels. And a violation was observed at that time. I met with bar owner Hector Florez and advised him of the violation of the county's noise ordinance. Mr. Florez stated he had himself observed the bass too loud earlier in the night and advised his Deejay to turn the volume down; however, noticed later in the evening Feb 1623, �12 H the Deejay had turned the volume back up. I advised Mr. Florez I would be sending a notice of violation to the property owner and he stated he would make sure the volume is at a reasonable level in the future. After receiving several more complaints a few weeks later with regard to the club's music volume, I performed decibel level readings on January 22nd, 2012, similar to those taken on December 19th, 2011, and again observed decibel levels between 68 and 72, a violation of the county's noise ordinance. I met with Mr. Florez and advised him the music was too loud and it needed to be lowered. He did so immediately. Mr. Florez stated he has told his Deej ay several times in the past to keep the volume levels down. However, they continue to turn the volume back up shortly thereafter. I advised Mr. Florez I would be preparing this case for hearing, and he stated he will work on erecting a sound barrier to help in the future. I contacted the complainants last week and was told there have been no changes in the music volume since my last visit on January 22nd. Therefore, on February 18th, 2012 I met with Corporal Mike Nelson, Noise Specialist for the Collier County Sheriffs Department. We performed decibel readings similar to the readings performed on the dates noted in his testimony and found decibel levels between 68 and 71, a violation of the county's noise ordinance. Before making contact with the club management, Corporal Nelson and I observed an unmanned Deej ay booth playing loud amplified music through at least three speakers attached to the outside of the building. We met with Mr. Florez shortly thereafter and advised him the sound level exceeds the allowable decibel levels. At that time Mr. Florez observed the unmanned Deej ay booth, became upset with the assistant managers as to why the Deej ay turned up the music and left Page 67 OuIry� Al �3 , 2 the area. Mr. Florez dismissed the outside Deejay for the rest of the evening. The music was lowered within the club itself before Corporal Nelson and myself left for the evening. As of February 18th, 2012, the violation continues to exist. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is Corporal Nelson going to testify as well? CORPORAL NELSON: I can, sir. Corporal Mike Nelson, Collier County Sheriff s Office. We've had ongoing complaints. They've actually changed my shift to come out and work with Mr. Florez and his manager. I met with them several times. One of the longest happened to be just before New Year's Eve during the Christmas holiday. I met with Mr. Florez and his employees for almost four and a half hours going over procedures, things they could do to change the noise, security issues we've been having, outside amplified music and how they can handle the crowd. I've gone out with the code enforcement noise specialist, Mr. Ambach. We're at 485 feet from the residence -- or from the nightclub. We're getting between 68 and 73 decibels on my decibel meter, my noise meter. One of the issues we did have when we went to calibrate our equipment, almost 1,000 feet down the road at 1807 we were having their music bleed over to us there, and that's clear down at the corner of Davis and 41. So it's difficult for us to find somewhere to get really good ambient without the noise from the nightclub itself still being an influence. We did come through the back way, went up onto the stairs where we could look into their back patio area where they have speakers mounted up on the wall in the Deejay booth. Absolutely nobody there and it was extremely loud. Mr. Florez actually came A kak �a. zR!z 3 down out of his office because the noise was so loud in his office, it was bothering him. And that's when he ran into us. We were there for a good four, five minutes. His staff was there and nobody was doing anything to try and abate the noise. And they just looked at us and went what do you want, it's a nightclub. So it is an ongoing issue. MR. MIESZCAK: Does that have access outside where people can drink outside, or just inside? MR. NELSON: Yes, sir, it does. It's got a -- very similar to a screened enclosure except it's walled with concrete walls and they've got the speakers mounted on the building facing out toward them on the back side. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do they have a permit to -- is a permit required to play music outside in that location? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: They do have an amplified music permit, yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: permit what the level should be? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: When the permit is obtained, they basically -- they have to conform to the allowable decibel level for the time period. At this time period, after 10:00 at night to 6:59 in the morning it's 67 decibels. It's not to exceed that. The permit just -- it basically allows them to play the music. They still have to conform to that decibel level. Now, I want to clarify something. We have a nightclub situation here where we have an outside Deejay booth and we have an interior Deejay both with at least one Deejay inside playing at all times. Most of the time we have two separate Deejay booths. So we have essentially the double the music output anywhere from Thursday through Sunday evening, special occasions Sundays, or other occasions during the week. But mostly it's Friday, Saturday and And does it specify on the Sunday. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Florez? M e• 16 I 2 A3 February 23, 2012 MR. FLOREZ: First of all, I want to thank Lieutenant Nelson and Chris. They have been working with me since I took over the location when it became Sway and it closed down. The owner of the property pretty much hand - selected me because of my experience with nightclubs back in Miami, he thought I could turn it into something upscale. And we put a lot of money into a state -of -the -art sound system to sort of compete to the other players in Miami and create something special for Naples. With that said, that creates a problem, because it does put out a lot of wattage and output. We have put in place processors. And in technical terms basically it's a piece of equipment that we can control remotely and lower the volume in case we feel that it's exceeding. One of the problems that I'm having also is at certain times of the night when the place does get crowded, the Deejays sometimes get carried away, they increase the volume. I'm able to control that now with this piece of equipment so they cannot exceed that level. It shuts it down, literally shuts it down completely. That's one step that we took. Purchased a sound meter, and they're aware of it. I basically walk three or four miles at night around the perimeter. All the way to the three houses on the bottom south end there's a wood fence. I go all the way to that area and check the sound meters and clock in, make sure that we're not in violation. I'm not exactly sure of what the violation is. Now that I know it's 67, we're going to go out there. Another problem that I'm having is, is I don't want to upset the neighbors. You know, we're in here to make business and stay afloat. And it's difficult for me to know which neighbors are being affected. Now that I see this, it's a lot easier for me to walk to those areas, check the meters, call in to my manager who's back there and say hey, you know what, we're 68, 69 decibels, it needs to come down even more. When I took over the property there were a set of speakers that Page 70 *1 lb a�y 3, ZDA 3 were mounted outside on the terrace. And it was to create an ambience outside. It's a popular area for people who don't want to be inside where it's louder, they come outside in the lounge. It's a very popular area. In order for me to compete against other businesses that are similar to mine, they also provide terrace ambient music or live entertainment. So I contacted the property owner because of speakers at the time that I took over the property that were blown. And it would have cost about $3,000 to replace those, which not good quality. So I took the liberty of purchasing better speakers that I'm able to control. What's happening is, is that system on the inside carries the music to the outside when the doors open. So it becomes mixed with whatever is playing outside. And that has created a problem for us. The front of our building is completely enclosed in glass, but it leaks towards the back of the building towards the parking lot. So at any time where it's -- the music is playing inside and the doors open, that music and volume pours out and is causing problems. As Chris will tell you, I have been out there with him in the field while he's checking, and as soon as the doors open we see those decibel meters go up. So we propose to create sound barriers towards the back of the terrace to contain some of that sound. We also had staff meetings with Mr. Nelson and my staff. Everybody was required to attend, including the Deejays. Two of those Deej ays were supposed to be here today so they could understand the severity of this. Because I do want to stay in business, and we do have a special place. And they're not here. So last Friday we brought a guest from Puerto Rico, Grammy Award Latin artist. We had a very good crowd. And most of the people were inside. The gentleman that was in charge of the music outside decided to step inside too, because there was nobody on the Page 71 14a ly 9'*''A .2 � , terrace anymore, everybody came in to hear him sing. And at that time we were under the impression that either he left the equipment unattended at high volume or somebody increased the volume. Before I was aware that the gentleman here were outside with a complaint, I already knew that it was too loud, because I heard it as I was coming down the stairs. I immediately turned it down, contacted the Deej ay and pretty much let him go for the night. I've done all that I can to be within compliance. I sometimes call Chris during the week and say have you got anymore complaints. Because if I don't know about the complaints, then I don't know how to correct them. So I'm -- like I said, we're taking steps to correct the problem. We're doing perimeter walks. Usually on Saturdays is when we have music played outside. But with this system that we purchased, it's going to be a lot easier for us and the owner and manager to not give them the ability to increase the volume past those decibels. As a matter of fact, we are clocking in under 50 decibels, which is way under what their requirement is, just so we can be within compliance and still have the customers enjoy the ambience from being outside. We're lowering the speakers that were previously mounted so that it's contained within the terrace, and we're taking all necessary steps that I can on my end to control it. Sometimes, and I hate to say it, stupidity is hard to control. And I have fired Deej ays. We've had people who have rented the venue for concerts, and I'm constantly controlling the sound volumes inside the building so we don't have anymore issues. We went for close over a year without any complaints and the complaints began to come in in December of this past year. So we were doing really well for about maybe about 14 months. So I met with Chris, I met with Mike, and I'm taking all necessary steps to make sure that -- I can't guarantee that maybe a neighbor may not feel bass at some point, but you know that I am taking all the steps necessary so that doesn't happen. Page 72 �6 � A'3 ebiary 23, 2012 Knowing now where the locations are is going to be a lot easier for me to do these perimeter walks and go to the location, check the decibel readings. And as a matter of fact, before this hearing I was literally walking every night, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, once we get the rush of our customers who come between 12:00 and 12:30, and literally walk into the field and walking all the way to the other corners of the perimeter to see if I hear any noise exceeding the club out into those areas. And we were successful at it for a while. But one of the problems that I'm having too is that based on the sewer grid that we're in, the bass that is inside the building tends to travel under and hit these homes. So we eliminated two of the sub -bins that are inside to lower that from transferring over to those neighbors. And that's all I can do at this point and hope that that reduces the noise that is transferring over to the homes. And like I said, one thing that's going to help us is this -- I spent a lot of money on the sound meters, similar to the one Chris has, which is going to help me go out there early during the night and tell them by phone, okay, I got a reading of 64, 65. Keep it that way and don't let them go over that, and keep it that way the rest of the night. And I think we're going to be okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is the front then -- the rear of the structure. MR. FLOREZ: May I? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. FLOREZ: There is a horseshoe entrance -- if you look at the arrow here, the area that faces 41 has a horseshoe entrance. It's a false entrance. It has an awning, steel awning, sort of like to give a facade that that's the front entrance. But the real entrance to the club is actually on the back to the parking area. When you walk into the building, there is a wall, and I think it's about 10 feet up, that encloses the terrace. And that's basically where Page 73 61 A3 Fe ruary 23, 2012 the majority of the problems we believe is coming from. Because the music is carrying over and is bouncing on the walls and traveling to the neighboring homes. We really don't have any residences on the north side, it's mostly on the south side. So I think most of the complaints are coming from here. When I do the perimeter walks I come over here, this is Sprint store, phone store. And on the corner of Davis and I think it's Mercantile -- is it Mercantile? It's Industrial, there's a Metro PCS store. I walk all the way over there to check the readings or to check the noise level. Come all the way to the wood fence, which extends through here. And also there is an abandoned burger place. So I basically walk this whole perimeter all the way to the Italian restaurant here where sometimes Chris and Mike, I've seen them park there and begin to do their clock -ins. I've gone as far as the corner of the triangle and Davis, walking to make sure that I don't hear any noise. And if I do, I immediately contact my manager and tell him, you know what, I can still hear some of the music so go ahead and lower it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The speakers that you were referring to, are they where the arrow is or on the back side? MR. FLOREZ: They're on the back side. Yeah, they're on the back side. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the speakers are on the back and yet the high readings are at the yellow buildings which is in the front? MR. FLOREZ: I believe one of the problems that we're having is because of 41 there is a sewer grid that goes on both sides that they repaired recently. I think some of the bass actually travel underground and hitting these homes. And Chris also referred that to me also. So what I've done on my end is remove additional bass that we have in the club to lower that. And we have been testing it since the Page 74 Fe6ruary123�012 last time they came out. So I've done all I can. As far as the speakers that face the rear of the building, we're bringing those down and we have full control of the volume remotely. So they cannot go past that volume. Even if they try, they can't. It's set at a certain level and they can't go beyond that. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may clarify a few of the items Mr. Florez touched on. The dominant noise in that entire area is the bass. That bass music is coming from the interior of the building, not the exterior. What's happening is it's traveling underground and it's bouncing off the first thing it runs into, and that's the foundation of these homes. This complaint goes back -- this specific case goes back only a few months. However, I am aware of the issues here, because I've been called out several times over the last year and a half at this location. Since my beginnings with Mr. Florez, he has explained to me everything he explained to you today, that he has the equipment, he has the means to shut this equipment off. He's had those means for a year and a half but yet we still have a violation each time we come out. The second thing I'd like to point out is Brookside is a small community just off of Davis Boulevard which is on the opposite side, which would be on the small speaker side, the main entrance. And Corporal Nelson can attest to several complains in the last year and a half that have come from that location as well. So this case that we're focusing on today, my complainants are specifically in the yellow houses that you see in front of you. The noise meter that Mr. Florez is referring to, he stated he has something similar to mine. I've not seen that. I have met with him on several occasions. We've stood across the street. The noise meter that he had in his possession at that time was a downloadable application that is free to anyone with an I -phone Page 75 Fe�ryl2I. 3j1012' through the Internet. You just punch in and it's free. It is not as sophisticated as the equipment that I use. I use a $9,000 meter. I go through specific certifications to use that meter. I would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Florez, look at what he has for a meter, make sure he's reading it on the level he's supposed to be reading it. There's several different levels that folks read on. We read on the C scale here. C scale is more of a moderate approach to noise testing. It takes into account the bass, and that is what will -- that's what gets most of the folks in trouble is that bass. If he can control that bass -- I've reiterated to Mr. Florez several times, it's the bass, you have to control the bass. Each time I've been out there the bass has not been controlled and that's why we're here today. MR. MARINO: What type of music is being played on those particular nights? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's a club type music. MR. MARINO: It used to be the old Sway. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm sorry? MR. MARINO: It used to be the old Sway. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. MR. MARINO: Did you have any problems when it was Sway? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There were some problems when it was Sway also. Yeah, I was not the investigator in charge at the time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So our first duty now would be to find out if a violation exists. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I make a motion a violation exists. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we -- MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- have a second? And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 76 1612 Q�j February 23,'ZO�I2 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So a violation exists. You probably know it exists from your readings. And if it only existed when the door opened and that's enough to wake somebody up in one of those houses, that's a violation. It shouldn't happen ever. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The county does have a recommendation. I'd like to add, before I read the recommendation, the county feels due to the nature of the complaint and the abatement of violation not being met at this time, the county has filled in the blanks on the recommendation. However it would be up for discussion from the board, if you don't mind. Recommendation: That the county -- I'm sorry, 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: The respondent must lower the decibel sound levels to be in accordance with the sound levels in time constraints pursuant to table one of the Collier County Code of Laws, 54- 92(B)(1), and must confine sound levels of all live music and /or amplified music to be pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 54- 91(F)(s), and must not exceed sound levels in table one and two of Section 54- 91(B)(1)(2) immediately following this hearing, or pay a fine of $1,000 for each violation found thereafter. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the Page 77 0 161 A3 February 23, 2012 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My only question is do you have copies of those tables that have been referenced here? MR. FLOREZ: No, I do not. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I can provide those. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can provide those? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Absolutely. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I'd just like to make a comment. You know, whatever business you have, you have to be in control. Either the manager, the owner or whatever. And if you have people that don't do what you tell them to do, they shouldn't be there. And if you have things that are unmanned, that's a problem also. And he's a nice young man, but I just don't understand, he made comments that he's done all he can and he doesn't know all what he can do about it. And so there's a lot of things for him to learn, but certainly it's a violation and it should stop. That's how I. feel. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I live in Pine Ridge Estates, not far from where Mercato is. They have a lot of loud music there. When the clock strikes 10:00, that music, you could set your watch by it, it stops. So it's not one place that can't comply with the law, everybody has to comply with the law. And I agree with your recommendation, especially the per incident portion of it. MR. MARINO: I have a question on that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARINO: Did you say that the fine would go to the property owner or to the club owner? Page 78 A3 a 2352012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct, it would go to the property owner. I've spoken with the attorneys that represent the property owner, Mr. Scott Duval since this complaint originated. It was before I even went out and took a reading. Because I had been in contact with him over the last year and a half to keep him up to speed. I advised him of the noise ordinance, I advised him of the complaints. He requested I fax a copy of the case report to put in the file for Mr. Florez. Also he requested any noise readings that were over the allowable decibel levels to be sent to him as well. I've done that. I've called him, I've contacted him. He is up to speed. He realizes -- last time I spoke to him, about three weeks ago, I thought for sure he would be here today. That he understands that if any violations in the future amount to any fines, they will come to him and he will pass those on to Mr. Florez. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have any recommendations to approve the recommendation from the county? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'd like to make a motion we approve the recommendation from the county. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have -- MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 79 ?3, A3 F 212 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. MARINO: I'm going to have to abstain from that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got a problem by abstaining -- MR. MARINO: Yeah, I have a problem with the violation going to the property owner. What do we do? MS. RAWSON: If you have a conflict of interest, I have a form. MR. MARINO: I do. MR. MIESZCAK: You probably should have recused yourself from the beginning, but -- MR. MARINO: I didn't realize -- that's why I asked the question as to whether it was going to go to the property owner or the club owner. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That creates another problem, since we have a quorum here. There's no problem? MS. BAKER: No. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's going to be -- MS. RAWSON: Four. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a problem, Jean? MS. RAWSON: No, a quorum is four. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a quorum. You don't have to go far, I think we're done. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? 161�23,e2 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes four, with one abstention. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. I think we're in the imposition of fines now. MS. BAKER: Okay, the next case will be number two under imposition of fines, Case CES20100019879, Planning Development, Inc. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Surprise, you're on. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In looking at this, I have one question before we really get into it. It says the property is in compliance. And my question is by whom. Did the county bring it into compliance or did the respondent bring it into compliance? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Respondent brought it into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have the operational costs been paid? SUPERVISOR SNOW: They were paid yesterday. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's too goods. Anybody like to make a motion on this now? MR. MIESZCAK: The county recommends? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, not on this. We recommend. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, it's not what I'm reading. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's come into compliance. I have no problem abating the fine. MS. BAKER: The operational costs have been paid as well. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, Kitchell had mentioned that. 16 1 2 A3 February 23, 2012 MR. VESPERANCE: Is that a motion? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'll make it as a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, abated. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MS. BAKER: Next case is number three, Case CESD20100007623, Norma Ramirez. (Ms. Ramirez and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: Why don't you take it from here. SUPERVISOR SNOW: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Norma Ramirez. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 809 Jefferson Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida. 6391680004. In past orders: On August 25th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding 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, OR 4718, Page 2040 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement orders as of February 23, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order item 161.2 -93 February 23, 2012 one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between November 24th, 2011 and February 23rd, 2012, 92 days, for a total of $23,000. Fines continue to accrue. The operational cost of $80.86 have been paid as of today. Total amount is $23,000. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ms. Ramirez? MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. Like an earlier -- the person, Ms. Perez, what happened to her that she bought the property not knowing with the permits and all that and everything. Well, basically the same thing happened to me. It's been taking me a while because I had to pay somebody to demolish the so- called apartment. When they sold it to me, it was supposedly a guesthouse in the back of my property that I have. So I had to get somebody to do that and take everything out because originally it was there when I bought it. And then I had to pay somebody to do that. They had some sheds there as well, and I had to pay somebody to move the sheds because apparently it wasn't in ordinance (sic) also. So I had to pay somebody to move that shed as well. It's kind of taken me a while. I've gotten the permits. They're in the process. On one of them they're kind of holding off on it because of some purple ink thing issue that they had, which I showed Mr. Snow, or Mr. Kitchell. But anyways, and I'm in the process of doing that as we speak. And I was supposed to go get the permits last week to go pick them up, but I was unable to because I had a board meeting I had to attend. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may offer some clarity? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Work permits were required for this particular property. One permit was for an unpermitted fence. That permit was issued in November with no inspections, no C.O. 16 12' A3 February 23, 2012 Another permit was applied for at the same time in November for the garage conversion. It's been in ready status since November; has not been picked up. One of the storage sheds, the permit was applied for and rejected in November. No further drawings. And that's what she's talking about. Apparently there's -- she had to go ahead and obtain the drawings from the manufacturer, which took her some time to do. They sent her the drawings, but apparently there's an inconsistency between them. She hasn't followed up with that. And the final one for the other storage shed that she had to remove from setbacks has been applied for and is ready and has not been picked up and has been ready since November. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ordinarily, for the past umpteen years, if it's not in compliance we don't entertain granting any more time, we impose the fine. And this is a case where although the operational costs haves been paid, the property is still not in compliance. That's a problem. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have to agree with you. It's not in compliance, you have no recourse. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Now, Board, keep in mind, I have talked to Mrs. Ramirez, and if fines are imposed today, we always have the option once she comes and continues to work in compliance to take it back before the Board of County Commissioners and request an abatement of those fines. As the director has told and has illustrated in the past, we've been very successful doing that. We will continue to work forward with her. He continue to guide Mrs. Ramirez in this process so we so we can get it completed. So this is not the end of the journey, this is just a stop along the way. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, and I appreciate the county's effort in this. i le§ru ary 9201 Having said that, then, would anybody like to make a motion? If not, I'll make a motion to impose. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, so you already know the path that you're going down to get everything resolved, and the county is going to work with you -- MS. RAMIREZ: Right, they have been. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to get that done. Terrific. MS. RAMIREZ: All right, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number five under imposition, Case CES20110001989, K. Guengerich McKinney. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see this property is in compliance. Have the operational costs been paid? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir. We've made several calls. I personally made a call. We have not been able to get any response as far as paying the operational cost. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because this would ordinarily be one, once that's paid -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. Page 85 'A 16 { 2 3 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this again can be taken back to the commissioners as well. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, it can be. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we've added a new statement on cases like these on the recommendation, and that's the county recommends abatement of the $600 in daily fines as case is in compliance and operational costs of $80.57 will be imposed as a lien. We're asking the fines be waived but the operational cost be imposed. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion that the fines be waived and the operational cost be imposed as a lien. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes. Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case will be number six under imposition, Case CESD20110003169, Kimberly M. Fry. And we did receive correspondence from Ms. Fry yesterday -- do you want to swear me in? (Ms. Fry, Ms. Baker and Supervisor Letourneau were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: We did get correspondence from Ms. Fry yesterday asking for an extension of time. However, we didn't receive it till yesterday, so we did leave the agenda item in the same position it 12 A3 M February 23, 2012 is. And the investigator will let you know what -- or Ms. Fry will let you know what that request is. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. FRY: I am requesting an extension of time to complete the -- I guess it's a demolition. I've had contractor issues, health issues, financial issues. And I was out of town the week apparently that the investigator came to deliver the notice helping a friend who had a double knee replacement. So I just got the letter myself last week about this hearing, which is why I was not timely in responding and in requesting additional time to get this in compliance. I had a contractor who helped me with another violation. I've been here before, I think you might recall. The contractor was supposed to get the information from the county as to what they were requiring specifically with compliance to removing the -- whatever downstairs living space. My home is a stilt home that was built in 1979. I again am one of those who bought the home in the condition it was in. Like I said, I've had, you know, multiple circumstances that have prevented me from getting it done. I hired an attorney in August to try to find out what could be done if anything to leave it as -is or, you know, help me to figure out what needed to be done to bring it into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't want to hear the case now. How much time do you need to address the issues? MS. FRY: I am requesting 120 days from today, from this date, to pull demolition permits and, you know, bring it into compliance. I am now homesteaded so I can do it myself, apply for the permits. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your comments? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: We have no objections. I talked to Ms. Fry before the hearing and we've agreed, I'm going to �6daZ3,A3 have the original investigator, Investigator Musse, Investigator McGonagle and myself, we're going to meet with her on Friday at the residence to go over exactly what needs to be done so there's no confusion with the contractors in the future here. So basically no objection at this time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any suggestions from the board? MR. UESPERANCE: Suggest we grant the respondent's request for an extension for 120 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Any comments on it? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. You have 120 days, hopefully we may get this resolved to everybody's satisfaction. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number seven CESD20110009349 Valeri Coe - Fitzgerald. (Ms. Coe - Fitzgerald and Investigator Condomina were duly sworn.) 1e6A3 bruary 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 10812 1 st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 45903640001. Description: 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. Past orders: On November 18, 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, OR 4744, Page 1104 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders item one and two, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between January 3rd, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 52 days, for the total of $7,800. Fines continue to accrue. Orders item number five: Operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $7,881.15. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Fe ry 3, 012 A3 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to leave at this time. We still have a quorum, correct? MS. RAWSON: We do. Assuming we don't have any conflicts. (At which time, Mr. L'Esperance exits the boardroom.) MS. BAKER: Next case will be number eight, Case CESD20110009230. Maykol Calderon. (Investigator Condomina was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 1281 27th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37344880001. Description: No Collier County permits for wooden structure with electrical in the front of residential structure. Past orders: On November 18th, 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 4744, Page 1084 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Orders items one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between December 19th, 2011 through February 23rd, 2012, 67 days, for the total of 13,000 dollars and 400 -- or $13,400. Fines continue to accrue. e6 2� i A 3 23, 2012 Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $13,480.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. MARINO: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 10, Case CESD20090014480, Melba Garcia. (Mr. Garcia and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090014480. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. 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). Location: 4280 Sixth Ave. Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40745440008. Description: Enclosed the garage and added a full bathroom without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Page 91 February 23, 2012 respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1102 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders number one and three, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between January 3rd, 2012 and February 23rd, 2012, 29 days, for a total of $4,350. Fines continue to accrue. Order number seven, operational costs $81.43 have not been paid. Total fine to date, $4,431.43. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: We need more time. We're in mediation with Bank of America to try to keep the house, and then we'll continue the process of the permits. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid? MR. GARCIA: I wasn't aware that we owed that money. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sir, if I could add just one more thing to it. A lis pendens was just filed on December 30th of 2011 for this property. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But unfortunately it is not in compliance, regardless of lis pendens or not. And the operational costs have not been paid. So I don't -- entertain a motion from the board. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. Do I have -- MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a second? I have a second. Page 92 �6 2 A 3 ebrulaiy 23, 2012 All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. this out after the fact when you flnd out Sir, you can still work t s o y from the bank, as other cases have with the county. So hopefully you'll keep it. MR. GARCIA: Yes, we're using it for storage now. No electrical there, no utilities. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. MR. GARCIA: Just a storage place. We'd just, like I said, need more time, like an extension. Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. MARINO: I would pay the operational costs. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. You'll get together. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 11, Case CEAU20110007445, Joselino and Yolanda Sanchez and Sandy Sanchez. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20110007445. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 2530 Fourth Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40920360000. Page 93 161 P A3 February 23, 2012 Description: Fence constructed without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 18, 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 OR 4744, Page 1132 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between December 19, 2011 through February 23rd, 2012, 67 days, for the total of $6,700. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five: Operational costs in the amount $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $6,780.57. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this in foreclosure? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It is in foreclosure. There was a lis pendens filed in 2008, a final judgment in 2009. But there has not been a certificate of title issued and the home is vacant. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $6,700 for the lack of a permit on a fence is tough, but that's the way it is. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, number 12, Case CESD20090011861, Steven A. and Kelly A. Johnson. (Mr. Johnson and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090011861. Violation: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Location: 111 Fourth Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37224080002. Description of the violation: Permit No. 900005651 expired without a certificate of occupancy or completion. Past orders: On November 18th, 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, OR 4744, Page 1106 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between January 18th, 2012 to February 23rd, 2012, 37 days, for a total of $5,550. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs have been paid on this property, so the total amount to date is $5,550. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Page 95 16 i P--' A3 February 23, 2012 When we bought this property, we understood that it had a bunch of issues. I worked really diligently to try to get them all done. But during the process of that, I've spoken with Patrick quite a few times. I went right through the middle of a divorce, so it kind of got laid to the side. After talking to Patrick here, when I finally got all the divorce issues done, I've been in contact with him, we have the structurals done, we have -- the electrical engineers have already been hired. The electricians have completed all the work except for one -- one box that is on the deck box has to be replaced. There's a call in to him to replace that box and send the electrical engineer a picture of that. Then it's all complete. I'm just asking for a couple more days to get this thing complete. Because again it's just I've been trying to do this, even though the property doesn't physically really belong to me anymore, it belongs to Kelly, even though my name is still on it. I'm just trying to resolve this, because I have a little girl that lives there. So the biggest way for me to resolve it was just to do it myself, as opposed to letting Kelly doing it. Because she kind of got blindsided by all of it, not knowing what were the proper steps, how to hire the contractor and all that. But, I mean, I have gotten everything done except for item number seven on the electrical part of it. And the electrician says that he will have that completed by the end of the week, and then Pelican Engineering should be able to sign off the permit of affidavit which is the only thing left to completely make this property comply. I mean, there were a lot of violations. There was a building that was there, there was no pool fence, no C.O. on the pool. But, I mean, we've done everything as fast as I could with not having enough money to do it. So I'm just asking the board if we could have a few more days, maybe 20 more days to complete this and I should be done. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, do you have any 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 comments? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: He has been working pretty diligently throughout this whole process, and he has gone through a tough time. And he has -- he called me last week, the week before, this week, today, we met earlier today. And he appears to just have one thing left. So I would -- the county would have no objection. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) MR. MIESZCAK: Can we extend this 30 days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion we extend this for 30 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: It will be done. No problem. MR. MIESZCAK: Good job. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 14, Case CESD20100020287, Hilda Beovides. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina, we forgot you. Here we go. Page 97 I !6!Z'A3 February 23, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100020287. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location is 1321 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40988080005. Description: Addition to the rear of the principal structure without Collier County permit. Past orders: On September 22nd, 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, OR 4728, Page 877 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and three, fines at the rate of $150 per day for a period between January 21 st, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 34 days, for a total of $5,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number seven, operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $5,181.43. MR. MARINO: Make a motion we impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. g_= ' A 3 IfUr3a3, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Last case is number 15, case CEAU20110005919, Frank Paz. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20110005919. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Location: Is 125 Second Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37282480000. Description: Fence without Collier County permits in disrepair. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued 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 OR 4744, Page 1125 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between January 18th, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 37 days, for a total of $3,700. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five: Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total fines to date, $3,780.29. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 99 1e6 1 - A 3 bruary 23, 2012 MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That brings us to -- any cases to forward? MS. BAKER: No, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reports? MS. BAKER: But I do have one new business item, just to give you guys a heads up. On the next meeting we will be doing the rules and regulations workshop. We're just going to incorporate it to the end of the hearing, probably under new business. We did a pretty extensive review last year so I don't foresee a whole lot of changes for this year. So if you guys could review the rules and regulations and bring any suggestions /changes that you would like to discuss, and I will email it out to the board members that are not present today as well to let them know. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: So we'll have our meeting and then immediately after? MS. BAKER: Yes. We'll just incorporate it onto this agenda. It should go fairly quickly. Page 100 16F[bZry 0 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll have you home by 5:00. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, you're buying lunch. Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They can't afford it. Ms. Flagg, do you have any reports, comments, additions? MS. FLAGG: Absolutely. The report for this month, as you know, our focus continues to be vacant and foreclosed homes because our goal is to prevent blight from affecting Collier County, as it has affected other counties around the nation. So with that focus on making sure that blight doesn't occur here, the foreclosure teams continue to work with the banks. And since November, 2008, the banks have spent $2,682,000 to abate 2,184 code violations. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MS. FLAGG: In last week, February 9th through February 15th, the banks abate -- spent $16,000 -- $16,208, which money the taxpayers would have had to pay if the banks didn't abate those violations. So last week alone we saved $16,208. In addition, for last week 145 new code cases were opened. The investigators completed 410 property inspections in that week. There were 55 cases last week closed with voluntary compliance. One of the items that we've talked about before is the number of bankruptcies that are occurring, not only in our county but throughout the nation. Last week there were 51 additional cases that were effected by bankruptcy. There was also 127 citations that were processed for public utilities, the sheriffs office, parks and recreation. As you know, the code department does all the processing for the citations that are issued by those agencies. And lastly, last week there were 139 lien searches and pay -off requests made. And of those 139, 11 of them had open code cases. So the few cases that you heard today where they said they bought the property but didn't know there were violations on the property, as you noted, those cases occurred prior to us implementing this lien search Page 101 161 2 A3 February 23, 2012 process for our community, so to make sure that community members do a lien search through the code department to find out if there are any property violations on that property before they purchase the property. So last week alone we prevented 11 purchasers from buying a property without first knowing that there were code issues on the property. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MR. MARINO: You're doing a good job. MS. FLAGG: It's a great team. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think Code Enforcement has a lot to do with making Naples look like Naples. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. They work hard. Their whole focus is making sure that the blight that's occurring all around us and nationally does not cross into Collier County. And that's what their focus is. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. Our focus continues to be trying to get people into compliance. We're not a collector of dollars just for the sake of collecting dollars. We would rather everything come into compliance. MS. FLAGG: And I will tell you that the Board of County Commissioners alone has waived over $8.5 million in fines because the property owner has achieved compliance. So between yourselves and special magistrate and the board, it's over $10 million that has been waived in fines so -- once the property comes into compliance. So it is not -- as you said, it's not about the fine, it's about compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. Very nice. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything else from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: Motion to adj ourn. Page 102 16 t?bru A 3, 2012 MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two motions to adjourn and one second. All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:04 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD o These minutes appr ed by the Board on O� aa, a01 ;�- as presented or as corrected Page 103 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS _ LAST N ME-FIRST NNAM NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE �1 A t 113 NAME-MIDDLE a e v D Q ord�o q c.g n O -F-- MAI ING ESS �w'/ !`.� , , THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON t /s L.V �� j WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF CITY A.is? [7 / COUNTY 0 CITY OUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY �/` Ca /`i h NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 2 - 3 - 7 MY POSITION IS: 0 ELECTIVE glell<NTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county,city,or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained(including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, 437 gili/J ,hereby disclose that on `-4�I/`— V 2 .3 ,20/ 2 (a)A measur came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of ,by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the meaure is as follows: 0 b o • LC ( ff id ere t-°J j /t1/01) wl 7-73 P [ p r,�s kJ ew Cl4'50 6CE .2.0//oc2 7o‘cy 2/13 /2- - Date File Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 I X6c] 22A 3 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, March 2, 2012 APR 1 3 2M 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 v Hiller Henning - ---- -- Coyle Coletta .7C, ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Misc. Comes: Date: 5 1 "L-1-\1 L- item #: Z A-2-2 Copies to: 1 6 z A2, 20 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 AM. 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. -4 Recessed: 9:12am Reconvened: 9: 32am H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes (listed below as Agenda item numbers): Under IV.0 — Motion for Extension of Time, the following case was added: • 1 - CASE NO. CEPM20110012228 - MICHAEL MIR Under item V. B — Hearings, the following cases were moved to V. A — Stipulations: • 30 - CASE NO: CEPM20110013128 - CREATIVE CHOICE HOMESXIV LTD • 31 - CASE NO: CEPM20110016560 - CREATIVE CHOICE HOMESXIV LTD • 25- CASE NO: CEEX20120002109 - WHISTLERS GREEN LTD • 24 - CASE NO: CEEX20120002107 - PINEGATE 135 LLC • 9 - CASE NO: DAS12251- CEEX20120000664 -SHIRLEY BOLING • 11- CASE NO: DAS12253- CEEX20120000670 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 12 - CASE NO: DAS12254- CEEX20120000674 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 13 - CASE NO: DAS12255- CEEX20120000676 -SHIRLEY BOLING • 14 - CASE NO: DAS12256- CEEX20120000682 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 15 - CASE NO: DAS12257- CEEX20120000686 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 16 - CASE NO: DAS12258- CEEX20120000690 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 17 - CASE NO: DAS12259- CEEX20120000749 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 19 - CASE NO: DAS12261- CEEX20120000753 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 20 - CASE NO: DAS12262- CEEX20120000754 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 21 - CASE NO: DAS12263- CEEX20120000757 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 22 - CASE NO: DAS12264- CEEX20120000758 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 23 - CASE NO: DAS12265- CEEX20120000759 - SHIRLEY BOLING 2 161 2 A "4 March , 2012 Under item V. B — Hearings, the following cases were withdrawn (listed below as Agenda numbers): • 1 -CASE NO: 50163903- CEEX20120001963 - DAFINKA KYUTURCHIEVA • 2 - CASE NO: S0174141- CEEX20120000575 - SANDRA L. DADUS • 4 - CASE NO: SO] 76006- CEEX20120000032 - LORRAINE WOODHOUSE • 6 - CASE NO: SO] 72054- CEEX20120000908 - JUDITH E. MACPHEE • 7 - CASE NO: S0176039- CEEX20120001387 - GEORGE A. A VERY • 10- CASE NO: DAS12252- CEEX20120000668 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 18 - CASE NO: DAS12260- CEEX20120000752 - SHIRLEY BOLING • 26 - CASE NO CEAU20110015117 - ALEXANDER J PUMARADA • 32 - CASE NO: CEPM20110001894 - ROBERTO MENA AND ALMA C. SALCEDO 33 - CASE NO: CEPM20110009246 - ONE -O -SEVEN LLC • 34 - CASE NO: CEROW20110014695 - LUIS VALDES AND TANIA Al. PERERA • 35 - CASE NO: CEV20110010147 - DEBBIE WEBER TR • 38 - CASE NO: CENA20110016546 - JOHN W. RODGF,RS JR Under item VII. C — Motion to Contest Nuisance Abatement Lien, the following case was withdrawn: • 1 - CASE NO: - CENA20110004596 - MICHAEL KHAN The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as modified. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 3, 2012 The minutes of the February 3, 2012 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: CEPM20110012228 OWNER: MICHAEL M. MIR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 -228 AND CHAPTER 110 -46. SWALE /CULVERT PIPING SYSTEM COLLAPSED ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62777000009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 802 99" AVENUE N NAPLES Michael Mir was not present but submitted a written request for an Extension of Time. Investigator Ford represented the County stating he had no objection to the request. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time and continued the case for 45 days. 3 16 12 Mare14 Z,3 12 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. CASE NO: CENA20100009616 OWNER: JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 181 AND 54 -179. REPEAT VIOLATION OF LITTER/DERELICT ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CHEMICAL JUGS, PAINT CANS, WOOD, BROKEN FURNITURE, PLASTICS, METALS, CLOTH MATERIAL, AND OTHER MISC. ITEMS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 61839320000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3190 KAREN DRIVE, NAPLES Jean Claude Martel was present. Bill Michalsky, a friend of Mr. Martel was also present. Investigator Botts presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Special Magistrate Order: 12/3/10 - No. 4637 - Page: 672 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 12/11/10 — 3/2/12 (447 days) Total Fine Amount: $89,400.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $89,512.20 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 $89,512.20. Said amount to become a lien on the property with fines continuing to accrue. Ms. Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor reported if the violation is abated, Staff will petition the Board of County Commissioners for the fines to be waived. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations * * Case numbers 9, 11 —17, 19 — 23 were combined into I stipulation CASE NO: DAS12251- CEEX20120000664 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. A (1) OWNER SHALL OBTAIN A COUNTY LICENSE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 11. CASE NO: DAS12253- CEEX20120000670 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. A (1) OWNER SHALL OBTAIN A COUNTY LICENSE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 12. CASE NO: DAS12254- CEEX20120000674 4 61 2' A3 March 2, 2012 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. A (1) OWNER SHALL OBTAIN A COUNTY LICENSE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 13. CASE NO: DAS12255- CEEX20120000676 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. A (1) OWNER SHALL OBTAIN A COUNTY LICENSE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 14. CASE NO: DAS12256- CEEX20120000682 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. A (1) OWNER SHALL OBTAIN A COUNTY LICENSE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 15. CASE NO: DAS12257- CEEX20120000686 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 16. CASE NO: DAS12258- CEEX20120000690 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 17. CASE NO: DAS12259- CEEX20120000749 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 19. CASE NO: DAS12261- CEEX20120000753 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 20. CASE NO: DAS12262- CEEX20120000754 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 21. CASE NO: DAS12263- CEEX20120000757 16 1.2 � +3 March 2, 2012 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 22. CASE NO: DAS12264- CEEX20120000758 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES 23. CASE NO: DAS12265- CEEX20120000759 OWNER: SHIRLEY BOLING OFFICER: C. JOHNSON VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD. 14 -32, SEC. B OWNER SHALL VACCINATE FOR RABIES VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2695 FRANCIS AVE UNIT C, NAPLES Animal Control Supervisor Dana Alger requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent Shirley Boling on March 2, 2012. 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 $55.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by April 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining vaccinations at the March 10, 2012 low cost vaccination clinic. The following animals will be vaccinated and licensed by March 11, 2012: Buster (vaccination only), Sheeba, Jackson, Litlin Ashley Blue, Close and CJ (license and vaccination). 3. Notify Domestic Animal Services within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Officer confirms compliance. 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: $55.00 30. CASE NO: CEPM20110013128 OWNER: CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19). RECURRING VIOLATION OF AN OCCUPIED RENTAL UNIT WITH BED BUG INFESTATION. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8635 BAROT DRIVE, UNIT 102, NAPLES 1612 A Investigator Mucha requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Danielle Delgado on March 2, 2012. 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 April 2, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by removing bed bug infestation from the rental unit and providing documentation from licensed pest - control company. The bed bug infestation must be removed by June 2, 2012 or pay a fine of $250.00 for each day the violation remains. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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: $112.56 31. CASE NO: CEPM20110016560 OWNER: CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XIV LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAW'S AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(19). OCCUPIED RENTAL UNIT WITH MOLD ALL OVER THE WALLS AND CEILING. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8664 DILIP LANE UNIT 205, NAPLES Investigator Mucha requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Danielle Delgado on March 2, 2012. 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 $112.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case by April 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by hiring a licensed mold specialist to remediate mold from the unit by April 2, 2012 or pay a fine of $250.00 for each day the violation remains. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to 161 2 M �:1 arc 012 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 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: $112.64 25. CASE NO: CEEX20120002109 OWNER: WHISTLER'S GREEN LTD OFFICER: FIRE INSPECTOR BARBARA SIBLEY VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE NFPA 1, CHAPTER 63.3.1.4.1, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 14.4.1, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 11.1.7.2, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 13.6.1.2, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 14.12.1.2, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 14.14.5.1, NFPA 72, CHAPTER 10.2.1.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 4.6, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 5.2.1.1.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.3.1.2, FLORIDA STATUTES 633, 69A- 60.008, NFPA 25, 5.2.7, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 13.1.4, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 13.6.3.5, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 4.6, NFPA 1, CHAPTER IL 1.2, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 4.6, NFPA 25, CHAPTER 12.7.1 COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDERS NOT SECURE, EXIT ACCESS NOT MAINTAINED, ELECTRICAL PANEL OBSTRUCTED, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS MISSING FROM LOCATION, EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOT WORKING, EXIT SIGNAGE NOT WORKING IN BOTH NORMAL AND BACK -UP MODE, SUPERVISORY ALARM SHOWING ON FIRE ALARM PANEL, TAMPER SWITCH NOT REPORTING TO FIRE ALARM PANEL, SPRINKLER HEADS HAVE BEEN PAINTED, CONTROL VALVES NOT CHAINED AND LOCKED, LIGHT - WEIGHT TRUSS SIGNAGE MISSING FROM BUILDINGS, HYDRAULIC NAME PLATES NOT LEGIBLE, SPRINKLER RISER ACCESS OBSTRUCTED, HAMMER MISSING ON FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET, DEFICIENCIES WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTER NOT CORRECTED, EXPOSED ELECTRICAL WIRES AT BACKFLOW PREVENTER, DEFICIENCIES WITH TAMPER SWITCH NOT CORRECTED, SWIVEL ON FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION NOT WORKING. FOLIO NO: 36180040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5515 16TH PLACE SW, NAPLES Inspector Sibley requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Denise Lao on March 2, 2012. 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 April 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by correcting all fire code violations listed on the Fire Inspection Report by April 2, 2012 or pay a fine of $500.00 for each day the violation remains. 3. Pay fines totaling $1,200.00 for re- inspection fees per Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Resolution #10 -04. 4. Notify the Fire Department within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 161 s2 A3 March 2, 2012 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: $1,312.20 24. CASE NO: CEEX20120002107 OWNER: PINEGATE 135 LLC OFFICER: FIRE INSPECTOR BARBARA SIBLEY VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE, NFPA 1, CHAPTER 1.12.20, NFPA 72, CHAPTER 4.3.1. OWNER DID NOT OBTAIN THE REQUIRED PERMIT FOR CHANGES MADE TO THE MONITORING OF THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, FIRE ALARM COMPONENTS ARE NOT INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. FOLIO NO: 37930510002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4075 PINE RIDGE RD, NAPLES Inspector Sibley requested the hearing. The Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative James Walker on March 2, 2012. 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 $112.03 incurred in the prosecution of this case by April 2, 2012 2. Abate all violations by obtaining the proper permit for the change in monitoring of the fire alarm system, requesting all required inspections upon issuance of the permit, and properly installing the surge suppressors in the fire alarm panel by April 2, 2012 or pay a fine of $250.00 for each day the violation remains. 3. Pay re- inspection fees totaling $450.00 per Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Resolution #10 -04 by April 2, 2012. 4. Notify the Golden Gate Fire Department within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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 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. B. Hearings 3. CASE NO: S0141222- CEEX20110016765 161 2 A 3 '- I March 2, 2012 OWNER: DAVID A. COURY OFFICER: DEPUTY STEED VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2335 ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE, NAPLES David Coury was present Deputy Steed represented the County. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos Deputy Steed testified: • On November 28, 2011, at Government Center on Orange Blossom Drive he was on scene and observed a driver occupied vehicle parked in the aisle of the parking lot • It was parked obstructing a vacant handicapped, and an occupied regular parking space. • He entered the building, then exited the building a short time later to go out on patrol and observed the vehicle pull into a vacant parking space adjacent to another handicap parking space, however straddling the handicap parking space with his vehicle. • He pulled behind the Respondent's parked vehicle in his squad car approximately 2 minutes later and observed half of the vehicle still straddling the handicapped parking space. • A citation was issued for parking in a handicapped space. Mr. Coury testified: • On the day in question, it was raining, and he dropped off his wife in front of the building to pick up paperwork. • He was idling in the aisle, not blocking a handicap space when a parking space became available adjacent to the handicap parking space in question. • His vehicle is a large vehicle, and when he pulled into the available parking space, approximately 1/8 of his vehicle straddled the handicap parking space. • Within approximately 10 seconds, before he could back his vehicle out of the space to re -park completely outside the confines of the handicap space, Deputy Steed pulled behind his vehicle blocking him in. • He requested the citation be dismissed as he was present in the vehicle, and not given ample opportunity to completely park outside the handicap parking space. After considering the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the Special Magistrate UPHELD issuance of the parking citation and ordered the Respondent to pay a $250.00 fine, Operational Costs in the amount of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee in the amount of $5.00 for a total of $305.00 by May 2, 2012. Total Amount Due: $305.00 5. CASE NO: 50168006- CEEX20120000559 10 161 Ar3 2 , 2012 2 OWNER: VERONICA C. MORENO OFFICER: DEPUTY BILLIG VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5080 SYCAMORE, NAPLES Veronica C. Moreno was present Deputy Billig represented the County. Deputy Billig testified: • On January 8, 2012 he responded for the 2nd time to a complaint of unlawful parking on a County road and right of way. • When he arrived on the scene, there were vehicles unlawfully parked on both sides of the road and in the grass area of the County road right of way for approximately one quarter of a mile. • The parking was the result of a house party and he and another officer began issuing parking citations when the party goers immediately dispersed with approximately 14 tickets issued, including one to the Respondent. Ms. Moreno testified: • On the evening in question, she attended the party and parked on the grass. • She assumed it was private property and lawful to park in the area. • She was unaware parking in a right of way out of the travelled way was unlawful and requested the citation be dismissed. After considering the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the Special Magistrate UPHELD issuance of the parking citation and ordered the Respondent to pay a $30.00 fine, Operational Costs in the amount of $50.00 and an Administrative Fee in the amount of $5.00 for a total of $85.00 by July 2, 2012. Total Amount Due: $85.00 Break: 11:12am Reconvened.- 11:30pm 8. CASE NO: PR047046- CEEX20110016174 OWNER: ASKOLD D. MOSIJCZUK OFFICER: PARK RANGER MAURICIO ARAQUISTAIN VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA, FAILURE TO DISPLAY PAID PARKING RECEIPT VIOLATION ADDRESS: CONNER PARK, NAPLES Ranger Araquistain represented the County. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A: 1 photo Exhibit B: 1 photo Exhibit C: 1 photo Exhibit D: 1 photo 161 ? A3 March 2, 2012 Askold A Mosijczuk was present. Mr. Mosijczuk testified: • On November 4, 2011 he was informed on a location to fish near Conner Park. • He entered the Park and noticed the automated payment machine which required payment of $8.00 per day for parking. • He only had 5 one dollar bills, and assumed he could pay incrementally for parking. • He inserted two dollars in the machine, and then changed his mind. • He attempted to cancel the transaction, however could not. • His money was not refuned, but was issued and ticket deemed "insufficient amount" with a $2.00 payment credited. • He parked in the park for approximately 45 minutes and when he returned a citation had been issued. • He requested the ticket be dismissed as his money could not be refunded and he utilized approximately $2.00 worth of parking time. Ranger Araquistain testified: • The parking fee required is a flat rate, daily fee of $8.00, with no incremental parking fees. • The sign on the payment machine clearly states "no refunds no change. " • There is a phone number on the machine to report a problem and someone is dispatched to the scene to provide assistance. Mr. Mosijczuk testified: • He did not see the portion of the sign of the machine notifying users of "no refunds no change. " • He did not notice the contact phone number on the machine for requesting assistance. Mr. Mosijcuk requested a continuance in the case so he may contact a representative at the phone number provided to determine if his money may be refunded. The Special Magistrate CONTINUED the case until April 6, 2012. VII. NEW BUSINESS - Continued B. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 3. CASE NO: CEPM20100007769 OWNER: 223 BON LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 22- 322(a), SEAWALL IN NEED OF REPAIR. FOLIO NO: 55850840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 223 1ST STREET, BONITA SPRINGS 12 161 A3 '' `'March 2 2 1 , 0 2 Bill Schaner, Florida Foreclosure, LLC, representative for the previous owner was present and represented the current owner, 223 Bon, LLC. Investigator Pulse represented the County and stated the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 2/7/12 Special Magistrate Order: 9/2/11 - No. 4721 -Page: 2834 Fine Amount: $200.00 /day Duration: 10.3/11 — 2/7/12 (128 days) Total Fine Amount: $25,600.00 Total to Date: $25,600.00 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 6. CASE NO: CEPM20110011422 OWNER: JAMES L. DUNKELBERGER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE 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 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2968 LONE PINE LANE, NAPLES James L. Dunkelberger was present. Supervisor Letourneau represented the County and stated the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/24/12 Special Magistrate Order: 12/2/11 - No. 4745 -Page: 3142 Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 12/10/11 — 1/24/12 (46 days) Total Fine Amount: $11,500.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.38 Total to Date: $11,612.38 The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines and collection of unpaid Operational Costs. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 27. CASE NO: CEPM20110002202 OWNER: JP MORGAN CHASE BANK OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22 -231, SUBSECTIONS 12b, 12c, 12i, 12n, 12p, 19, AND 20. VACANT DUPLEX WITH MULTIPLE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS. FOLIO NO: 77310400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 240 BENSON STREET, NAPLES 13 161 ? A3 March 2, 2012 Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/16/12 Date of Service: March 2, 2011 Investigator Mucha presented the case. The Respondents were not present. The violation remains as of March 2, 2012. 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 $113.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case by April 2, 2012. 2. Obtain all required Collier County Building Permit(s), or Collier County Demolition Permits) and required inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion to correct all property maintenance violations by April 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. 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: $113.00 28. CASE NO: CEPM20110014961 OWNER: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF HARBORVIEW 2005 -16 TRUST FUND OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -228, SECTION 22- 231(12) (c). CEILING IN LANAUPOOL AREA IS COLLAPSING DUE TO LACK OF MAINTENANCE. APPARENT ROOF DAMAGE AND LACK OF MAINTENANCE. FOLIO NO: 27632440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 378 EGRET AVENUE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/14/12 Investigator Pulse presented the case. The Respondents were not present. 14 1612 A13 March 2, 2012 Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated April 11, 2011 Exhibit 13: 1 photo dated April 27, 2011 Composite Exhibit C: 2 photos dated July 19, 2011 Composite Exhibit D: 2 photos dated July 27, 2011 Exhibit E: 1 photo dated August 23, 2011 Exhibit F: 1 photo dated November 28, 2011 Exhibit G: 1 photo dated February 8, 2012 The violation remains as of March 2, 2012. 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 April 2, 2012. 2. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County Building Permit(s), inspections and Certificate of Occupancy /Completion necessary to complete the repairs to the roof and lanai ceiling by April 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. 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 29. CASE NO: CEPM20110016069 OWNER: ERASMO ARMONDO ARAGON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 22- 231(12)(1) AND 22 -243. BROKEN WINDOW AND SEVERAL DOORS AND WINDOWS UNSECURED. FOLIO NO: 36435880005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5235 32ND AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/15/12 Investigator Gomez presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 3 photos 15 161 2 A3 March 2, 2012 The violation remains as of March 2, 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 $112.47 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before April 2, 2012. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion to restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before March 16, 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. Obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and "board" the windows on or before March 16, 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. If the option outlined in condition #3 is chosen, obtain all required Collier County permits required and restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before September 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. 5. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 6. 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: $112.47 36. CASE NO: CENA20120000461 OWNER: SHERI L. GAUTHIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(a). WEEDS OVER 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT. FOLIO NO: 36002880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4500 30TH AVENUE SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/15/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/17/12 Investigator Gomez presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 8/21/11 The violation remains as of March 2, 2012. H Q3 16 1 2afch 2, 2012 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 $11238 incurred in the prosecution of the case by April 2, 2012. 2 Abate all violations by mowing all weeds, grass or overgrowth in excess of 18 inches by March 9, 2012 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 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 37. CASE NO: CEPM20110016125 OWNER: JOHN W. RODGERS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22- 231(11) AND (12)(i) . MAIN STRUCTURE WITH A BROKEN FRONT WINDOW, GARAGE DOOR, AND A COVER REMOVED FROM AN OUTSIDE ELECTRICAL BOX. FOLIO NO: 427480009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5580 CYNTHIA LANE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/15/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/16/12 Date of Service: 12/1/2011 Investigator Asaro presented the case. The Respondent was not present. Evidence entered: Composite Exhibit A: 2 photos dated 11/28/11 The violation remains as of March 2, 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 $11247 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before April 2, 2012. 2. Obtain a valid Collier County Building Permits, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion required to make the necessary repairs to the structure and to restore the windows and garage door to a permitted condition on or before 17 16I z A 3 March 2, 2012 April 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 or; 3. Obtain a Collier County "Boarding Certificate" and "board" the windows on or before March 16, 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. 4. If the option outlined in condition #3 is chosen, obtain all required Collier County permits required and restore the windows to a permitted condition on or before September 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. S. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 6. 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: $112.47 C. Emergency Cases: None Break: 12: 44pm Reconvened: 12: 52pm VIII. NEW BUSINESS -Continued C. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. CASE NO: CEPM20110010215 OWNER: NEIL FORNEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY 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: 2/18/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Duration: (41 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,250.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $792.60 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 18 161 2 X43 March 2, 2012 Total to Date: $11,154.80 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 $11,154.80. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 4. CASE NO: CEPM20110011548 OWNER: CHAD A. SHANNON AND CRYS'rAL 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: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Abatement Date: 1/13/2012 Special Magistrate Order: Fine Amount: $500.00 /day Duration: (35 days) 12/2/2011 No. 4745 - Page:3147 Total Fine Amount: $17,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $781.50 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $18,393.70 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 $18,393.70. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CEPM20110007564 OWNER: ELI WALLEN AND DANNIE DEVOL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD 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. FOLIO NO: 62766360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 707 94TH AVENUE N, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/21/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Ford presented the case noting the violation has been abated, Operational Costs have been paid and the County recommends the fines be waived. z 161 2 A March 2, 2012 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. 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 (12)(n). REPEAT VIOLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL WITH 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: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/16/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Kincaid presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Fine Amount: $500.00 /day Duration: Part 13: 33 days; Part C: 33 days Total Fine Amount: Part 13: $16,500.00 — Part C: $16,500.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $965.50 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $34,078.06 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 ,$34,078.06. Said amount to become a lien on the property. 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: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/15/12 The Respondents were not present. Investigator Ford presented the case noting the violation has been abated. Fine Amount: $250.00 /day Duration: 39 days Total Fine Amount: $9,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $1,200.00 20 1 161 2 A3 March 2, 2012 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $11,062.47 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 $11,062.47. Said amount to become a lien on the property. CASE NO: CESD20100005619 OWNER: ROY E. COMPTON 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 WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 40182480003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3690 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/14/12 Date of Hearing Notice Property /Courthouse Posting: 2/15/12 The Respondents were not present. Supervisor Perez presented the case noting the violation has not been abated. Fine Amount: $100.00 /day Duration: 29 days Total Fine Amount: $2,900.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.29 Total to Date: $3,012.29 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 $3,01229. Fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20090015884 OWNER: GEORGE LAMBERT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 26(103.11.2). PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL WITHOUT SAFETY FENCE OR ENCLOSURE. FOLIO NO: 37987440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3580 WHITE BLVD, NAPLES Investigator Condomina represented the County stating the Motion to Amend a Previously Issued Order was for the addition of Abatement Costs. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Request. B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None 21 161 2 A3 , March 2, 2012 C. Motion to Contest Nuisance Abatement Lien: 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: April 6, 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 1:10 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING da Garre , Special Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on O , as presented �/ , or as amended 22 q 1612 a4 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDEN �I APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APR 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY BY... ..................... 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA — Agenda items 9C and 9D have been continued to the March 1, 2012 meeting per applicant request 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 5, 2012, January 19, 2012 / Fiala D f/ 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS Hiller ✓�- Henning 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Coyle .f Coletta 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Note: This item has been continued from the January 26, 2012 "Special " CCPC meeting: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioiners proposing 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element, Potable Water Sub - Element, Drainage Sub - Element, Solid Waste Sub - Element, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element, Recreation & Open Space Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Economic Element, and Public Schools Facilities Element, and furthermore recommending Transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager] Misc. Corres: Date: �l2zl 12 1 Item #: R Copies to: y: , I i� 1612 A4 B. Note: This item has been continued from the January 19, 2012 CCPC meeting; this item will be heard first as an Advertised item then will be heard as consent under agenda item 9A: PUDA- PL2011 -343: Tuscany Reserve PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2003 -28, as amended, The Tuscany Reserve Planned Unit Development (PUD), by providing for amendments to cover page; providing for amendments to Property Ownership and General Description section; providing for amendments to Project Development section; providing for amendments to Residential "R" Development Areas section; providing for amendments to Golf, Open Space (GO) section; providing for amendments to Village Center section; providing for amendments to General Development Commitments section; providing for amendments to Master Plan on property located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 461.29 acres; and by providing an effective date. No increase in density or number of authorized dwelling units is proposed. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] C. Note: This item has been continued to the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting per applicant request: PDI- PL2012 -159: The Dunes PUD- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number PDI- PL2012 -159 for insubstantial changes to the Dunes Planned Unit Development Master Plan for the purpose of removing the conservation easement designation in the waterway and depicting the area for construction of a 49 slip boat dock facility for property located at 11495 Vanderbilt Beach Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] D. Note: This item has been continued to the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting per applicant request: BDE- PL2010 -979: Vanderbilt Partners II, LTD, represented by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is proposing a 261 -foot boat dock extension to allow a new docking facility to protrude approximately 281 feet from the Mean High Water line. The new boat docking facility is approximately 11,300 square feet of over water structure and consists of 49 boat slips. The subject property is located in the Dunes Planned Unit Development at 11495 Vanderbilt Drive, Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, RLA, AICP] 9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Note: This item has been continued from the January 19, 2012 CCPC meeting; this item will be heard as an Advertised item then as consent: PUDA- PL2011 -343: Tuscany Reserve PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2003 -28, as amended, The Tuscany Reserve Planned Unit Development (PUD), by providing for amendments to cover page; providing for amendments to Property Ownership and General Description section; providing for amendments to Project Development section; providing for amendments to Residential "R" Development Areas section; providing for amendments to Golf, Open Space (GO) section; providing for amendments to Village Center section; providing for amendments to General Development Commitments section; providing for amendments to Master Plan on property located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 461.29 acres; and by providing an effective date. No increase in density or number of authorized dwelling units is proposed. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp R 4 161 2 AA } 0 AGENDA APR COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTR M— .a1[,djLQ.J1�G,,n COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Fiala " Hiller r Henning Coyle Coletta A. Note: This item has been continued from the February 16, 2012 CCPC meeting per the applicant: PDI- PL2012 -1591 The Dunes PUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number PDI- PL2012 -159 for insubstantial changes to the Dunes Planned Unit Development Master Plan for the purpose of depicting the area for construction of a 49 slip boat dock facility in the manmade portion of the waterway labeled "Conservation Easement /Waterway" for property located at 11495 Vanderbilt Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to BDE- PL2010 -979) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] B. Note: This item has been continued from the February 16, 2012 CCPC meeting per the applicant: BDE- PL2010 -9791 Vanderbilt Partners II, LTD, represented by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is proposing a 261 -foot boat dock extension to allow a new docking facility to protrude approximately 281 feet from the Mean High Water line. The new boat docking facility is approximately 1 1,300 square feet of over water structure and consists of 49 boat slips. The subject property is located in the Dunes Planned Unit Development at 11495 Vanderbilt Drive, Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier Couily, F rida. (Companion item to PDI - PL2012 -159) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, RLA, AICP] MSC i item #! l l .A�-,- H L/ copies to: 1612 A4- C. VA- PL2010 -2285: Lot 80 Plantation Island - a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition Number VA- PL2010 -2285, granting a variance from subsection 4.02.14.C.4 of the Land Development Code (mangrove trees), on property hereinafter described in Section 24, Township 53 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] D. RZ- PL20110001572: SSP Associates, Inc. -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a C -3 zoning district to a C -5 zoning district for the project known as SSP Associates, Inc. Rezone located south of Tamiami Trail East in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 1.75 +/- acres subject to conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] E. CPSS- 2011 -1: A petition requesting a small scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the "Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict ", to remove paragraph b., relating to transportation intersection improvements, and to remove related paragraph c.v., for property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East (f 10 acres). [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner.] ADOPTION HEARINGS. Note: This item has been continued from the January 26, 2012 and February 16, 2012 CCPC meetings per CCPC. This item will be heard as an Advertised Public hearing then under Consent: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element, Potable Water Sub - Element, Drainage Sub - Element, Solid Waste Sub - Element, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element, Recreation & Open Space Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Economic Element, and Public Schools Facilities Element, and furthermore recommending Transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item is being continued to the March 15, 2012 CCPC meeting: G. VA- PL2011 -1410: Wahl Variance - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL20110001410, for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet on the eastern boundary of the property located at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] Note: This item is being continued to the March 15, 2012 CCPC meeting: H. BDE- PL20110001409: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110001409 for a 34.6 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] 9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89 -05, as amended, specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element, Potable Water Sub - Element, Drainage Sub - Element, Solid Waste Sub - Element, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - Element of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element, Recreation & Open Space Element, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Economic Element, and Public Schools Facilities Element, and furthermore recommending Transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [C66rdh;itf6f''Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] >`'' 2 1612 A4 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp AGENDA l! P R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THUIIRYXAY,.MAPF-kl.1S,.2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. / Fiala 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Hiller Henning 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coyle ColettaG 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2012 (CCPC /EAR based GMP Amendments), February 16, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PDI- PL2012 -159, The Dunes PUD, a Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number PDI- PL2012 -159 for insubstantial changes to the Dunes Planned Unit Development Master Plan for the purpose of depicting the area for construction of a 49 slip boat dock facility in the manmade portion of the waterway labeled "Conservation Easement/Waterway" for property located at 11495 Vanderbilt Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to BDE- PL2010 -979) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] Misc. Comes: Dale: S l ?-:� I'L Item 0: k 1 Copies to: 1612 04 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Note: This item has been continued from the November 3, 2011 CCPC meeting, the November 17, 2011 CCPC meeting, then again from the January S, 2012 CCPC meeting: CU- PL2009 -1412: Alico Land Development, Inc. — A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow extraction or earthmining and related processing and production within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with Mobile Home Overlay and Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0l.A.l.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a project to be known as Lost Grove Mine located in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting: B. VA- PL2011 -1410: Wahl Variance - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL20110001410, for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.e.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet on the eastern boundary of the property located at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] C. Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2012 CCPC meeting: BDE- PL20110001409: Wahl Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL20110001409 for a 34.6 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -4 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp 16 12 4� 0 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 26, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: D �� (N- � W 13 MAR 2 1. i BY: ....................... ALSO PRESENT: Fiala _ Hiller Henning -rte Coyle ✓ _ Coletta G CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham Corby Schmidt, Principle Planner, Growth Management Division Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative n7 v ' d Milo. Comes: 1 Dift 5 l221 t2. Page 1 of 84 x 6 1 Z 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR mendments meek p g CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, January 26th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting on the EAR amendments. So if you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Von -- WGIST1uIR614 ei91:ATIO)►1191: aTforem COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sorry. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER 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: And, Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting, it looks like we've got a meeting canceled for February 2nd. We have a tentative meeting on February 16th. I'm not sure -- originally we were told that one -- there wasn't going to be a meeting that day, but I think there's been something scheduled now. So does anybody know if they can't make it on the 16th of February? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move right into this hearing, but I wanted to kind of explain where we're at for the new members. The EAR process is one that started with this board many months ago. I think we've heard it twice in workshops or preliminaries. So the changes that have come about in the attachments in your booklet are all ones that -- those of us that have been on here for a while have already had the experience some of them. But just to make you -all realize where we're going today, there's a whole series of sections of changes. Within the sections are underlined or bolded comments. That's what we're focusing on. Everything that is existing that is not underlined, that's not the issues that we're here to discuss mostly today. We need to stay with the changes. That will help expedite the process, and -- so if we focus on that, we might get out of here within a day or so. Mike, I'll turn it over to you now. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Planning Commission Members. My name is Mike Bosi, the Comprehensive Planning manager. I have a little six- or seven,�xlide presentation just to familiarize yourselves with the EAR, as the chairman has just provided. It's required by Florida Statute that every jurisdiction, every county, every city, municipality, has to review the Growth Management P%W-bn a seven -year periodic basis. It's required by 163.3191 of the Florida Statutes. And this is -- this EAR process stands as the third review for our Growth Management Plan, which was implemented in 1989. We had a review in -- or an EAR review in 1997, 2004, and again in 2011. What does the EAR do? It's the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of our Growth Management Plan. It Page 2 of 84 12 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting basically evaluates the performance of the elements that are within the Growth Management Plan. For some of the new members, your Growth Management Plan is comprised of individual elements, so your Transportation Element, your Capital Improvement Element, your Public Schools Facility Element, your Coastal -- or Conservation and Coastal Management Element, your Recreation and Open Space Element. All those elements address with the many facets of not only the spacial arrangement of land uses within the county, but how the individual components of -- and subsects of the environment work together and how those relationships should work for the longest terms of -- in terms of sustainability. Within the EAR we try to measure the successes and the shortcomings of our Growth Management Plan, how those individual elements are attaining their goals, or trying to attain those goals, and what benchmarks have been accomplished, and it provides an opportunity for the local plan to resp*d to changes with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike -- Margie, you mind taking your conversation out in the hall? We can't -- Margie? Please, would you mind; we're hearing too much of your conversation up here. Thank you, Mike. MR. BOSI: Oh, no problem. It provides an opportunity for the local Growth Management Plan to respond to changes in federal, state, or regional planning requirements. And as I mentioned, the EAR's a two -part process. We're really at the midpoint of this second phase. It's where the proposed language, which was formerly requested to be incorporated into the GMP, based upon -- based upon those changes that were designated by the adopted EAR -- and what did we get here? How did we get to these specific proposed modifications to the policies and objectives of the Growth Management Plan? I was speaking with the Planning Commission Member Brougham about the process and the length of the process. Where did it start? It started back in 2009 at the Regional Planning Council where we met with the -- with the other counties and municipalities within the Southwest Florida region and talked about the upcoming EAR process. And we established an intergovernmental meeting in September of 2009. In December of 2009, we established a letter of understanding with the Department of Community Affairs, the former state agency that was overseen -- that oversees planning and -- planning regulation within the State of Florida. And from that we started a series of three individual public meetings at geographic areas that were diverse within the county to try to gain input from the citizenry who wanted to come and comment and let us know what we're doing well and what maybe -- areas that we could improve upon. We had three meetings; in January, February, and March of 2010. And like I said, through various geographic areas within the county to give everyone an opportunity to be able to provide their input in what they felt that -- or where they felt the county needs to go within the planning environment. Between April and July, staff went through the -- went through each element, made our own individual assessments, considered the input for the public, and drafted some potential areas for change and also assessments upon the Growth Management Plan, those elements and how they've done in reaching their benchmarks. And we had a workshop with the EAC in August of 2010, a two -day workshop with the Planning Commission on the 25th and 27th of August in 2010, sent a courtesy copy of the EAR to the Department of Community Affairs, received some comment agencies (sic), and then on November 3rd of 2010 we had an EAR adoption hearing with the EAC. And December 7th we had an EAR adoption hearing with the Planning Commission. And then January 31 st, about a year ago, the Board of Commissioners adopted the EAR. And what that EAR said was, we evaluated each element, we've scrutinized the goals, we've scrutinized the objectives, we've scrutinized the policies. Here are the things that we think we need to change to make our -- each individual element, each individual goal or policy, whatever the case, more effective, more relevant to the issues that we face in today's day and age. After -- after we adopted, we sent it to the state. On April 15, 2011, the Collier EAR was accepted by the state. From May to September of this year, or no -- of 2011, sorry, we drafted the proposed language. But before we were going to start the transmittal hearing, which we're at today, we said one last time, we're going to check with the Planning Commission. We're going to come back. We're going to give you the draft languages -- or the language for the objectives and policies that are being proposed to change and see if there's agreement with -- we are doing what the EAR -based report had said, the changes that we have designated, got feedback from the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I know you're on a roll. Page 3 of 84 k 161 2 04 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, January 31, 2011, the BAC (sic) adopts the EAR, and then it was accepted by the state in April, and then in May to September you drafted the language. I didn't quite follow that. I mean, what was accepted if it wasn't the language? MR. BOSI: What was accepted was the objectives and policies that we said we need to make changes for. We -- the accepted report says, these policies in the Transportation Element or these policies -- or these objectives in the Future Land Use Element, these are the areas that we need to make changes. We also give -- we indicate where we're going with the changes, why we're making the change, but that -- those changes, those -- or those designations for changes are what is accepted during the Phase 1 part. The Phase 2 part, which we're in, iswhere we're actually incorporating those proposed changes into our Growth Management Plan. It's the fonnal process of accepting those proposed changes into the GMP. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the first part is to make recommendations to changing policy, goals, and objectives. The second part then is to formulate language to specifically implement those policy changes. MR. BOSI: That's spot on, correct. And that's where we're at. We're at that second part where we're starting the process for incorporating those -- that implementation language for changes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks. MR. BOSI: After the workshop we have had our -- we've already conducted our EAR -based amendment transmittal hearing with the EAC, and that was done December 7th of 2011, which brings us up to today, which we are at the transmittal hearing for the Planning Commission for the EAR -based amendments. From this meeting we have end of March scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners. I believe it's 20th or 21 st of March we will be before the Board of County Commissioners for their transmittal hearing for the EAR -based amendments. What we will do -- and just to give the Planning Commission an understanding, the input that you provide us to the specific language that is being proposed today will be modified based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation, and that's what will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at that March transmittal hearing. And just one more --just to close it out, it was just a little refreshing, and I think we've talked about it a number of times. How does the GMP work? It's comprised of elements, like I said; transportation, Capital Improvement Element, future land use, public utilities, et cetera. Each one of those elements have one or a number of overall goals, what we're trying to achieve within those individual elements, and those goals are supported by objectives, and those objectives are further supported by policies. What you'll see within your book are the objectives and policies that we are suggesting for modification in the actual language for those -- for those changes. From review of the history, the planning -- there's a number of Planning Commissioners who have seen this for a number of times. As Mark had said, the -- the language that is struck through or underlined are the policies and the objectives that we will be dealing with today. If there's not a modification proposed for a policy or objective, they're off -- they're off limits for this process. Of course, we could always hear comments from the Planning Commission that this would be something we should probably look at in a separate GMP cycle, but that would be something for outside of this EAR process. With that overview, I would see if there's any other questions just about the process going forward from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's any general questions of anybody, because if there isn't, what I was going to suggest is we take it as we have in the past, a group of pages at a time. If a section is small, we'll take the whole section, but we'll walk through it that way. Mike, does that work for you? MR. BOSI: Absolutely; defer to you, Chair. And one thing I would say, there was a number -- a couple of speakers who have requested to speak on a number of different elements, so I would just request that -- and as the chair always does -- at the conclusion of each element to see if there was public speakers who would like to speak on each individual -- on the individual element discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for members of the public, I think I see two out there. So if either of the two of you would like to speak on any particular subject, just raise your hand, because we'll fit you in. Margie, you already want to speak? We haven't started anything yet. Page 4 of 84 t k 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: I misunderstood. I thought you just said for us to acknowledge if we wanted to speak any time during the proceeding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Oh, I know you do, yeah. So whenever you want to speak, just raise your hand. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Sorry. I know that was not on record, Terri. Okay. And I'm trying to think. There was something else I wanted to say. But I guess, Mike, we'll just start into it and everything will -- oh, you guys have changes. And Corby passed out some changes and maps at our last CCPC meeting. And I know the Conservancy sent us a letter with -- that was three pages. Have you seen that, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they're not here, I'll try to keep track of their concerns. I'd like to address everybody's concerns and changes as we move through each element. MR. BOSI: And staff has -- has been made aware of the letter, and we believe that we've addressed, and will address, how those comments are being handled within this EAR report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as we get to each group of pages, just kind of point us out, okay? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. And I will turn it over to Corby, the coordinator for the process. And there is an agenda at the very beginning of your book, I believe, that lists the elements and how we will proceed. With that, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Quickly, in your booklets the staff report has been made available to you, as well as the summary of changes which has been updated post your workshop and the EAC transmittal hearing and a memo from the planning staff that gives you the more recent changes to the -- or suggested changes to the housing element and to the FLUE. Just to point those out, Mr. Chairman, and we're good to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's start with the staff report. It's the third tab into your packet. It's three pages or four pages. Anybody have any questions on the staff report before we get into the meat of the discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is a summary of changes that follows the staff report. I didn't know if there's any questions or concerns about the summary. Every issue in there we will be hitting in the individual sections as well. Does anybody have any questions about the summary? That's Pages 1 through 8 of that tab. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the first section in which we actually get into the EAR is the CEI, Capital Improvement Element, and there's quite a few pages on that one. Let's start with the first five pages. Anybody have any questions on the first five pages? Since most of them aren't struck through or underlined, there's not a lot there, but -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4, Corby, the second underline -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says, "The county may, in certain instances when a public facility improvement is of lower order or priority and not needed to achieve or maintain adopted levels of service, consider the option of not constructing such improvement at all." Aren't all of our improvement always considered based on the level of service? MR. BOSL• Mike Bosi. The Capital Improvement Programs for a system expansion is most certainly tied to level of service, and replacement of obsolete facilities is also tied to level of service. So within our Capital Improvement Element, any project that would be put forward is related to the level of service and maintaining or achieving the required level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I asked that is because, the way this is written, you couldn't opt out of doing something unless it was tied to a level of service. So as long as everything is tied to a level of service, then anything is -- we have the ability to opt out of any of them then? Page 5 of 84 161 2 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You may want to get a little bit more information as to the need of putting that sentence in to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was a result of this board's comment or some other board's comment, from what I read. It may have been ours at the previous meeting. But go ahead; why would you feel the sentence is not needed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, maybe I'm -- perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but I'm reading it to say that if it's not needed to maintain an adopted level of service, then we can consider not constructing it at all. And so I think that that decision would always be involved in every fiscal decision, so that's why. I may not understand it correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that corresponds to the question and answer that you previously gave. If it's not tied to a level of service, then it wouldn't be scheduled to be done. MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think maybe what was intended is that if it's -- if we're doing it early and we can delay it because of a -- not a critical level -of- service concern, that I would think be the option. Some roads, for example, can -- are operating at D. Instead of improving them to a C, they could drop to an E, and that would be the result that we'd see as a result of that sentence. Is that -- MR. BOSI: Correct. And it was the expression, I believe, for that additional flexibility. And to Heidi's point, I think it's inherent within the process that this -- that we have that flexibility. It was just the request to express it within the specific verbiage to provide that flexibility. But as Heidi points out, it is inherent within the capital improvement programming, that type of flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's already there; I mean, I'm not sure that was as clear to us because the language wasn't in front of us last time. It was just a suggestion. I don't know why we need to clutter it up. If it's already -- if you can do this without this being said, then I would have to agree with Heidi, just take it back out again. Does anybody else have any problem with that? I think the less language we can have in our code the better. So why clutter it if it's already a given? And I think that now that it's written and it's discussed, it's understood better as to why that isn't needed. And on Page 5, we -- on various municipalities we're stating their levels of service. And, for example, the City of Naples at 185 and Everglades City at 185, and then you've got your private utilities. How can we state their level of service in our GMP? Do we have control over them to make sure that they abide by that? And then how do we know that they've actually done that for the period of time that this covers? MR. BOSI: They have to file annual reports with Jamie French over at Growth Management as the utilities coordinator administrator. We have -- we really -- our enforcement mechanisms over those individual districts is limited, but we do recognize what -- their level of services expressed within their charter and maintain it within our Growth Management Plan. But the implementation of enforcement is not directly from the county, but it's through the utilities regulatory commission. So if they would -- in their annual reporting, if they would be negligent of the level of service they're expressing within their charter, there's a process for -- to start that enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would they be, then, considered, if they were neglect, let's say, in violation of the GMP because of the stated number that's in this element? MR. BOSI: On the surface they would be a violation of the GMP, but there's not a regulatory penalty for that. The regulatory penalty comes from the utility authority commission from the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is if we have something in the document and the document's locked in and solid and it's violated, how do we -- what does that mean whereas if it wasn't a -- if it wasn't as clearly stated -- I mean, instead of saying the "City of Naples equals 185 gallons per capita," could we say the "City of Naples equals up to 185 gallons" or some kind of variable so that we don't put anybody in conflict or inconsistencies with the GMP? Is that a better way to approach it, or is this -- MR. BOSI: I guess we can use "equal to" or "greater than," or, I mean, a different metric, even though their charter is expressed at the level of service that's prescribed within the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their charter's given to them at the time they begin their existence, right? Page 6 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the GMP levels for these changes as we've seen in the AUIR almost every year, especially from our county, it goes up and down. So if these are changing, how does their charter keep up with them? MR. BOSI: Through whatever the mechanism for amendment process that the utility commission has prescribed for the individual utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they would have to amend their charter to correct a change in the level of service as stated in this GMP -- or assuming the GMP matches their charter currently. MR. BOSI: I think the GMP would have to follow their actions. If they would change the levels of service, they would -- they would be recognized through Growth Management through coordination with Mr. French, and then we would have to start the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Wouldn't it -- if they applied to amend their charter, Jamie would get copied on all of that information to be able to reflect the changes here, correct? MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know if we could make the changes. Well, the CIE, that's one element that can be changed a little differently than the rest. MR. BOSI: You can modify the CIE and levels of service on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next group of pages is 5 through 10, which will take you to the end of the section provided. Does anybody have any questions on the last five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then to finish off the CIE we have a series of discussions from previous meetings and how we got to where this element is in front of us today. Does anybody have any questions on the remainder of the CIE? Go ahead, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, going back to Page 8, to the CIE element itself, Policy 4. 1, both A and B, there's some parenthetical phraseology regarding being affected by House Bill 7207. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: Just a note that that language will be removed when we know what that effect is, and it's not to remain as a parenthetical entry. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So in the transmittal version this language will be proposed. I mean, this language will be deleted. It will -- the text will not be changed as it's depicted here, is what I think he's saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're going to do is drop the parenthetical. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. And if there are actually House -Bill -7207 effective changes, we'll make that change to whatever statute reference that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MR. SCHMIDT: To this point we haven't found them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which brings up another question. With all the changes in Tallahassee to DCA, when you made your presentation, you said the former agency. They got whittled down from hundreds to a dozen or whatever number's left. They still exist in regards to reviewing the EAR? MR. BOSI: Yes, they do. They -- and the process for amending the GMP has been abbreviated for most Growth Management Plan amendment processes. But for the EAR process, it's still the traditional review, and they will review it as in the past. The level of scrutiny, I believe, may be different than what it was in the past. And not maybe, will be, because the new regulations state that state agencies will only review plans in relationship to their areas of concentration, but in terns of affecting only critical statewide resources and systems. So that is their purview, in terms of any critical comments would only be related to how an individual element or policy or objective would have an effect upon an individual state system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would eliminate a lot of review. MR. BOSI: Yes. So what that means is, really, the elevation of scrutiny has gone from maybe 500 feet to 50,000 feet. They've really -- they've really pulled back in terms of the scrutiny and the level of scrutiny to more of a. macro -- of a macro prospective, and I believe it provides the local governments more flexibility but more Page 7 of 84 `� ....�� 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting responsibility to make sure that the changes that they are implementing have been considered at not only that macro level but at the specific lower level as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: One more change, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: On the following Page 9. Policy 4.7, the final entry which was suggested by this group, I believe, at a previous meeting, stating "all governing construction codes" as an addition to that listing. The suggestion here from the County Attorney's Office is to remove that as somewhat, perhaps, unnecessary. Perhaps Heidi can explain. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, they're already required and governed by the construction code, so that would be part of the practice. And we're talking about best - management practices here. That should be, I think, in addition to what we would normally be reviewing. So I think you don't need that. I think it's duplicative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So again, it's redundant. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: hl my opinion, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, aren't most of those redundant? I mean, you can't build it below the floodplain. If you want to take that approach, take it throughout the whole thing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the reason why I was suggesting taking G out is because that's a proposed addition. The other ones are already in place, and I'm not sure if they form the basis for some of the other codes that we have, ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not hurting anything, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if it -- county attorney's suggesting it's redundant. If it's not hurting anything either way, then if it is redundant, should it be removed? Anybody have any objection to see it removed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that, Mike, then the direction is to just drop it. Okay. We finished the CIE unless anyone else has any corrections, changes, or comments. The next item is the transportation element, and I see Reed Jarvi's back there, and since he just started here recently, we need to find a lot of questions for him. Okay. The first five pages of the transportation element. Does anybody have any questions on the first five pages? Page 3, Mike or Corby, Policy 4.6, "The county shall work to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emission by providing for safe movement of non - motorized vehicles through implementation of its LDC and highway design standards ordinances and shall incorporate bike lanes." Would it be more appropriate to say "by incorporating bike lanes "? I mean, it's just grammatical. I'm just not MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, it is, and we'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word "shall," every time I see it in these, I try to avoid it, but -- on Page 4, you have a paragraph that was added, and it was confusing, and the second sentence, I guess, is what was more problematic. First of all, read the first sentence, then go to the second. "Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and" then "submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that address the project's significant impact on all deficient roadways. The plan shall include an absorption schedule consistent with the traffic impact statement that identifies those measures that serve to either restrain the timing of development of the project in light of the deficient conditions and/or provide incentives that expedite the improvements needed to return the roadway to an accepted (sic) level of service." The absorption schedule doesn't necessarily address the traffic impact statement, at least the ones we've seen. They're basically on what they feel they can do marketing -wise, and they're not updated or corrected. Is that an effective way, then, to try to reach whatever you're trying -- whatever goal you're trying to reach with 5.1? And also you capitalized "mitigation plan." Is that a defined term somewhere? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm going to have to look -- to read for that. MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if "mitigation plan" is a defined term. I will have to maybe defer to the transportation staff. But what -- I think what they're trying to do in terms of the relationship between the reference to Page 8 of 84 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting traffic impact statement in correspondence to their absorption schedule is that they are in line, that the -- their phasing or their absorption schedule will be consistent with their TIS, in the TIS as to when individual loads and the volumes are going to be reaching our roadway to make sure that there's a consistency between when individual deficiencies may be reached and when those -- timing for those deficiencies need to be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you seen any TISs come through that have coordinated with the project's marketing absorption schedule? Reed, since you're -- probably this is one of your first days, so -- MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi, transportation planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Congratulations, by the way, on joining the county. MR. JARVI: To answer your question directly, no, I have not seen any. Have I been involved with some? Possibly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's --I'm reading it trying to figure out how we're expected to coordinate it, because we see these -- we've had plenty of absorption schedules, and they've been topics of discussion, but I've not seen them tied the way this paragraph's trying to tie them. MR. JARVI: I think they've been tied in more than the TISs, into developer's contribution agreement type idea where they've had phases that you can do X amount of units prior to, you know, 2013, as an example, and to get to Phase 2, the improvement needs to be done or under construction or something to that effect. What comes to mind specifically that I was involved with is the 951 /U.S. 41 intersection improvements. They have two or three phases of development, and certain things need to be done before they can move in. So I think there's a mitigation plan as such, which is the -- from the development -order standpoint, would be the DCA, but I don't typically see these in a TIS that I can remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's kind of -- if it's in here and if it's in our GMP and it has to be then articulated as an implementation somehow in the LDC, what relevance does that have -- or how can we tie that into the zoning process so that if we do produce absorption schedules tied to TISs, then they can be part of the review process for zoning. Is that -- I mean -- and especially if it's used for DCA, which we don't -- we don't get DCAs unless they happen to come along after they've already been approved. MR. JARVI: Yeah. I mean, there have been, in the past, discussions on mitigation plans. It is part of the TIS guidelines of mitigation plan if you have that situation. I can't, frankly, say that they're used often if maybe even ever. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm a bit concerned about how this is to be fleshed out as we go into the zoning process for which -- I guess, basically the GMP's master document for everything that's done zoning -wise in Collier County. So I understand what it is now that you're trying to do. I just don't know how we're tying it then to the process. And that's the only suggestion I would have. And then I also think you -- unless you're going to provide a definition for a mitigation plan, by capitalizing it, and it kind of insinuates there's a definition there. And if there isn't, it's kind of concerning, too. MR. JARVI: I don't, frankly, know, but I think it's a generic mitigation plan, is the way I would read it, that it should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it would be small M, small P, okay. MR. JARVI: -- small case, I would think. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, just to be picky, drop the D on the end of scheduled in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not picky, so I guess you should be. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In the fourth line there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you guys will take a look at maybe clarifying this a little bit and tying it in? Okay. Policy 5.3 you deleted. And this may have been asked in the previous workshops; I'm not sure. I can't remember all that. Why is it we're deleting that again? I know Reed's kind of free because he doesn't have -- MR. JARVI: It was before my time. I have a guess, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the previous guy's fault, right? You need to get his name and make sure. MR. JARVI: It was the previous gap guy's fault. Page 9 of 84 161 A 4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" mere Ting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. Blame it on Nick. Nick's not here. That's -- MR. JARVL• Works for me. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Reed, do you know how we're handling the vesting now? MR. JARVI: Yeah. I think -- I think -- yeah. I mean, I'm guessing here that the vesting, from my involvement on the other side, has been done, so there really isn't a vesting, you know. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Review. MR. JARVI: That's already been done, so it probably -- this is talking about determining a vesting, the way I reed it. And if it's already been completed, then we don't need it. I mean, these are old -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you're making the assumption then that all projects started previously have been completed, so they would -- not -- there's no vesting issue for them. But what if there's some that haven't been? MR. JARVI: I believe -- and I can't tell you for exact, but I think the vesting was done years okay for projects that were already in place; Lely, Fiddler's Creek, you know, the big projects. And now we would go through -- and the vesting is not that process. You do it through the concurrency system or DCA system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So we can confirm that all the -- everything that needs to be vested has been vested. MR. SCHMIDT: That appears to be the explanation on Page 6 of your assessment, which follows the summary, which follows the element. In more different words, that is what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, on Page 5, Policy 5.5 -- we're still on the first five pages so that's why I'm continuing, guys -- you changed the word "from" to the word "to." That's kind of a complete 180- degree reversal as to what this previously said, and it seems like a small one -word change, but the certification now, instead of coming from your department saying that they met the requirements to obtain the exceptions for the TCEAs are now going to be coming to your department from the applicant? MR. BOSI: Yes. The applicant has to certify to the transportation department that they have, indeed, implemented these and -- for those individual strategies, whichever ones were chosen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually it says -- they can't say they've implemented them because this is proactive. It says, "will be utilized." So they wouldn't know that they're implemented at the time they certify to you, because they're only certifying to you that they will do these things. Are they the -- I mean, it just seems to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure that applicants ought to be certifying their own conditions to you guys. I'd rather see you -all checking it to make sure their assumptions are correct. How is it that you would handle it, then, if they're certifying, instead of from you, saying that, okay, you've met the requirements of the TCA, just like all the reviews in Collier County are from staff. Staff says, yep, we agree with you. You've done what you're supposed to do. You can go forward. Now they're going to say, here, we've done what we're supposed to do. Let us go forward. So wouldn't it be -- wouldn't we want to see something coming from your department? MR. BOSI: From my understanding of what this discussion -- what this discussion was during the EAR -based amendments was that they certify that these strategies will be utilized. We'll eventually go out and field check to make sure that they are implemented within the design. But the whole discussion was -- was reversed. At the time back when we were reviewing this we said, how can the county certify that an applicant's doing something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but I think -- and I think we -- I don't think the part of "from" and "to" is the change that may be needed. I think where the strategy is involved, you -all should be certifying or acknowledging that the applicant has met the criteria to obtain the exceptions to the CEA that are allowed. That's what I think the intent of that paragraph is, not a certification that they said they're going to do it. I mean, anybody can stand up and say, "I'm going to do it." That's a certification. I think the -- I think the intention is correct, but you got to it in the wrong way. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, if you read Page 7 under that Policy 5.5 in the summary, you know, it's saying essentially what you're saying, we'll provide certification from the transportation planning department that at least four transportation- demand - management strategies will be utilized. So one or the other has to apply but not both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that they're saying should now go forward is the one that I'm reading Page 10 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting from on Page 5. That's where my concern is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. That says two. But in reading -- in the summary -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't a summary. Those are -- is that a summary, guys? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Or explanation, whatever the term isl MR. BOSI: Yeah, it's a summary explanation for why -- remember, what's following the proposed objective and amendments is what was adopted in the EAR, and those are why we are making the changes. They're supposed to give us a road map. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But this says that the applicant, in effect, will provide certification from transportation planning. It's not saying we'll provide certification or will "certify to" the transportation planning. It's saying it will provide certification from transportation planning that at least four of these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's what I think the intention is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I believe -- and I think they're changing just the word "from" to "to" completely reverses the intension. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The two things are in conflict, the way I read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does anybody understand what we're trying -- what I'm -- at least what I or may -- I think now Mr. Brougham is also getting at? MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look at it further and work with the other -- additional transportation planners to see where we're intending to go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And wherever you intend to go, make -- direct it to writing -- MR. BOSI: Well, you remember when we had this conversation back at EAR, the first phase, we said, how can the county's transportation department certify that an individual development is going to utilize these individual strategies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not the objective, though. MR. BOSI: Well, that's what the -- that is what the policy read. The policy read that they were going to obtain certification from our transportation department. We at the time of the discussion said, that doesn't make sense that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- we should get certification from them that they're going to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to get the certification simply by them signing an application that says they're going to do it. I think what we're looking for in 5.5 is your department's acknowledgment that their -- that their suggestions to meet the exceptions to the CEA -- TCEA are consistent with this plan, and that's what I think the rewrite of that paragraph needs. I think it's off in the wrong direction. That's the only -- that's what I think we're looking for. MR. BOSI: That the strategies utilized meet the criteria, is what you're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I think is more valuable. To have an applicant come up here and certify and say, yeah, I think they meet it, every applicant in the room's going to do that, and anybody on their team is going to do that. So it's kind of a waste. But I'd rather see you guys telling us that what they're proposing is going to work consistent with the TCEA exceptions, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 5 -- 5 through 11 -- or 6 through 11. Anybody have questions on those. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we want to fix that before we leave it? Because it would be simple, just that they provide certification and you provide verification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He said they're going to amend it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They're going to change the language to reflect more of the direction. I think they're in agreement that the intent of our discussion is right. Page 11 of 84 t 16I j 2 A4 i 1 f 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: That the applicant meeting the criteria that -- of whatever the four strategies -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you guys acknowledge that. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need their certification. We need your acknowledgment. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what staffs for. So now on Page 6 through the end of this is 11 before we get into the supplement. Anybody have any questions? Mike? MR. BOSI: I will say on -- and this -- I will take the responsibility. 6.5, for some reason we went back to the original specificity of including I -75 /Everglades interchange. You had proposed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have it circled. MR. BOSI: You had proposed that in the -- one includes potential -- include the word "potential" before the phrase, "a number of potential critical -need intersections." That will be added back. And it's within the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard and I -75, and that modification will be changed -- will be made. Heidi had pointed that out to me that we had forgotten to -- or we had inadvertently reverted back to older language, and I appreciate her pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Heidi, because that's one of them I was going to go to, so I'll just -- anybody else through Page 11? Mike, on Page 6, the monitoring paragraph that you added towards the bottom, the last sentence, "Modifications to the applied TDM strategies may be made within the first three years of development if they are deemed ineffective." Okay. So they come in with the development, it doesn't work, the TDMs don't work, they've found that they're ineffective, so now they have to correct them, and that all happens within the first three years and it goes away. I would suggest we add to that sentence, and then it should be monitored for another period or -- whatever time is reasonable to make sure that the changes are effective; otherwise, you could have another ineffective outcome and nothing could happen because there's no more monitoring. MR. BOSI: Would you suggest another three -year period for that evaluation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I had in my notes. MR. BOSI: -- of the modifications to the strategy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that should be continuous until they could have an effective strategy. MR. BOSI: Until it -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 7, first sentence, "In order to be exempt from link - specific concurrency, developments within the TCMA must provide certification to the transportation planning department that at least two TDM strategies as provided for in the LDC will be utilized." Again, it comes back to the applicant providing the information. I just want to make sure that somehow your department has to confirm that they're accurate in what they're providing. Everybody can provide it, but if there's no responsibility from your side to have to acknowledge it and accept it, then they basically have done -- met the goal and they've provided it and walk away. Is there any concern there from your part? MR. JARVI: Reed Jarvi again. It would seem to me that, just like the previous conversation, really, we -- the applicant would provide what they want to do, and we would provide an approval. I don't know if a -- you know, "certify" is the right word. It's really that the department approves what their proposal is, and that would be part of zoning, if it's zoning, or part of the SDP or plats and plans, if it's at that point in time. In fact, really, it's an SDP plats- and -plans issue, because that's when you actually do the concurrency, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern here is the same as before. If it's just written that they're to provide it but you don't have to really -- you have -- that's all they have to do, they could just provide it and walk away. I'd rather see the onus of the -- not necessarily certification, but the effectiveness or the correctness of what they're providing fall on your backs to acknowledge it in the same policy. MR. BOSI: The respon -- and I think what I hear is the responsibility that should be expressed within this language should be -- should be upon the county's transportation department to verify that the strategies meet the criteria established. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you want that authority, and that authority then allows the implementation Page 12 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting language to strengthen your review process, which is, I think, where you want to go. MR. JARVI: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same at the end of this where the strategies are reviewed and effective. You need the same similar language that we discussed in the previous one, that the modification would then be reevaluated after three years until such time that they're effective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, since you don't really want to get into -- you know, the "verification" might not be the best word. You might want to just use a word like "acceptant In other words, they're going to certify to you something, and it has to be accepted by your department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "Verification" gives you much higher level oitrestponsibilio in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'll certify something acceptable to your department, or something of that nature. Is that where you're going, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 -- oh, you've already got that correction. Thanks. Page 9? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Fix the typo at the end of the first line on Page 9, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Add an "R" to the end of the sentence. Right now it's fee -fi -fo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's government speak. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 8 there's no indication that in the analysis, in the summary on -- it's also on Page 8. It says there's a new policy, 5.9, but it isn't reflected on the draft. It should be -- the old one should be deleted and the new one put in. Just as a -- anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys in agreement that you need to -- counter agreement? MR. BOSI: I'm somewhat confused about this. That policy says it's new and it -- it says, Local governments shall adopt by December 1, 2009 (sic), a methodology for assessing proportionate fair -share mitigation options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's done. MR. BOSL• That's done. We have done that. And I think the new is -- it was an incorrect assessment. I don't believe that was a new policy. I believe that -- that was something that's been done. I'm not sure why this has shown up in terms of that summary page, other than it's no longer relevant. Actually, we have to modify our existing proportionate -share mitigation language to now become in line with the new state statutes and regulations regarding how we calculate and how we administrate our proportionate -share mitigation, and that's going to be requiring a modification to our local ordinance that deals with proportionate share. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that should just be deleted? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: Where is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The deletion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 8 of the supplement to the transportation, it referred to a new Policy 5.9 that wasn't in the new language that we got today. And so Karen was questioning -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You're talking about the summary in transportation? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to Page 9 of the Transportation Element. Policy 7.3, and then -- "The county shall implement, through its zoning ordinance, Right -Of -Way Permitting Inspection Handbook and Land Development Code." Now, I know what our zoning ordinance is, which I think is the Land Development Code, and I'm kind of -- my first question is, what's the difference between the two? In the past, we did have -- I think the LDC Page 13 of 84 r� 4k J RSA i 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR JAI' Zin g A was called a zoning code and somehow I think they're now the same. Is that -- am I right or wrong in that assumption? MR. BOSI: You're correct. And I believe we -- this is another one where you had pointed out that the term "zoning ordinance" really didn't have an applicability to be utilized in a capital -letter form. Meaning "zoning ordinance" isn't a specific document. We have -- in LDC we have a series of PUDs which are owned individual zoning ordinances themselves, but -- and I think this is a -- where a hole -- we had fallen through the hole in the crack. I believe that you wanted that zoning ordinance removed from individual policy because it really didn't apply to a specific document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's kind of like why I'm bringing it up again. If it is there, then it -- the way it's written it would signify it's a separate document. But if it isn't a separate document -- MR. BOSI: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we don't have it. Well, then let's just take it out. MR. BOSI: And that's -- I should have taken it out. That's my fault. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, you might want to consider putting it in the Code of Laws and Ordinances instead. At the last meeting I did tell you that I would look up the Right -Of -Way Permitting and -- Right -Of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook and give you the correct name for that. It is in the Code of Laws. But you could just put Code of Laws and Ordinances and Land Development Code, or if you want to be more specific, you could say Code of Laws and Ordinances including the -- it's called the Construction Standards Handbook for Work Within Right -Of -Way Collier County, Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let's back up. We're trying to reduce the garbage that's in our documents. And so why don't we just say, "through its Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code," and that incorporates everything that you're concerned about. MR. BOSI: Understood. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. Just out of curiosity, since we -- if we refer to the Code of Laws and Ordinances in the GMP -- that's bringing in a whole slough of sub - documents -- does that have any bearing on how often those other documents can be amended thus amending the intention of this policy by the inclusion of those sub - documents? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think that whether it's written in there or not written in there, we do have a lot of sections in our Code of Laws and Ordinances that deal with roads -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That deal with zoning, too, for that matter. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- a little piecemeal, and zoning. So I don't think it's going to increase the number of times that it's going to come before you; however, I can tell you that Mr. Klatzkow has made it a County Attorney's Office assignment to review the Code of Laws and Ordinances and make a determination of whether certain sections should be amended, and then that will be taken to the board for consideration once we -- we have eight attorneys working on different sections, and that will occur probably before next October, and much of that you will see as well as we go forward with our recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that if we have processes in place to get things done, that they're followed. And if we don't even know that the sub - documents are part of a document that's here and those documents are changed, then that, in effect, could change the process. We don't even know it. I mean, basically this Right -Of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook, I've never read it, and I'm sure it would be very interesting to read. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Late at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we're supposed to be reviewing consistent with that -- because if it's referencing a policy in the GMP, that's a little concerning. It brings a whole myriad of issues that we have not considered on this board. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. And I do think that you -all are very careful to try to make sure the terminology that's being used is something that people can find and locate and understand what it is. So I think we're moving in that direction, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you get time, if -- do you have a link online where this Right -Of -Way Permitting and Inspection Handbook can be found? Page 14 of 84 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. JARVI: I think there's one on the transportation planning. I'll check for sure. But I'll tell you, that is actually construction -level details, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JARVL• -- I can't say for sure, but I doubt they have any real impact to zoning. It's like, you know, what the plantings that are in the right -of -way, what the curb radii are for a driveway, the throat distance, which, you know, in zoning it's a blob, so it -- you know, you don't have a throat distance yet. So those are really construction -level details. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll just go online and look at it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It is -- Mr. Chair, it is online under the Growth Management Division; I just don't recall which particular section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll find it in -- just kind of run through it before we have our adoptions. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And it is referenced -- if you want the detail section, 110 -26 of the Code of Laws references it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The paragraph below that, Policy 7.4 -- and this is old language, but I'm -- the reason it -- I read the next sub - element, and it brought me back to this one for particular reasons. The second line it refers to, in quotations, "smart growth." Why is that in quotations? And what is smart growth? Now, it's one of those catchall questions that -- and the reason it becomes important is because new language added to the -- what is it -- sewer -- or Wastewater Treatment Sub - Element, one of them uses the word "Florida Friendly Landscaping," but then it goes on and defines, basically, what it means by Florida Friendly Landscaping so you know what they're talking about. When you say "smart growth," I mean, any developer coming in that's showing a profit in his project is going to say it's smart growth. And I'm just wondering what we're getting at or what we're trying to say with a catchall phrase like that. It comes up a lot in discussion. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, this particular catchall phrase of smart growth is tied to the very last sentence and related to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. BOSI: -- related to the smart- growth strategies that are going to be promoted and identified in the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. So all the smart growth we've been talking about prior to the conception of the Master Mobility Plan doesn't mean anything? That -- and it was all building up to this Master Mobility Plan that's now come along years after this acronym started or this -- these two words started? MR. BOSI: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: I would think all those concepts would have been built upon and have been -- are being just formally recognized and further clarified within the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just take out the words "smart growth "? I mean, it makes better sense without it, in both instances, "will promote positive development." In the bottom it says, "shall submit strategy." Instead of those smart growth, just say, submit -- will submit strategies that it determines to be appropriate. Because if you're going to be introducing the MMP and we're going to be incorporating policies and objectives from that and then implementation in the LDC, it's already going to be in our code, supposedly, that we've already defined and met what smart growth is by what you just said smart growth is going to be. So why don't we keep that kind of ambiguous tenn out of there, if we could. Does that work? Anybody care? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's an odd sentence anyway. What is "positive "? I mean, you say "positive development." I mean, that's less vague -- more vague. MR. BOSI: Positive is probably a subjective term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think that goes with -- I would strike "positive smart growth" out of the first -- the second line, and then I would say in the bottom, completion -- "upon its completion and shall submit strategies" take out the words "those smart growth" in the second -to -last line, and then you've got a basic language that's not ambiguous, because no one knows what smart growth is. MR. SCHMIDT: I think that will work here, Mr. Chainnan, with striking the specific term. Although you'll Page 15 of 84 1612 1 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meetin 4 -- as you said, over a number of years, the term "smart growth" has evolved from new urbanism, has been used differently, now sustainable development. It's an evolving term. The use of it here, specifically to those parts of the mobility plan, I agree, it may not be necessary to pick those out because the mobility plan will do that itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what is that -- you going to take it out in both places or what? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what is the intent of 7.4 then? Because we're talking about the entrances to the urban area. And major arterial entrances to the urban area shall have what? Positive development? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, it's already mentioned in the plans that we're trying to promote. We'll utilize, and we've strucken through "smart growth." So what it is is the identification of some of the concepts that are contained in the Community Character Plan, some of the smart- growth initiatives. The strategies that aren't just strict definition of the traditional separation of land uses, that we realize that at some point in time that the -- a closer relationship to our individual land uses at appropriate locations will be promoted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the objective's about safe circulation between projects, right? I mean -- MR. JARVI: That would be one of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that is the objective of -- you know, the policy is what we're talking about. So -- anyway. It's kind of an odd setup anyway. But, I think, let's go back to what it was before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 10, I guess -- I had a question up above, but I think it's been answered. So Policy 9.3 -- oh, we're back into the interconnection. You -- this has always been a touchy one. The sentence that was added says, "An interconnected local collector street network enhances mobility, reduces vehicle miles of travel, and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces the travel demand impacts on the arterial/collector network roadway," but, it's nice that you just decided to mention the positive, but why don't we mention all aspects, like it also reduces the security and safety for the people inside those interconnections and adds traffic to their communities they didn't count on? So I'm not sure that you would want to just have to limit yourself to adding what you believe is the things that embellish the reason for interconnections without also stating the negative so someone who's reading this could come in with a proposal that actually addresses both, positive and negative, if that's a necessity; a re- evaluation can address both. We've had a lot of argument, not this board, but applicants coming forward with interconnection demands. And from what I can tell, the public's concerns have been is that it hurts their security, especially in closed communities, and it adds traffic to their community they didn't count on when they planned or moved in, necessarily. So I'm not sure we want to state -- and I understand your need to request it to happen. But to limit the request to saying only the positive things about it, I think, is -- shortens -- I think it shortens -- it doesn't provide everything as encompassing as it should. It does affect security and it does affect traffic to the communities. There is equal concern as the positives are that you stated here. I don't know -- I don't know how to express that in the policy, Mike, but I'm dismayed that we can only express what we feel are the things we want to as -- from a positive viewpoint to see that it happens. But if we don't want it to happen, we don't mention the negatives that could be along with it. I think it has a two -sided coin. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, that is the new thing -- the Master Mobility Plan is the one pushing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that -- I'm not -- I mean, that doesn't -- I think the Master Mobility Plan is pushing a lot of things, good things. I mean, we're opening up roadways, we're putting in bridges, we're putting in connections. But this specifically is one of the things that we need to have a little more latitude on -- on a case -by -case basis. Not just to do it because of the positive things that are here, but also to consider the negative things that could also affect a community. MR. BOSI: Well, in a -- the LDC in 4.02 deals with the conditions that an applicant can identify to not provide the interconnection and -- but it doesn't get into safety reasons. It gets in more with the actual physical layout of the land as to why it's not possible, the layout of the land uses and surrounding land uses and adjoining parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's good language, by the way. I like the language you have in the -- it helps a lot. Page 16 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. BOSI: And you're right, it does, because you can't force interconnection; interconnection's not appropriate for every individual project based upon surrounding land uses, and it does provide that flexibility. I think, Mark, what you're -- what you're really looking for is not only expressing, you know, an interconnected local street enhances mobility, reduces vehicle miles and greenhouse -- and travel demand impacts on our networks, but you want an additional kind of statement that says, you know, but does not compromise the -- or something that has to -- that it says there has to be attention to the potential negative consequences that interconnection could have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, you could probably avoid it all. Just drop the new sentence. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. If you want, you can just move it into the summary portion. Just define, you know, why you're making the change but keep the part that begins with "The LDC shall identify the circumstances and" -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Just drop the new sentence and leave the other strikethrough and underlines, and that takes care of it, because then you're not -- then you're not showing differential treatment to one o4e other. You're neither positive or negative. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, by having the phrase in there "to facilitate convenient movement." There you're emphasizing the positive, too. So do you want to remove that, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think that's a value -- that's handled in the LDC adequately. And the LDC, under the policies that Mike -- it's pretty flexible how you determine what some of those are. But when we add a stronger sentence that actually highlights positives, individual positives, without putting in the negatives, I think it puts the onus -- makes it much harder to say no because the positives are there and the negatives aren't, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Tome the new sentence just, sort of, explains what that phrase means, "facilitate convenient movement." It just seems explanatory rather than adding new -- a new idea. MR. JARVI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JARVI: As Phase 3 of the Master Mobility Plan will -- is the kickoff, maybe demurral, and out of that plan there are going to be -- both growth- management -plan amendments and LDC amendments will come out of that, more than likely, and we might want to just defer that type of language, which is the underlying sentence, to a time when we have a little more definitive direction from the Master Mobility Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have a problem with that. I mean, anybody else? Did anybody else -- Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No, just -- no, I don't have a problem with what you said, but just a comment. I'm a little apprehensive of the word "require" the interconnection, even identifying the circumstances and conditions that would require. I mean, that's a very definite -- if you meet certain conditions by the letter, then it's going to require the interconnections. I would be more comfortable with language somehow that would talk to analysis, evaluation, recommendations rather than a very definitive requirement. Because, I mean, as everybody knows, there's all kinds of existing and future developments that may or may not interconnect today in the county, and to require -- you know, could run against all the sentiments of one development or another. I don't know quite how to rephrase that, but -- MR. SCHMIDT: Well, those sentiments were expressed at previous meetings, and the languages and changes in the second portion of Policy 9.3 were written to address those concerns. With the use of the term "wherever feasible," I think that caused some consternation earlier, so the language introduced by the transportation planners to allow that to be specified in the LDC to decide and help the decision to be made as to when those things would be feasible, where two neighbors already have it previously planned. Interconnections are already partially developed and so forth. There's some hard criteria in the LDC that would be indicated not furthermore here in the GMP, and I think that was part of the problem earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, what happened is the -- this has been an issue. We talk about it every time it comes up, and many applicants come up with it, too. The LDC has gotten very good in providing flexibility as to when this will be required. And it was able to do that because of the words "wherever feasible." The feasibility then becomes a condition of the requirement, of the "shall" requirement, and that's how we've been looking at it, and that's allowed the flexibility so far where we've not had too many problems. Page 17 of 84 Tt psi µ. 16 12 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting I mean, it certainly comes up, but I think we've been able to avoid a crisis by the way the LDC's been written. So that's why the last sentence was strengthened to refer to the LDC. Your concern was where it all started. I mean, you have the same concern we've expressed on this board over the years. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just -- my whole point of 9.3 is that second sentence and emphasizing only the positive and not showing the potential negatives. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I certainly agree with your point there. MR. SCHMIDT: And, Mr. Chairman, an alternative to removal of that sentence, staff will look at taking that general explanation and moving it up into the objective, and then some of those non - positive phrases as well -- work with transportation planners on that before we come back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think just being fair is the way to go. If you're going to show positives, then make sure that the negatives you heard from the public are included so that both sides have the opportunity to voice that as a concern during the process. Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, I think you hit on the concern about "shall require where feasible." I don't know how effective that language is. If you want to put something in that would potentially work is you've got to make it incentivized. So you could put something like "The county shall incentivize the interconnection," blah - blah -blah, and then the new last sentence would say, "The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would facilitate the interconnection." I think if you have something like that, it would make it potentially more effective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you write the incentives right, which -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's the incentive. When you submit something, we're not going to pass it until you do an interconnection. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well -- MR. BOSI: And the only thing I would say upon this in this discussion is, with the elimination of the sentence, as Mark had said, is basically we're leaving the policy as it has been. And the policy's been working. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. MR. BOSI: The policy has been working, and we haven't forced interconnection when it's not feasible, but we have been able to attain the interconnection that helped provide the benefit to our transportation systems. And with the suggestion of just eliminating that sentence that we had added, bringing it back to its original condition, I think the policy is effective in terms of trying to achieve the goal that is expressed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I kind of agree with Corby, though, that you should move it up to the objective. It doesn't belong where it is anyway, and it doesn't match the objective exactly. I do think, though, the last sentence in Policy 9.3, which -- developed standards essentially for safe interconnection. Mark, I think some of the negatives should be part of that conversation on the word "safe," so -- I don't think just noting the positives is going to hurt it, but I do think it should -- if it's going to be something, it should be part of the objective, not part of this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem is if you put it as part of the objective, then you're going to have to -- that's going to highlight it as a stronger element of the overall objective than just part of one of the policies to the objective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, but I think that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's good if you don't consider the negatives. It's good if you only consider the positive. That's been my point all along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it is a -- I mean, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I don't think it's a positive. I think the interconnections are negatives, because I think if people want to travel through established neighborhoods or even ones that haven't been built yet, you just -- you don't move into a neighborhood figuring on cross - through traffic of any quantity, but some of these Page 18 of 84 r 12 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting interconnections could create an entirely different atmosphere for your neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the interconnection could be from a residential neighborhood to a commercial development, which is the positive side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, I think when they're discussing safe interconnection, I think the concept of just linking two -- or linking a private development to the public street system isn't really what they're talking about. I mean, it may be two private residential developments have a back way to get together, and that may be done through a secure system. MR. BOSI: There's a myriad of individual combinations for where this "interconnections" can apply. As I said, we have the language where we say "where it's feasible" we're going to require it, and we have areas that we've already identified that provide the outs, the logical outs as to why they can't be, whether it be existing neighborhood, no opportunity, wetland considerations, other restrictions upon adjacent land uses. We will -- from the direction, I think what we're starting to hear from the Planning Commission is to remove that second sentence, move it up to the objective, try to bring a more balanced approach towards how we're describing it both from a positive and a negative standpoint, and then basically for 9.3, really, the only modification would be striking through "The Collier County transportation division shall develop guidelines," and we'll start with "The LDC shall identify," and that sentence as it currently reads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I think, though, that Heidi's suggestion is worthwhile to certainly consider in your re- evaluation of the objective and the policy, because if instead of requiring, it can be incentivize, that might be another way to look at it that we can implement in the LDC. So I think that was a good one to suggest, take -- at least see how that could be woven into the policy if it turns out it's beneficial. Is that a -- everybody comfortable at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, just make sure we focus. The objective is to provide safe, pleasant neighborhoods, and then all these other goodies on top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the end of the 1 l pages, and we have our summary and recommendation pages that were part of it. Anybody got any questions or concerns on -- let's see. We've got 11 -- let's take the first five pages again. Anything on the first five pages of the objective -- summary and objectives section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 3 of that section, up on top, Policy 3.3, then we had comments from the CCPC on it. I don't see 3.3 on Page 2 of the new language that we've gotten. I can't tell if the policy achievement analysis is the answer you're telling us today why 3.3 is not any longer in the front section. And I -- MR. BOSI: And that may be one that we have missed. It's where you had -- the Planning Commission had recommended that we add that phrase to 3.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we said subtract the phrase -- replace -- yeah, with another phrase, right. Because if you don't need six lanes, why build them? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but I don't see where 3.3 is any more -- anywhere in consideration for changes, so I don't know what happened. David's walking up. Oh. MR. BOSI: Not related. That may be one where we have -- we dropped the ball on it where it was directed from -- it was one of the -- one of the policies where that slight modification was being recommended and we haven't implemented the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to move it back over to catch it? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 4. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Let me make sure I understood your direction. You want to put that language in the policy -- Page 19 of 84 re � 16 1 A14 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You want to add for the consent hearing, if there's going to be one, that for transmittal or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me -- on Page 3 of the summary, Policy 3.3 was previously presented for discussion and changes from -- and I can't -- this isn't from memory. It's from what's -- reading. Looks like we recommended a change to a portion of it, suggesting that instead of making it -- that no less than six traffics lanes to provide the flexibility to whatever meets the needs of the LRTP. That would then -- was supposed to carry over into the new language presented to us today. On Page 2 it was where it would have shown up as Policy 3.3 with a strikethrough and an underline and new language. It didn't show up that way. So my suggestion is that we show it up as it probably should have been, and Mike says it probably should have been. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So it's going to be moved as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The one that you passed today will be included. I just -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4 of the summary, on the last line it says -- and it's Policy 4.1 -- the Planning Commission suggested language as -- to replace the word "shall" with "should be consistent with Policy 4.3." And the language that got changed and presented to us today on Page 3 under Policy 4.1 struck the word "shall" and just replaced it with the word "should," which means you decided not to use the rest of that language. Is there a reason why you did that? By the way, the only one of these policies I went back and forth like this on was the one that I knew Reed would be here for, so -- MR. BOSL• I can't tell you what -- and, unfortunately, Jeff Perry was the primary author of these modifications, and there was -- there may have been that specific reason why we dropped to be consistent with Policy 4.3. With that being said, I also don't -- I wouldn't think that adding that additional language to it as you had suggested, as the body had suggested back in 2010 would provide us with inconsistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you just check it? MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way we -- and the next section would be Pages 6 through the -- let's just take it 6 through the end, 6 through Page 13. Does anybody have any questions on those pages? On Page 6 -- and it goes back to the question I had on Policy 5.3. On Page 6 of the summary under your policy achievement analysis there's a discussion that the last line says, "Consider allowing the county the ability to provide vesting determinations on projects that are under review that are beyond the buildout date stated in their TIS." I guess that goes back to my question, then, is why did we strike through in the new language on Page 4 all of Policy 5.3 if the intent was what I just read in the Policy Achievement Analysis? Because you're recommending revisions, you told us previously, and that you wanted to consider -- let the -- consider allowing the county the ability to approve vesting determinations, but yet you struck the policy in which you would be able to do that, I think. Reed's pointing at you, so -- MR. JARVI: I mean, I think we've got to look back at it, because I don't know what Section 10.02.07.B.6 actually says, and it may refer to just general things or it may refer to, you know -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Specific -- MR. JARVI: -- old projects. I don't know the answer, but I think we could look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think back when we previously discussed it, we probably didn't have that -- understand more of that section -- I don't have it with me today -- and that's what we based the review of our -- the review of the paragraph here, Policy Achievement Analysis, on. So if it was vital or -- not vital. If it was necessary based on that Policy Achievement Analysis or requested, it would seem to me you want to make sure we're not dropping it when you need it. Policy 9 -- or Page 9, 6.6 is new, and it's kind of similar to the question Karen had. On 6.6 you've established a new policy that emergency egress should be permitted at all temporary access facilities, but 6.6 was struck out in the new language. Page 20 of 84 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting So you proposed it in the earlier versions to us, but you struck it in this one. The same thing that was -- is there a reason for that? MR. BOSI: In the staff note underneath 6.6 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show me that. MR. BOSI: On Page 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? MR. BOSI: Yes. You have Policy 6.5, and then you have Policy 6.6 strucken through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Oh, yeah. And I wrote the word's "okay" on the next page; that's why I didn't see it. Okay. I answered my own questions; I didn't even know I did. Page 13, the very top item, Planning Commission comment, "CCPC would like staff to check on the status of the transfer, and the results will dictate how the policy is modified." Where we -- where did we stand with that? That's the airpark in Everglades City. MR. BOSI: The last that I was aware, that the -- that transfer has not taken place, and there was -- I believe related to the requirements of management -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- so it's still our airport? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. MR. BOSI: I believe there was maybe more responsibilities and obligations than could be maybe handled at the time, and I believe those discussions are still ongoing. But it is still -- it has not happened to date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was just making sure if we left it in it's accurate, so -- okay. That gets us to the end of the Transportation Element. Are there any other questions in the TE at this point? Let's give -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: A perfect time for a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Terri a break. We'll come back at 10:40 and resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to the beginning. We'll move forward with the Wastewater Treatment Sub - element. So let's just move into that. I'm not sure who was going to -- if anybody's going to respond to questions. I'm not sure we're going to have any, but let's start with the first five pages of that element. Does anybody have any questions? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? 10eIPR EX&IIM.11I►Mrfa MR. SCHMIDT: Just one editorial note on Page 5, top of the page, Policy 4.6. Although we've completely replaced Policy 4.6 with new language, the old language doesn't appear as being stricken through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the two lines on the top of the page right after 4.6 should be struck; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages l through 5, anybody else have any corrections? I do. In Policy 3.2, "Private utilities regulated by the county shall maintain sludge de- watering and stabilization facilities sufficient to treat sludge and septage due to a degree equivalent to that employed at the county facilities prior to disposal." Can you explain what it is they would have to do to meet that requirement; what is a treatment for sludge? What happens? How do you treat it? And the "degree equivalent to be that employed by the county," what does that mean? MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities. I'm not sure; that would be something with Jamie French and the water and wastewater authority in charge of the private utilities in the unincorporated Collier County. I believe that policy's been added only because of the language change of the objective. It's restating what the objective says because they changed the language to make it more, quote, unquote, objective style. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the intent of the objective didn't change? They just crossed out -- they just rephrased it grammatically from what I can tell. So why would we need a new policy then? And my concern is I don't understand what the policy's saying in regards to intensity of size, needs, use. And when it says, "degree equivalent to that employed at the county," so does that mean every private utility, which would Page 21 of 84 16 12 qy 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting be the series -- Immokalee and the rest of them -- understand this could be imposed upon them? And if it does and we don't have control over them, as was testified earlier when we talked about their GMP levels of service and the CIE, what good is this policy if we can't enforce it? Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, certainly. Besides the reformatting to add the Policy 3.2 as an under - objective to Objective 3 -- and much of that language just simply reappears in the policy -- those specifics are meant to simply indicate that, although all along those county standards are being met, monitored, and reviewed by those -- Mr. French and his team, but not stated clearly enough before and thought being part of this policy might put that out there as information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is -- Corby, is that you've got at least four, I believe, private utilities doing this kind of treatment in the county. Do we know if they can meet this policy? Are they currently meeting this policy? And the reason I question it is because the part, at least where it says "to a degree equivalent to that employed by Collier County facilities," I don't -- I'm just curious what we're imposing on people that they may not be able to meet and having a policy that we can't even enforce, because I thought previously, based on the fact we can't enforce the level of service, we can only -- they have to -- it's enforced through their charter and through their PSC application. Wouldn't this be done the same way? MR. SCHMIDT: Well, that's my understanding is that as part of the charter those are the standards they're being required to meet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do we have it in here? I mean, if they've got a charter that's regulated by the PSC -- it's not regulated by our -- it's not regulated by our GMP -- what good is a policy in our GMP imposing it on them if they're already imposed upon by the PSC through their charter? MR. SCHMIDT: My understanding from the request to include some of that specificity is that being informational for whatever services may be yet to be developed, and they would then know what those requirements will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When -- I'm sure Jamie -- is Jamie working today? I mean, I don't know if he's got a day off or he's out for -- MR. BOSI: No, he's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's working, okay. At some point could you email him, and before the day's over, we could get an answer to that? He doesn't have to come in. I'd just like to hear what his answer is, and maybe it will help me understanding it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the -- maybe the important thing is the last words, which says "prior to its disposal." There may be a problem with at what level of treatment the sludge is being disposed, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What they're saying is, you have to treat it to a standard, and then you can dispose it is the point of this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray? MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, director of pollution control. I can only talk to the issue of treatment and disposal of the sludge. And I don't have the item in front of me, so I haven't had time to review it. But regarding the disposal and treatment of sludge under Florida Administrative 62 -640, there's specific criteria that the wastewater treatment plants need to abide by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that even emphasizes the fact, then, why do we have this policy. MR. SMITH: I'm just providing information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I appreciate it. Thank you. I think we can get there without more language that's basically redundant of already existing rules and regulations, so -- MR. BOSI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just ask Jamie if he feels that based on that it's necessary. If it isn't, then why have it? On Page 5, under Policy 4.7, this "dual water systems within community development districts" and "other special districts and planned unit developments," could we suggest in the first sentence, "The county shall seek," and it says, "to expand the availability of irrigation water" -- I would suggest that if you've got a community or Page 22 of 84 1612 A4 ,..� 1 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting development that's putting in dual water systems, that we ought to be prioritizing to those communities that already have those dual water systems versus ones that do not. And the reason that becomes important is we've got a laundry list of -- a waiting list for effluent, but when it becomes available to send out, if they can't accept it, they bump someone off that waiting list, I'd just as soon we start directing our waters where -- based on priorities of who's invested in infrastructure to be able to use them first and foremost. And the only thing I'm suggesting, it says, "The county shall seek to expand," and I would add the words "and prioritize availability of irrigation water," if that seems appropriate, if I've not misconstrued the intent of this policy. Anybody have any -- MR. BEALS: I don't see it as an issue to add that "and prioritize." We do prioritize. We have a waiting list of people that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BEALS: -- as they've requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your waiting list, though, is if someone wants the water but they haven't got the systems to accept it but you're -- you start building in that direction, you've just got to wait for them to get the system in order to -- dual system to be put in so they can accept the wastewater. They can't run potable lines. MR. BEALS: I'm actually not sure of the intricacies of how we connect new systems. I know that we're -- we have a waiting list and that we're providing everything we have out to everyone. And I'm sure that there is some mechanism where, if we come up and say, hey, we've got available water and they can't take it, we'll go to the next line because it's available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in the meantime, your main lines distribute the water from the county plants are going in the direction determined to be based on people who can accept the majority of the water. And I know there's sections of Collier County where your main lines don't exist but people are waiting for the water, and if you build a line to get there and they don't have the ability to use it, you've just wasted a bunch of money. So I don't see how it hurts to say "and prioritize" based on how they can use the water. MR. BEALS: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Well, that was a short one. The rest of the last couple pages or the supplemental that's been provided? Supplemental is nine pages. Anybody have any questions on those nine pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of Page 3, and it concerns Policy 1.3. We were introduced to Policy 1.3 at a previous meeting, and then we had a recommendation "suggested that meeting these requirements should come at no cost to the county. The CCPC also suggested considering a combination of 1 -year reporting and 5 -year reviewing requirements." How did you respond to that? Because 1.3 doesn't exist in the language that we are now presented with. It goes to 1.2 and then jumps to 1.5. Well, I know you ignored it, but can you tell us why? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe -- some of the notes in these elements remain not as indicators of change but simply that it was commented on but wasn't reaffirmed in your subsequent hearings or by the county board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, because -- so if we didn't bring it up the second time, it was assumed it wasn't needed. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. It was just a matter of the considerations and so forth. Not all of the commentary in the summary led to change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I -- yeah, well, I didn't know that was the way you were looking at it, because I read that -- I didn't read this in that manner, so -- okay. Well, there's nothing I can do about it today. By adoption I'll be able to. Okay. Anybody else have anything on the wastewater treatment? If not, we'll move on to Public Facilities Element/Potable -Water Sub - element, and that element is seven pages and then, I think, nine pages of backup. Let's take the first seven pages on the Potable Water Sub - element. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 1 through 7? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 23 of 84 P4 1/26/2012 °� b „ . g CCPC "Special EA� Amen�m� meeting g MR. SCHMIDT: Just one editorial change, bottom of Page 5. This is one of those entries regarding landscaping -- movement away from xeriscaping to Florida Friendly Landscaping techniques, and that phrase is repeated more than once in the sub - elements. In the last line, "Protect the environment and are adaptable to local conditions and drought." One too many "ands" in that phrase. The first one comes out before "are adaptable." COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the difference between xeriscape and Florida Friendly Landscaping? MR. SCHMIDT: Give it a shot? MR. BEALS: You want to take it? MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. Florida Friendly Landscaping has been adopted as a more local or statewide method of landscape practices that includes some original elements with xeriscaping but certainly not all, and some of the more common practices that are traditional here and conventional are part of that Florida Friendly -- it's actually an adopted and a trademark term in the state. So it's very specific at a statewide level now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You couldn't give any examples? MR. SCHMIDT: Not specific. It's -- a number of websites deal with it, the state department and so forth, but it does have to do with, you know, removal of exotics, using native plants and so forth, not necessarily xeriscaping that is -- as some of the explanation explains to us that has its originations in the Southwest and not necessarily fully adaptable to the Southeast. That type of thing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then anybody have any questions on the supporting 10 pages of documentation that was supplied to us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other changes from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay. Let's move on to the Drainage Sub - element. That is a short one. It's six pages. Does anybody have any questions on any of the six pages in the Drainage Sub - element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we have, I think, nine pages of supporting documentation. Is there any questions on the nine pages of supporting documentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5 of the supporting documentation, Policy 3.4, last time we talked about it the Planning Commission suggested "that the language in this policy is ambiguous and needs revision to provide clarity and avoid an interpretation that the improvement and maintenance of existing facilities countywide are a priority over new projects in the Estates, as this is not the case. Southern Golden Gate Estates is no longer open to development, so no facilities have priority there." Okay. So the way the policy reads now is, countywide, "improvements to, and maintenance of, existing drainage facilities shall be priority over" any "new construction projects in the urban and estates - designated areas." I think that's the language that we talked about before. So what that would mean is if there was a new construction project needed for the Estates to avoid additional flooding or whatever problems there were but yet there was maintenance needed for existing facilities in other parts of the county, the maintenance projects would be funded first and the new project would be deferred; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: No. That's part of the interpretation problems that led from the language in this policy. It is countywide where new projects have priority over maintenance projects, and in no way should there be an interpretation where some projects inside the Estates lack priority over other projects outside the Estates because of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why would we -- why wouldn't we add -- let's see, county improve -- the policy read, Policy 3.4 on Page 4, county improvements to, and maintenance of, existing drainage facilities shall be priority over construction projects. Is that a true statement? Is that where the county staff intends to go? MR. SCHMIDT: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why did we add the words "in the urban and estates - designated areas "? It seems like you're singling out new projects only in the urban and estates - designated areas you can't have new Page 24 of 84 rat A 4 1612 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting construction projects, but yet if you had a new construction project, say, in Willoughby Acres, they -- that could take priority over county improvements and maintenance of existing drainage facilities. It's only in the urban and estates - designated areas that it doesn't. I'm just wondering, why do we need the -- why do we need to defer to the urban and Estates areas? Why don't we just cross that out? MR. BOSI: Mark, I would see no reason why -- that we would have those two particular geographic designations indicated and not have it just applied countywide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if the intent is countywide, then after the word "projects" we ought to, on Page 4 of the original -- of the new documentation we ought to strike out the words "in the urban and estates- designated areas." That doesn't give anybody priority over any -- priority or less of a standing compared to anybody else. Are there any other questions with the Drainage Sub - element? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the Solid Waste Sub - element. By the way, that new recycling center you guys have works really well. That -- the people there really know how to do it, and it's a nice system. I was up there the other day with a whole pile of stuff, and they were very cooperative, so -- Okay. Let's take the first five pages. Actually, it's short. Let's take only five pages. Does anybody have any questions on the only five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, Objective 1, it talks about the facilities, and the second line down, "Present facilities meeting the current level facility including two franchise collection areas and five recycling centers, as follows:" and then you list them all. If we wanted to create an additional center of one of these kinds, could that be done, since it's not on this list, because you refer to this list as present facilities? Is that covered adequately? I don't want to tie our hands in having more facilities, especially in areas like Immokalee, for example, where they could use a -- maybe they could use more distant -- or even Ave Maria or distant areas, distant rural areas. MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, public utilities. The North Collier Recycling Center in Immokalee, recycling centers have been added since -- I mean, they're added to the list. They're already active, as you know, the North Collier. So we've -- as we need them, we build them, and then we update this as we go forward. This is not tying our hands to whether or not we can expand when we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. On Page 3, Policy 2.8, first sentence, the last word "facility," I think should -- maybe you want it "facilities." In "maintain hazardous waste collection facilities," drop the word "A." Is that right? MR. SCHMIDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby's nodding his head, so I know he got it. MR. SCHMIDT: I follow. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about the supporting documentation; there's seven pages. Anybody have any questions from those seven pages? Okay. It's kind of nice, the third time we've seen this, so it helps getting through it. So -- let's move on to the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub - element. That, again, is a very short element. It's only four pages. So anybody have any questions on the four pages of the element language presenting to us today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's seven pages of backup material, or actually nine pages of backup material. Does anybody have any questions on the nine pages of backup material as well? So, actually, the entirety of that groundwater element. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Just a commentary on Page 3 of the element itself. I believe it's Policy 3.5. A general rule of grammar. Here in the Policy 3.5 it reads in the acronym for South Florida Water Management. It's actually its first -- it's appearing as its first use under that object, so there we may spell it out. Page 25 of 84 c 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you -- each objective it should be spelled out? Because you -- obviously, you have it spelled out in Policy 2.2. MR. SC1 MIDT: That's correct. If it's spelled out, as a rule of thumb, in the objective above, I'm able to use the acronym below. If not in the objective above, I would spell it out in the individual policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From my notes at the last meeting, this happens in Policy 1.2 and 3.3, we were going to cross out the new words, but you've crossed out the existing words also. MR. SCHMIDT: There were a couple of policies like this where the removal of new words reverted back to the original language entirely, and so there's no changes proposed. So it's just simply being removed from this list essentially. That's just the way the edits worked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the cross - through doesn't mean what it normally means? MR. SCHMIDT: That doesn't mean we're removing Policy 3.3, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Policy 1.2, I think, was -- so what you're doing, you're just removing it from an EAR because you're not including the changes that were there previously. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Good. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that the case, then, through all of the documents that we've just gone through? Because I thought some we were actually deleting from the text. MR. SCHMIDT: There are a number of edits throughout these worksheets where, yes, we're deleting policies and replacing. MR. BOSI: If there's a policy with -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So this one is not being -- not proposed for deletion. MR. BOSI: If there was a policy and it's fully struck, stricken through, it would say policy -- underneath it, "policy for deletion." And this one isn't deleting the policy. It's just we're eliminating any proposed modifications. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well-- C14AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So let me just clarify. So if we actually are deleting it's going to say in paren afterwards "proposed for deletion "? MR. SC1 MIDT: Or in the bracket above where the policy is listed, yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item up is the Housing Element, and it's seven pages. So let's take all seven pages at once. And I think before we actually get into the -- oh, hi. MS. MOSCA: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you? MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're probably going to tell us about the missing blanks here, because the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee had to, you know, kind of join in on some of the comments, so -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. I just want to provide the board with a reminder of what occurred at the October workshop. We actually only have three objectives that are outstanding, and I understand that you want to go page by page through the element, and then there's one policy that's outstanding. Two of the objectives deal specifically with the construction of affordable housing on an annual basis. And Frank Ramsey from the housing department has been working closely with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop an indexing methodology. And Frank is going to go ahead and present that information that we have to date. Page 26 of 84 M 161 z A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. For the record, Frank Ramsey, operations analyst. I'll find it real quick for you. In your packet you should have received the document now available on your visualizer. And I'd like to begin real quickly with a brief PowerPoint presentation, very brief, that was used at the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to introduce the concept they had worked on. We started with the review of the current objective of Goal 1, Objective 1, which has been what we've discussed at my past attendance at the meeting of the 15 percent, 1,000 units as the measure for new units constructed per year. And the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee found that this measure was static, it was not market driven, and it was not flexible. And so in working through coming up with a new measure, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee wanted to use objective third -party data. And in the model that we used for discussion, we identified three data sets, and that would be the median sales price, the median income, and the Housing Opportunity Index, which I'll discuss in a moment. We wanted to assess the need on a quarterly basis so that we could be aware of any changing -- significant changes in the market, and also look at identifying tipping points in which actions should be taken or recommendations should be presented to increase the production of affordable housing. And then also we discussed how this is an early process and it does need future improvements. So what is the Housing Opportunity Index? For those who may not be aware, the Housing Opportunity Index is developed by the National Association of Homebuilders and Wells Fargo. It's published and released quarterly, and the data is reported and available down to the metropolitan statistical area level. For us that would be Naples /Marco Island MSA. And for those interested, that is their website. This is the definition of the Housing Opportunity Index. It is the share of homes sold that would have been affordable to a family earning the local area median income based on standard mortgage underwriting criteria. So, therefore, there's really two major components to the index. It's the income and the housing costs of the community. This is a reference point for 2011. Our median income was $71,800. What was nice about this dataset, it's 20 years old, so we have back to 1991 of this data to compare. And when you put it into a visual model, it helps to look and see, what does the data look like, what trends do you see, and are there any relationships in the data? And that's where we came up with what you saw in your read - ahead, which is right here. And to the far left you have 1991. To your far right on the horizontal axis you have 2011. Your vertical axis is your measure. The blue line is the median sales price in thousands, the red line is the Housing Opportunity Index, which is a percentage, and the green line for reference is the median income. So as you can see from this visual, the data is relatively in the delta between the affordability and the median sales price; runs in a relatively even and logical progression up until approximately 2001 when we start to see the two separate. Interestingly -- and I apologize. I brought the wrong version -- 2001, 1 believe, was -- I had an indicator as when the board adopted the Impact Fee Deferral Program. So there seemed to be a recognition that the market was changing and that an incentive was needed. Then, beginning in approximately 2003, we really got to see the data -- the delta between the two really, really increase pretty dramatically. So we go from, in late 1999, approximately 72 percent of the homes sold were affordable, and as -- shortly thereafter, in 2005, less than 17 percent of homes sold were affordable. What's interesting of note is that right around that peak in the median price is when that thousand units per year or 15 percent was adopted. So it was adopted at a time when the need was the greatest. Following, the data will show that the market peaked in the fourth quarter of 2005. And as you can see, the market has continued to adjust downward and affordability has improved so that in the third quarter of 2011, the most recent data available, 68 percent of the homes sold were affordable to a family earning the median income. Now, this is not without fault. I was not aware, and I am now aware, that the state statute requires that we consider the need by income level. Very low, low, and moderate. This is to strictly median income. So we will look to improve this by -- unfortunately, I'll have to create the formulas for that. This, they gave it to me which made it easy. But we will look at this and say, well, what would this picture have looked like had, instead of the red line Page 27 of 84 3 JJ 16 12 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting being median income, it was 80 percent of median income. Or if it was 50 percent of median income, what would that have looked like? And that's in the process of being built right now. Also what's noted in this, while it may be somewhat captured in the data, it's not -- this is largely a homeownership measure and does not speak directly to the rental need of the community. So we are assessing that it -- when I say "we," I should say the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee are assessing is there an index or a way that we can measure the rental need separate from the homeownership need. With all this in mind, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee recommended that if there's a decline in the Housing Opportunity Index for three consecutive quarters, that then additional indicators or research is conducted on the market to assess whether this is a random event or if this is, perhaps, an indicator of a sustained decline in affordability. If -- the second recommendation from the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee was that if the Housing Opportunity Index were to fall below 50 percent, that that would trigger action or a report. The concept behind this was that there would be a tool kit, for lack of better words, of incentives that would then be presented to the board or to the CCPC and say it's now time to start incentivizing the production or provision of affordable housing. One of the concepts discussed was that the -- to measure the amount, should the percentage drop below 50, would be the delta between what the actual figure is and the 50. So, for example, if the data showed that 30 percent of the homes sold were affordable, that we would seek to incentivize so that 20 percent of those built were affordable, therefore, getting us back to that 50 percent. And, finally, as I mentioned, we would -- the AHAC is recommending that an investigation be conducted into any possible measures that could target the rental need of the community. We understand there's still work to be done, but I was asked today to come forth and present to you what progress had been made on this topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Buddy. But, Michele, that didn't answer our questions. So the directive or the request was to consider, instead of an Objective 1 and constantly having a fixed number for an increase in affordable housing, the discussion at the time was to consider revising the objective so that it requires a maintenance or a balance continually that we can retain so that we know we have a certain amount of affordable housing there at all times. And when we start dipping below that, then bring it back up. I thought that was the discussion we had at the last meeting. And I don't know -- I still don't have -- so it doesn't look like we have an answer to that. MS. MOSCA: We don't as of yet. As Frank mentioned, there's still work to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is transmittal. MS. MOSCA: It is transmittal. And what we thought we would do is allow the Affordable Housing Committee, along with the housing department, to work towards a date in the future maybe before the board adoption that we would meet at a regular CCPC meeting date and try to finalize this before it goes to the board. There just wasn't sufficient time between December and this meeting to get that work accomplished. I did look at other jurisdictions. And it was interesting to me, as I went through their policies, those jurisdictions only provided general language that stated the county or municipality would ensure that affordable housing needs for 50, 80, and 120 percent were met. And the state didn't seem to have an issue with that. That's probably not the way to go. I know in the past we were kind of forced into that number, and that's why we started looking at another methodology so that we're not tied into that number, but we can, perhaps, come up with some language with that indexing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, what happens is when we're forced into a number and we keep pushing that number and we establish that number, whether we need it or not, based on the market and economy as we have today, those units still have to be set -- they sit there and they have to be maintained, whether it's by a private organization doing the affordable work or by the county. And I hate to see us develop things to sit empty until the market catches up to it when we shouldn't have been forced to develop it in the first place. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. MS. MOSCA: Right. And that was based on the statutory requirement that we use the Shimberg Center's information. And as we know, it's 2000 data, census data, so it is, in fact, outdated, and that's what we used going Page 28 of 84 161 2 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting forward with the EAR -based amendments this time around, and we came up with a figure, I think, approximately 850 units in order to meet the needs of future residents. Now, this is an alternative methodology that we're hoping to put forward to the state that they would be in agreement that, based on this indexing the market, we can address the future needs of the residents. We don't want to be forced into that number. I heard that from this board as well as the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But since this is transmittal, how are we going to get there? We can't just say we approve something that isn't filled in. It's blank. I MS. MOSCA: Right. What I would like to do, if possible, is at least give the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee as well as housing staff at least another month to work through this. We'll develop some language together, and then at a CCPC regular meeting date we can present this information to you, and that would occur prior to the board transmittal adoption of this element, if that's acceptable to this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for Mike? You're head of that department. Is that a process that works for your department? MR. BOSI: Yes, it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't have a problem, then, waiting on Objective 1. I think the better information we can get the better it is for all of us. I strongly hope that the housing committee considers an alternative way to look at this as a -- like a maintenance and balance consideration rather than a demand. I think it's more effective. But we'll have to wait and see what they do. So that means Objective 1 on Page 1 really doesn't have a resolution today. MS. MOSCA: And that would also apply to Objective 2 and Objective 8, which has to do with a specific number for rehabilitation, as well as construction of affordable workforce housing. So these are the objectives we've been working closely with the housing staff on, and we hope, again, to have that information within a month or less -- hopefully at least within a month's time -- and bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Michele? As we go through this, we may have more. But on that specific issue? That's good. And thanks for the progress so far, Michele, on that. Anyway, we're taking all seven pages of this commitment, but that actually removes several of -- three of my questions for sure. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: I'd like to also address, it is actually, new Policy 1.5. It was previously 1.4. The direction from this board at the October 2011 workshop was to include the statutory language. Staff has met with Heidi as well as Habitat staff as directed previously, and we're comfortable as a staff with the statutory text, but we're also comfortable with the existing text. We just wanted to make that clear and put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did the Board of County Commissioners have to say about it? MS. MOSCA: Let me see if I have those notes, specifically. While I look for them, I believe actually -- and I'll look for the -- I believe they were in agreement with the CCPC. But we were also directed to work with the Habitat staff, so it's kind of the same as what the CCPC recommended. I'll see if I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. SPEAKER: -- I can find the exact language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You took the question -- you took the language out of the statute; you put it where it belongs. I don't -- I mean, this was our recommendation now, and it also was mirrored by the BCC. So I don't have a -- I see no reason to -- I have no negative comment or positive comment on it at this point. Just leave it as it is. On Page 3, on Policy 2.10, it talks about the human -- "Housing and Human Services Department will continue to administer affordable workforce housing programs," and then the last bullet was added, "Acquisition and rehabilitation program." But based on some recent actions by the board, hasn't that program now been turned over to the private sector? I don't watch the board meetings, but that's what I had heard. MS. MOSCA: And my understanding is that will continue, the acquisition, but Frank can address that. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. The -- we discussed that, and it was left because the program has been turned over through partnerships with Habitat and nonprofit organizations to complete that activity, but the county cannot escape the compliance requirements. And so, again, we thought that was consistent with the "administer" versus "operate" Page 29 of 84 1/26/2012 11 66 4 CCPC "Special EAR Arlekelts 2eetin p g component. If the language as written is not acceptable, then perhaps -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- well, Buddy, what was the outcome of the board's decision when they -- now you said they turn these over to Habitat, right? MR. RAMSEY: For the vast majority, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did they also say not to acquire more, or was there direction to keep acquiring them and then we'll just turn them over to Habitat? I mean, what -- MS. MOSCA: The county will not be acquiring any further properties. The funding that remains will be provided to Habitat for Humanity through a developer agreement, and they will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if that's the board's decision, maybe that last bullet ought to be more reflective of their decision, because the way it looks now, as though nothing's changed, it's basically acquisition, which would infer to me you'd go out and buy more, and then if the board says, gee, I wish we weren't in that program, you'd turn them back over to Habitat again. But you really -- are you going to be doing that bullet? Is that based on board direction? MR. RAMSEY: The county will not be acquiring any property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe that's the clarification needed for that bullet, to whatever the board's decision was in that regard, I would suggest we -- that get done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree, because reading it, it's not clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that, I think, was a little undefined looking at it. MR. RAMSEY: So if I understand correctly, something either -- either notate that fact directly or support non -- support third -party organizations in the acquisition rehab. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you were to send this to the board and it reads like it does right now, if they've already, you know, had an opinion on it or expressed their decision on it, I think they would take exception to the way it's written. So I would suggest that -- and, again, I didn't hear their direction, but I would suggest that it sounds like they don't want to be in that part of the program anymore. I understand you're concerned about the county being in the loop, because we have to be. I just figure you need to define what the county's loop is a little better for this than using the word "acquisition." Acquisition seems like it's going to go out and it's going to be all -out purchasing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Acquire, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think that's the intent, based on what you've said. MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. We will work on improving that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can't give you the word right now, because you guys heard it more, and I'd rather see you come back with something. MR. RAMSEY: Certainly. We will work together on either completely changing the bullet point or at least annotating that bullet point to be clear about what the intent is. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, on that last sentence under 2.10, should you substitute the word "administered" for "operated "? MS. MOSCA: It should be; yes, thank you. We just noted that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just to be consistent. MS. MOSCA: And, Mr. Chairman, just to go back to confirm on 1.4, it was the board's direction to work with Habitat as well as look at the statutory language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have a speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Margie, is it specific to the ones we've already talked about and not -- because we haven't got to the rest of them yet. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Okay. Should I just wait till the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you've got specifics, come on up while I'm on them. MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: It's specific to 1.5. And I just put -- want to put on the record that we feel that language is rather vague in the statute, and we are going to be pursuing a declaratory statement petition with the Department of Economic Opportunity, formerly known as the Department of Community Affairs, and that should be a win -win for both the county and Habitat, because then we will understand what the meaning of the statute is and Page 30 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting how it should be implemented. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie. Page 4, Policy 3.7, we added the word "shall." How can we enforce the word "shall" in that regard? MS. MOSCA: This is a policy that the --we have joint policies with the City of Naples, and they were in agreement with this. They do, in fact, have those neighborhood- action plans. We don't enforce their policies. These policies are applicable to the City of Naples. 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess the policy I had, 3.5, the word "shall" circled as well. So in these cases, when we say that "the City of Naples shall" but they already have, why don't we just say, "The City of Naples has addressed the conservation of housing stock," and that way we're not put in a spot seems like we're an enforcement agency over the City of Naples. MS. MOSCA: And, again, it's a combined element, and the city uses these policies to work with their development community. I don't see it as an enforcement issue. I believe that the state somewhat requires us to put "shall" in there rather than a "may" or "has" or -- similar to our policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you -- but if they've already got the policies that are not -- it's not -- they're not -- where they're not going to -- "shall" means they will produce the policies. You're saying they've already got the policies. MS. MOSCA: And some are continue -- they will continue to provide incentives or continue to work on whatever it is, so some are ongoing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could suggest an alternative would be "The City of Naples continues to address the conservation." It's more of a commentary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a much better word than "shall." It takes away a lot of, what I would think, potential regulatory concern. MS. MOSCA: That's on 3.7 everywhere -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.5 and 3.7, wherever it -- MS. MOSCA: Wherever the city -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wherever the city -- and there's 4.3; there's quite a few different spots. But in each case they're already doing it, so why not just acknowledge they're continuing to do it. That gives it just the effectiveness and takes the word "shall" out. MS. MOSCA: And if the County Attorney's Office is okay with that, we'll go ahead and do that for each -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I mean it's -- MS. MOSCA: -- reference. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They're going to have to be changed appropriately. So, like, for example, 4.3 would have to say "The county shall work with the City of Naples to create a single unifonn relocation policy." I mean, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I just want to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's going to be modified in that way. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A long time ago a former county attorney instructed us very strongly on the words "shall" and "may," and I remember her sitting there and saying how to use it. So I've been very cognizant of those words since. So, thank you, Margie. Stuck with me. MS. MOSCA: And I'll make sure -- Mr. Chairman, I'll make sure to go through all of those that contain the City of Naples, those policies or objectives, and reword them accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. In Objective 4 it was changed a bit, and it says -- and the outcome is, "conduct housing surveys every three years or sooner for the purpose of identifying substandard dwelling units." I'm just curious, where do we get the understanding of what is a substandard dwelling unit? MS. MOSCA: I believe the building code offers some information as well as, I believe, the health department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know all of the requirements, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is some standards that we have to inspect by that tells us -- Page 31 of 84 16 12 ee 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. MOSCA: I believe so. And we handle it through both code enforcement, and we've also conducted and completed the Immokalee study. And I know there's some state requirements, but I can't address them specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there is minimum housing standards. MS. MOSCA: That's what it is, minimum housing standards. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- well, I'm glad that came up, then. Then instead of saying, "The purpose of identifying dwelling units that fall below the minimum housing standards," wouldn't that be better? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which one are you looking at, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 4. If that's actually what we're doing, then we're not really looking for substandard dwelling units, but we're really saying, "Purpose of identifying dwelling units that fall below the minimum housing standards." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be substandard. It's kind of like we threw away the building codes because that goes without saying. I think the minimum housing standards must be the standard that they're sub to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that -- well -- MS. MOSCA: I'm okay with that language. I'm just not sure if something else applies here. I would have to look at it further. But assuming that it is, we can replace "substandard dwellings" and put "that fall below the minimum housing standard." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but I'll defer to Brad. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's fine. Leave it like it is. If it doesn't need to be changed, if it feels it's covering the issue -- substandard to me means that someone had to evaluate it in order it to be (sic) substandard. Substandard determined by a referenced to a minimum housing standard, to me, is more; you can grab onto it. You can go to a housing standard and determine how they determined it was substandard. I mean, substandard isn't defined, and if someone decides -- that lives in a nice gated community with a $3 million house that a person in the City of Golden Gate's in a $170,000 house, that's substandard, I mean, that's extreme, but it's more ambiguous with the word "substandard." And it always refer to -- I always prefer to refer to something that we know exists. We know there's, from what Brad just said, minimum housing standards. So those work. But I don't have a problem leaving it. I'm just --that was my concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you read further, it's kind of pointing to the -- you know, the lack of plumbing, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what substandard is. I mean, I would -- you know, one of the things a minimum standard would have is screens on a window, so, you know, you may -- in other words, if this is -- this "substandard units" is pointing out the area's lack of plumbing and/or kitchen facilities -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But, see, Brad, what you just said, I would read that as saying, okay, substandard is only those with a lack of plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. Everything else isn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that becomes the definition for substandard, it actually strengthens my argument as to why it shouldn't be used in front of the word "dwelling units," because it's almost defined by that paragraph by the way the parenthetical comes into play. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we do have housing codes, which would be HUD's minimum standard probably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're going to implement the language in the LDC and we were to change it to read "Identify dwelling units below the minimum housing standards" and then in the LDC list the standards by which we determine the minimum standards, whether they be building codes, housing codes, life- safety codes, whatever there is, that may be another way to cover it. Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, I think there is a clear ambiguity, which I recommend that we fix, if you can find out why the language went in the way it went in or whether you think it needs to be more comprehensive. But it is -- it is ambiguous and difficult to enforce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- referring to something as a known standard, meaning the minimum Page 32 of 84 t 161 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments meeting housing standards, and then defining those in the implementation language of the Land DevelopmSnt Code would tighten it up. And if that's the objective, to try to avoid an ambiguity of the word "substandard," I think maybe we ought to do that. But I'll leave that up to staff to come back and take a look at it and make an argument next time we meet on it. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, since this is old code, not even EAR -based stuff, should we just put it aside for another cycle? MR. BOSI: Traditionally, if we weren't modifying Objective 4, if we hadn't proposed modifications to it, then that would probably be appropriate, but because we are changing it, there was motivation and there was designation that it was going to be changed, I think we do have an opportunity to be able to provide the clarification that the board's seeking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're going to redo 4? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Looks like 4 will be reworded, so -- okay. Because of the lack of information currently from the housing committee, and we're going to get more, I'll -- that's the end of my questions on the first part or anybody else's, I guess. So do we have any questions on the supporting documentation that was provided? And it's a -- 13 pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, Michele, thank you. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As usual, appreciate it. Are you going to stick around for the school one, too? MS. MOSCA: And the CCME, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you got them both, okay. Okay. Next item up is our Recreation and Open Space Element. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, I do just have to make a quick comment, because you're going to be looking at the coastal high hazard area later on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- and just draw your attention that there is a policy change through this objective that it will restrict mobile homes to areas outside of the coastal high hazard area. That's in your objection -- Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Housing Element. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, then that's -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No more mobile homes in there. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In where? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been kind of -- that's how we've been looking at them for quite a long time, though. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I know, but later on I think we'll be looking at the impacts of establishing that boundary, so I just wanted to draw that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and I will have questions about that because the boundary that's being established is different than the boundary we currently have and -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if that's the case, how are we notifying people so that we avoid Bert Harris claims? And at the same time we're reducing the density in the coastal hazard area from four to three, instead of a Traffic Congestion Area four to three. So that, again, changes people's abilities, say. And is there a potential for Bert Harris claims and stuff -- and notifications? So we're going to have that lengthy discussion. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That will be a discussion later on, but just -- I wanted to make sure that you -all Page 33 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting understood the impacts. As we go through it, I'll try to draw your attention. And then when we get to the item, we can look at all the impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's try to get through the Recreation and Open Space Element. There are not many pages; five pages to be exact. Does anybody have any questions -- most all of it's deletion or relocation. Anybody have any questions on the five pages of that new language that's been provided to us? Mike, on Page 5, Policy 2.1.8, now this is probably a redundant discussion. I don't remember the discussion previously verbatim, so I'll start over again. It says, "The county shall amend the Land Development Code to require the developer of a residential PUD, or a PUD having a residential component, to provide its residents and guests with a suitable neighborhood park, as determined on a case -by -case basis, which is, as required by Policy 5.4 in the Future Land Use Element, to be compatible with the surrounding development." I got a lot wrong with that whole thing -- not to say wrong; questions. First of all, why did you italicize "suitable neighborhood park "? MR. BOSI: I believe it was emphasis just to stress that individual neighborhood parks have varying construction designs, and it's based upon the composition of the project in the community, whether it's going to be age restrictive, whether it's -- whether the range of housing is different that would promote maybe a preponderance of school -age children, those types of differences, just to highlight that there will be individual circumstances that dictate the design and construction of each one on a case -by -case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how -- who interprets or defines the word "suitable "? I mean, you have communities with a preponderance of kids, you have over -55 communities, will they still require -- how do you determine what's suitable and what -- who makes that determination and how is it made? MR. BOSI: The parks staff, I believe, based upon the type of demographics expected within a community, would have suggestions as to -- but the typical amenities, that would be sought by that type of demographic and the age range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to leave the word "suitable" up to the determination of the park staff? MR. BOSI: I think it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, because I'm not -- their determination of what goes in our parks right now isn't necessarily what's needed by our community. And then I'm concerned that -- what they -- how they would perceive what goes in neighborhoods. And then it says, "on a case -by -case basis." Who determines what's done for each individual case? I mean, could people and developers be treated differently? I'm -- MR. BOSL• I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a pretty ambiguous policy, Mike, in a lot of ways. MR. BOSI: It is an ambiguous policy, and it's -- the one question or the one area I think that we would have our most concern about is we're not -- we have no levels of service associated with neighborhood parks. We're not -- we don't require the county to provide neighborhood parks. The word "shall," I believe, in this -- in this proposed policy maybe is too strong based upon that -- a lack of a requirement with -- for levels of service for neighborhood parks. I think what the parks department would like to do is to encourage each individual new development that comes forward to provide the recreational amenities to the type of demographics that they expect to attract. To mandate that they have to provide, I believe, may be overstepping the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They get impact fees right now for parks. We have levels of service for community parks, and -- MR. BOSI: Regional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- regional parks. They're not proposing -- first of all, as you said -- and I made a note -- there is no level of services. We have no AUIR standards for this, but yet the AUIR constantly says we need more and more and more parks and all this other stuff because of statistics that don't take into consideration the neighborhood parks that are within the existing developments. They don't take into consideration a lot of that. I mean, people living in a gated community with a club aren't necessarily going to leave that gated community and go out to some public neighborhood -- and let -- a community park. It isn't going to happen. So this whole policy is unneeded, is ambiguous, and it puts a burden on the development community that's Page 34 of 84 16 12 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting unwarranted and unestablished by any of our level -of- service standards or anything. So I, personally, am suggesting, on behalf of myself, that this be struck, the entire policy. But I don't know how the rest of the board feels. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To me it's unenforceable. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- could I give you some alternative language that might be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to -- I'm not really going to change my position, Heidi. This is just another exaction that's being tried to made -- make it look like it's going to be legalized, and I think it's wrong. If you want these things, you incentivize it and pay for it, but you -- no need to do that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, that's why -- you haven't heard my language yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'd like to make a proposal that might be -- might assist staff and be a better result. If you provided, "The county shall amend the Land Development Code to," and you could choose for either "encourage" or "provide incentives for a developer of a residential PUD or a PUD having a residential component to provide its residents and guests with a private recreational amenity or amenities to reduce the impacts on the county park system." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- every developer that has any sense is going to create recreational facilities in his development. I don't think of one that we've seen not come forward that hasn't done that in some manner or form. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. They're already doing it, but it will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're already doing it -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- incentivize it or encourage. Apparently, staff thinks there's some need, that it's not being done in some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now we're saying, for what you're already doing, we're going to give you an incentive to do it anyway, and that incentive's going to then take away from something else that we would normally have not let them take away from, like impact fees. I don't see the need for it. It's market driven. It's up to the market to carry it. Let the market handle it. We made huge mistakes by interfering with the market, and I don't see why we need to in this case. The market's working fine. MR. BOSI: And I agree with the planning commission. This was left over. If you look through it -- and we said most of this was -- a lot of the changes are a deletion. We deleted an entire objective related to the neighborhood parks because we realized that we were into an area that we don't mandate, we don't require, and we were overstepping our boundaries. This was a leftover to encourage that type of participation that you've already identified. There's hardly a project that comes before you that doesn't provide these amenities within it. Based upon those discussions, we will strike this individual policy from both editions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I support striking it, too, because on a small -scale PUD, this could become pretty cumbersome. On a large scale it would be there already. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are going to strike all of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.1.8. MR. BOSI: 2.1.8 will not be proposed for -- will not be brought forward to the BCC as a proposed addition. It just -- it won't be proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more thing on this. New Goal 2, 1 have in my notes last time that you were going to remove the word "promote" and put the word "provide." Is that something -- MR. BOSI: That's -- if that was direction, it was an oversight by myself. If the Planning Commission would like to see that modification, we can make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us where we are. MR. BOSI: We're on Page 4 of the draft where -- it's the old Goal 3 now renumbered because we eliminated the previous Goal 2. It's the new Goal 2. And instead of "the county shall promote," Mr. Schiffer is -- has suggested that we -- that the Planning Commission had recommended that we say that "the county shall provide." MS. ASHTON- CICKO: My only comment with that is if you're going to put that, you might want to consider dropping "and neighborhood parks," because as far as I know, we don't have any neighborhood parks in our Page 35 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting park system. MR. BOSI: As we just discussed, we do not provide neighborhood parks, so that would require a modification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Got it. MR. BOSI: That's why I think "promote" would still be retained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would say -- so, Brad, are you still suggesting the change, then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. If it would cause that kind of result, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the word "promote" in there is appropriate for the neighborhood park reference, because that allows us, then, when a developer comes forward, to ask to see how they've addressed any amenities in their facility for recreation. And if you get a thousand -unit project and it has no recreational amenities, well, it doesn't meet Goal 2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what my notes had is use the word "provide" and strike out "neighborhood parks." But I think we're probably better in this condition. MR. BOSI: And I think Mark's point is that if they had that thousand -unit and they weren't providing a neighborhood park, we couldn't require them, but we could point them to this goal and say that we are promoting and we think that it would be advantageous to your project if you considered the design of your project based upon the light -- of this desire to promote these type of neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ironically, I don't think we've ever seen a project come through of any magnitude that hasn't addressed this. Even the smaller ones do. David? You look serious today, David. MR. WEEKS: No comment. For the record, David Weeks in the comprehensive planning section. Commissioners, just a couple points of information. One is that proposed new Policy 2.1.8 that you were just discussing a few moments ago is a verbatim replacement of existing Policy 2.1.2. And as Mike has already mentioned, that Goal 2 and all of -- the one objective in policies beneath that are all proposed for deletion. And I guess that one policy, however, was going to be retained and renumbered. Point being, again, it's not something new. It's something that's already in the element right now. That doesn't change your discussion here today and, I don't think, your conclusion. Secondly, just for point of history, because this is an existing policy which goes back to the last EAR -based amendments in 2007 -- yeah, 2007 -- we did propose -- staff did propose a Land Development Code amendment to implement this policy, and we heard a lot of the same comments that we're hearing from you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where -- right, that's where it came up before. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. And then, ultimately, that amendment went nowhere fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But staff did -- there was discussion about the different types of developments, as you've discussed here today. What about the adults -only community? And the staff perspective on that was that that would be part of the consideration of what is suitable for the proposed development. You wouldn't be -- wouldn't necessarily be requiring -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Swings. MR. WEEKS: -- swings, a slide, things that young children would use for an adults -only park -- excuse me -- adults -only development. But on the flip side, don't grandparents, persons in the senior housing might they have their grandkids over, and wouldn't you want to have? So we had discussion about the different types of neighborhoods, the different types of park facilities, but, again, it ultimately was withdrawn, the amendment. That's all; just some history and to comment this policy is already there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we want to leave it in and just remove "require the developer" and just say "promote a developer "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Brad, it doesn't take the ambiguity away. If it was a policy that was there before, it's still one that should be cleaned up. It's a mess. I mean, if -- I just don't know how you leave those very ambiguous statements up to a myriad of people to determine on a case -by -case basis. I think it could ultimately be Page 36 of 84 Z. 12 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting unfair, and that's what I think is wrong with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the goal itself, I mean, that's what we're saying, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I guess it's covered there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last part of this is the supplemental support documentation, Pages 1 through 9. Does anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's about time to go to lunch, but I see Jamie's here, and I know he'll want to get done with us to go to lunch. So, Jamie, can you come on up and address that -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Jamie wants to go to lunch? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure he does. MR. FRENCH: Good morning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. FRENCH: -- Commissioners. I heard my ears ringing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And, Mike, could you steer us to the policy -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sludge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's the sludge issue on solid waste, I believe, wasn't it? MR. EASTMAN: Solid waste, Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. It's not that one. MR. FRENCH: You're looking at Page 4, Policy 2 under wastewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wastewater. Okay. There it is. It's on Page 4 of the SS sub - element, Policy 3.2. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it so that everybody listening can know what we're talking about. "Private utilities regulated by the county shall maintain sludge de- watering and stabilization facilities sufficient to treat sludge and septage to a degree equivalent to that employed at the county facilities prior to its disposable." Staff had commented that they already have to do certain things to meet requirements of -- whether it's DEP or health or whatever else. So I guess the first thing is, this seems to be a redundant policy. Why don't we just leave it like -- they have to do it anyway, so why would we want to re- emphasize it in here? What's the point of this policy? MR. FRENCH: Commissioners, as the -- and I wear many hats. And this isn't to give the board a lesson on the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, but I do serve as the executive director of the Waste and Wastewater Authority, and I would tell you that you are exactly right. The county serves in the position of the Florida Public Service Commission, so we regulate building perplexities, rate cases, level of service that's provided, but not to that engineering degree to say, what's your ERC per day. We use that ERC and we use how they maintain their utility and how they operate when we factor in their cost of operating when we're going through rate methodologies; however, that is solely regulated by the DEP. And in the event that the State of Florida were to contact us and say, gee, Jamie, we have a problem with a franchised utility in Collier County, and they're failing to meet the state statute or the state requirement, what would happen is that at that point they put their franchise at risk. And under the powers of -- 96 -6, as amended, that's where we would work with them. And this is primarily done through the court system, and it goes into a taking, so to speak -- or not a taking, but it takes it into receivership, is the ultimate punishment in the event that a utility does default and choose not to follow the state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't need Policy 3.2. MR. FRENCH: Sir, I'm unfamiliar with all the language in that policy, but based off of just my reading it right now, I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you leave it with staff that if you guys look at it a little bit further, if there's something that Jamie sees later on that changes his mind, we'll have to reconsider it, but right now it's in a policy that's not needed? MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sorry to drag you over here, Jamie. You could have emailed us. We'd have been fine with that. MR. FRENCH: My pleasure. I don't get to see you folks that often anymore, so -- Page 37 of 84 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should be like -- you know, I know you're -- Nick's -- you and Nick work pretty close together. He tries to avoid us. It's nice to see you're trying to join us. MR. FRENCH: I'm always here for you, sir. Thank you. Have a wonderful week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, Jamie. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: I have a request, because of some of the staffers being made available this morning, that we do enter -- or get into the CCME before lunch, particularly, if not only, Goals 9 and 12 in order to accommodate some other times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the CCME is practically the longest policy in this whole thing. We have speakers lined up for it and everything else. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if I just may add, the only reason we have the request is just, again, for Goals 9 and 12, which deal specifically with Dan Summers' area of expertise. And during that October workshop there was very little comment. There wasn't any public comment. So I thought, perhaps, we could get through those couple items only. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he could leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that you're more focused on -- MS. MOSCA: It would just be those two goals and related policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's no hurricanes, so why would Dan want to leave us today? I mean, it's different if it was a tropical storm. Okay. So Objectives 9 and 12 is the only ones of concern at this point, right? MS. MOSCA: Related to Dan's area, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go through those pages. It starts on Page 43. MS. MOSCA: Actually, Goal 9 begins on Page 24, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm on the wrong -- I'm on the backup stuff, sorry. Well, I'm still not in the right -- you're in the COME; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. And, again, Page 24. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Goal 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get there. There we go. Okay. Goal 9 on Page 24, and Goal 9 is only on Page 24 and 25. Does anybody have any questions on Goal 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the audience have any questions on Goal 9? I don't think it was one that was with the Conservancy's letter, so -- okay. And then let's move to -- MS. MOSCA: Goal 12 is located on Page 28 of that same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it goes to Page 31. Does anybody have any questions from Page 28 to 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with Policy 12.1.3. It says, "The county shall continue to identify and maintain shelter space for 32,000 persons," and it did say by 2006, now it says by 2012, "and 45,000," and it used to say 2010, it now says 2015. "Shelter space capacity shall be detennined at the rate of 20 square feet per person." What is our current status, then, in the requirement to meet the 32,000, since it has to be completed this year? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Summers will answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- and the only reason I'm trying to find out is if it's a goal we can meet, fine. If it isn't, then let's make the year correct. MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan Summers, director of Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. Remember, there are some -- and I don't have the state legislative language here in front of you, but remember we're kind of working off of 1998 to 2000 type policy lofty goals for shelter space, okay. I have to approach this as goals. Also in --you have to remember that we were working with Collier District Schools '09, '10, let's go back, 2008/10 in making sure that future school construction accommodated some of our shelter needs and desires. Well, now, today, we're obviously not building new school buildings in terms of that identification of shelter Page 38 of 84 t 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you should be like -- you know, I know you're -- Nick's -- you and Nick work pretty close together. He tries to avoid us. It's nice to see you're trying to join us. MR. FRENCH: I'm always here for you, sir. Thank you. Have a wonderful week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, Jamie. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: I have a request, because of some of the staffers being made available this morning, that we do enter -- or get into the CCME before lunch, particularly, if not only, Goals 9 and 12 in order to accommodate some other times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the CCME is practically the longest policy in this whole thing. We have speakers lined up for it and everything else. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if I just may add, the only reason we have the request is just, again, for Goals 9 and 12, which deal specifically with Dan Summers' area of expertise. And during that October workshop there was very little comment. There wasn't any public comment. So I thought, perhaps, we could get through those couple items only. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So he could leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now that you're more focused on -- MS. MOSCA: It would just be those two goals and related policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's no hurricanes, so why would Dan want to leave us today? I mean, it's different if it was a tropical storm. Okay. So Objectives 9 and 12 is the only ones of concern at this point, right? MS. MOSCA: Related to Dan's area, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go through those pages. It starts on Page 43. MS. MOSCA: Actually, Goal 9 begins on Page 24, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm on the wrong -- I'm on the backup stuff, sorry. Well, I'm still not in the right -- you're in the COME; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. And, again, Page 24. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Goal 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get there. There we go. Okay. Goal 9 on Page 24, and Goal 9 is only on Page 24 and 25. Does anybody have any questions on Goal 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the audience have any questions on Goal 9? I don't think it was one that was with the Conservancy's letter, so -- okay. And then let's move to -- MS. MOSCA: Goal 12 is located on Page 28 of that same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it goes to Page 31. Does anybody have any questions from Page 28 to 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with Policy 12.1.3. It says, "The county shall continue to identify and maintain shelter space for 32,000 persons," and it did say by 2006, now it says by 2012, "and 45,000," and it used to say 2010, it now says 2015. "Shelter space capacity shall be detennined at the rate of 20 square feet per person." What is our current status, then, in the requirement to meet the 32,000, since it has to be completed this year? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Summers will answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- and the only reason I'm trying to find out is if it's a goal we can meet, fine. If it isn't, then let's make the year correct. MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan Summers, director of Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. Remember, there are some -- and I don't have the state legislative language here in front of you, but remember we're kind of working off of 1998 to 2000 type policy lofty goals for shelter space, okay. I have to approach this as goals. Also in --you have to remember that we were working with Collier District Schools '09, '10, let's go back, 2008/10 in making sure that future school construction accommodated some of our shelter needs and desires. Well, now, today, we're obviously not building new school buildings in terms of that identification of shelter Page 38 of 84 x � T .i az 161 2 A4 14 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting space. So I think it -- I think the terminology is okay as to continue to identify and maintain where possible. And, also, in 2013 the state will go back and be doing a new inventory of shelter space. So I have to tell you that we continue to do the best we can to identify, but in terms of any guarantee that we're going to hit those benchmarks in today's environment, that's pretty tough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, Dan, you just struck on a couple things that brought up the question. You read this when you -- in your reading of it you said the county shall maintain -- shall continue to identify and maintain, where possible, shelter space. It doesn't say that in this. MR. SUMMERS: Well, I understand. And we can make -- and the part of that issue is -- let me make sure that there's clarity. At 20 square feet per person as a shelter number, I can do that. I can make that happen in terms of shelter space. What is not rated in there and which we can't rate is, if we're looking just at hurricane, remember, I have to shelter and use some methodology on each storm as to which shelter I use. So with the square footage I have, storm category notwithstanding, I can meet that at 20 square feet. But understand that I may utilize a smaller footprint farther inland if I have a greater category of storm. So this is acceptable. I'm very comfortable with this. But understand that each hurricane has different sets of vulnerabilities and characteristics. So I have a gross capacity of this but, storm dependent, that number is likely to be lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide us with a list of the facilities that total the 32,000? MR. SUMMERS: I can do that, and that's readily published in our "All Hazard Guides." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: And, again, state is using 20 square feet as a planning threshold. In reality, in a shelter environment, for extended stay, you know, we really box 40 square feet per person, an eight by five. So this is okay. This is a planning component for us. This is a lofty goal for us. But as each storm has different characteristics, we have different behavior related to those evacuations. We adjust accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When could you send us that list? MR. SUMMERS: I think I can certainly -- if it's not already posted, that shelter link is on our Internet site. I'll certainly develop an email, route it to staff, and copy that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that list show by square -- unit space by square footage? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, it won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, I won't need the list. MR. SUMMERS: Well, no. I mean, it is not broken down in that environment. And, honestly, that is -- we look at that as a gross number. So you're basically looking at the gross square footage off all of our shelters to meet that number. In practicality, we use a little bit less -- we use less numbers in terms of the census and we use a larger square footage just to try to make folks a little more comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me a list -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of all the gross square footages of all the shelt -- of all the places you consider shelters in Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. And I would -- presumably, then, the way this is written, either right now or by the end of this year, it's going to show 32,000 square feet? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. I think we're there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where, with the lack of school construction, are you expecting to find that additional 13,000 square feet in the next three years? MR. SUMMERS: Well, a couple of things that we're doing. We look at any window of opportunity whether it -- couple of avenues that we look at. Now, obviously, this has had impact since we've got new stonn -surge maps, new floodplain issues, et cetera. So that -- I have a moving target there in tenns of shelter availability, existing construction, new opportunities for shelter retrofit, but I also have changes in floodplain and storm surge that we're -- you know, as I told you last time, we're still kind of going through that, and that's kind of a bitter pill, and even that methodology has changed. So any opportunity -- I'm copied on all DRIB and PUDs and those type of things, so 1, all the time, look for that opportunity to expand shelter square footage. Page 39 of 84 S # � �t,„ � 1612 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting One, we're still going to go back and revisit with Ave Maria and see if we can't have some additional options out there that we just don't presently have as another possibility. So we're working at it, and I feel like, based on our storm history and our behavior of what -- FEMA does these behavior analysis and models -- in terms of what I might expect for shelter population. It's tight, but I can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 32,000 existing square footage, when we get that list, the definition of shelter space, based on that list, will be met for every one of the square footages shown on the list? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And if it's not, I'll certainly clarify that for you. But I'm confident we're there. Thirty-two thousand square feet and the number of buildings that we have square footage that we have is certainly doable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has anybody in the county or staff verified that the buildings that you've allocated as shelter space can withstand the level of hurricane or wind loads they're supposed to? Because the last time I looked, which was five or six years ago, some of the school construction was built on wind codes that were vastly outdated compared to today's codes. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, that's a good point. And let me tell you that we've kind of approached that differently. The answer is the school district has been -- and all new construction has been right on target working with us in that hurricane- protection area. In those areas where it's not available, we have used FEMA -- or applied and in some cases received competitive FEMA mitigation grants for storm hardening. One of those activities going on right now is Immokalee High School, as we speak. Now, Immokalee High School, that's going to, again, add some additional square footage to me because of some new retrofits and also some generator capability. So to answer your question, do we do formal engineering assessments on those buildings? We do not. We're not resourced for that. We don't have the tools for that, but we do have state inspectors and Red Cross inspectors that do evaluate those buildings. But when I mention the science has changed a little bit, there's two components that we typically -- if we're looking at a Category 3 storm or above, okay, there's no worry this far inland with the facilities that we have that I'm worried about anything under a Cat 3. If I go to a Cat 3 or above, even within that sheltering I have two options for safety. Number 1 is our -- or our first methodology is that, well, you put them in the gymnasium just to set up the dormitory, but at the arrival of peak winds, I'll move those folks out of the gym and let them take a tornadic posture in interior hallways and classrooms, and that is how I provide that additional space. So just by common sense, I'm moving those people out of the gym into a tornadic posture for a certain period of time while the storm passes, and I've substantially reduced risk by moving those people out of large -span areas. But I will use the large span up until a point that it's safe, tornadic posture into the interior of the building, the storm passes, go back into the donnitory of the gym, and we go about restoration and recovery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a facility in which the gym is part of the storm refuge -- or storm- shelter space and the category of the storm gets a 3 or above, the same space you use to count the 32,000 for general space doesn't count anymore because it can't be used for above 3? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. The reason that works is because I don't put that kind of capacity in each building. In other words, I reduce my in -bound census to that building to more like a factor of gross space of a -- and this is a guess -- but well -- maybe close to 60 square feet per person. So I keep my census down in each one of those buildings, use the dormitory concept first in the large -span areas, if it's significant, move them to a tornadic posture, interior hallways and classrooms, very well protected, storm passes, come back to the dorm area. But I am not putting that capacity of people in there, so that gives me the extra square footage. This, sir, truly is a planning threshold and not really an operational threshold. And it's a good one for me to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure that it doesn't become a required threshold by the word "shall" and the locked -in date. So I'm suggesting that as you produce the information that we just asked for, the square footage, if you see any reason why the 2012 ought to be 2013, it would be better to do that now than not do it is what I'm saying. MR. SUMMERS: And again, I think that's a very valid concern just because, again -- you know, maybe two Page 40 of 84 16 1.2 s.. A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting years ago we were hoping as a methodology that we had some new schools being constructed, et cetera. We also expect, though -- you know, we also -- and so many human factors and variables here. Will we have folks -- will we have that large a census the next hurricane? Because folks, hopefully, are better educated and more aware of the hurricane threat and can make other plans, family and friends, hotels, well inland, et cetera. So a lot of variables here. And if -- we'll go back and review this. And if I feel like the 2015 puts us in .a bad environment, I'll communicate that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Dan, I had one other question. It's on Page 29. We struck out Policy 12.1.14, and it said, prior to the adoption of 2007 annual update AUIR, "Collier County shall evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters in the five -year schedule of capital improvements." So I assume we struck that because the evaluation was completed? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the evaluation, and just no resource availability on the horizon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we didn't do the evaluation? MR. SUMMERS: The -- let me go back and let me make sure I'm understanding your question correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29, Policy 12.1.14, it basically struck it saying -- and there was supposed to have been a -- evaluate whether or not we should include hurricane shelters on the capital improvement schedule, and it was just struck. I'm just wondering, why was it struck? MR. SUMMERS: Well --and, again, I think --Michele can coach me hereon this just a little bit. But as I recall, there was just no capital -- there was just no capital improvement dollars or resources of which to put that in there to make action, and I'll have -- Michele can help me with that, you know, to remember our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: If I just may provide a little input. My understanding is that this was proposed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners did not want to include this within their annual update, and maybe Michael knows a little bit more about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a struck policy now. So -- I mean, the way I'm reading this, this used to be a policy --used to have a deadline of 2007, and here we are in 2012 and it's being struck. Why are you -- so we just ignored it all these years until now, we're striking it? MS. MOSCA: It's not a requirement. It's a policy decision by the board. And the board made the -- again, this is my understanding. The board made a policy decision that they would not be including that within their five -year capital improvements schedule. So it was a decision previously made by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it reads, the -- "Collier County shall evaluate whether to include." What evaluation was done to determine to the board whether that should be included or not? Or did they just wake up one day and say, oh, we don't want to spend money on this? That's not an evaluation. What kind of evaluation was done? MS. MOSCA: I -- actually, I don't know what kind of evaluation was done. I know -- I spoke with Jim -- I can never pronounce his name -- MR. SUMMERS: Von Rinteln. MS. MOSCA: -- Von Rinteln previously, and it was, in fact, presented to the board. I don't know what evaluation was provided to the board for the board to make that determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, could you find out and provide us with that evaluation? I mean, I'm just -- MS. MOSCA: If one exists, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then if one doesn't exist, somebody was, all these years, in violation of Policy 12.14 (sic). Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: I could only guess that -- not involved prior to the AUIR at that period of time. But I could only guess that the -- one of the main motivations for not including hurricane shelter within our Capital hnprovement Element, our Capital hnprovement Element are projects that the county funds. We don't own the hurricane shelters. We have agreements with a number of different providers for those shelters, and including those facilities that we do not own within our Capital Improvement Element would be inconsistent. Now, there could have been further discussion, well, maybe we want to keep a running inventory of those hurricane shelters within our AUIR just as an informational purpose, but you would never want to include hurricane Page 41 of 84 1612 A 4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting shelters included within your Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It doesn't say we have to own them. It just -- so the evaluation -- see, what I saw that policy referring to was that we're trying to evaluate whether or not we have enough hurricane shelters and maintain them on a regular basis to make sure they're there. And someone decided it wasn't necessary. I'm just wondering why it was decided it wasn't necessary. Where's the evaluation that said it wasn't necessary? That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. BOSL• Well, as the policy reads, it says, "evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters" in our CIE, our capital improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSL• That would be inconsistent with how -- what we deal with with CIEs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying everything in the CIE is owned property? MR. BOSI: Is owned property, the projects that are funded by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're leasing buildings that half the staff of this county's in different places, so we can't own all the property, because we lease a lot of it. MR. BOSI: They're not included within our Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are in back of the governmental part of it where they -- MR. BOSI: Governmental facilities are Category B facilities. They're not included in Capital Improvement Element. They're a part of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They're part of the AUIR, but they're not in -- oh, they're not in the CIE. Oh, okay. MR. BOSI: CIE's separate. CIE is level of services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is only A. MR. BOSI: Level of service A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MR. BOSI: And that's the distinction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MR. BOSI: Now, that's why I say it may be relevant to keep -- to add a list of our available hurricane shelters as you've requested as back parts of the AUIR so the CCPC and the board can always know where we're at within those regards, but it would not be something that we would want to formalize within our Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't got a level of service established for it, so I understand now. Okay. That fixes it. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, and for the board, just to give you a little bit of comfort here, I have a full -time person that does nothing but work on shelter management, shelter operations, building that capability, evaluating. We have agreements with -- obviously, a three -party agreement -- Red Cross, Collier District Schools. You've seen our disaster - response trailers. They go out every season and provide the inventory, supplies and equipment for these shelters. So this is in our DNA every day in terms of trying to build capability and making sure that there's 24 -by -7, 365 readiness for shelter operations. So, you know, I'm very comfortable with what we have. I'll give you a better, a more accurate answer on the square - footage calculations. But we -- you know, this is a mainstay of our FEMA contracts for service, our state emergency- management legislation, and guidance. So we're definitely eyes on this target full time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Dan. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you all for the accommodation this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll do is we'll break for lunch for one hour and three minutes; come back at 1:15, and we'll resume, finish up with CCME at that time. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Mr. Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Thank you, Mike, for the hot mike. Appreciate that. And Terri's here, Page 42 of 84 .4 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting so we are allowed to start. Good to see you're on time, Terri. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No attorney, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. I think I've lost the brownies from now on. And we left off before lunch with doing a couple pieces to the CCME, and now we shall move into finishing that piece of our document. Michele, I don't know if you wanted to make any introductory. If we just walk through by the pages, I think, it will be fine, unless you've got something you want to say. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, again, Michele Mosca with the comprehensive planning staff. There's several staff members that are here that are going to be addressing some of the policies and objectives, so I'll call them up as needed. Just wanted to mention that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they going to address them if we ask questions, or just out of the blue? MS. MOSCA: If you have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will shorten the day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do we need the attorney here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. She'll get here. That's okay. We're covered. I mean, we haven't got any legal questions right off the bat, so thank you. Okay. Let's start with the first five pages of the CCME. Pages 1 through 5, does anybody have any questions about Page 1 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- and this is based on the other question. 2.1.6 disappears in this final draft. That's because at the last meeting we decided to keep it? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. It was retained, so it wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Versus the cross - through method we saw earlier. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 1 through 5? Jeremy, I know you're here with the Conservancy's issues on the letter. If we hit the sections that pertain to something you want to speak, just raise your hand so I know, and we'll try to hit you at the same time. Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a question, Mark, if I could, on Objective 1.2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: First of all, I guess put a period behind "system." But why did you delete the updating portion of that? MS. MOSCA: This is Objective 1.2? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 1, right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Pagel. MS. MOSCA: This particular objective was reformatted, and the last sentence appears in the new policy. What we tried to do is reformat the elements so that the objectives read as objectives, which are more general, and then the implementing policies. So you'll see -- actually the last portion of that sentence appears as Policy -- new Policy 1.2.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of the next page. MS. MOSCA: Yes, top of Page 2. Mr. Chairman, if I may, as we go through this particular document, because the EAC did, in fact, review this document, I'd like to address some of their recommendations, if that's okay, or how do you want to handle -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. We're not -- I mean, do you want ours first and then address theirs? If Page 43 of 84 A 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting you want to address theirs first, go right ahead. Why don't you address theirs first -- MS. MOSCA: I just didn't want to pass the first five pages without addressing the EAC comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't you address the EAC comments first so if we have comments on that when we go through each five pages we can respond. So do you have any EAC comments from the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: I do. On -- it's Objective 1.2. The EAC had requested that we insert language that includes "collect the highest practical quality data with data - quality indicators." And as you saw in the summary page when you went through that, staffs alternative recommendation was to follow the statutory language which was used "best- available data." But since that language, there's been House Bill 7207, and the new language is "relevant, appropriate, and professionally accepted data" to describe what type of data we use. So we'd like to go with the House Bill 7207 language. And I can put it up on the visualizer if that helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The house bill's a state statute, so I don't know why we wouldn't want to -- MS. MOSCA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't contradict state statute, so why don't we just use it? MS. MOSCA: Okay. Well, we would like to do that. That was our alternative recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: I do have another item. This would be Objective 2. 1, which is -- which begins on Page 3 and ends on Page 4. And this is not directly related to this particular objective, but it was the EAC's recommendation that we address low - impact development. Staff felt as though it was out of the scope of the EAR, so we're proposing that it's a good idea that LIDS will be addressed as part of this -- the Watershed Management Plans, that if we want to include regulations for the LIDS, we either put it in the Land Development Code or we propose policies as part of the Watershed Management Plan. So we would not recommend doing that at this time but did want to address the EAC's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have a problem with your suggestion. I think it's appropriate. I don't know if anybody else does. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything else on the first five pages? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Michele, just for --if I may, for the purposes of people watching this, could you explain what -- or say what the acronym LID is, please. MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's low - impact development. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're still on the first five pages. Is there anything else, Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you. Objective 2.1 C, the EAC had recommended that we include, most likely at adoption hearings, the references to the new FEMA maps once accepted. So you'll see that 2.1 C, and that's on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- so you're suggesting 2.1C on Page 4 needs language changes? MS. MOSCA: If you look at C, it has an effective date for the FEMA maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: When the new maps are accepted, we would include that date. And that won't likely occur at transmittal, but I thought I would mention it because it was, in fact, a recommendation by the EAC to include it at the adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're available by then. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's fine. MS. MOSCA: Just so you're aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, is there anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: 2.1.7 is just a grammatical change, which is not large. Actually, 2.2.5, and that's on Page 5. The Planning Commission -- let me just go through this one. This has to do with the stormwater- management systems and the inspections. And the Planning Commission at the October workshop had requested that we insert "if feasible" after "require," and, again, that's on Page 5, Policy 2.2.5. Page 44 of 84 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting And in the summary pages we've included revised language that was discussed by my administrator as well as my director. And so that information's in there as well. Hopefully that's been reviewed. And if you want, I could put that on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Your alternative language, if you could, because -- MS. MOSCA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this is the language that -- oh, no. It's a little different than what's in front of us, isn't it? MS. MOSCA: Right. And that was in the -- contained in the summary pages. And this is what staff would propose in addition to what the Planning Commission proposed last October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it gets the same place. I don't see a problem with it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, it does, but I wanted to make sure you're aware of that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Michele, do you have anything else on the first five pages? MS. MOSCA: No, I don't. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to do this every five pages? You had a lot. MS. MOSCA: I won't. I just want to make sure --well, this was also reviewed by the EAC, and there were several elements that weren't. There was only a handful that were. So I wanted to make sure that the EAC recommendations are forwarded to you folks, you have an understanding of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, and I appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure I understood the time frames that -- and I keep going back to you because I don't want to forget you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions on Page 2. The Objective 1.3, a bunch is crossed out, and it starts, "Protect identified environmental systems through the Natural Resource Protection area" (NRPAs), and then "Rural Lands Stewardship programs." Well, I'm wondering why you added the Rural Land Stewardship programs when you didn't add all the other programs that we have that are protecting the environmental systems in Collier County. We have watershed plans, we have the rural fringe, which moves from sending areas to neutral areas. So why did we single out -- I mean, I understand NRPAs. The title itself dictates it. But why are we adding Rural Land Stewardship Areas? MS. MOSCA: The Objective 1.3 was actually reformatted. So we struck through a lot of language to structure it as an objective. And what's referred to in the following policies are just the NRPAs as well as Rural Land Stewardship. So you'll see those other programs, watershed - management plans and so forth, in other objectives and policies. So it's just following that format. So everything under Objective 1.3 will refer to either the Natural Resource Protection Area or Rural Land Stewardship program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But NRPAs I understand; I understand the addition. I guess the -- where it says, "Protect identified environmental systems, if you're going to add a system here like a NRPA, which is discussed in other sections, why don't we add them all? I mean, why are we -- why are we singling -- it's kind of like, you know, why are we singling out specific programs for specific objectives when we're going to -- we're protecting environmental systems through a number of different programs? MS. MOSCA: Right. And you'll see -- as you go through the COME, you'll see other objectives that address the protection of environmental systems through means of, for example, Watershed Management Plans. So it's just really the structure of the CCME that this objective would have policies that just strictly relate to the RLSA and NRPA. I understand what you're saying, but you'll look throughout the document, and you'll see other references and the policies that correspond to that objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we can't just cross out the Rural Land Stewardship program? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's got to be -- I guess what Michele -- this is -- somewhere in this entire CCME all the program are referenced. This happens to be the location that the RLSA is referenced. The NRPA's being added in because it wasn't referenced in enough other places? MS. MOSCA: No, the -- actually -- again, if you look through Objective 1.3, it references the NRPA in Page 45 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "S ecilk 12hrients" meetin g there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, up above. MS. MOSCA: Right, the struck- through language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. MOSCA: So it -- again, it was just simply reformatted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a question on Page 5. Oh, no. You just -- you answered it because you just clarified everything. Okay. Any questions? Move to Pages 6 through 10. Anybody have any -- well, let's start with Michele. Michele, pages 6 through 10. MS. MOSCA: I'm looking at my notes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No hurry. I just want to make sure it was -- MS. MOSCA: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in your ball game. MS. MOSCA: Most of the EAC changes, those were just grammatical for 6 through 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have anything on Pages 6 through 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for once I don't. Pages 11 through 15? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 15, Mr. Midney. Oh, well, let's let Michele go first in case she -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, let's go with her first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele? MS. MOSCA: Okay. We're on 11 through 15? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have to back up to Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't do that. MS. MOSCA: Okay. By putting me first, then I have to go through the notes and rush back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you can do that normally when you ignore us talking and you -- I understand. MS. MOSCA: I don't do that. Okay. This would be Policy 4.1.3. And the EAC had recommended that we actually look at the actual agricultural pumpage. This isn't something that we do. We had recommended that we look at this at a later date, and it was outside the scope of the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Just wanted to provide that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Up through 15 now, Michele. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I might need the assistance of the county attorney. This is -- on Policy 6.1.2, and we'll also be referencing 6.2.5, as well as the Conservancy letter regarding native vegetation retention for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand area. And I've been informed by the County Attorney's Office that -- well, I'll let -- I'll go ahead and defer to Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I have two concerns. One is that, from what I read from the Conservancy, is they want to change the overlay map which is currently being proposed as part of the amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. So it would amend the Immokalee Area Master Plan. We did not advertise today for any amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, so I don't think that we can make that change to change the overlay today unless you want to readvertise it and hear it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you guide us to the specific language you're referring to that's in the policies in front of us right now? What policy are you talking about, 6.1.2? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it relates to the amendments that you heard as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan where they wanted to designate the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais overlay as neutral or some other type of Page 46 of 84 #° 1/26/2012 CCPC "Spell & ImZmentsA m ting land for purposes of setting aside the preservation requirement. I don't believe that that's currently in your package today; however, I understand that you've received a letter from the Conservancy requesting that that be addressed as part of the GMP amendments. They're EAR based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think -- and the Conservancy's here. So, Jeremy, why don't you come up to the mike. But I thought their issue was that because the Immokalee Area Master Plan wasn't adopted and it addressed the issue and it referred -- and the CCME referred to that plan, and that plan -- the new -- the old plan refers back to the CCME, which refers back, so we're in a loop that doesn't get resolved and -- because the new plan wasn't adopted. That's my understanding, briefly, of what's going on. Jeremy, can you help us with that? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Yeah, we're not proposing any amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Our understanding was that 6.2.5 was originally in the EAR -based amendments -- or was originally part of the EAR -based amendments and got taken out because it was being addressed in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Now that that plan has been delayed, we think that it should be reincorporated back into the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2.5? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2.5's not being taken out, is it? MS. MOSCA: No, it's not. Six -- and those were the two references I've provided. 6.2.5 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? MS. MOSCA: It's on Page 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we skipped ahead, but I understand why. MS. MOSCA: Right. Because we started out with 6.1.2 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. MOSCA: -- that actually has the preservation standards contained within that policy. So 6.2 -- 6.2.5 on 18, Page 18, you'd see the text in the first line refers to the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand system, and then it refers you back to Policy 6.1.2 of that element, which are the preservation standards. Currently there are no standards in place for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand, and that's been the issue. The boundary which was delineated on the new map, on the new FLUM, is on the visualizer. That went through the various committees, and the recommendation was made by both the CRA for Immokalee as well as this body that we pull it out of Immokalee Area Master Plan and we provide for it within a 2011 amendment cycle. 2011 has come and gone, so what we're seeking is some sort of direction. So we have all of the data and analysis available for the actual boundary, but what we don't have is a firm commitment for the preservation standard. My understanding, after talking with staff and staff met with the Conservancy, that they looked at a neutral lands preservation standard, which is 60 percent or 45 percent total site. What we'd like to do is sort of get some direction from this body where we should go. Should it remain as part of the EAR, or should we pull it out for our 2012 cycle, or whatever's the consensus of this board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Paul, this may be the subject you were going to talk about, so you want to talk first? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. It's very near and dear to my heart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, the Immokalee Area Master Plan is dead. We don't know if it's ever going to come back, and I can't see putting this off for another 10 years, or potentially for another 10 years and just leaving it, because I think it's important enough that all we're really asking is that staff do -- finish doing their data and analysis and come back with a recommendation. So it doesn't seem as though we're really -- but I don't know, Heidi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, like I said, I heard two parts to it. I heard one being we're going to amend the overlay, and that is an overlay that is part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. So to the extent that change is desirous for today, I don't believe that proper public notice has been made. So that can go on a separate track for amendment separate and apart from the Immokalee Area Master Plan overhaul amendment if you would like because, remember, 7207 removed the requirement that you can't -- you can just bring a GMP amendment at any time. And I don't recall whether that would be considered an area of critical state concern. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not right now. Page 47 of 84 g 16 44 .+ 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amen m " meeting MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If it's not, then it can go on an even faster track. It's the shorter process for that amendment. Now, the second question is, can you amend the preservation requirements that apply to the existing overlay as it exists today? And my concern with that -- I think that we probably have sufficient legal notice the way we've advertised that the -- the conservation master -- the element that would -- CCME element has been properly advertised. So I think that you probably could pull that in, but I have a concern over the public vetting of the impacts that that would have to property owners so that they'd have the ability to come forward and provide their comments. I don't know if that public- vetting part was completed or not as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendments. MS. MOSCA: And I'd have to defer to our other staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hate to ask this, but I think for the benefit of a lot of us, we need to get our arms around what it is we're doing here first. I understand you all have lived this for a longer period than we have at the intensity that you have, including the Conservancy. Let's get a handle on the issue. We have an Immokalee Area Master Plan that has the Lake Trafford area in it right now. Because the Immokalee Area Master Plan did not get passed with the revisions, how does the current Immokalee Area Master Plan treat that Lake Trafford overlay? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: With -- the overlay is a little bit smaller because, my understanding, it was expanding. I don't know -- MS. MOSCA: It's on the visualizer. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: --how much. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, you have it on the visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the old one? This is the existing one, right. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's the existing or the new? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. She just -- he just switched it. This is the existing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The old. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The old. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And how it treats the preservation I'd have to defer to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it treat the -- here's what I'm trying to find out. Let's forget the Immokalee Area Master Plan; it didn't get adopted. It's off the table for now. So what do we need to do to protect this area if it is not already protected? So my question is, how is it protected currently? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The law is silent on what it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to get them to say. And then if it is, then what we need to look for is an interim solution so that the law isn't silent. And then whenever these other plans get adopted or changed or modified, they can address it at that point. But I want to make sure we're covered in the interim first. That's the first step. How is the Immokalee Area Master Plan -- how is any master -- how is the Lake Trafford Overlay protected right now? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. Right now the preservation requirement for the overlay is not clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do we have to do to make it clear? MR. LENBERGER: We either set some standards or preservation requirement in the interim and then look in the future amendment to address it more fully and analyze data. But right now it's open. It's been -- it's been open for a while now and not been addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, basically, if we were to take the section of Policy 6.2.5 where it does include a reference to Lake Trafford, or the Strand, but it refers it to Policy 6.1.2, but in 6.1.2 there's no direct correlation between the reference in 6.2.5 to Lake Trafford, but included -- say in 6.2.5 we included a reference to what part of 6.1.2 applies to Lake Trafford, that would solve the problem for the interim. MR. LENBERGER: And during the hnmokalee Area Master Plan -- and Carolina can correct me if I'm Page 48 of 84 j 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting wrong -- staff recommended the preservation requirements for the neutral lands within the fringe for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands as a middle position, and that was our position during the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the idea or the discussion that Heidi started with where we can't take the overlay out of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, now, what's that? Because right now all I'm hearing is we have a specific area defined. We're telling you how to apply it, but then I heard there was a discussion to take it out of the Immokalee Area Master Plan which would then reduce the Immokalee Area Master Plan by a certain acreage because it puts it in another part of our element? MR. LENBERGER: No. It remains in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. The preservation requirement is for that portion in that overlay within the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Right now the boundary of the overlay -- of the wetland is different than what staff has proposed during the Immokalee Area Master Plan amendment. That will have to be corrected or at least proposed to be corrected at a future date. And staff has provided data and analysis for that, as you saw when you reviewed the Immokalee Area Master Plan. But right now the preservation requirement is open. We -- staff doesn't know what to apply. I don't know if you want to apply the middle standard like we did for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the neutral in the interim, and have staff come back in a subsequent cycle with more data and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Jeremy, what's the Conservancy's position? Then I want to ask Paul his, and then we'll try to come to some conclusion on it. MR. FRANTZ: In the past, my understanding is that we supported staffs recommendation for the neutral -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: -- designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, we have a major problem with this because this boundary is wrong. The reason that they changed the boundary is because it wasn't actually reflective of the actual wetlands on the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember all that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And that revision came, like, six years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think, based on Heidi's comments, we can change the overlay at this meeting. Is that a fair statement, Heidi, or not? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. My opinion is that you can't change any to the Immokalee Area Master Plan text or maps at this meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only thing we can do at this meeting, Paul, to be effective is we have to accept it like it's shown on that top page, but it's not protected law based on staffs comments. So staffs recommending it go neutral. Conservancy's recommending it go neutral during the interim period, and that we accept that neutral reference as the way to go now, and then subject to whatever changes occur in the future with more data and analysis and implementation and modifications to the overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. And I think that we probably need to, if we can, direct staff to finish their data and analysis, which would include what are the impacts to the landowners, to their property values and, you know, everything that's involved in making a designation, so that everybody feels as though they have a chance to have their issues vetted in public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --and I think the recommendation could be to just consider --continue the data - and - analysis process for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay to modify that overlay as needed in the future regardless of the outcome of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Is that a fair way to approach it, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think so. Let me just put a little bit on the record, though. I mean, my hope -- that if we add the neutral lands is how you're going to apply it to the overlay through this CCME amendment process that we're here about today, that essentially what we would be doing is short- circuiting going through official interpretation that then says what staff believes the correct native - vegetation requirement would be. I'm assuming that staff thinks it's 60, and that's probably how they would apply it if they had an OI, and that's why we're not putting it in here. Page 49 of 84 1612 c S f A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree with your point. I think that the staff hasn't done that. The 45 was just -- the 60/45 was just something that was, like, in the meeting sort of like a compromise that they came up. It's not really been studied and it's not been -- I think the staff is interested and they have done a lot of analysis. They would like to refine it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I think that if staff believes that their opinion -- the GMP director's opinion would be that the 60 percent would apply, then we sort of short- circuit the OI and we haven't really impacted anybody's rights from going from 45 to 60. You know, staff thinks it's 60, and now we're just codifying what staff thinks it is. And if it wants to be reevaluated in the future as to going to 90, then at that time we can evaluate whether county has to provide any types of incentives to reach that point. I would be in favor, instead of just jumping to 60 and just saying, well, you know, we've got to do something, so let's just do that, to direct staff to complete their study and to actually come up with a more exact, based on data and analysis, and either bring it back -- I don't know if it could be done as an LDC or as a Growth Management Plan amendment, but to bring it back as a separate thing and to give it sort of the attention that it needs to be done right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, Paul, everybody's on that page except for the time it takes to do the study, which could be extensive, because it's money driven, expert driven, consultant driven. We could be sitting out there with a lack of coverage for any kind of preservation for -- and for a long period of time. I think what's being suggested is no different than what you said the ultimate outcome would be. But for the interim, at least use the neutrals as a beginning point so that it's not uncovered. Right now it's uncovered. There is no preservation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then my question is, well, when would it be coming back? How long -- because my understanding from environmental staff was that they had done most of the data and study, that it wouldn't be that much more staff time. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner, been handling the Immokalee Area Master Plan. I think there's two issues, and one, of course, is what we're talking about about, you know, what criteria to use. And staff needs to go to the Board of County Commissioners and seek direction, and we wanted your recommendation, because we cannot do a study of what the percentage will be if we don't have direction to do that study. So we're kind of in limbo right now of, you know, what to do and when to do it, so that's part of it. And, of course, that -- the other issue was of just a housekeeping matter, which is the new delineation of the wetland, of the overlay, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest, Paul, that we use the neutral as a reference in 6.2.5 for now subject to recommending that staff proceed with the overlay data and analysis as quickly as -- and -- as possible based on Board of County Commissioners' direction and then incorporate the new values whenever they become available. MS. VALERA: Perhaps bring at adoption, at the adoption portion of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have it done by then. Does that work for the Conservancy as well? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah, that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Jeremy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The adoption, though, is in, what, six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know when the adoption is. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It could be shorter than that. It's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know when the adoption is? MR. BOSI: The adoption by the BCC is October, by -- for the CCPC is August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any chance that something like that could be done that quickly? MR. LENBERGER: Staff has done some preliminary analysis, and we looked at the parcels, but right now I'm coordinating with the County Attorney's Office on legal issues. So how long that could take I couldn't say for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would it depend on board direction as well? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think, unfortunately, Paul, it wraps it up into the whole discussion of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and a lot of other things that are happening with the board right now. I don't know if anybody can pinpoint a time. I'm trying to get it to a point where at least there's something covered for now. Page 50 of 84 :f 1612 4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whenever it can happen as expeditiously as possible, it happens. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And from our board, if we could encourage the BCC to direct county staff to start work on that, you know, maybe they will be able to get it done in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that work could be done independent of the Immokalee Area Master Plan? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it could. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Also too, though, if we have this data and analysis, we would also have to bring it to the Immokalee CRA. The board has given us direction in the past that we coordinate efforts, changes that affect Immokalee to the Immokalee CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I think that would be beneficial. That would get it out to the community. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, so -- now -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, if you're going to go with the interim measure of the 60 percent that we've talked about today, you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go with the reference to the word "neutral," so actually it will be -- Policy 6.1.213, it will apply to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. And if you're going to go that route but you want further analysis, then, you know, separate from your vote on this transmittal, I would make another recommendation that that be pursued and that any incentives that would be needed to support a higher native preservation standard be evaluated at that time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- to push it forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the direction this board's going. Is anybody in disagreement with that direction? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically staff would insert in Policy 6.2.5 where it references that it -- the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand goes back to the vegetation policies is 6.1.2; it's specific. 6.1.2, and it would be B, neutral lands. MR. LENBERGER: Neutral. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then in a separate note, this board is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners as expeditiously as possible to proceed with a data and analysis and establishment of the correct overlay boundaries and percentages with incentives as required for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Overstrand (sic) -- I mean, yeah, overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how could it come back to us then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would come back to us by adoption if it's done by then, or if it's done separately, it has to be -- it's part of the GMP. We would see it under nonnal -- our normal cycle of review. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When's the next GMP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it can be done at any time based on the new house bill. So whenever they're ready, they can schedule it, and they can do it. We can hear it on a regular meeting, in fact, so -- well, it would be a special part of a regular meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. And you don't need to attach it to a cycle. You can just ask that it be run separately, because our cycles currently go every April. You don't want to be -- well, I guess April's coming up. Maybe that's quick enough, but you might even get there faster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sounds like we've tied together all the loose ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sounds like it, too. Staff see anything that we need to address that we didn't on this issue? David's up there now. He's always got something. Okay. Okay. Michele, we were actually working through Pages 11 through 15. Did you have anything in those specific pages left that we haven't killed? MS. MOSCA: No. I'm all set with 1 l through 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the board have anything from 11 through 15? Page 51 of 84 ry a a. �r fr 'J A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special 1612, meeting (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have on Page 15 a parenthetical up on top, 14. Can you refresh my memory as to why we're doing this? And it, basically, if -- two acres or less is exempt from this requirement of native - vegetation retention? MS. MOSCA: Okay. This is -- oh, No. 14, I'm sorry, on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: The board had directed staff to look at industrial parcels and to exempt them from the native - vegetation requirements, and that's what -- staff did the analysis and had determined that those parcels two acres or less would be exempt from the native - vegetation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what spurred this request? I mean, just out of the blue they were sitting there one day and said, you know, let's just forget all these two acres or less? I mean, what brought it on; do we know? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. This came up when we were at the board hearing -- the question came up about compatibility preserves as to certain uses and, particularly, they were speaking about industrial parcels. And Commissioner Henning was talking about an automotive junkyard with a preserve. And they asked staff to take a look at exempting industrial parcels where they do some sort of analysis to see -- address the compatibility issue of the zoning versus the preserve. I did a little bit of analysis. I had given it to comprehensive planning staff. And during the last LDC amendment cycle, as you may well remember, we looked at off -site preservation requirements, and we kind of looked at different uses in preserves, and to allow for off -site native vegetation and retention as opposed to on site. We pretty much said under two acres for industrial and commercial properties that you can go off site, recognizing that smaller parcels are harder to maintain. They're harder to maintain because the habitat's been fragmented. It's small. It has a lot of edge. It has a lot of surrounding impacts. And so when staff did an analysis -- and I went through all the different zoning, and most of the industrial areas have already been platted. Most of them have subdivided into very small parcels. There are a few exceptions. For example, the Immokalee airport has larger parcels as well as CitiGate; they also have some larger parcels down there. By and large, most of the industrial areas have been built out and very small. So I made a recommendation that we go with the 2 -acre preservation requirement and less than the two acres as being exempt for industrial. As a limited area within the county, it's not going to affect a lot, and that was my recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's take CityGate, for example. It's 300 - and -some odd acres. They had to set aside a certain amount of native vegetation for their overall application for their overall PUD. What this would provide is that if they had a 2- acre -or -less parcel with -- inside their PUD that they were selling to someone else, they wouldn't -- there wouldn't need to be additional native vegetation within that parcel itself because the requirement was met by the overall PUD? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the requirement for a subdivision would be met by the entire subdivision, not by an individual parcel, so -- and that's normally decided in a -- some sort of a zoning action, whether it be a conditional use or a PUD, as you know. But if -- there would have been no -- some properties, like the CityGate PUD -- and I went -- I don't have -- oh, I have some -- I have some of the information here in front of me. Some of the parcels or the PUDs are less clear on where that preservation requirement is. And if I remember correctly, CityGate was one of those, also was the Ford test track. It's very clear on how much and where the preservation requirement is. So with those -- for CityGate, for example, we would have to follow the existing PUD. It has certain criteria laid out in it, but it really doesn't identify the exact location of most of the preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and theoretically, if the exact location wasn't identified for the overall preservation required by, let's say, the full 300 acres, if they took all the 300 acres up and made 150 parcels, then they would not be required to have any native preservation by this paragraph; is that -- MR. LENBERGER: No. The preservation requirement would be based on the entire PUD, and if it were subdivided, the preserve would be identified at the time the property was subdivided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But what you just said about CityGate is that it wasn't clearly shown on the Page 52 of 84 i rt f? :. x, 1f J p ♦ plan. So how would you -- MR. LENBERGER: Right. i 1612 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tell any particular 2 -acre parcel that they're the ones that have to provide for this if this language provides that they don't? MR. LENBERGER: Most of CityGate is not platted. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they've still got to come in for subdivision? MR. LENBERGER: Right. Most of it has not been platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- does that mean for others you can accumulate to the ones that aren't platted? MR. LENBERGER: I don't quite understand the way you worded that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just concerned that there's a loophole being -- MR. LENBERGER: No, the loophole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- opened up that we don't -- MR. LENBERGER: -- should have been covered by the end of this and says that the exemptions shall not apply to the overall native - vegetation- retention requirement for a PUD or subdivision used to create these parcels unless the overall native - vegetation- retention requirement for the PUD or subdivision is two acres or less. And that was trying to close the gap so that there wouldn't be a loophole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's the piece I was worried about. MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was worried about that there's -- if someone really was thinking ahead when they laid out their subdivision and cut all the parcels out of it and didn't identify exactly where the native preservation goes, then come back in and say, well, this language exempts me from it, you walk away with nothing then. MR. LENBERGER: But that last sentence covers that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you're comfortable with it, I'll accept that. Thank you, Steve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, wouldn't that really apply to -- I mean, I'm trying to do the math -- 15 percent. These are large tracts of land to hit the two acres, aren't they? I mean, it's -- if I'm reading it right and it talks about -- MR. LENBERGER: Are you talking about CityGate, or are you talking about in general? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in this requirement. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it would be, obviously, greater than five acres at 10 percent; 10 percent would be 20 acres. So this is 15; it would be a little bit less than that. So these -- that would be a large piece of land -- MR. LENBERGER: Fairly large. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for this exemption. I mean, this exemption would kick in on a large piece of land. MR. LENBERGER: It would be roughly 15 percent preservation requirement on your larger parcels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It would be two acres. MR. LENBERGER: So if 15 percent is a 2 -acre requirement, you can do the math and you can see that you're looking at at least a 10 -acre parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus, yeah. MR. LENBERGER: But most of the -- like I said, most of the industrial areas -- and I went through each one of them. I looked at the preserves for the larger ones and I looked at all the parcels. Most of them have been subdivided into very small parcels, certainly less than 10 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you had one of those small lots, we were requiring people to set aside a preserve area? MR. LENBERGER: Currently, yes, if one was not established at the time the property was platted. And you have to remember that a lot of these older subdivisions, you know, they didn't set a preserve way back when, so staff Page 53 of 84 16 12 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting has to look at each and every lot as they come in. And, literally, the preserves are postage -size stamp (sic) preserves. It's just -- in the compatibility issue addressed -- asked by the commission is very valid. And the -- for example, the automotive junkyard we looked at the preserve, and that parcel was, like, .8 acres. It's very small. It's just -- it doesn't really function that well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. This is a good thing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through Page 15? If not, let's go through Page 20. Michele? MS. MOSCA: I don't have anything through Page 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have anything through Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about -- Jeremy, you okay? Yep, unless you're getting up, we're through Page 20. MR. FRANTZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I think I have a different set of policies than you. My pages are not lining up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be through Page -- through Goal -- up to Goal 7. MR. FRANTZ: No, not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll start on Page 21 with Goal 7. That will take us through Page 25, which is to Goal 10. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, do you have any comments? MS. MOSCA: I don't, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for a change, I don't. Goal 10 through -- might as well go through the end, through Page 31. So from Goal 10 on for the rest of the project. Anybody -- Michele, you've got yours first, then we'll go to the commission, then Jeremy. MS. MOSCA: Okay. The -- Policy 10.1 point -- it's .5, or new Policy -- new policy, renumbered Policy 10.1.6. And Stephen Lenberger is going to address this particular policy and the following policy, Policy 10.1.7, and that's on Page 26. And this is the same policy, the first one; 10. 1.6 is the same policy that the Conservancy has some concerns about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, land development services department. I had spoken to Jeremy about this during the lunch break as well. The EAC wanted to insert public benefit in -- and I'm going to defer to the new numbers -- Policy 10.1.7. And subsequent to that staff met with management, and we discussed these policies, and we decided that we'd like to talk to you about it because we have difficulty implementing these. If you'll look at the policy, just stand back a minute, 10. 1.6 starts off with a statement that marinas and all other water - dependent and water- related uses shall conform to all applicable regulations regarding development in marine wetlands. Okay. They all do anyway, but it's there. The second part of that policy deals with public use, general public use. The following -- the policy following that, the 10.1.7, deals with the fiscal analysis for public benefit and financial feasibility. And I guess the first questions we would ask is the first policy, the way it was originally written, it would require water - dependent and water - related uses to provide for general public use if they destroy marine wetlands, and water - dependent and water - related uses, they're listed on Policy 10.1.1, and it includes residential development, marinas; and they're all listed there on the page. So the question is, at what point do you want to require a private facility to be open to the public? That's just one question. Another is, if you look at this, it talks about destruction of marine wetlands. I mean, we've talked about this among staff, and we get all different kinds of answers, what's destruction of marine wetlands? I mean, is that impacting a branch of a mangrove tree? Is that removing one mangrove to -- so your boardwalk can transverse through it so you can access your dock? Is that building a boardwalk through mangroves to enjoy them such as at Clam Pass? Page 54 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting You know, are these destroying the mangroves, or are these utilizing the systems? You know, you can argue both ways, you know. It's not -- what does that mean, "destroy marine wetlands "? You know -- and then how does mitigation come into a factor in that, you know, to balance -- when you go through your state and federal permitting, you know, you go through a public- interest test when you impact these systems, and you have to mitigate for their losses. So then you can argue, well, you're not destroying the system. You're mitigating for your impacts. You know, you can -- so you can see kind of a dilemma here. And then you look -- and also in 10. 1.6 it talks about general public use. I mean, what exactly do we mean general public use? If you have a marina, for example, you know, it means you can buy fuel there? Does it mean you have to have a wet slip or dry slip to allocate it to public use? Does it mean you can use your, you know, bathroom facilities? You can park in your parking lot, use that? I mean, what exactly does that mean? So these are just, you know, some of the problems we have in implementing these policies. And we'd like to get your, kind of, direction on them. You know, we can't implement them -- implement these as they're written, so we, kind of, need your direction here. The second policy, the 10.1.7, is pretty interesting. It says, "All new marinas," and I'll read the new language -- "and water - dependent and water - related uses that propose to destrov marine wetlands, the applicant shall be required to perform a fiscal analysis in order to demonstrate" -- and we crossed out "public benefit" -- "and financial feasibility of the proposed development." Well, public benefit, you know, you're going to do a fiscal analysis to demonstrate public benefit. Well, just by the fact that you have your facility, you're taking demand off public facilities and, therefore, you have a public benefit. I mean, there isn't much to demonstrate there. Financial feasibility, is that to completion of construction of the project, or is that in perpetuity? You know, I mean -- and how would you demonstrate "in perpetuity "? You know, these are all questions we have. We have difficulty implementing these policies. We'd kind of like to get your thoughts on it and maybe your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Steve, first off, the GMP doesn't implement the policy. The LDC does. So I would have assumed that the implementation of the language questions you just brought up would have been addressed in the LDC with more specific language. Apparently you're saying it's not been. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But wouldn't that be the right vehicle in which to implement the policy? MR. LENBERGER: It would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then 1 guess it comes down to how ambiguous can we get with policies such as one -- 10. 1.6 so that implementation can occur in the Land Development Code. And you pointed out some things that are concerning to you that have been, apparently, existing language and maybe for a long period of time. Have you any examples as to projects that have been controversial or created problems for the county because this language has not been implemented properly in the LDC? MR. LENBERGER: I haven't had to deal with these policies specifically, but I -- we did talk with our department director and, you know, they have -- you, obviously, have residential development creating, you know -- well, just think of all the docks you permitted, multifamily docks that impacted some mangroves. We didn't allow public use of the condominium, for example, because they impacted some mangroves, but then did they really destroy the mangroves? This is getting back to that other argument. That's just for an example. And you've seen many docks for multifamily, I'm sure you have, for extensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking us for language that would make this a little more tolerable, I guess, for staff to use. Generally that's what staff brings to us to evaluate. It seems that the situation's reversed. And I certainly don't mind coming up with language, but I wasn't prepared to provide it to you today. I reviewed the language that I thought someone provided to us in Policy 10. 1.6 as acceptable language to staff as a recommendation to move forward, and then we evaluate that. And I had circled this one in Policy 10. 1.2 with questions, some of which may be similar to yours. Did you prepare Policy 10. 1.6 changes? It used to be Policy 10.1.5. Is the strikethrough and underline your language? MR. LENBERGER: Right. Well, there was quite a bit of wordsmithing, and Michele helped there. She was Page 55 of 84 1612 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting trying to clarify a lot of these. I'm sure I had crafted some of it, but most of it was wordsmithing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why didn't you craft it in a manner that works for you? I mean, why didn't you craft language that you would tell us, this is -- clears up the problems that you previously had? MR. LENBERGER: You know, the whole issue surfaced again when the EAC last heard this, and they talked about the public benefit. And during the first hearing for the EAC and the Planning Commission, the board -- we removed "public benefit," the EAC brought it up again, and it caused staff to think more about this. And, you know, it's -- we can -- I can -- staff could go through this and give you ideas on what you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't want anything. You're telling us you can't -- you don't like the language so -- wait a minute. Don't put it on our back. You guys are supposed to come to us with language that you want us to recommend and consider for approval. I'm asking you, what is that language? And now you're telling me what's been presented to us isn't that language. MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: We're rethinking it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So can you come back with us with something that is? MR. LENBERGER: Well, we're wondering if we should even have these policies. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was my question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe that's the way we start is that we strike the policies altogether, but that's not the way it was presented in this package or in the previous meetings. MR. LENBERGER: I understand. I'm not putting it on as a topic. I'm just having this discussion. I think it's a good discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I just want to make sure we understand where you're going, because I thought you -all wanted to change the policy by the mere fact it was given to us. And if you want to eliminate the policy, I would have suggested you started with a complete strikethrough. MR. BOSI: And from the beginning the understanding was we needed the -- we were having trouble implementing what that meant, the public benefit of making these decisions. So we felt that the elimination of those components within these policies would eliminate us having to make those arbitrary determinations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, what does it eliminate with implementation language in the LDC in which we have to use to review water- dependent uses like docks and things like that? Because we don't -- right now we're finding a lot of problems with our dock - implementation language. We have constant discussions about all kinds of things that we feel should have been there that aren't. I don't want to cut this out and then, in return, the corresponding section of the LDC gets dropped and find out we have less issues -- more problems and less ability to understand what they are. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But didn't you say, Paul (sic), that there were no LDC requirements -- MR. LENBERGER: There's no -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- to in fact -- MR. LENBERGER: Not specific to these policies, correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I see no benefit in having policies that, number one, you have no implementation language, okay, and, two, you don't even quite understand the benefit yourself. I mean, I would be all in favor of eliminating these policies, both of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to jump into it that fast. I didn't review this under the idea that it was going to be completely eliminated, so I'd want to see a fallback position on what's left. And I -- really, myself, I need to sit down and take a look at these policies as elimination rather than a change. And I understand -- thank you for your frank explanation as to why it's bothersome for you, and I understand why it is. But this whole document, the GMP is an ambiguous policy - riddled document that has all kinds of ambiguous statements in it that are simply supposed to be cleared up through implementation. And the fact this one hasn't been or isn't sufficiently is where the concern is. And I think that's David Week's fault. Oh, there he is standing up there. David, I love it when you jump in. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. For the record, David Weeks in comprehensive planning section. Page 56 of 84 i 161 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amen ments" meeting Commissioners, I think it's -- Steve touched on the issues. I want to add -- go a little bit further on one of those. And I think it's clear the direction of this Planning Commission is you guys, staff, go back and bring us back something to vote on, not throw a bunch of questions at us. The notion of providing for general public use for these facilities is problematic for private facilities or private developments. Imagine a private gated community that has a marina or has a multifamily -- has a multi -slip docking facility. And if we're implementing this policy to say that that private development has to be available for general public use, you know, Steve's already touched on, does that mean one boat slip, does it mean one parking spot -- space, does it mean use of their restroom facilities? I mean, you could go on and on with what potentially that means, but at some point it means letting the public have access to a private facility. And then that raises the question, what about liability? You know, this is my private development, but now I've got to let the public come in. Now I've invited more liability as well. And then you get into the whole -- if you cross that threshold, then we do get into that, what is the magnitude? Is it one slip? Is it all the slips? And is it fuel sales? Is it -- all the details of just how far that goes or how narrow it's constricted. But one thing I want to emphasize here is we're talking about what, from my perspective, is an extreme, and that is by saying allowing for a development that destroys marine wetlands. Not impacts; destroys. And whatever definition we come up with, to me that suggests an impact to the greatest extreme. And my thought would be that that marine wetland or that part of it that is destroyed no longer has function, as opposed to it being impacted by trimming a mangrove or cutting down a path of mangroves, but still having the same elevation, still having the tidal influence underneath, say, that boardwalk that might be built. So if we're going to the extreme of saying you destroy, the marine wetland in this area is gone, then maybe it is appropriate to go to the opposite extreme and say you will allow public use of this facility; whereas, somewhere in the middle, if you're impacting it, well, okay, impact, but not destroying it, so you've affected the functionality but you've not stopped it, then the county does not go to that extreme and say you must allow the public some use to whatever degree that is, but you must allow the public to have some use. That's the perspective I have. And I know at some of the stafl'discussions we've seen that distinction between destroy versus impact. And if you go to one extreme of destroy, then, yes, maybe it is appropriate to go to the other extreme and say you've got to open up your doors to whatever -- you know, however wide that doors' open to allow the public to come in and use your facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? Oh, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, my first question would be, there's already processes in place through the state that -- that handle if you're impacting wetlands or -- and mitigation as well. And then I think it goes back to the -- what right does the county have to -- I mean, you're effectively taking private property by forcing public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and then -- she touches on a subject that I was involved with for -- a while back, and that is some submerged land leases from the State of Florida. It wasn't possible to get a submerged land lease at the time without having a commitment to a certain portion or a certain percentage to public use. So if you had 50 slips, 10 had to be for public use or some number like that and such. So I think the state does address in the fact that you have to get a submerged land lease for most of your marine operations so -- those that aren't owned wetland bottoms, the public participation side of it, and that may be a consideration in how you write any future language for these two policies, because it may be partially, if not all, addressed in that manner. Because if they own the bottom lands, the state doesn't touch it. But if it's a submerged land use, the state does require -- at least they used to -- public participation. So, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, this objective is really controlling the use of the land on the shoreline and essentially giving preference to water - related uses, which -- over land -based water uses. So what would the water - related dependent uses be? Would that be like a fishing area or a dock system for fishing boats, and then the other one would be the marina for the private club? MR. WEEKS: Steve, I'm going to jump in in part. Policy 10.1.1 lists water - dependent and water - related uses. I wouldn't say it's all inclusive, but it does list them and give the priority for them. The statutory definition of water- dependent use is rather narrow and limited. It would include marinas, it includes water taxis, it includes hydroelectric power facilities, and I think there's maybe a couple of more. Page 57 of 84 "Special "I 1/26/2012 CCPC "S p In our reading of the statutory definition of water dependent, at least in our -- so far in our local experience marina is the only use that falls under Collier County. We don't have hydroelectric power, we don't have water taxis, and those other few that were listed in the statutes. Water dependent also is defined in statutes, and I forget what that is exactly now, but it certainly is more broad. And then again in that list in Policy 10.1.1 you see a variety of land uses that, here at our local Growth Management Plan, we have identified as either water dependent or water related, and then the priority for how we should treat the approval of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So a marina, private or public, is a water dependent, which gets the highest priority? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, have you guys ever thought of looking at 10.1.6, 10.1.7 as a means to create or incentivize the participation by the public in those elements under 10.1.1? So in 10.1.1 you list all the certain water - dependent and water - related facilities and uses. In 10.1.6. and 10. 1.7 you want to make them available to the public to some extent, but you don't provide an incentivization to do it. You provide a demand to do it. Why don't we look at incentivizing -- ways to incentivize it to be done so that when -- people coming in, they want to give a percentage up to the public because it has a certain benefit to them. Maybe that would be the way to turn the language around to something beneficial, kind of like we've done in other categories in these documents. I mean -- MR. WEEKS: That's a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it might be easier than demanding something of the private sector because -- and I certainly agree with the staff position on 10.1.7. 1 don't know how you would do a fiscal analysis on the public benefit. I think the fiscal analysis is done by private individuals on their private properties. So -- then the fact that it was covered in 10. 1.6 still gets you into the public process. But if we're going to change all this language and we're going to -- and we have a list of what we consider the uses we're prioritizing, why don't we just incentivize those as we incentivized other items we want as a priority? And leave that as the way to get to the public- benefit use. It's just a suggestion, but I think that this -- these two policies, based on what we've heard, definitely need to be rewritten. But I'm going to leave that up to you guys. If you want this board to rewrite it, you may not like the outcome as much as if you rewrite it you can understand it better. MS. MOSCA: And we would suggest the same, that we would come back with some revised language and possibly some implementing LDRs at a later date in order to define some of the terms in here that are ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would suggest you do that at a regular Planning Commission meeting prior to the -- going to the Board of County Commissioners so we could weigh in on it like we're doing with the housing one. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? Does that work for everybody? Jeremy, I'm sure you're following this. So whether it works or not, that's what we're going to do. David, does that get you there? MR. WEEKS: Sure. I did want to make one more comment. As far as incentive, that's something we'll have to think about. How do you incentivize certain types of developments? But I will say that the Future Land Use Element already allows for water- dependent and water - related uses in the urban mixed -use district as opposed to the usual rigid category of commercial, certain nonresidential uses, industrial residential, and what the density allowances are. It broadly allows water - dependent and water - related uses. Point being that a marina is a C4 zoning - district use, but you don't have to have a land -use designation that would allow commercial uses. Because it's a water- dependent use, the Future Land Use Element would allow for that use to exist in a waterfront location without otherwise complying with commercial locational criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the idea of incentivization was one just to throw on the table as a means to rewrite it if it helps get there. I mean, if you guys have abetter rewrite, I'd just as soon you approach us with whatever was -- best works for you -all so we can see where it is you're trying to go, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that would come back to us with some proposed implementation, Page 58 of 84 kt 16 12 A 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting Land Development Code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be after the EAR's done, yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, that was my concern, having a policy without the appropriate LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, with all that -- what happens is after the EAR and other GMP changes are done, then we have to do the LDC amendments that go with them. MS. MOSCA: And, Mr. Chairman, we could -- if that's the decision that staff concludes, we could also provide within that policy the standard language, within X period of time staff will develop implementing Land Development Code regulations to address those items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Steve, sorry I called you Paul. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on finishing up this element Page -- through Page 31. Does anybody else have any other questions? Michele, did you have any other issues? MS. MOSCA: I don't see any as of yet. If we want to go ahead to questions by the board, and I'll just double -check my notes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Policy 10.2.1 on Page 26 and the top of Page 27, it talks about existing public -beach access shall be maintained and new beachfront development will show on their site plans existing beach access ways, and the proposed development shall continue that access way relocated on site as deemed appropriate by the county or donated to the county. How would -- how would decisions like that be made? I mean, if a developer comes in and doesn't like where the beach access is and he wants to move it, and if deemed -- it has to be deemed appropriate by the county, does that mean it's done in a public process, or how's it done? MS. MOSCA: It refers to Site Development Plan, so I'm assuming it's done administratively, but I don't know for sure. I would have to check with Parks and Recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason I'm concerned is we have certain beach - access locations now, and if they were ever -- and some of them are on private properties. I didn't know how easily they could move them around, so -- Steve? MR. LENBERGER: Stephen Lenberger. The -- as far as I know, the -- they are easements already, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: -- yeah, they're recorded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd have to stay in place? MR. LENBERGER: They'd have to stay within the easement or create another easement for a different location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 28 -- oh, that was already -- we already did Dan, so we're done. That's all I've got. Jeremy, did you have any other issues that you didn't -- that we didn't touch on? MR. FRANTZ: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. The backup supporting material, why don't we just take it as a whole? Does anybody have -- let's thumb through it. Does anybody have any questions or notes from that that they want to ask? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to address this for Conservancy, but we did Policy 7.1.2, which is on Page 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: It addresses the habitat for the black bears. And my understanding is that the Conservancy is okay with the language we have on Page 21. And I'll defer to Conservancy staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Boy, Michele's being nice to you today, Jeremy. You're lucky. MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz with the Conservancy again. I had actually thought I would just withhold comment because we got more information from staff during Page 59 of 84 161 A4 ' 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EA Amendments" meeting lunch, and we are just going to take some time to continue working with staff so that we get a little bit more clarity of -- about how that policy works out, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if it doesn't work out, let us know at the next convenient time. MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works for us. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we're done with the CCME, then. And, Michele, there's a lot of staff members here. I'd like to resolve what issues they're waiting for first since we only have three or four elements to go through. Is there anything in particular? Dave, okay. What's he -- oh, he's waiting for the whole thing, isn't he? MS. MOSCA: I think we should do the Public School Facility Element first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You want to leave. She wants to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't blame her. This is the dryest -- one of -- these kind of meetings are dry to say the least, so -- let's move to the last element, jump to that so we can get rid of some staff and let them out of here, and that's the Public School Facilities Element. And there's only three pages to it with backup. So why don't we start with any questions anybody has with any of it. Michele, do you have any clarification from any group that you'd like to tell us about? MS. MOSCA: I don't, thank you. And there were actually no comments from this particular body at the October workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I don't have any either. Tom Eastman objects to the whole thing, but that's -- I'm sure -- no? MR. EASTMAN: I have no objections, just a small comment. For the backup materials on Page 1, it's the fourth paragraph in, that information may be dated with the exception of the last sentence. And I had spoken with Michele about it, and she said this was just backup material that at the time was correct, but maybe that could be refreshed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's no questions on the Public School Facilities Element, then I guess we're done with it. Thank you, Michele -- oh, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question of Tom. In listening to the emergency management -- and they're saying there are no schools planned to be built. The two of you worked on that together. Is that how you do your emergency and -- within the schools to be built? Do you have anything within the next five years? MR. EASTMAN: No, not according to our capital plan, but we revisit the capital plan each and every year. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: And that capital plan is presented in a coordinated fashion with the county, and you'd definitely be apprised of any new construction and, yes, we do a good job of working with Mr. Summers and making sure that, you know, we work together to create synergies for the taxpayer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michele. Now, we've got three elements left. Who is here for -- let's go to the shorter ones. The Economic Element, is anybody here for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, is anybody here for that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're all here for the FLUE, so we'll move right into it. Terri, I was going to wait another 15, 20 minutes. Is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Future Land Use Element. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, excuse me. Do we have to do the Intergovernmental Coordination Element? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did I skip that one? Page 60 of 84 t fi A4 a . ' _J .,k,. 1612 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry about that, guys. How about the Intergovernmental Coordination Element first? Thank you, Phil. It was such a short one, I -- MS. VALERA: Thank you, Mr. Brougham. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All your work for nothing, huh? It's only three pages, so does anybody have anything on the Intergovernmental Coordination Element? Either that or the backup. The backup is only four pages, so it kind of slipped in quietly. I know we had some discussion about this on the Lost Grove Mine. But after seeing some of the activities of some of the other governments, I like what Collier County's doing. So I can't say I got a complaint about it. Anybody else have anything on that section? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Cooperate, but not copy, is that what you meant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, definitely not copy. So we're a much better run county than our one to the north, that's for sure. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I remember that one of the things they were talking about was neighborhood information meetings where you have a development that's straddling the line. Right now there's no requirement to notify the neighbors if they're in another county, and we were saying that maybe we should incorporate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a -- is that a notification -- a requirement of the GMP or the Land Development Code? MS. VALERA: That's within the Land Development Code. We have a whole section in regards to how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when we come forward with the land - development amendments, which we're preparing to do, that might be pointed out, reminded by staff to talk to us about so we take a look at it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Because that's important. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because staff said, well, we -- we didn't have -- nobody told us we had to let the neighbors know in Lee County, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think LDC, we can get that fixed, and that's the shorter way to fix it actually, so -- okay. Anybody else on the ICE, or IG, whatever it's spelled? MS. VALERA: ICE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ICE, I -C -E. Okay. Thank you, Carolina. That's all you were here for? MS. VALERA: That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, lucky you. MS. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go back to the FLUE. And we'll take them five pages at a time again. Does anybody have any -- David, did you have anything as we went along, or are you just going to respond as we have concerns? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, comprehensive planning section. Commissioners, I'd just as soon let you go along, at least until we get to a point, I think, near the end with the Coastal High Hazard Area changes, at whatever point we come to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Your new maps have brought in some questions that I know we're probably going to have, so we'll -- when we get there. Okay. Pages 1 through 5 anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, David, did you want to read in that change on the Housing Element. MR. WEEKS: Sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Why don't we go ahead and take care of that. MR. WEEKS: Okay. To backtrack to the Housing Element, Commissioners, one of the policies you discussed -- excuse me. It's Objective 7, which will be Page 5 of that element, of the Housing Element. Page 61 of 84 f 1612 A 4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: We're going to housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going back to Page 5 of the Housing Element, just -- MR. WEEKS: This has a correlation to the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's what triggered our finding it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And you see some language being modified there pertaining to mobile homes allowed to be placed in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The -- there's a problem here, and that is that the base language used in Objective 7 is old. The existing, in -effect Objective 7 already provides that no new mobile home -- excuse me. No new rezones to allow mobile homes will be allowed in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and that correlates with the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay in the Future Land Use Element. So basically this Objective 7 was being modified to not allow new mobile home development in the Coastal High Hazard Area but, in fact, the objective already contains that prohibition. So what staff needs to do -- and I've discussed this with Heidi and also with Michele, who is the assigned planner for the Housing Element -- we simply need to remove this Objective 7 proposed language change. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can you put up on the visualizer for everybody the language that -- how it would read. So the way --what you previously saw earlier today restricted new mobile homes. This just restricts new rezones. So you can't go from ag and do anew rezone to mobile home in that area. But if you're already zoned for it and you want to rezone it to what you already have without increasing the intensity, you can do that. It doesn't affect that. Just no new rezones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So if you can already be there, you can be there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're jumping ahead of when this comes up in the FLUE, but since you have, I guess it's pertinent to ask concerns about it. I looked at your new Coastal High Hazard Area Map and at your old one. You're bringing in a lot of new acreage in the CHHA. And by this language, you'd be eliminating the potential for ag to go to mobile homes. So what kind of property rights are you infringing upon by doing that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, if you were in the ag and you already have a mobile home or can have a mobile home, you can do it. You just can't rezone to add a mobile -home community, is my understanding. David, is that yours? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. It would -- this does not impact existing zoning. If you're zoned mobile home or if you're zoned VR, which allows mobile -home units, or if you're zoned agricultural with a mobile -home overlay, your existing zoning allows you to have mobile homes. That is not being affected by the change to the Future Land Use Element. What it -- what the existing language in the Future Land Use Element and this housing objective provides is that you cannot rezone property to a zoning district -- from a zoning district that doesn't allow mobile homes to a new zoning district that does allow mobile homes if you're in the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's already in effect. Now, the difference in changing the map to move that coastal- high- hazard boundary inward means that now more properties are going to be subject to that restriction or prohibition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But it's strictly the new rezones then? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that doesn't -- all -- now that -- okay. We've got a whole'nother couple issues with the movement of that line when we get to it. But I understand this one now. So mobile homes, if it's -- as long as you have an A/MHO or -- you're okay -- or dash MHO, you're still okay to go. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, would this affect the use of mobile homes and other kinds of things other than a development? I assume a mobile -home development is somebody laying out a nice little mobile -home park, amenities, and everything else. But what if -- we may have some emergency programs where mobile homes will be brought to existing residences during storm repair, stuff like that. This would no way affect that? MR. WEEKS: It would not affect that. It would not affect the LDC provision that -- I believe it's still in Page 62 of 84 6 AA gal Amendments" meeting 1 /26/2012 CCPC pec g place -- that we are allowed to have a temporary mobile home while you're constructing a house -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Caretaker. MR. WEEKS: -- would not affect that item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's purely a development, and those would not be considered development. MR. WEEKS: It's purely rezoning to a zoning district that allows for that development. We purposely worded it that way back in, I think, 2007 to make sure that we -- that the intent was to stop the rezoning, not to keep someone from having a mobile home on their property that already has the zoning that allows them to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any objection to the changes shown on the screen for Objective 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we're good. You know, I noticed, by the way, when you do -- when you do amendments for the GM -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, sorry. The clarification is that this -- what I had on the visualizer is the existing Objective 7. So the change that we're making is to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go back to the existing. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Is to remove from your EAR document for the Housing Element any changes to Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Leave as -is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just noticed -- and it's something I just wanted to ask about. You use Roman numerals to show changes in the GMP. Just out of curiosity, why? I mean, as time goes on, when you get bigger and bigger, I mean, Roman numerals run out in a string. Why wouldn't you just use regular numbers? MR. WEEKS: That goes back to the original plan adoption in 1989 and the first set of amendments. And staff made that decision at that point, or staff or someone made that decision at that point in time. I can tell you that we are finding, administratively, regardless of what type of actual numbers we use, some sections of the plan or policies get amended so many times that it's getting pretty long, and so we're either going way out into the margin to show those change footnotes or we're pushing the beginning of the provision or policy further to the right on the page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Roman numerals will get you there quicker; that's why I was wondering why we're going that direction. I mean, the little footnotes we have on our zoning atlas and numbers like that, they work real good, but I guess -- oh, well. MR. WEEKS: Well, one thing, too, I'll -- just a sidenote -- well, comment about that -- is Roman numerals, I think, are easier to distinguish and less likely to cause an error. If you have two ones or for 11, or one and two, is it one comma two, or is it 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got different supplements or addendums, it would be one comma two. If it's addendum 12, it would be one, two, wouldn't it? MR. WEEKS: I'm talking about errors in typing and whatnot, but that's the thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Roman numerals is easier to make an error than numbers. MR. WEEKS: Oh, well. I'll give up while I'm behind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages -- back to the FLUE. Pages 1 through 5, does anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have anything on the first five pages? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Policy 4.7, there's an added language about redevelopment. "Such redevelopment plans may only be prepared by the county or its agents unless otherwise authorized by the Board of County Commissioners." What is the intention of that? MR. WEEKS: It's to preclude something that happened, or at least was discussed at one point in time, and that's where someone comes in with a rezoning petition located within one of these identified redevelopment areas and says, my rezoning petition is a redevelopment plan which, in my opinion, is hogwash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us what you really think, David. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. Page 63 of 84 A It 1612 A4 ; 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MR. WEEKS: Redevelopment plan is broader, more encompassing. It doesn't involve just one piece of property. It typically involves a general area, an identified area, not a parcel -by- parcel private - property- owner - initiated action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a private - property owner couldn't go in and accumulate a series of parcels and then come in under a plan of redevelopment for it; it would have to be a PUD or something else? MR. WEEKS: But they could come in for a redevelopment plan, but they need board authorization first. That's what this says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, how does a redevelopment plan in that particular place differ from a PUD? MR. WEEKS: Well, at least in our experience. Here the redevelopment plan is more general and more broad in terms; whereas, the zoning document is very specific as to exactly what actions can and cannot happen. Think about our community redevelopment areas both in Immokalee and the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle area. The redevelopment plan is much more general; it talks about maybe incentives. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It's a planning document, not a regulatory document, like zoning is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the redevelopment plan by an agency creates a bureaucracy, as we've certainly done with our CRAB. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A redevelopment plan by a developer may not do such, but we're restricting them from being able to do that, it seems. MR. WEEKS: Well, we're saying that it needs to be board sanctioned if you're going to do that. And it doesn't necessarily mean you have to have a CRA -- you know, an agency. But if you're going to create a redevelopment plan, then the board should give sanction to that before you start. MR. BOSI: And I think it's more of the utilization of the term "redevelopment plan." Yeah, they're doing a redevelopment of the process, but it's not an official redevelopment plan. I mean, the only way that we can start with both of our CRAB is the first criteria, key criteria, is that it has to be finding of blight for that designation for that area. And there's a lot of specifics you have to go through to get -- for an individual private developer to go underneath that umbrella, there would have to be more specificity to the plans than what normally would be proposed during a PUD. So I think it's more of -- to be able to label yourself as an official redevelopment plan is kind of what this distinction is trying to clarify for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 6 through 11. Anybody have anything on those pages? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, this is probably where I should jump in because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- on the elephant in the room, the Coastal High Hazard Area changes, because there -- first of all, state statutes require us to depict the Coastal High Hazard Area on the Future Land Use Map, and statute, within Chapter 163, does discourage development within the Coastal High Hazard Area, but it does not prohibit it. I just want to be clear that the state is not coming in and saying, Collier County, you need to amend your density rating system or other provisions in your Growth Management Plan to limit density here. It is not specifically saying that. That is a county- generated idea first in the EAR and then now in these amendments with specificity. There are, I think, four -- broadly four impacts of the change to the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. The biggest is the change to the density rating system, which applies to rezonings of property, upzonings of the property, because the density rating system provides for what is the allowed base density for a given piece of property based on its location, and then what is the additional density that could be granted through various bonus provisions. A second provision or impact is what we just touched on a few moments ago, and that is that within the Coastal High Hazard Area, new rezonings to allow mobile -home development are prohibited. Thirdly, there's a provision that pertains to vegetation- retention requirements in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Specifically it's Policy 6.1.1. Properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area, residential and mixed -use development only, have a greater vegetation- retention requirement than if they're outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area. And so the effect of a property being moved into the Coastal High Hazard Area for a residential or mixed -use Page 64 of 84 e A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Spell OR ments meeting project will increase from 10 percent of the site up to as much as 25 percent of the site for properties two- and -a -half acres in size up to just shy of 20 acres in size. And then the fourth is something that is very narrow in applicability, but it's a provision in the Capital Improvements Element that -- I think it's the CIE -- that all new sewer facilities within the Coastal High Hazard Area must be floodproof, and a couple other things specific to sanitary sewer facilities. But those are the -- broadly the four impacts upon properties that are placed within the Coastal High Hazard Area. But the biggest one, most particularly for the private - property rights perspective, is the changes to density. The Traffic Congestion Area is an existing density- reduction provision right now in the Future Land Use Element. For all properties in the Traffic Congestion Area, they're subject to a one - unit - per -acre reduction from the eligible base density of four units per acre. So if you're looking to rezone your property, usually from ag to some type of residential zoning, you start at eligible density of four units per acre. Now you're going to drop to three. All of the properties east of the City of Naples that are within the Traffic Congestion Area -- no, I need to say that differently. All of the properties that as a result of this new Coastal High Hazard Area lying east of the City of Naples are already within the Traffic Congestion Area. So requiring those properties to be subject to a one - unit - per -acre reduction is a wash. You're -- in the TCA today, Traffic Congestion Area, you're subject to the one- unit - per -acre reduction. With these amendments, you'll be within the Coastal High Hazard Area -- some of these properties -- and you're subject to one unit per acre. We're changing the lettering, but the bottom line is, you're subject to one unit per acre yesterday and you will be tomorrow if these amendments are approved. A greater impact, though, will be that we're taking the remaining density bonuses that are presently applicable within the Coastal High Hazard Area and we're saying they are no longer applicable. So that, additionally, removes some potential density for properties that are being moved into the Coastal High Hazard Area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are removing that? MR. WEEKS: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you are removing that portion? MR. WEEKS: Correct. So we're eliminating density bonuses from the Coastal High Hazard Area without exception. Some of the bonuses already are not applicable there, but we're changing that to say none of them will be. On the ground -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're working through Page 10. Could you refer us to what paragraph you're starting to talk about. MR. WEEKS: Certainly, the first is on Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The prelude to my statement is where I was having -- I kind of figured you went past the first 10 pages, but I didn't know you were already there. So can you direct us as to where you're specifically going? MR. SCHMIDT: It may only be in your agenda, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 12, probably, right? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Eleven and twelve. MR. WEEKS: Starts on 11, Paragraphs B and C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: No. Actually, it starts at the very top. Top of Page 11 is a continuation of Paragraph A, conversion of commercial zoning bonus. And you can see the added sentence precludes the applicability of that bonus within the Coastal High Hazard Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And in Paragraph B, same thing, that's for density bands; not applicable in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Same thing for Paragraph C, affordable /workforce housing bonus; not applicable in the Coastal High Hazard Area. Moving over to Page 12 -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: David, if I may. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. Page 65 of 84 t 612 A4 z 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It might be helpful if you'd give them your visual so they can kind of get an overall of what do we have now and what is being proposed. MR. WEEKS: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And why are we moving along. I would start with that first. MR. WEEKS: Okay. The handout that was provided to you should have been delivered to you last Friday, the 19th. The first map I want to put up on the visualizer, or Corby will, is Coastal High Hazard Area work map, an 11 -by -17 map that was distributed to you last -- on the 19th. That map shows a few different boundaries that are relevant to our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the wrong one, Corby. I think it's the one with the green, blue, and red lines. MR. WEEKS: Now, the green line is the existing Coastal High Hazard Area boundary; the red line is the proposed generalized Coastal High Hazard Area boundary; the yellow shading represents the precise location of the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So -- MR. WEEKS: And then the blue intermittent dash/dotted line is The Traffic Congestion Area boundary. And so from there you can see what I was referring to earlier that all of these properties that are yellow now, that's the new Coastal High Hazard Area, are already within the traffic congestion -- they're already seaward of the Traffic Congestion Area, the blue dashed line, where you're south and east of the City of Naples. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So to make sure that you understand is -- the county already has a CHA line, and that's what's shown in green, and it's also a requirement in the state law, Chapter 163, that you designate that line. And what's happened is the RPC has issued a new line, and so David is showing you where the new line would be depicted on the map. But today we also have -- we've got the minus -one density reduction in the CHA today, David; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct, for Traffic Congestion Area, density reduction of one unit, correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But for CHA is there one, or no? M. WEEKS: There is no density reduction for being in the Coastal High Hazard Area today. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But all of those properties east of the City of Naples that are in the Coastal High Hazard Area happen to be within the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not quite. The one by Davis and Radio isn't. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Dave, just to make sure I understand is we're -- in the traffic area you back down one unit per acre, but can you build that back with density bonuses? MR. WEEKS: Some bonuses are applicable in the Traffic Congestion Area and some are not. It's a mixed bag. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what we're saying now in the coastal high hazard, we're going to back down one acre -- or one unit per acre, and you cannot build back. MR. WEEKS: Correct, that's the proposal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's different. Because remember when you said that that area east of Naples, which is -- it's actually east of the line, you mean, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is different, because even though they do lose an acre, they have the potential to build it back. MR. WEEKS: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the coastal high hazard, they don't. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, David, your statement earlier, east of the City -- look where your blue line intersects Davis Boulevard and Airport- Pulling Road. MR. WEEKS: They're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And look at that rectangle that's outside of it, and it's -- but it is -- and it's outside of the old CHHA, but it's now in a new CHHA, but it's outside the Traffic Congestion Area. How have we -- I mean, Page 66 of 84 .r 16 12'' A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting isn't that a -- what do we do with that? See what one I'm talking about? MR. WEEKS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, I think David is really trying to do good planning and promote a -- you know, prepare for what will come in the future. Now, from the legal side, you know, we share some very serious concerns over exposure that the county would have. I still have very significant legal concerns. I think David ought to present what he's proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Make clear to you -all what he believes the impacts are, and then make clear to you what is required and what is not and whether there are alternatives, like what is required is the boundary be set. What is required is that the county at least look into some mitigation, but it doesn't specify what the mitigation would be and how you'd get there. So he's proposing one form of mitigation, which is to remove some of the eligibility of density in this area which, from a property- rights standpoint, I've some very serious concerns over the county's exposure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get into all that, I've just realized we've run Terri now for almost two hours, which is beyond what we normally do, and I think the next discussion's going to get lengthy. So why don't we take a break and come back at 10 after three, and we'll resume at that point. And, by the way, our intention is still to resolve this before five minutes to five tonight, okay. Ten after three. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from the break. And we started out with the -- we were getting into the FLUE, and David was making his presentation, and we lost two members because of that. So Brad Schiffer and Melissa Ahern have had to leave, and now, David, we'll see how many other people you can scare off here, so -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I want to back up and first explain what the Coastal High Hazard Area is, most particularly because we have some new members, but also it's been a while, I think, since we've dealt with this issue, a few months at least. The Coastal High Hazard Area is defined as the area subject to storm surge from a Category 1 hurricane. That's the definition. Heidi mentioned the RPC earlier, the Regional Planning Council; Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council in Fort Myers has a model, and they -- a computer model which generates the Coastal High Hazard Area, and that's where this yellow shading that you see on your maps came from. And as was stated earlier, we are required by state law to identify the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary on our Future Land Use Map, but we are not required -- there is no specific requirement as to how we treat development or development potential within that Coastal High Hazard Area. There's just a general discouragement of development within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and it's because of concerns for putting property and lives in harm's way. Presently, there's, I think, two -- I think it's two density bonuses that are not applicable within the Coastal High Hazard Area, and it follows that rationale of we don't want to be encouraging more development to occur within this area that is subject to storm surge and, therefore, potential damage to or loss of property and lives. So that safety concern is the rationale that staff has for proposing to remove the density bonuses within the Coastal High Hazard Area and to impose the density reduction of one unit per acre. Chainnan Strain, you've pointed out correctly that I misspoke earlier when I said that all of the properties lying east and south of the City of Naples that are within the Traffic Congestion Area -- I'm still saying it wrong. All of the properties that will newly be added to the Coastal High Hazard Area are already within the Traffic Congestion Area, and there's one exception, and that is roughly the west half of Section 1, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, that runs from Radio Road south to Davis Boulevard. And if you look on the Coastal High Hazard Area work map, the one that was on the visualizer a few moments ago, you'll see the blue dashed line representing the Coastal High Hazard Area, and to the right or to the east of it you'll see some yellow shadowing. So that's new property within the Coastal High Hazard Area that is not presently within the Traffic Congestion Area. So those properties would be newly subject to a one - unit - per -acre density- reduction factor in addition to also being subject to no longer being eligible for certain density bonuses. Page 67 of 84 i , M A4 4 1612 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting On the visualizer is the zoning map showing the north half of that Section 1. And the properties that are shaded yellow are all zoned "E" estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the --just so we get orientation so when you talk about this map, where's Davis Boulevard --where's Radio Road on this map? That's the north half. Radio should be on the uppermost side of it. MR. WEEKS: Yes. Radio Road is at the top of the map where my pen is at here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but you don't -- you need to zoom out. MR. WEEKS: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's everything from where your pen is at south, not just the ones with the yellow? MR. WEEKS: Yes. From the top of the map where my pen is at, Radio Road, all the way down to -- where my pen is at, that's labeled as North Road. Now, there's another zoning map that will go another half section down to Davis Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The reason I shaded these in yellow -- and this is Donna Street where my pen is pointing to now, roughly the half section line in an east/west direction. Those are all zoned estates. Those are properties that reasonably, one could think at least, might come in for a rezoning, upzoning to a higher residential density. They at least are eligible to do so. These other properties within this westerly half of the section are already zoned commercial or commercial PUD or a light industrial PUD. I made the judgment call that I think it's rather unlikely those properties are going to pursue a residential rezoning. They're all zoned commercial or industrial, and they're all developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So just those estates zoned --those estates lots are at risk? MR. WEEKS: Yes. And I have the zoning map for the south half of that section. And I similarly made a judgment call that I did not believe those properties were likely to pursue a rezoning. Davis Boulevard at the bottom of the map, Airport- Pulling Road over here to the west, and roughly this line here would represent where the new coastal high hazard boundary would be located. So it's these properties from Airport- Pulling Road east to about the half - section line. And here you see property zoned RMF6, multifamily PUD here, more RMF6 zoning, C4 and 5 commercial zoning along Davis Boulevard and Airport- Pulling Road, and then RSF4 zoning within this area here. Properties are platted; they're zoned; they're developed. Again, I think it's rather unlikely that the commercial properties would pursue a residential rezoning both from a perspective of presumed land value and use value of -- as commercial versus residential, secondly because of the relatively small size of these individual parcels and their frontage on multi -laned divided highways. The residential zoning here is already at six units per acre. At most -- under current conditions, at most these properties could rezone up to 7 units per acre. But these are individual platted single - family lots, and they're developed. So, again, I think it's highly unlikely that there's going to be a rezoning to try to increase the density. Same thing for the RSF4 zoning over here because of, again, the zoning, platting, and development pattern. Someone would have to buy up a large number of lot -- well, buy up a number of lots to initiate a zoning change, and I just think that's unlikely because of the development pattern that's there and potential compatibility concerns of significantly increasing density. I mean, that's my opinion. Certainly, persons could disagree with that. I also have zoning maps identifying the other properties that potentially would be affected. And let me give you some numbers first. In the memo distributed on the 19th, I mentioned a figure of approximately 222 acres and I think it was 52 parcels that potentially could be impacted by these changes, and that includes properties in the coastal urban area that is from the edge of the urban boundary, which is along 41 east, about two- and -a -half miles east of Collier Boulevard westward, but also including the Copeland urban area. This zoning map is of a portion of the Lely Country Club PUD, so we're north of U.S. 41 East, and we're west of the Lely Resort area. Now, these blue properties are county owned and ones owned by East Naples Fire District. But for the privately owned, this is Warren Street here. This is the -- at least historically was known as the Lely Wastewater Treatment Plant. It may be known as the South Regional at this point. I'm not sure. Warren Street, there's Little League ballfields on this "P" zoned property. This yellow property here you can see it's labeled 1.87 acres. It's owned by the, I believe, Forest Hills Country Club, which is the golf course over here. Page 68 of 84 � 1/26/2012 CCPC "Sp E m ment " tmg It's a golf maintenance facility. And, once again, my professional opinion is, I think it's highly unlikely that property would pursue a rezoning to increase density. And if it did, I think it's not likely to go beyond three units per acre. Again, my opinion. This property here, it's a little over 10 acres, privately owned, just east of -- south and east of St. Andrews Boulevard. And if you jump over off the zoning map, you're at the western edge of Lely Resort PUD /DRI, which wraps around this area some here. This is forested wetland habitat. This -- to the east of this property and southeast is large preserve area within the Lely Resort PUD and DRI. And because of the habitat there, forested wetland, my professional opinion is I think it's unlikely to see that pursue a rezone to residential above the three units per acre that would be allowed if these regulations change as proposed. But, again, that's my opinion. There's only about three or four more maps, Commissioners. Well, maybe five. I'm eliminating the maps that have government -owned properties because I don't think there's any concern over those. Here we have U.S. 41 East and Collier Boulevard. In this blue area is the southerly portion of the Marco Lakes reservoir, the large pit that provides a water - supply source, potable water for the City of Marco Island. There's seven parcels; they go off onto the next zoning map, but they run from this entranceway here to the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD over to the canal that is shown on the map here, then continues across U.S. 41 East to the south and eventually runs into the Henderson Creek. These properties are approximately 400 feet in depth off of U.S. 41 East, and this one here is about 200 feet in width, so these others will be, I guess, about 100 feet. The largest, then, is about 200 by 400. Again, I think it's highly unlikely -- they're fronting on U.S. 41. I think it's highly unlikely that we're going to -- we would see those properties pursuing a residential rezone. My best guess is they might come in for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for commercial zoning in the future or pursue development under a conditional use allowed in the ag zoning district or some other non -- some other zoning district that allows uses that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And now the area with the largest both number of parcels and acres that would be impacted, and this also -- potentially impact -- well, impacted by the regulations. And this is also an area where Habitat for Humanity owns two parcels. And you know Margie Student's here on their behalf today. Here's U.S. 41 East again. This is Section 12, Township 51 south, Range 26 east. This section is the easternmost portion of the Coastal Urban Designated Area. Looking on the Future Land Use Map, you jump to the east of this section, and you're now in the rural fringe area. And this is the north half of the section, and you can see there's several parcels in here, and then on the south half of the section, several more properties. Again, U.S. 41 East lying here. For all of these properties -- and it's a judgment call. Will these properties pursue a rezoning to residential at all, the owners of them, and if they do, would they -- might they pursue a density greater then three units per acre, which is what they'd be limited to under these proposed regulations. Might they pursue development under their existing agricultural zoning, such as conditional uses that are allowed, or in the case of those properties, most particularly in that -- on those last maps, some of those smaller properties, might they simply be content to retain their agricultural zoning and the dwelling unit that they have on their property at present, or for those undeveloped that might choose to develop in the future, and be content with that zoning and, therefore, not be concerned about the density change -- changes that are proposed. This is the Copeland urban area, and the blue, again, is the government -owned properties, and then the yellow are the privately -owned properties. And this is State Road 29 here next to my pen, and then again continuing on to the south here. So we're, I don't know, what's it, three miles or so north of U.S. 41 East, the urban area of Copeland. There's two large parcels. This one here is, I believe, around 50 acres. That's within the urban area. The actual parcel goes beyond the boundary. And then down here is a parcel that, I believe, is in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 acres within the urban area. The legal description goes beyond the urban designation. The rest of these are very small parcels here. And then one small one -acre parcel over here. So, Commissioners, that shows on these series of maps, those yellow properties, what I believe all of -- are all of the properties that potentially would be impacted. This is the PUD map, and the northern boundary -- I've just folded the map over -- is Radio Road. Here's Airport Road and then U.S. 41 East. Page 69 of 84 f4 A f h •� ..j Al j� ' 1/26/2012 CCPC "S ecia A e?ftents" meetirt p g The yellow color is to show the location of those different zoning maps I just got through showing you, and actually a couple are -- two or three that I didn't show you because they only had government -owned properties. But that's area that would be potentially impacted by these changes. The gross acreage, if we looked at the what I'll call worst -case scenario or maybe most conservative approach, would be almost 300 acres of land that would be impacted, and that would be 80 -- currently 80 tax parcels. I believe a little more reasonable would be 222 acres or 52 parcels, which I mentioned in that January -- January 19th memo distributed -- memo distributed on January 19th. But, again, even those, as I walked through the maps, I think some of those properties are not likely to go through a residential rezoning. But, anyway, that's what the potential impact is. The policy decision is whether or not to go forward with any or some of the changes that would impact eligible density for these properties or not to make the regulatory changes. Either way we have to make -- we're required to make the map change. But do we or don't we make the regulatory changes affecting the eligible density on these properties? And the reason, of course, that I'm going into some of this detail and showing you properties and whatnot is going back to your October workshop of last year; this body expressed concerns over the impact on private - property rights. One more thing to say, and this really goes in the opposite direction, and that's to say we -- these proposed changes in eliminating the Traffic Congestion Area boundary and only having a density- reduction factor within the Coastal High Hazard Area, for these properties here that lie west of U.S. 41 East all the way over to the Coastal High Hazard Area, there's an increase in eligible density. So we're actually, arguably, giving development rights to those properties there. Of course, most of that is already zoned and developed, but there are some properties there that could still benefit from an increase in their eligible density. I think I'm ready to stop and let you -all jump in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was just surprised to hear that Copeland, which is three miles north of 41, could be that big -- impacted by a Category 1 hurricane. It seems -- I didn't know Category 1's were that powerful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's RPC. MR. WEEKS: That's what the modeling -- that's what the computer modeling shows. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make another comment or two. On the map, I want to explain why it is that we're -- staff is proposing a generalized Coastal High Hazard Area boundary. That's the red line. And then we also propose to have a -- part of the map series have a map that shows the yellow boundary, which is the part that would be subject to the regulatory effect. So the red boundary on the -- that would be on the Future Land Use Map would be just to give the reader a general idea of where the Coastal High Hazard Area is, and then the yellow would show the precise area. And if you look at this map, you see -- and, again, you have this map -- you can see how irregularly shaped the boundary is. And staff is just trying to square it off, sometimes following streets, sometimes not, but just trying to create a more uniform boundary. There are also holes in the yellow shading. There's islands within the Coastal High Hazard Area, pockets -- in many cases, pockets of developed land. Fill dirt has been brought in for house pads, commercial building pads, and so forth for streets. And if you look at this map or had a larger version of it, in some cases it's readily apparent that that's the case. But regardless, in drawing a boundary line here, we have to understand that there are exceptions within it. And if and when someone comes in to pursue a rezoning of their property if these regulations go forth, or even if they don't, any other impact, such as no new rezonings for mobile -- to allow mobile -home development, staff will rely upon the detailed Coastal High Hazard Area Map to determine if that subject property is or is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area. And we will have this map available on our website with the zoom capability and the kind that, where you zoom in, you see more details. You see street names. You see more features that are helpful to the reader to identify where a given property might be located. But the reason, again, is to generally show the boundary in red, but then to have the more detailed map also adopted so that it is officially part of the Comprehensive Plan and available for public viewing readily on our website. Page 70 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC "Spe I6Rtn dmenA eting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody on the Planning Commission have questions at this point? David, the Traffic Congestion Area kind of tails off after 951, so I would think that all the properties that are within the Traffic Congestion Area that already have a reduction would be -- and that -- we're swapping that reduction out for a Coastal High Hazard Area reduction. That seems kind of not problematic. But when you get east of that, I understand that it applies to rezones only. But when we did the GMP years ago, we started a zoning re- evaluation process in which parcels of property or owners could write in or be reevaluated as to how they were to be weighed against the new rules. And we had an ordinance that I've got -- I've read many times -- I don't remember the number, though -- that actually talked about different parcels within different sections of property throughout the county and how they would be treated going forward. For those properties that are in particular concern, the ones that you highlighted in yellow, why couldn't we approach them as we did with this other process when we initiated the GMP? MR. WEEKS: Potentially we could. I think it's important that I point out to you that those are the properties that I've identified as being impacted. Someone else might disagree and think that other properties are impacted. I didn't talk at all about the properties that are north of the City of Naples where the boundary, for the most part, has not changed. Some properties up north of the City of Naples, the boundary has moved seaward so that properties have been removed from the Coastal High Hazard area, but some properties have been added. I didn't bother to map those. I identified those properties and I saw that some of them were water - retention areas that were added to the Coastal High Hazard Area. There was parts of one golf course near the Walmart up at --west of 41, north of Bluebill Avenue. There was a wetland system around the Cocohatchee River west of U.S. 41 that -- a portion of which was added. I didn't think it was --my judgment call was that wasn't necessary to map those and present those. But the landowner up there might disagree with me and say, 1, nonetheless, have lost some rights, and I should have been availed of whatever opportunity there might be to protest these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take your Cocohatchee as an example. You just said that that was one where they -- we've expanded the Coastal High Hazard Area, thus causing a potential reduction, but we wouldn't have because they -- you're giving them -- you're taking away the traffic congestion which did apply and just applying a CHHA deduction. So I don't think that -- is that -- why is that an example that you would have used as -- MR. WEEKS: Because that part of it is a wash, but the additional changes are to take the density bonuses that, today, are available in the Coastal High Hazard Area and make them not applicable. So that's where the eligible density -- for all of these properties, the eligible density would be between six -- for most of them it's six units per acre, for some of those at Copeland -- all of those at Copeland, I think it would be -- almost all of them -- it would be seven units per acre. We will be dropping that eligible density down to three units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand the legal reason why we have to move the line. But the difference now really falls between the green line and the red line in regards to what can or can't be done. And then if you go ahead and remove the bonuses from all the yellow, whether it's on the north or south or east or west of the green line up to the red line, you're now affecting not only just the new properties added north of the green line, which I'm using north because most of it is, but you're also affecting the properties already existing in the CHHA because of the full density bonus. So I think it comes down to a legal question from the County Attorney's Office; how far can we go without, I guess, violating someone's rights? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think whenever you take anything away, it could lead to potential exposure on the county's part by removing the rights. Just a couple points. One is that the bonuses that are being taken away for the entire CHA area are bonuses that are -- essentially the property owners can ask for it, but it's not by right. They don't get those by right. But that is something that they could ask for during a rezone, and they can no longer ask for it. David and I have been talking at length on a number of these issues. In your package he also had some other language that we used in the Immokalee Area Master Plan that I've edited a little bit, should you choose to go forward, that gives the property owner an avenue to have a vested - rights determination. David also told me that under the FLUE, the section that deals with the rezonings would be applicable. So if there's a property owner that has a current density out there and they want to rezone, they wouldn't lose what they Page 71 of 84 16 12 A4 i 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting already have. They would at least be able to stay at the level that they currently are. But it's -- certainly there is a potential to impact property owners that might have bought property and had plans to put some high - density development on their land. And at this point David's done the best he could to research, but there would be ones that would come up that we wouldn't know about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see this -- did I miss this policy? Is it in our package? MR. WEEKS: That was part of the handout, the supplement on January 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. That's why I haven't seen it, okay. The part about this that becomes concerning is the limitation in the middle. "All such applications must be submitted within one year from the effective date of the aforementioned CHH changes." That is only useful if you're going to individually notify every single lot owner -- parcel owner that is affected, because -- I don't know. I can tell you, most people haven't been watching this meeting today. If they have, I feel sorry for them. So no one knows this is going on. You do your little advertisement. How many people read the legal notices in the back of a newspaper? In fact, not everybody gets the newspaper. So I don't know -- I think that part of that is certainly unfair to have a limitation of one year without -- unless you notify them. But if you notify the property owners and say "one year from notification," that changes the whole ballgame. So, I mean, that's the first part. I mean, my first concern was this -- not having a policy like this here. But if this policy gets it to -- instituted, a lot of that concern's taken away with the exception of the time frame without notification that spells that -- that's spelled out in that middle sentence there. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I mean, one option is for -- you know, this is certainly a policy decision. And one option would be -- I think -- let me just say that I think David's tried to take a proactive approach, and I think that this is an issue that a lot of counties are looking at at this point, and I don't know that it -- there's any county at this time that's a forerunner on how they're handling it. But there are different ways to try to reduce development and redevelopment in an area that could be explored. It doesn't have to be just strictly a density reduction. That's one option. And if you're -- you know, you could direct staff to look at the various options of how that could be handled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are options all attempting to avoid a collision with a disgruntled property owner -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- who feels that he's been slighted on his property rights. On the other hand, if we provide notice -- and I remember Ken Baginski was here back in the old days, and he would send out all these letters to property owners saying, you're potentially in an area that's going to change your zoning. If you feel that you've got an issue, you contact him. And he issued a lot of letters correcting -- or not say correcting, addressing the concerns. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Addressing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm wondering why -- and I know it's an expensive process. I know it's time - consuming, but it seemed to be -- and the ultimate way to protect the taxpayers from a series of lawsuits for property right. Why wouldn't we approach it that way again? MR. WEEKS: The concern I have, Commissioners, is it becomes the county making the decision over who we think is impacted. I've identified properties here. But I'm telling you, these are not all the properties. I'm telling you that there's some that have not been identified. I mentioned, for example, up north of the City of Naples. But there's also all of those landowners that, today, are not in the Coastal High Hazard Area but with the new boundary would be, that might believe they're impacted in some way, if nothing else, from that standpoint of the mobile homes. I don't think it's very likely that someone wants to rezone their property to allow a mobile -home development. I can't remember the last time we had a rezone to allow mobile -home development in Collier County. But someone may have that interest that we don't know about or assert that they have that interest. My point being that it's -- it would be a very significant notification. Arguably we should notify everyone that it being added to the Coastal High Hazard Area plus those that are already within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not disagreeing with you, but we did that -- we did a huge scope back in the old days, and we had a lot of properties. They weren't even developed, but there were still a lot of properties. MR. WEEKS: Right. Page 72 of 84 /� A 4 1/26/2012 CCPC " ec ElR'44�i1endments" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering, why wouldn't we want to take that cautious approach now? I mean, I know for staff it makes it easier not to do it that way but, honestly, I'm not -- I don't think it's fair to the property owners, and I don't -- I'm not relying on your opinion of what could or could not be affected. I'm suggesting we notify everybody that potentially is affected, period, and just say, here is your opportunity, and you have within one year to respond to this letter. And staff will then take your response and decide how -- and whatever evaluation process like we did before. We actually wrote an ordinance; it's many pages long. Difficult as -- it's really difficult to follow. But if you do follow it, if you do track the legals, you can find properties that are exempted from a series of different issues that happened in the county based on that document. But it's rarely used because I don't think anybody can understand it. I did use it on one. MR. WEEKS: I wonder if you're talking about the zoning reevaluation ordinance, Ordinance 90 -23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds like it, yes. It's multi pages, it has a series of legal descriptions in different parts of the county, and then it tells what those legal descriptions were zoned, what they were going to be zoned, and what rights they retained. But it's --there was a --I mean, I just got done reviewing that document for a parcel on the East Trail. Sure enough, it was correctly -- they had applied correctly, but that document pertained to them. It was to their benefit to know about it. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't want to go to that extent. And I understand the time and the cost, but we've got time. We don't have to impose these, from what the county attorney says. We've just got to simply move the line on the map. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we look at it that way? MR. WEEKS: I think part of the cost -- well, first of all, of course, we'll need board direction because that's something that needs to be budgeted because that, I can tell you from personal involvement with the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance where -- real quick explanation. We adopted the Growth Management Plan in 1989. The Future Land Use Map provided for eligible densities -- and the element -- eligible densities where commercial and industrial was allowed to be located, and then we look at our zoning maps, and there's a lot of properties that didn't match with that Future Land Use Map designation for the various properties. So we went through, adopted these on a reevaluation ordinance, went through a process of notifying by certified mail a few thousand landowners. The ordinance had application provisions, some based on vesting rights principles, some based at least on compatibility, and another one or two things, and application procedures so landowners could come in and submit an application based on one of those provisions for compatibility or vested rights status or, you know, based upon those principles and maybe get their application approved and no longer be subject to a downzoning. I should have said the first part was sending out a notice to the landowners saying your property has been identified as potentially being downzoned. The end result was we spent a few years -- ultimately, it was spread out over a few years implementing that, pretty sizable costs, and the end result was we rezoned out of a gross inventory of over 4,000 acres of commercial, roughly 1,000 of it developed at the time, about 215 acres of commercial zoning was downzoned, and about 6,000 dwelling units -- potential dwelling units based on zoning was downzoned, but much of that was within wetland areas that -- it was density on paper. My point is, it was an exercise, for the most part, in futility, and I kind of get the sense that we're heading down the same path here if we pursue what's being discussed as far as notices and maybe application procedures. I think the -- we have to consider just how few properties we're talking about here. And, again, my estimation of maybe a little over 200. Is it worth that exercise? Maybe the better approach, if there are serious concerns -- and the attorney's office has expressed them, I'm hearing them from the Planning Commission. The best approach might be simply don't implement these changes. And that certainly is an option. Weighing the benefit -- you know, there's the cost and time of this -- of such a process to notify the landowners and so forth -- what are we going to gain? We're going to gain at most a couple hundred or so acres of property that is subject to a lower density. Page 73 of 84 � = 16 - 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amen`7ments� 7aetin g And again I go back to this map here. Where is the PUD map? You know, maybe it's not worth it if that's the approach we're considering. And again that is far more than the actual 200- and - something acres, because this is all county owned, this is all county, this is school board, part of this is county owned, that's state owned. It whittles down to, again, just a relatively small amount of property. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, I think the greatest impact is the removal of the density bonuses. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And, you know, they're -- none of the bonuses are bonuses as of right. They're all ones that are awarded discretionarily during the rezoning. So if they stay, I mean, couldn't -- if you didn't remove the bonuses, which I think has got a potential for big numbers against the county, then that can be something that's looked on at a case -by -case basis when they go through the rezone process, right? And the fact that they're in the CHA could be a factor that's considered when the board and the Planning Commission review the rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather take a cautious approach than a flagrant just --let's just do it because it's where the new line is. I don't think that's logical. I don't know if the impacts have all been considered. Heidi pointed out something during break that the CIE has a section in it, Objective 3, that pertains to improvements in the Coastal High Hazard Area that -- we understand now where it operates, but if we move the line as far north as some of these do, what does that really mean for some of the other processes and other departments like transportation and the utilities that have to weigh in on it? And I'm not sure by moving the line we have to do any of this stuff that we're asking to do. And I think the impracticality of someone cashing in on these density bonuses to any great extent right now is probably rarer than the im -- than anyone objecting or knowing that their land's being rezoned on the yellow areas that you have here. I mean, we're -- we seem to be swatting a fly with a sledge hammer in some regard, and I don't know why it's necessary to put us at risk for that. So that's my opinion on it, David. Right now we don't have any problems in the Coastal High Hazard Area with density because it's all built out and we're -- the potential for more of it and if it's subject to -- it's not -- I mean, it's non -- they can't demand. They can only ask it. And it's -- if it turns out it's impractical in the process, we just say no. And we have plenty of reasons in which we could say no, and so could the board. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. And you're just talking about properties on the very eastern fringe of the CCHA (sic), and so you're not talking about a lot of added risk of flooding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would suggest we accept the new line and we include that and incorporate it into our exhibits as it's supposed to be, but all the references to the changes in the density within the coastal high hazard and new reductions outside the old line -- outside the Traffic Congestion Area don't happen. I mean, I think that your swap for the Traffic Congestion Area seems reasonable. I don't see how that's going to hurt anything. But other than that, I don't know why we would want to -- why we'd want to expose ourselves, our taxpayers. I mean, my God. Just filing an issue in court right now becomes a nightmare in legal fees. Why do we want to go there? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair, can we go over the different items of impact with the CHA and make sure that we're clear on which ones you're saying to keep or eliminate? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I mean, this board's going to be saying it, but I'm suggesting we take a more cautious approach to it because there's no reason not to. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. There's -- I've identified -- I think we've got five or six of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we start, then, with your identifications. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the first one I think you've already -- you've already given your thoughts, and the rest of the board needs to concur, and that's eliminating the language that staff has put in to remove the density bonuses. So you would take out the language, and that would be on section -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are you on, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Let me get to the page. MR. WEEKS: The density bonuses start on Page -- bottom of Page 10 of the Future Land Use Element. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So, then, starting on Page 10 you would delete the underlined language that's on the top of Page 11, the conversion of commercial bonus. That would be deleted. Then you've got the proximity to the activity center. You would remove the language that says "Coastal High Hazard Area" on the bottom. That would be deleted under B. Page 74 of 84 A44 1/26/2012 CCP " ecia §A� A2ndments" meeting MR. WEEKS: And let me interrupt, Heidi, because the present -- presently that density bonus, it's stated as not applicable in the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, and that mirrors the Traffic Congestion Area which, by using that as a substitute, I can't see how that's going to be an issue that's going to be challenged and hurt us in any way. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So you're okay with leaving it in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why I was saying leave the ones in relative -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So that one will stay, and then the affordable- housing- workforce bonus would be -- that language would be deleted, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. I mean, it doesn't -- you're not going to be able to afford to put a workforce housing in that area anyways. The land's too expensive. It's a fight we don't need to have. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Then there was a roadway- access bonus. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a traffic- congestion swap, I think. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's the next one, but I'm not sure. Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. I don't want to debate. I just want to --the comment you just made about didn't think someone would pursue the affordable- workforce - housing bonus -- and I should point out that that largest cluster of properties down off the East Trail is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's north of the current C14A line. One of my statements earlier was not change anything north of the CHH (sic) line and only change those subject to the Traffic Congestion Area. So that's outside of the Traffic Congestion Area and it's north of the current line. MR. WEEKS: No. It's within the -- it's currently within the Traffic Congestion Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's Regal Acres, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, which is within -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's within the Traffic Congestion Area? MR. WEEKS: Yes, because the Traffic Congestion Area comes down -- heading east down Davis Boulevard, it goes around the density band around Rattlesnake Hammock Road -- I'm sorry -- comes down Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the east and then goes around the density band in the southwest quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard, and then continues east, and then all properties lying seaward of that line are within the Traffic Congestion Area. So that captures all of those properties east of Collier Boulevard from Rattlesnake Hammock Road imaginary extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Look at your map. You're saying that blue line on that map goes all the way straight to the county line all the way out to the Miami -Dade County? MR. WEEKS: It goes to the edge of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Regal Acres is not -- if you were to drop a north/south line from where that dotted traffic congestion line ends, you're not -- I don't believe you're hitting Regal Acres. It's out where your pen is. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See where your blue -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I -- MR. WEEKS: And text describes it as continuing eastward, the text in the Future Land Use Element, all lands lying seaward, right? So it's not a matter of stopping at one mile east of 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is the rural area a Traffic Congestion Area? I mean, guys, that's out in the middle -- U.S. 41 East? MR. WEEKS: That's still part of the Coastal Urban Designated Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why is it considered Traffic Congestion Area? MR. WEEKS: I think the same reason that the rest of the areas -- it historically was based on social, physical, and environmental constraints to how much road widening could occur, how many new roads could be constructed within that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, they're planning -- they're doing a PD &E study right now to widen U.S. 41 all the way out to San Marco. So how would -- I mean, okay. It makes no sense. MR. WEEKS: Well -- but on that point, staff is proposing the deletion of the Traffic Congestion Area Page 75 of 84 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting because transportation staff has told us, we don't think that's necessary any longer. We tried these very same amendments we're discussing today with the exception of moving the Coastal High Hazard Area boundary itself during the last set of EAR -based amendments, and we had support to do so by the county commission at transmittal, but by a 3 -2 vote. Adoption, no one changed their position. That was a stalemate, so the regulations stayed the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Habitat project that is concerned over loss of density wouldn't have any density change if they already lost a unit, because of the Traffic Congestion Area, right? MR. WEEKS: Correct, as long as we leave the bonuses as you're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. Well, then that's -- that's the only caveat we need to make to where Heidi's heading, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So at the bottom of Page 11, that last sentence regarding the workforce housing, language would be deleted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. And then on Page 12 the roadway- access bonus, did you want to keep that or leave it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not applicable within the Traffic Congestion Area but we take out that and we substitute Coastal High Hazard Area, what difference have we made from a property- rights perspective? Nothing. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would just -- I'd leave the new language in. Substitute the -- substitute "coastal high hazard" in. Okay. Then -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The next one is under the density reduction, the Coastal High Hazard Area. That's essentially, you know, replacing the "traffic congestion" with the "coastal high hazard minus one," although there is an area -- an added area of the "minus one" that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think here's where we need to clean the language up, if we somehow can refer to the old traffic congestion line as a solution, our -- David, I don't know what language you'd want to look at -- but in this particular one, if we arbitrarily take everything in the Coastal High Hazard Area that's greater than what's in the Traffic Congestion Area -- is that correct? MR. WEEKS: One more time, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 3A if we automatically downzone everything by one that is within the new Coastal High Hazard Area, that's a greater area than what's in the current Traffic Congestion Area; is that correct? Is that the concern? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That's correct. Now, with the bonuses, you'd minus one, but you'd still have the opportunity to ask if you qualified for a bonus for more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your base density would be downzoned by one. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. MR. WEEKS: Oh, please don't use that word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but that's what's going to happen, so that's why I wanted to use it, so -- but then in reality what's going to happen, you're going to be rezoned to less than you could -- MR. WEEKS: We are not changing anyone's zoning, but their eligible density is being reduced by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I love this bureaucratic speak -ease, but that works, David. So how would we approach "A" so that we limit it to only those areas that are -- currently have their eligible density reduced by one -- boy, I said that right -- by the Traffic Congestion Area in relationship to where the new line is? MR. WEEKS: In this case we know specifically where those properties are at. Rather than refer to a -- you know, presumably soon- to -be- nonexistent Traffic Congestion Area, I would suggest we call out the property, perhaps say the west half of section so and so. Give a description of the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: That could be short, succinct, and nobody has to dig through the historical records to see where it used to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would see that as a much better solution, okay. Page 76 of 84 ,... • 1/26/2012 CCPC "Speciak A e ents k mg Then, Heidi, where is your other -- what other areas have you pulled out? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: David mentioned that -- and we already covered it, but I'll just make sure that everyone understands -- is -- I think it was Policy 6.1.1, the vegetation retention changes from 10 percent to 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't be -- we wouldn't want to do that then the same, so that wouldn't -- that wouldn't be one of the effectiveness of moving the line, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But it is tied into the line, correct, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you -- how do we work that since you don't want to show the old CHHA on the maps but only the new? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, why don't we go to CCME, 6.1.1, so you all know what we're looking at. And that's on -- starting on Page 11. MR. WEEKS: And actually that is where -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Where is that part, David? MR. WEEKS: There on Page 11, Policy 6.1.1, Page 11 of the CCME, and that is -- that's the beginning of the table. It carries on to the next page, but it's -- this area at the bottom of Page 11 is the only area of change, the only area impacted by the change to the Coastal High Hazard Area. You see for residential and mixed -use development for properties inside the Coastal High Hazard Area versus outside of it how the percentages change by acreage sizes, so that's -- it's those properties, again, that are two- and -a -half acres in size up to just shy of 20 acres that would be impacted by this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how cumbersome would it be to leave the green line on this -- leave these lines on this map and use this map, the one that was just on the overhead showing the three lines in the GMP? MR. WEEKS: We could do that as a part of the Future Land Use Map series. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So you're saying that we would keep our existing Coastal High Hazard Area or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would suggest that the map that Corby had on there that showed the three different delineations -- I mean, someone in the future's going to need to understand what we've done here today or what may be done, and this map shows it pretty clearly. Why wouldn't we -- it's not a complicated map. Why wouldn't we just add it to the series and include it, and then in the references on 6.1.1, we refer to the Coastal High Hazard Area by the delineations on the map? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I think David was proposing to add that as an exhibit, but it's called -- you're talking about the Coastal High Hazard Area Work Map, No. 1? MR. WEEKS: No. Just let me jump in, please. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. MR. WEEKS: What we're -- what Mark is proposing is the map that's on the visualizer, have part of the Future Land Use Map series include a map that shows the old or, right now, existing Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, the green as well as the new, and so we can have in our -- this Policy 6. 1.1 could have a reference to the former Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, and then we have the maps so someone can easily see, well, what was that boundary, to help us identify in the future what properties are being exempted from this regulatory change. (Commissioner Midney left the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then no property rights are being violated because nothing's changed. We moved the line for the notification of the public as to where they're living in relationship to storm surge, but we've not taken away property rights. The map in color works, but if you would simply take the legend up on top where it says "old CHHA," you have the width of the green line equal to the red. Well, that's not the way the map is portrayed. The green is a little wider. So why don't you put that the same width -- MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that way if this map ever got reproduced in black and white, like it is electronically, then you could still see where the lines potentially were, and then you've got it covered both ways. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So do you want to tie it into the date of the adoption so it's the CHAA (sic) line prior to -- Page 77 of 84 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special JR§me1ndmZets" meeting ng CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you add that to the legend, yes. Then you can see the width of the line, old CHHA -- or C14HA prior to whatever time this is adopted, then the proposed CHHA as adopted, and you've got not only dates but colors, you've got widths, a line demarcation. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought that's what we were doing with this Future Land Use Map here, the draft. It has the old CHA and the new CHA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is, but this one brings it up a lot closer. That's the whole county. I was looking at the scale. And since David's going to include this as a part of the FLUE, I think it would be helpful to have them both. It doesn't hurt. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So then the -- are you also saying the vegetation retention you want to have prior to so- and -so date, this is the criteria, and then after the date of adoption, it's 25 percent for everything? I'm trying to understand what you're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Everything -- the 6. 1.1 would be based on the old CHA. It wouldn't be based on the new -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- unless someone -- I mean -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. I understand now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole purpose of leaving them both on the map is so you could use the Policy 6. 1.1 easier. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work with staff? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yep, makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Heidi, from your perspective, do you see any other areas that need to be focused on or looked at in this regard? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You mean regarding 6.1.1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, regarding any of it, CHA, any of the issues? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. I just want to make sure the next is the CIE. David said that the sewer facilities floodproofing requirement changes, correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Do we want to exempt that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't know if we need to worry about -- that's a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's county owned, but we're not going to file a Bert Harris against ourselves. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. So that one is okay. Then we just wanted to take a look at the Objective 3 of the CIE. David, that's the public spending in the CHHA. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, that -- the existing policies, Objective 3 in policies say something to the effect of public expenditure for infrastructure within the Coastal High Hazard Area will be based upon adopted level -of- service standards and future growth protections in the Future Land Use Element. To me, I don't see that problematic at all. Wherever the Coastal High Hazard Area is, we're going to be limited to public expenditure of funds for infrastructure based on what the Future Land Use Element is going to allow, what development it would allow, and our adopted level -of- service standards. I'm glad you brought it up, but I don't see any issue there at all. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that's Objective 3 on Page 7 of the CIE. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's not an issue from David's interpretation, then I don't think we have an issue with it. Heidi, are there any other sections of any of the documents that we need to consider in this regard for modifying this as we've discussed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think we've covered everything. David already mentioned the other one that we read in the change, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that brings it back to full circle where we left off on the FLUE. But, Margie, if you have any concerns over what's been discussed while you're -- because you've been sitting here all day, Page 78 of 84 i A4YA �J 16 1/26/2012 CCPC Special EAR Amendments meeting and this is probably why, so -- MS. STUDENT- STIRLING: For the record, Margie Student- Stirling representing Habitat for Humanity. I want to say thank you, because all I was authorized to put on record for the client was we do own property in that area, as David pointed out, and we also own some that I believe is beyond, off of Fritchey and Laredo Drive, which runs off of Greenway. So I want to evaluate any impacts that might do to those with staff and make sure they're not. But thank you very much for considering private - property rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. I think it works well. It will help staff get out of all the processes that we would have had to get into that now we don't need to, so I think it's a good conclusion. The rest of the FLUE, we're trying to finish it up. Is there any other questions from the FLUE up through the end of it, Page 20? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, on the Future Land Use Map itself -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- well, actually -- well, you can see it here, but, actually, that other exhibit. Mr. Schiffer asked me to put something on the record before he left. As I mentioned earlier, the red line represents a generalized future Coastal High Hazard Area boundary, and the yellow is the specific. Mr. Schiffer had suggested that rather than following regular shapes, that red line, to have it more closely follow the actual contours of the yellow shading so it would be curvy, wavy, and so forth, rather than following streets or otherwise, you know, in following straight lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But didn't you say you're going to put this on electronically so that when it blows up you can actually see how the yellow coincides with an actual pinpointed location on the map? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. The staff -- the staff recommendation is going to be that -- and this is a work map that we're looking at here. The version that would be adopted was also distributed to you previously. The difference would be that the Traffic Congestion Area boundary will be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Because as we discussed a few moments ago, we want to have the green line, the existing boundary, continue to be shown. So we would have the red and the green lines and the yellow shading actually adopted into a map as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you leave the green line on this -- I mean the red line, this scale in a more straight format, the worst it does is highlight people to that they may be in an area of concern. And then we'll either come in and ask staff or go to the website and blow it up, and it helps them clarify they're not. I would rather see that as a conservative approach than one that's so tight people aren't sure where they lie and they don't even bother to check it. So I would -- I think the more conservative approach is actually better. And if you've got it electronically, I think Brad's concerns probably would be addressed. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Because the staff rationale was in trying to follow these irregular shapes of the yellow pattern here is -- we think the line would be a real mess on the Future Land Use Map -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- especially when you take -- the smaller the map gets, down to the eight and a half by 11, it would be, I think, indiscernible or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it works. On Page 14, David, there's a -- middle of the page, you've got a paragraph where a couple changes were made. The second sentence starts -- it's on the fourth line at the very end of the -- of that line. It says, "If such a product is located within the boundaries of the Mixed -Use Activity Center which is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre." Now, I circled this earlier because the four seems to contradict the drop in one to three. But now that we've made these changes, I'll leave it up to you to figure out. MR. WEEKS: Okay. No, it's important to note that this is within the mixed -use activity center. This is not part of the density rating system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So this is not some adjustment up or down. The activity- center language either provides that, here's your maximum, and if you're outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, it's 16. If you're within, it's four, period. Page 79 of 84 6I � A ,4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EARkmendmen me et i ng No adjustments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand that. Anybody else have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Just to point out, because one of the other concerns made by the Planning Commission at the workshop in October had to do with property rights, concerns with proposed changes to the Mixed -Use Activity Center and was -- I think it was explained in the text of this document. Staff has backed off of those changes. You'll still see some strikethrough/underline here just for cleanup, but the real impact of the changes being proposed originally we've withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions in the support doc -- go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, maybe you just covered it, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Say that again. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- on Page 14, under -- after "for residential -only development" -- because the way I'm reading it, it's saying you can get up to 16 units if you're in -- if you're not in the coastal area. But if you're in the coastal area, then you only get four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. He -- go ahead and -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that might be what you were just discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were, but maybe David needs to -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. I'm not sure, if we included the text. There -- presently in the Future Land Use Element, this Mixed -Use Activity Center text, there's a discrepancy. If you're part of a mixed -use development and you're in the Coastal High Hazard Area, you can still develop up to 16 -- excuse me -- you're limited to four units per acre. But if you're a residential -only project in the Coastal High Hazard Area, you can do 16. There's an inconsistency there, and this is to correct that inconsistency. This is to provide that residential development, whether it's mixed use or whether it's residential -only, if it's in the Coastal High Hazard Area, it is capped at four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does anybody else have any other questions including through the support documentation of the FLUE? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's leave the FLUE. Let's get out of that document. Let's go to Golden Gate Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, now the questions start. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, before you go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew somebody would do this. I paused a long time, but okay, David. MR. WEEKS: Nothing to add about changes and whatnot, for discussion here, but I'm assuming that at the end of this meeting this is going to get continued -- excuse me -- it's going to be scheduled for, what do you call it? I'm drawing a blank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent. MR. WEEKS: Consent, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it will be, but I think we've got some sections that are outstanding, and I was going to strategize with Mike, as we go to conclude today, whether it's best to hold the vote off till we get to consent and the other issues resolved or vote on what we can today and then do the separate issues on consent. I'm going to leave that up to him to tell us as we get -- close out today. MR. WEEKS: All right. Because I fully understand that there's this -- housing and CCME have issues of substance that you're not done with yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. WEEKS: That will need to be continued, I believe, to a date and time certain so we don't have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If we -- we'll continue it to a specific Planning Commission meeting, whether that's the 16th of February or whatever in March, whatever the staff can produce, so -- but let's move on and Page 80 of 84 4 R i A R t b 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special JR612ts" meeting get through the bulk of it before we leave. ` Anybody have anything on the Golden Gate Master Plan? It's 11 pages. We'll take it all at one time. Any members of -- David, did you have any general comments or anything you had to make? MR. WEEKS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the Planning Commission? I have -- start on Page 2, Mike -- or Dave. Policy 1.4.1. MR. BOSI: Corby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious what the intention is and the changes in the sense that it says, "The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and other applicable codes and laws." To what extent? I mean, are we bringing in -- what laws are -- I mean, the "laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and the illegal operation of commercial activities in the Golden Gate area." Does that -- I thought that they were basically Land Development Code. So what other codes and laws are we -- do they now have authority to enforce? MR. SCHMIDT: It's sort of an inclusive statement, not being able to be specific about which ones they are, but not all the enforcement activities are covered in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what -- is it the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances that we're talking about? I don't like the open - endedness that anybody could bring in because they want to. And I'm not sure anybody would do that, but I -- why can't -- we try to be specific. Why aren't we specific here? MR. SCHMIDT: And that would be the more inclusive document than Code of Law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we say that? Land Development Code and the Code of Law -- Collier County Code of Laws, and that takes care of the ambiguity. MR. SCHMIDT: Can do. I think there's another location on the same page for that and where else we find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, there is right above 1.4.01. Then on Page 4, Goal 4. Goal 4 was written for Golden Gate City. You take out the reference to Golden Gate City, what does Goal 4 then apply to since it's in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and the master plan covers more than Golden Gate City? Likewise, in Goal 5, we did -- we took the same thing out, but the Goal 5 was written for Golden Gate Estates. So why would we take the reference there out when it doesn't really apply to the city? We had two different studies going on at the same time, and that's why we actually had committee meetings in different locations to address the two different areas. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I see that now as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: It was just a matter of reformatting. But staff did not catch that they were specific to "city" at one location and "estates" at the other. We'll revise as necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7, Policy 6.1.2. This goes back -- since you're changing the policy, this focuses on the I -75 and Everglades Boulevard interchange, and it makes it appear as though we're supporting -- we supported that interchange. Well, at the time there was nothing else on the table. A lot has changed since then. Now, the other language in this document we've changed to talk about the area in general. Is there a reason we couldn't use that in this particular policy? MR. SCHMIDT: I believe the "vicinity of was that change. Is that not vaguer enough? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, that's fine. I didn't see this underline, so I didn't even -- I just -- okay, okay. That will work. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. I believe that was one of a set of changes and that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I just had it circled before I realized it was okay, so -- Objective 7.3 on Page 8. Why did we add the sections of the county? And the Land Development Services Department, is that -- what one is that now? I thought it was the Growth Management Department. You guys -- it was CDES. I don't know. You're completely confusing me as to what you call yourselves. MR. SCHMIDT: Growth Management Division, Land Development Services Department. The correct flow of -- that you want to refer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this says, "The county transportation planning section of the Land Page 81 of 84 4 j 161 2 A4 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" meeting s Development Services Department." What is that? Do we have that? MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. MR. BOSI: It's a specific subsection of the Growth Management Division. I would work -- MR. SCHMIDT: It's our counterpart with Reed Jarvi and John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you say -- is it part of the Growth Management Division? MR. BOSI: I would just say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't you say -- because that's not likely to change as much as some of these underlying departments. In fact, you -all are probably going to have some reorganization here this year, so why don't we just say growth management either department or division, whatever it is. MR. BOSI: Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What's that, 7.3? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7.3. That takes us to my -- end of my questions on the Golden Gate Master Plan, and I'll ask anybody again if they have any questions. If not, is there anything in the supplement sections of that that you have questions on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any in the supplement myself. So if I don't hear anybody else -- Terri doesn't have any. So let's move on to the economic element. Now, that one's a tough one. It's three pages. Does anybody have any questions on the economic element or the supplement -- or the supporting documentation as to it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The lofty goal is yet to be seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, what's nice is it was a lot -- written in a lot more difficult manner, but it was cleaned up a lot. So the outcome, I think, is good. It works. It's succinct. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other questions, we've come close to the end of our meeting. Mr. Bosi, what do you suggest to handle it from here? MR. BOSI: Speaking with the project coordinator, Mr. Schmidt, and he had suggested that we could be back on February 16th where you are having your regularly- scheduled Planning Commission meeting to bring back the potential changes related to the Housing Element as well as the CCME 10. 1.6 and 10. 1.7 regarding the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lake Trafford. MR. BOSI: -- Lake Trafford, and the modifications that David had suggested, bring those before you, and you can review those and make recommendations at that. The l st of March would be the date we would target for your consent approval of all of the changes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in order to get to consent, though, we've got to take a vote prior to the consent -- MR. BOSI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because the consent is affirmation our vote was interpreted in the right way. MR. BOSI: And I'm not sure. Heidi, maybe I would have to lean upon you. Could they make a vote to make recommendations as discussed today to the Board of County Commissioners and also make a separate vote on the 16th regarding the proposed changes, or would you have to continue that to the 16th so we could vote on them as a full scale? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think it's at your option. The ones that you think are done today, you can vote on and make your recommendation if we have -- still have one, two -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I would just kind of -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- wait till the 16th to do it all. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Or you can do them all. It's at your option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just wait. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'd like to wait. Page 82 of 84 1/26/2012 CCPC Special EA Amen mZs meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, wait. Do you want to wait? Okay. Well, it looks like the majority -- Karen, do you -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Doesn't matter to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we'll just wait till the 16th and vote on them all. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One vote's going to be cleaner than two. MR. BOSI: And then, Heidi, would we recommend for them to make a motion to continue this item -- the EAR transmittal items until the 16th then, therefore, could satisfy the advertising as well? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. So we continue that to a date certain; we don't need to readvertise. And, then, just for purposes of the public knowing it's -- it will likely come back on March 1 st for a consent approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's make -- someone want to make a motion to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- continue this meeting till -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- to continue this meeting until February 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At nine. Let's start -- let's do it -- let's start the meeting with this issue so we can get this resolved before we get into the hearing issues, if that's okay. Does that sound -- we have -- because this is a continuation of this meeting. So we could finish this one up before we get into our regular hearing, or do we have to start a regular hearing on the 16th? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's at your option. You can do this first if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we have to do one, close it, then open this one, or vice versa; is that right, because there's two separate meetings? One's an EAR meeting that's being continued and the other is our regular meeting. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you can probably do it all in one meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: As old business and then new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What else do we have on that meeting date? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tuscany is a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be both a final and a continued and a consent at the same meeting. I'm trying to think of how long these are going to take. We could probably wrap this one up faster than Tuscany. MR. BOSI: There's not a tremendous amount of left -over items to address in the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the preference of this committee? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd rather deal with this one, myself, and then get into Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into -- okay, fine. Then, Ms. Ebert, your motion was made to continue this -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to March, and the second was made by Bill -- to March -- I mean February 16th -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: February 16th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at -- first up, nine o'clock in the morning, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second agrees. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 83 of 84 1612 1/26/2012 CCPC "Special EAR Amendments" mee mg CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. There's six of us, 6 -0. With that, we are out of here until our next meeting. Thank you, all. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commission Members. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate the staff. David, thank you for your help. It's always fun. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION l� MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on Z) ' I L , 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 84 of 84 i 161 FebrZy 16, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 16, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Mark Strain, Chairman (Absent) Melissa Ahern Phillip Brougham Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Barry Klein Paul Midney (Absent) Brad Schiffer Bill Vonair Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 of 20 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: We have several addendas to the agenda. We are going to hear advertised hearing Item B first, and they're going to come back on the consent. So if there's any changes, they can make those changes while we hear the EAR. Also, Item C, PDI- PL2012 -159, The Dunes PUD application for an insubstantial change to the PUD development master plan has been continued to the March 1 st meeting. And there's also a clarification on the address. It's listed as 11495 Vanderbilt Beach Drive, and the correct address is Vanderbilt Drive. Item D, BDE- PL2010 -979, Vanderbilt Partners, boat dock extension also has also been continued to the March 1 st meeting. Does anyone else have any changes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You might want to get little closer to the mic. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: That's the idea. Okay. We have a full agenda it looks like for March 1 st. Does anyone plan on not attending? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So we'll have a quorum. ** *And we need to approve the minutes from two meetings. January 5th meeting, if we could get a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion and second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And approval of the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll have to abstain from -- I wasn't here at that meeting so I'm going to abstain from that. Page 2 of 20 tebZ r , 16 2012 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Good morning, everyone. If we could call the meeting to order and rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) ACTING CHAIIZWOMAN AHERN: Roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonair? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Ahern? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain is absent. Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: We have several addendas to the agenda. We are going to hear advertised hearing Item B first, and they're going to come back on the consent. So if there's any changes, they can make those changes while we hear the EAR. Also, Item C, PDI- PL2012 -159, The Dunes PUD application for an insubstantial change to the PUD development master plan has been continued to the March 1 st meeting. And there's also a clarification on the address. It's listed as 11495 Vanderbilt Beach Drive, and the correct address is Vanderbilt Drive. Item D, BDE- PL2010 -979, Vanderbilt Partners, boat dock extension also has also been continued to the March 1 st meeting. Does anyone else have any changes? (No response.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: You might want to get little closer to the mic. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: That's the idea. Okay. We have a full agenda it looks like for March 1 st. Does anyone plan on not attending? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: So we'll have a quorum. ** *And we need to approve the minutes from two meetings. January 5th meeting, if we could get a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion and second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And approval of the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll have to abstain from -- I wasn't here at that meeting so I'm going to abstain from that. Page 2 of 20 161 2 A4 February 16, 2012 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay six approved, one abstained. And the minutes from the January 19th meeting? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: ** *Okay, BCC recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on February 14th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Orange Tree. That was approved by the Board by a vote of 4 -1 with Commissioner Henning opposed, and that approval was subject to the Collier County Planning Commission recommendations. They also heard the ST permit for the Gordon River Park. And I don't have the vote on that, but I believe it was 5 -0, though. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Oh, great. ** *Okay, chairman's report. Since he is out, we will not have that. * * *So we'll move right into the public hearings. And again, we're going to start with PUDA- PL2011 -343, Tuscany Reserve. Bruce? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Madam Chair, would you like to go over any disclosures that any board members may have since the last meeting? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: None. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just talked with Mr. Anderson. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't have any. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Me neither. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress Law Firm on behalf of the applicant. And in your agenda packet I believe you have a strike - through and highlight version of the changes which were made since your prior hearing on this matter. Is yours color -coded or is it simply black -and- white? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Black- and - white. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'm going to ask Mr. Arnold to pass out to you a color -coded version that shows what was originally proposed, what was changed as a result of the Planning Commission, and he will walk you through those, the most important ones. Some of them were simply changes to Land Development Code references. And there were three additional changes that are reflected in what he just passed out that were made yesterday afternoon after speaking with Ms. Ashton. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor and Associates. And I've got a couple of different suggestions on how we might approach this. I've got the document -- as you remember, we were sent away with probably five to seven items that we needed to clean up. One was to go back and look at how we referenced the old Land Development Code citations, which reflected changes on a lot of different pages. There were probably changes that reflected the development standards table, how we were dealing with these villa type lots, we added some landscape language, we changed the deviation and moved something from a definition to the deviation. And then as Bruce indicated, we had some further discussions with Ms. Ashton to discuss some Page 3 of 20 A4 February 16, 2012 minor modifications. So I don't know if you want me to walk through page -by -page and just look at the changes any make sure everybody's fine, or do you want me to go to the handful of pages where we have the more substantive changes? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: The one that you just handed out are all of the changes except the three items Bruce mentioned -- MR. ARNOLD: Correct. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: -- are the same as the document we're receiving. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And the changes that have been made since your last meeting are actually shown in green on the version that you have, just to point you in the right direction. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: But I will defer to the chairwoman. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does the Board have a preference? Do you want to go through each item, or is everybody comfortable with what they reviewed in the package we received? COMMISSIONER VONAIR: I'm comfortable. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think we should highlight, you know, the additional items and the substantive changes that were made since our last review, and then I'm good with that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does everybody agree? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: So I take that I can skip the ones where simply we made some -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: -- LDC reference changes, and I'll go to the more meaty items. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Acknowledging that you did do that, though. That's a good move. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we did. And just for clarification -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Otherwise you wouldn't have had a vote here. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. In some cases there was a direct correlation, so those are referenced specifically, just so you understand that. In some cases it made more sense to just reference simply Land Development Code. So some were dumbed down, some were a true conversion. And I think you'll see when I get to one of the more meaty page changes how that was handled. Probably, if you would turn to Page 3 -2 of your document, that starts the residential development standards discussion. And if you go to item F -- E and F, I guess, for instance, that's where we had this discussion about zero lot line now becoming a variable lot line product. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Wayne, can we put this on the overhead too so everyone -- MR. ARNOLD: Sure. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Did you want to show them the change on Page 2.1 that you added to address their concerns from the last hearing? MR. ARNOLD: That was the on -- okay, thank you, Heidi, you're right. Let me go back to that. This was to Section 2.1 of the PUD. It's on Page 2 -1 -- Section 2.2, excuse me. There was a reference to some of the older improvements that have been completed, and we were contemplating whether to use December 31 st of 2011. We've added language that really talks about -- it says where development approvals have been granted prior to the effective date of the 2012 PUD amendment and approved under prior LDC and PUD provisions, these approvals and any improvements shall be deemed conforming. So there's some inserted language that you'll see in your version to help clarify that. And I think that the county attorney's office is happy with that language. Thank you, Heidi. Back to Page 3 -2 that is on the visualizer. We modified Item E to change zero to variable. And then in Item F, this is where we clarified how we could mix product type. So we've said that within the same platted development tract we can have single - family product variations, but the larger separation between any of those product types has to be used. Hopefully that clarifies it. Because there was concern about how they orient themselves when we have different development standards. So we're going to use the larger of the two building separations. Page 4 of 20 A 612 1 February 16, 2012 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any questions on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just a question. Wayne, if they're against two platted developments, what would be the setback of the buildings in those two developments, the adjoining developments? MR. ARNOLD: Well, if they're two separate development tracks, I think we're going to have to institute separate landscape buffer tracks. So I think our -- the setback is always going to be measured from the platted track line. So you're going to have I think it's a minimum 10 -foot landscape buffer anyway. So I think we take care of the separation and setback issue, if you would have the same product type on two different platted tracks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or different product types. So what if one had a greater setback than the other, would the buffer be the prevailing setback or would the greater of the two? MR. ARNOLD: I think on a different development track, Mr. Schiffer, I think it's going to defer to the actual setback for the product type in the table. But I think we're not going to have an issue of narrower separation because of the landscape buffer track requirement. I think it takes care of itself with the development standards that we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else? MR. ARNOLD: On the next page, 3 -3 is the development table. And we've made couple of modifications. And I need to explain a couple that don't show up as true changes because they're carried forward later in the document. But this is where we revised the zero lot line product to become a variable lot line product. And if you look at the note immediately below the table, we've added some language that addressed the discussion of who would review one of these conceptual exhibits. And if you remember, we had a discussion about the variable lot line and the villa product that we've talked about would have to come through a conceptual plan process prior to getting the building permit so everybody could see the product orientation, how they're going to be arranged on -site, will reflect building setbacks, building separations, so that we don't end up with the guy in the middle that ends up with a non - buildable lot. So we'll have planned the track in advance, it'll get submitted. So that's the language that we've tried to add to do that. And that's one of the modifications we made yesterday afternoon late. We added a phrase where it talked about the conceptual exhibits showing typical building configurations, but now it also needs to include building setbacks and building separations for clarification. I think that was a good suggestion from County Attorney's Office. The other thing that carne up was a question on the building height. And if you go down to footnote number two, there was sort of a different definition of building height that had been used and we explained that that was because we had essentially basement units near the village center and the lake. So for clarification, we decided that it was confusing but we hated to abandon the definition, so we've now made it applicable only to the village center where we had that issue. And hopefully that meets everybody's concern. The last item footnote, number -- I'm sorry, number six, footnote six, there have been modifications. And this again dealt with the variable lot line where we reference that the site setback can be variable. And then there was the language above that added clarification. So that's why that one has been shortened a little. And on footnote number eight, that was the one where we talked about villas. And that's the definition. If you remember, we also had language on there about modifying the street widths and things like that. I'll get to that in a moment, but we've added a deviation, as was suggested, to clarify that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any questions on this page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we leave residential, Wayne, there was a concern. Some of the neighbors in the older part that was developed already that didn't want new product up against them that may not meet the setbacks or may not even be the scale of their development. Were we going to in here put something that kind of stated that the developments north of the clubhouse is -- (Electronic interference.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Was that an answer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes or no would be fine. But anyway, I couldn't find anything in the residential section or any other section that was kind of protecting Page 5 of 20 r _ SA ot, A 44 . �. February 16, 2012 them from a new development alongside them. MR. ARNOLD: I didn't insert any language. I know we had that discussion. I didn't take away from our conversation that that was a directive to work on that language. I know that Mr. Asher from the property owners team suggested to you that it's not our intent to go back on platted single - family tract right now and start inserting these other product types. But I don't know what protection we would do. I mean, there are certain platted tracts that are going to be replatted. And I think Mr. Asher would tell you that we've looked at one of the development tracts immediately behind their sales center, for instance. It went from single - family to then we looked at a multi - family and now it's being replatted as single - family again. So I'm not sure how we write the language that protects us from going back to replat tracts of land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You could apply the -- if I may, you could apply the new housing structure types to anything after a certain date, right, because you're not going to go back to what you've already done, if that's what you're concerned about. So you could say, you know, for any -- I don't know if you want to tie it to applications or building permits issued after -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Such and such. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And it could be the effective date of this ordinance that we could just plug in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern was that in the -- and I guess -- I thought we had defined it with the road system as to what that meant. But there is some areas that have homes on it that have vacant lots around them. And if they would go in and replat those vacant lots to multi- family, for instance, that would not be the character of the road when the person bought that house. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Anderson just reminded me that the discussion at the meeting, Mr. Asher's testimony was that the streets that have existing single- family homes existing on them were not going to be subject to mixing product types, that those would carry forward as single - family communities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we put words in here that -- MR. ARNOLD: I think we probably can. If maybe we could put some minds together and try to draft some language for your consideration to deal with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Where do you think in this document we would deal with that? In the residential section, or -- MR. ARNOLD: I think it makes sense somewhere in the residential section. Let me give some thought to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then in 3.5 you'll add a G? MR. ANDERSON: I'll add it on the end. I'll do it here. MR. ARNOLD: We'll draft some language right now. The next page I would refer you to is Page 5 -1. It's the first page of the village center component of the project. And if you remember, we were trying to insert some of these personal service, small convince items into the mix. And there was a question how we track the size of this, because there is a limitation on how much acreage we can have and it's a maximum of 4.5 acres. So we've added language that, one, bumped the number up to 210, because of your discussion on the cabana units counting as multi - family dwellings. And then in the same paragraph, 5.2, we've added a sentence at the end of what was previously submitted to you that says, the acreage of a small -scale retail office and personal uses and their supporting associated facilities must be tracked and shown on the Site Development Plan that includes said uses. Permitted uses and their related accessory uses in Section 5.3(A)(1)(2) and (3) are excluded from the acreage calculation. Now, Mr. Anderson and I added the last sentence to make sure it was understood that the village centers really are golf clubhouse tract. And there are going to be dining facilities and a pro shop and things like that related to it. Those shouldn't count against these other personal services that we're trying to insert. So we added that for clarification. Hopefully that's clear paragraph. The next page on 5 -2, we made a modification to the discussion of the golf cabanas. And this was where we Page 6 of 20 i 161 ebruary 1 ,4 12 indicated that for purposes of the density for the project the golf club cabanas would constitute a multi - family dwelling unit. Hope that's clear enough. And the other section you have here is Page 7 -4. And this is the first page you're going to see where we had some of these referring to former provisions of the code. But the substantive change here is there was a deletion of -- I need to find my version that I had. Yeah, it's on Page 7 -4. Your version I think has a new underlined section for -- and a number 11 on it, if I'm not mistaken. And it starts with, in accordance with Section 3(A)(2). Does your version have that? No? Okay. Then it was my older version I was referring to. If you go to Item 13, this is the deviation that was added to address the villa product and the reduction right -of -way widths and the cul -de -sac radius. It was determined by Planning Commission last meeting that it was more appropriate to deal with that as a deviation than it was to deal with that as a footnote. So that's what we've done. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You might want to point out Item 4's addition on Page 7 -3, where you speak to the new commitment for buffering. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I apologize. That is a big one. I apologize, I skipped over that. I had it tabbed even. I overlooked it. On -- if you go back to Page 7 -3, we've added a couple of clarifications. And I'll get to the one at the top first. It's number four. Mr. Brougham had suggested that we might want to consider installing a landscape buffer along the southern boundary of this project. So we've written it in as an interim landscape buffer, because ultimately when those tracts get developed, the product type will dictate what type of buffer is actually established. So we're going to call it an interim buffer along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. We've described that it extends from our western project boundary east over to the project entrance. And we've made a commitment to install this landscape buffer no later than December 31 st, 2012. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I might? Thank you very much for that consideration of your southern neighbors. Further clarification or question on my part. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That easternmost access point is just west of the cul -de -sac, if I'm reading the aerial correct? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, uh -huh. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so you're committing to install the temporary buffer to what point? MR. ARNOLD: To our access point from Veterans Memorial. And the reason we didn't carry it further east all the way to the terminus of the cul -de -sac is because there's a lake there, and it seems like the lake was a nice feature to look at and doesn't seem like it was necessary to buffer the lake. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just so I understand, is there any material whatsoever between the cul -de -sac and the lake? I can't tell from the aerial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you put it on the aerial? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You can show this, Ray, if you'd like. MR. ARNOLD: Sorry, I can't tell for sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But what you're saying is that you're proposing to put a buffer up to the western edge of that access road? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, thank you for that. The neighbors thank you for that. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. The other change, while we're on that page, was a comment that Mr. Schiffer had made regarding fire access. And it's timely that the master plan's up there. Because we added Item 2. And it says, the developer shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turnaround, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul -de -sac, as noted on the PUD master plan Note 1. And I don't know if you studied it closely, but we added -- on the long cul -de -sac that was pointed out at the hearing, we added a notation and then a note at the bottom of the master plan that mirrors the language that's on the PUD document that requires that long cul -de -sac to have some proper turnaround. Page 7 of 20 1612 A4 February 16, 2012 And that doesn't mean a cul -de -sac, it could mean what's referred to as a hammerhead turn or sometimes they have other turning movements that are permittable. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any questions so far? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question for you. As long as you have this on the Board, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, which used to be East -west Livingston, is that going to be a separation in the road there? Is that going to be a median in here? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so. I think unless the county decides to put this back on its long -term road plan, I believe it's going to remain a two -lane road with maybe an appropriate turn lane. So it could be a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you don't need all this excess space there? So it is just going to be the two lanes, because the only one -- the people that are going to use it -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think there's room in the right -of -way condition that -- you know, as part of the PUD we're asked to turn this road over to Collier County. It becomes a county road. We currently own that portion that's going through the turnover process. But it was designed I think to accommodate a four -lane road condition. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So you have 150 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we're talking about the width of 150 feet? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Podczerwinsky? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: For the record, John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. I need to swear in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sir, this is going to be a dead end. Is there any need to have all that space in there? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: All -- help me out, which -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: With -- well, it shows 150 -- it's going to just be a two -lane road; is that correct, and there's going to be no median in between? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. To my understanding it will just remain as a two -lane roadway. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Does it need the full right -of -way width of 150 feet? I don't think it's required any longer. The petitioner -- it would be upon the petitioner to seek vacation of that right -of -way and they would have to go through a specific process the county has in place to do so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, very good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Diane, one thing though is way in the future they may want that right -of -way width. You know, they may be hopping over 75 there, so -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner, I've been corrected. That has not been conveyed to the county yet. So it's still in the ownership of the developer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That road is not going to go over. On the east side of I -75 they have nowhere to put it anymore because a previous developer built in the right -of -way. So -- which was going to be east -west Livingston. And that will not, if it were to come aboard, which it cannot now because of the condition on the east side of I -75. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But 50 years, 100 years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Knock down the other things on the other side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wrecking balls, it might work. Anyway. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner Schiffer, for clarity, it is no longer in the long -range transportation plan. Everything east of I -75 has been removed from the LRTP for this corridor. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you, Mr. Podczerwinsky. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: It will end at 1 -75. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) Page 8 of 20 , =1 a: 161 Z A4 February 16, 2012 MR. ARNOLD: I think that concludes the more substantive changes that were made. Again, there were a couple of typos that were found. And I think Bruce Anderson has had a chance to craft some language to address Mr. Schiffer's comments. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, at the end of paragraph -- or Section 3.5(F), we would add the following: "or along any street where there are single - family homes existing or under construction on the effective date of the 2012 PUD amendment." MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can you read it again? I'm not that fast. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Add at the end of Section 3.5(F): Or along any street where there are single - family homes existing or under construction on the effective date of the 2012 PUD amendment. That would prohibit any mixture of single - family and multi- family in any of those areas. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Brad, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm good with that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it seemed one of the concerns that the board had would be that somebody would have bought in already. And I don't think this covers someone who's bought, if there's no existing home or it's not under construction. So is there a lot that's been sold? It's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good point. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Is that a concern you need to address or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's a concern, you're right. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi, can you reference it by deed? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, what I don't know is whether or not the developer owns all the lots except for, you know, the ones that are under -- you know, that have been sold to the end user. I don't know if there's a middle user like another house builder, you know, that might own a lot but hasn't yet sold it. So perhaps you know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we do it by street then if we -- I mean, how many people, be it developer or private, have bought lots in there already? Is it isolated one area or all over the place or -- MR. ASHER: For the record, my name is John Asher, and I'm with Kitson Partners and KE Talis Park Properties, LLC, the property owner. There is -- other than the streets that have existing homes on it, there is one lot that's been sold on a street that has been developed, but no vertical construction has taken place. But in that particular case we are working with that owner and will either reacquire that lot or he will join in on the redevelopment of that street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what are the streets that have residential on it? I mean, we have a drawing that has some, but they unfortunately put the boundary line through the word, so -- but when you come in the gate and you make a left, what's the name of that street? MR. ASHER: Make a left? That new name is Fairgrove. It's going to be easier to tell you the two streets that have construction on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, that's what I'm trying to figure. It looks like three streets have construction. MR. ASHER: The first street, it was never completed. Those are building pads for a multi - family product, but the infrastructure was never completed, and we're redeveloping that. That first street on the left closest to Livingston. So that's not an issue. This street here is -- the name of it is Prato Way. And you can see there's seven homes there. This street is named Pistoia Way, and there's 14 out of the 18 homes built. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we limited this to those two streets, is that good or -- where's the single lot you were talking about? MR. ASHER: The single lot is on this street here. And that street is developed, but we will redevelop that in conjunction with that individual owner. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Does it have a street name yet? MR. ASHER: It is platted as Firenze. F- I- R- E- N -Z -E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you spell the street, the one that's got the S curve up by 75? Page 9 of 20 to 1612 4 February 16, 2012 MR. ASHER: How do I -- it's Pistoia. P- I- S- T- O -I -A. Pistoia. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we describe this as Prato and Pistoia and that would cover it, right? MR. ASHER: Yeah, those are platted right -of -ways and that won't be changing, so -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi, does that work for you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So you want to change the language to the applicable streets -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- is that what the proposal is? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Correct. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then you want to include the Firenze Street as well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. That's one lot. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I wouldn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let him battle it out. I don't see the guy in here worried about it so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Either way is acceptable. If you don't care about the one lot, I'm fine with the language that they've proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Bruce, just go with the -- can you name those two streets? And then it's crystal clear for everybody. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We'll say: Or along, and we'll name those two streets. We'll add that at the same place at the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's the only thing we're adding to this, correct? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if Bruce could hand write that real quick, couldn't we do the consent and get him out of here? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a general question. Mr. Asher, I have a question for you. MR. ASHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you going to change the architectural -- architecture of Tuscany Reserve? MR. ASHER: We will broaden the architecture. It will not be limited to just the heavy Tuscan styles. We will -- Tuscan styles will still be part of the architecture but we'll broaden it and open it up to a couple of other styles. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So that has something to do with it. Because I remember a gentleman here last time who did not want the name of Tuscany Reserve changed. And I understand where he's coming from, because it is a very nice community and people in Naples know that name, so -- that was just a question that I had, are you going to change everything so it won't even be what -- MR. ASHER: No, it will -- I mean, obviously the infrastructure is there and it's heavily themed Tuscan. But some of the entry features, the guard gate, and there's some stone walls that we'll make some modifications to and eliminate some of the stonework, and it will all tie into the architecture of the new clubhouse. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which has not been built yet. MR. ASHER: It has not been built yet, but we'll start the first phase here pretty quickly. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right, thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Wayne, did you have something else? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I have anything else. I think those were the changes. I don't know -- I know Kay has been out of the office and we've been coordinating more directly with County Attorney's Office, so I don't know if Kay or County Attorney's Office has any other comments. But I think I covered the highlights and the meatier issues that we were asked to come back and address. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Kay, do you have anything to add? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes, I'm satisfied with the changes we've made to this point. Page 10 of 20 161 ?b k 4 ruary 16, 2012 ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I just need a clarification on your 10 on 3.5(F) with the new language. My understanding is at the end of the sentence it will read: Or along blank, which is going to be the two streets, which have existing homes or are under active constructions on the date of the 2012 PUD amendment. But when you're talking about the "or along ", are you talking about that those streets will not have the variable lot line? Is that what you're talking about? Or are you only talking about those won't have the mix of single - family and multi - family? MR. ARNOLD: I believe the clarification was to address that we're not going to mix product types along those two streets. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: And we did bring a laptop and a printer, so presuming you all recommend approval we'll be able to come back for consent in a short while and we can show you the exact language that we've crafted. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Heidi, are you okay with that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: -- the language? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I was going to say, it's such a small thing, can't we just -- I mean, we're talking about -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Can you hand write it in and put it on the overhead? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --not even 10 words. MR. ARNOLD: We can try that too. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do we have speakers, Melissa? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Ray, do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered on this item. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this item? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward PUDA- PL2011 -343, Tuscany Reserve PUD, with the modification we made today and recommend approval. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second that, but I just have one quick question and that was with the street, if you do not need the 150 -foot right -of -way, you could work that out with transportation? MR. ARNOLD: I know Mr. Anderson has been discussing that with transportation. I don't know all the details of that, but we have been communicating with them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, just as long as it's noted. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's noted. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second the motion. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Schiffer and a second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, all in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion passes 7 -0. Page 11 of 20 16 E A4 February 16, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we --since everything's fresh, could we just dictate those words? So as long as Heidi knows what they are, we could move into consent. I'd be comfortable with that. MR. ARNOLD: I think Heidi has the language. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I have it I just need the names of the streets. So it would be: Or along and then -- MR. ARNOLD: Prato Way. And that's P- R- A -T -O. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And? MR. ARNOLD: Pistoia. And I believe that's P- 1- S- T- 0-I -A. And it's Way as well. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So it will read at the end of -- after the red language it will say: Or along Prato Way and Pistoia Way, which have existing homes or are under active construction on the date of the 2012 PUD amendment. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You need a motion? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I need a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I move we forward consent item PUDA- PL2011 -343 as being representative of our hearing. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. We have a motion and a second. Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much. That was very helpful to us. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks again for the buffer, Mr. Asher. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: ** *Okay, we are going to move back to Item A. Mike? Corby? MR. SC1 MIDT: Yes, good morning. We return to you with some changes as directed at your last meeting on the proposed EAR -based comprehensive plan amendments. We provided you in an e-mail as well as deliveries a short memo explaining where we stand and where we're going with this. And in the Exhibit A, which is an update from your last meeting, those proposed changes. We also highlighted them to draw them out in the paperwork itself to simply illustrate some of those topics or issues that were outstanding last time. One of those had to do with the county's control or authority extent over private utilities. I know there were some issues yet to be answered for the housing element and some details yet to be worked out in the CCME. So saying that, the Exhibit A is that proposed language. We have individuals here to address those items for you as they come up. And as clarification as to where we'd like you to go with this today, consider all those items in front of you, but then continue all action until your next meeting on March 1 st where you would again consider it these, take your action and have your consent agenda as well. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And Corby, at the March 1 st meeting you'll have the entire package, which will have all the changes. Because this version before you just has some of the changes that were like a continued discussion. So you're not seeing in the total context of what you sought last time. But when you get to see it for the actual vote at the next meeting, you'll see whatever direction you give them today all in one final package, correct? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. You've got -- we'll call it Exhibit B for now -- one more exhibit, which are Page 12 of 20 b 1 Aid e rua ry 16, 2012 those detailed last consent items that were not issues or items for today. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: Okay. So the Planning Commission understands, what we're looking to do is accept the policies that we've received and then we're going to continue to the next meeting. So do you guys want to go page -by -page and ask any questions of what we have received so far? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't have any questions. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: You don't have any questions. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I personally would feel more comfortable in seeing an entire document, inclusive of all proposed changes, that we could deal on at one time. I mean, to be incremental here, there's no assurance that whatever we see today is going to be in the final version in two weeks. So, I mean, that's my point of view. MR. BOSE: And just a reminder, you've seen all those changes. These were the policies that you said bring back, there's some certain issues. These issues we've addressed within the footnotes at the end of each individual policies. At the 31 st or the 1 st meeting in March, every policy in every objective that is being recommended for modification will be presented in its whole, and we're going to ask to take a final action upon that. And we'll also ask at that time -- because the 28th day of March is before the Board of County Commissioners for transmittal hearing -- that we're going to ask also, as well as the recommendation, but recommendation on consent as well. But we will, Commissioner Brougham, provide it in that documentation the way that you've requested it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. So before we accept those policies, do we have any registered speakers? MR. SCHMIDT: One item before we go to speakers, Madam Chairman? The item on Page 2 toward the bottom, I believe that's transportation element policy 5.1. After the lettered items, there's a closing paragraph. In the first sentence where it reads mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all deficient roadways. It's unnecessary to have the term deficient modifying roadways. And that's the only change we have to this document at this time, to delete the word deficient from that sentence. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, that change needs to be made because of some changes in the House Bill 7207 that passed in 2011. So we need to change it to just roadways. We can't force them to contribute towards deficient roadways. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I understand. Anyone have any questions on that? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: And then one more item. The CCME element does have some presentation items for you this morning. So before speakers, I'd ask that you hear that. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Which -- where are we here? MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning. Page 11 of your document. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And again, Michele, all of the items you're giving us will be on the final that we receive from March 1 st. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. What I wanted to mention about Policy 10.1.6, the new renumbered policy: Staff -- environmental staff as well as comprehensive planning staff has had numerous conversations about this policy at the last meeting of the CCPC for the transmittal. The CCPC wanted us to come back with some new language. Basically what this policy does is it represents how county staff is administering the policy right now. And Page 13 of 20 16 12 A4 February 16, 2012 that is we're deferring to the state. We don't have a wetlands program. So as we discuss this further leading up to this particular hearing, we're proposing instead of retaining these two policies that we delete them, because they are duplicative. And we'll leave that at the discretion of the planning body here. I do know that The Conservancy is here to speak on these two policies, so you may want to hear from them before the recommendation is made. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Anyone have any questions for Michele? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Public speakers? Who do we have registered? MR. BELLOWS: Timothy Hall. To be followed by Jeremy Frantz. MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, my name's Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall and Associates. I was here to comment on the same two policies that Michele was just mentioning. And if you take her advice and propose to eliminate both of them, then I guess my comments aren't required. But with some of the new language that's added, the concerns that we had basically are that the definition that you guys are inserting for destruction of marine wetlands, meaning no net loss of function, the state permitting already requires that if you impact wetlands, you can't have any net loss of function. So this policy would never apply in that case. The more pressing issue, though, that I had had to do with the addition of the statement of the marina, for general public use of the marina. And the reason that's a concern is because if you go back to your definitions of marina in the Land Development Code, some private residential projects can be classified as marinas. Those docks are -- what's the term there -- associated with their accessory to the residential uses, and they're not allowed to sell or rent or lease those slips outside of the development. So if this policy's in there that they have to then provide for public use of their facilities and under the Land Development Code they're not allowed to, you get into a Catch 22 of which one takes precedence. When these policies first came into place, we spoke on them as well. And my opinion was that it should be limited to commercial marina facilities, not to those -- you know, those other ones. And then if you get into the policy of 1.10.1.7 now where you talk about marinas or any other water - dependent or water - related uses, again, that could apply to any dock project, not just those marina facilities. And to ask a single - family owner or somebody trying to do a small dock to do a feasibility analysis seems overkill. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I agree. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Madam Chair, the County Attorney's Office is supportive of staffs recommendation to take those two sections out. If we're going to require marina to be partially public, then it needs to be done through an incentivized program rather than as a mandate. So we would be supportive with the elimination of that. MR. HALL: And I would support the elimination of those as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. Tim, what does net loss mean? How is -- gross loss I could probably figure out, but net? MR. HALL: Well, net loss of acreage is if you have less acres than you started with, you've lost some. Net loss of function is calculated through a mathematical program, if you will. They look at different components and they do a functional analysis. The two most common are WRAP, which is the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. And then that was recently replaced by the state with an analysis called UMAM, which is a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology. And what they do is they look at different criteria. UMAM looks at the location of the facility, the hydrology of the facility and the other functions provided there. A lot of it is generated towards the use of those areas by wildlife and how that is. And they assign a numerical value of one to 10 for each one of those functions, how well it's met based on different parameters. And you're assigned a score. So say if your UMAM score is a.5, then that generally means that that wetland is providing 50 percent of the value that a perfect wetland would be providing. So if you have -- if you're impacting an acre of that .5, then you've lost .5 functional value for your project. So you have to do mitigation either through purchase at a mitigation bank or through enhancement on your property to make up that functional value. Page 14 of 20 i61 z A Februa ry 41� 2012 And that can be done through increases or improvements to hydrology, it can be done through removal of exotic vegetation and replanting of native vegetation, or it can be done through taking areas that are currently uplands and recreating wetlands out of them. Does that -- it got kind of long winded there, but it's not an easy answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Better than I expected. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: I have one more question for you. On Policy 10.1.7, how are (sic) you processing this before in terms of the feasibility? MR. HALL: I mean, in most cases the feasibility analysis to determine whether a project's feasible or not, an applicant's not going to build the project if it's not -- you know, if it's not economically feasible for them. So it's kind of been -- me personally, I haven't specifically had to address that problem on any of the projects that we've worked on. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. So it hasn't been a requirement up till now? MR. HALL: I think it has been a requirement. I don't know that it's actually been -- it hasn't been required on projects I've worked on. I don't know about other projects. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Tim? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, thank you. MR. HALL: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Final speaker, Jeremy Frantz. MR. FRANTZ: Hi. For the record, Jeremy Frantz, representing The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. We recognize that the policy as it is currently in the GMP is difficult for county staff to implement. However, it's really part of a broader discussion that The Conservancy has for several years been encouraging the county to have, especially since growth management oversight has been severely reduced at the state level. The issue centers around the fact that there are many circumstances where Collier County defers authority to agencies and simply adopts the agency's determination as satisfactory for addressing county concerns and consistency issues. For some time now we've been reminding the county of the importance of having a meaningful local role in the protection of listed species and wetlands, along with other natural resource issues. When the county defers authority to other agencies, we lose our ability to meaningfully shape and implement local policies for community benefit. This local control and authority is especially important because many of these very agencies have, especially in recent years, seen their core roles shrinking due to budget and staffing cuts and legislative reprioritizations. We believe that abdicating opportunities for county review is not in the county's best interest, especially since the responsibilities and scope of review for those state agencies, to which we would defer, have also been continually contracting. We're concerned that continually deferring these opportunities for the county to ensure development occurs appropriately will result in consequences that will be difficult to reverse. The Conservancy understands that we're not going to solve these issues today or with this amendment cycle, but please consider that this policy coul play an important role in enforcing and implementing Goal 10 of the GMP. Instead of simply deferring to the agencies regarding the appropriateness of development in our marinas, the county should take this opportunity to revise and reinforce the policies so that the county will have guidelines that are specific to the county. Once the damage has been done by removing these policies from the GMP entirely, they will be much harder to reintroduce later. With this in mind, The Conservancy suggests that you recommend staff either continue to revise this policy either in this cycle or another so that they can have enough time to create an effective policy. Thanks. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak on this item? (No response.) Page 15 of 20 1612 -.1 February 1 AA ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay. At this point does anybody have any comments on removing the two items? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'd like to see the changes in writing, really. But we are going to get all of that next time, right? MR. BOSE: All the changes would be -- both of those policies would be stricken through for deletion. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And again, we're not going to vote on that until March 1 st at this point, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I --just a comment. I mean, in hearing what Mr. Frantz just said, not having any other prior information on this, I tend to agree with where they're coming from. If we continue to eliminate our oversight in certain areas here and defer to some existing- today- might- not -be- there - tomorrow state agency, I think that we're putting the welfare of the county in many respects in others hands, and I don't feel comfortable with that. I don't know how -- I have no specific recommendations as to how to change this policy or not, but it makes me uncomfortable to shed our responsibility and our responsibility to oversee these types of things. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just my opinion. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Well, I think one of the bigger issues, at least with 10.1.6, is the requirement to provide general public use of facilities. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would agree with that point, okay, based upon private landowners adjacent to water putting in a boat dock or more shouldn't be required to provide for public use. But I think having said that, there's room in the English language to put proper words in there that would preclude that, if that's the sentiment of the commission and so forth. But just to strike the policies I think is very abrupt. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Mike, did you want to ask -- MR. BOSE: I'd like to remind the Planning Commission, within this particular element on the CCME, the last goal specifically states that the county seeks not to duplicate efforts within the State or Federal permitting agencies and defers to State and Federal permitting agencies within that goal. As Mr. Hall has described, these activities that are trying to be attained within these two policies are being implemented at the state level; therefore, this is somewhat of a duplication of efforts. And for consistency with the final goal of the CCME, we're not asking the Planning Commission to abdicate any responsibility for review but to recognize that the review is being taken place at the state level. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, I hear what you said. But if we remove the policy that will require a review, how can we be assured that there is going to be a review? Never mind, I hear what you said. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Currently for any projects, do you have to -- in the county's permit process, you have to provide copies of all of the federal and state permits. Is that still valid, Mike; do you know? MR. BOSE: Steve Lenberger just acknowledged that yes, that is the case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have to agree with Phil, if we give this up because South Florida Water Management doesn't always follow through with theirs, Army Corps of Engineers, there are some agencies. And for this county just to say well, the state approves it, we don't have to, I believe what Phil is saying is correct, we should still look at this ourselves and protect the people of this county. MR. BOSE: Well, and I guess you'd have to look at the policies and see what aspect it is that you're uncomfortable with deferring to the state agencies. Wetland permitting? So is it the position of the Planning Commission to advocate that we should be wetland permitting at the local level? Because that's what the policy is requesting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'll stop in and speak with you. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: And I think also, if you're going to start changing these, then you're going to have to revise the goal as well, correct? Or remove. MR. BOSE: There could be conflicts with that goal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree, Mike, I don't like dual reviews. But one question is, when you read the original wording on these things and when Dave was up here, isn't the Page 16 of 20 A4 16 Ue2ary 16, 2012 intent of this clause solely to mean that if you're going to destroy these wetlands, you have to do it for the public good only. I mean, it's not -- I mean, we're kind of turning this into a regulatory document, but the old wording and use of words like destroying say that, you know, you can destroy it but it has to be for the public good. It's not something that private developers can go in and destroy stuff. So essentially it's just setting a limit as to if you are going to destroy these wetlands it has to be in the benefit of the PUD. Isn't that what the original wording said? And now we're kind of blending it into a new regulatory step. MR. LENBERGER: Steven Lenberger, Land Development Services Department. We discussed this at the last hearing, talked about problems in implementing this language. Basically the state handles the permitting for this. They go through public interest tests, and they require mitigation to offset the losses, as Tim was talking about. So there isn't actually destruction of wetlands. They can't do that without offsetting the impacts in mitigation. So staffs looked at the point that they're not destroying the wetlands, they've been mitigated for. And the impacts you see to wetlands are basically to install docks, basically a walkway to get to the dock through the mangroves or boardwalk through the mangroves, for example, to enjoy them, certainly not destroying the resource, but utilizing it. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Did that answer your question? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree with the comments with respect to financial feasibility and so forth. I think that's going a little bit too far. But what's the harm in leaving these policies intact? And even if a developer is required to get a state permit, what's the harm in us validating that that permit has been attained and so forth and so on and so on and having discussion on it? I don't see the point or the benefit of deleting these policies, myself. MR. LENBERGER: Well, then you could leave in the Policy 10.1.6, just leave the first sentence, marinas and all other water dependent and water uses shall conform to all applicable regulations regarding development in marine wetlands. You could leave that statement in. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would help me, at least for validation. And we do have the opportunity, you know, to have a discussion of substance with a proponent here. MR. LENBERGER: Staff would be comfortable with that if you wanted to leave that first sentence in 10. 1.6 and delete Policy 10.1.7. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm good with that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Do you want to keep the definition of marine wetlands in then? MR. LENBERGER: We would take them out, because we don't want to cause any conflicts with the state permitting program. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Okay, does anyone else have any questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are we agreed as a commission with that change, or -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are you going to bring it back? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Right, they're going to bring it back at this point. MR. BOSE: From what staff was hearing, the acceptance of CCPC related to these policies would be only on 10.1.6, that first sentence would remain, all other sentences would be strucken through? And then the entire policy of 10. 1.7 which deals with the financial feasibility would be strucken through. I think that was the agreement that we had heard from the Planning Commission regarding these policies. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does anyone have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the financial feasibility, I could see that being important for a big marina. But for a private guy with his dock, isn't he just going to have to prove that he can pay for it? I mean, what's the financial feasibility of a guy in his backyard, he's going to pay Rocky to put it in. So the point is that that's not a difficult thing for the guy. I think the reason it's in there is for the marina guy. In other words, we don't want you to go in and mess up the wetlands and then as it turns out the marina isn't a viable business. MR. LENBERGER: Couple things. Again, Steven Lenberger. Sorry I'm not clear enough today. Page 17 of 20 g K 16 I Februa 16, 2012 As far as if mitigation for wetland impacts, the state requires -- I believe Tim can correct me if I'm wrong -- that it be bonded up front. So that would definitely take place. So any impacts to marine wetland and the mitigation required would be taken care of financially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is a good thing, right? MR. LENBERGER: And the state already does that through their permitting program. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And then, Brad, whether or not he ran out of money and couldn't actually build the dock, as long as he's bonded and would mitigate the wetlands destroyed, that's his problem. MR. LENBERGER: Also too, even if someone could give us a statement that they have the financial backing to do the project, that still would be subjective to economic times which could fluctuate, obviously, and vary. So there's no really assurance there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you agree it's not really a hardship on the private guy with his little dock in the backyard? I mean, the fiscal -- well, Rocky was concerned that it brings fiscal proof down to the individual homeowner in his backyard, and I don't think it does that, do you? Or it's a very easy thing to prove, I'm going to pay the bill. MR. LENBERGER: I guess we're saying is do you really need to. I mean, the individual homeowner will either build a dock, if they have the money. If they don't, they're going to hold off until they do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. So it's not a problem there. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: You're comfortable deleting it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually I think what I'd rather you do is draw a box around it and let's look at it, you know, because we're not looking at --we're just looking atone policy. It would be good to see, you know, everything else around it. So we can discuss it -- MR. BOSE: I'm not quite sure I understand what that would mean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It means on the 1 st we'll discuss it again. And, you know, give us a chance to research the whole thing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just highlight that 10. 1.7 for more specific discussion at the next meeting. MR. BOSE: Okay. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Mike, I think even on 10.1.6, I think that's probably going to be discussed again, because I don't think everyone's in agreement with that either. So -- MR. BOSE: So what I'm hearing, we no longer have an agreement on 10.1.6 that the first sentence should remain and the rest of the policy should be deleted? ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Well, I think that whole thing should be deleted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe, but we don't have the objective for 10 anyway. Is it in here? I mean, so in other words, we -- because we have little pieces of stuff, I'd rather look at the objective and then see if these things make sense in the GMP to meet that objective. And saying somebody else is doing it, it may not be the best way to meet an objective, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If you could just -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Does that make sense, leave them in as-is and then with the recommendation on the 1 st to delete it -- MR. BOSE: So what I hear is there's no recommendation that's being provided today, we'd like to have further discussion on it on March 1 st -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Correct, right. MR. BOSE: -- based upon the same context, of the entire -- ACTING CHAIRWOMAN Al ERN: The entire. MR. BOSE: And remember, you're going to receive the entire GMP. You're going to see the policies that are being proposed for modifications. But we will have the objectives that are -- the goals that are designed -- that are being related to the policies, so you'll be able to have a better context of what is trying -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And just put a big arrow there somewhere so we don't lose sight of the fact that we do want to -- further discussion. MR. BOSE: Just to give you staffs perspective is we view this financial feasibility as an uninforceable regulation, and we felt that it was better to remove policies that were uninforceable than to leave them remain. I think Page 18 of 20 f 161 2 � 'Februa 6 2012 we'll try to more clearly articulate why we believe that staff has arrived at that position on the 1st, and then whatever the decision of the Planning Commission is we'll take forward. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Well, and I think now knowing as well about the part where they have to bond it with the state makes a difference as well, so -- okay, any other questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do I have a motion to accept the policies contained within Exhibit A? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BOSE: And I just ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to continue the item to the 1 st so we can make the final recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion that we continue it to the 1 st of March. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Thank you, Mike. Okay, we've already taken care of consent for Tuscany Reserve, so we've completed our advertised hearings. ** *Anyone have any old business? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: ** *New business? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: ** *Any public comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Second. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRWOMAN AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VONAIR: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You did it, Melissa. Page 19 of 20 4 * * * * * * * * * * ** 161 2 A4 February 16, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:13 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAMA I A AHERN, ice Chairma .. These minutes approved by the board on 3)15Io?°/Z -as presented ✓ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 20 of 20 1612 'A4 March 1, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 1, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Comprehensive Planning Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 94 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Melissa Ahern Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham 161 2 A'4 March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everybody. Whoa, Ray. That's pretty loud. Whoa, that woke me up. I hope you're all awake, too. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome, everyone, to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting, Thursday, March 1 st. And I've still got something wrong. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Welcome back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I hope you -all missed me. I see you saved some fun for today for me from the last meeting. Let's do the roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And, Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Addenda to the agenda. A couple of announcements. We may not finish with the agenda today. The first two items up are the issues involving the Dunes. After that we have some other items that are on today's agenda. If we don't get to them and the -- and, you know, we've got a quantity of them left, we're going to continue either to the 6th or to the 15th. So we'll have to see how the day goes before we know which day we're going to come back on. I do know -- think that most of you are here for the Dunes. We should finish that up today. And I will do everything possible to get to the Plantation Island item today before we finish. I understand there's a gentleman here who flew in for that item, and I want to try to accommodate that as much as we can. So those are the two things for sure we'll get to today, and then we'll see where the continuance goes. Planning Commission absences, we have a -- if we go into continuance till March 6th, just so I know, is everybody available? Phil, you're not. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I will not be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I won't be. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I won't be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So three aren't. That leaves us --we still have a quorum, so we're still good. We have six; four aren't. That's running pretty close. So let's see. Phil, you can't be. Barry, you can for sure be here. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can be. And Bill. Page 2 of 94 i 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we certainly do have a quorum. So we'll do the best we can to see what happens. On the 15th, how is everybody for that? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're okay? Okay. Also we have a request to review the first phase -- the first stage of the second phase of the Master Mobility Plan. And they're looking at a workshop, which is not where we take votes. It's a little more informal. It will be in this room. And April 12th is one of the dates that's open. So if you -all could look at your calendars and let me know how that works for you, or you know ahead. It would be from nine to noon. It would be a morning meeting, and we don't know if we need all three hours, but -- depends on how much we have at that time. Okay. Does anybody know if they can't make it? Let's put it this way: If you find out you can't make it between now and some of the meetings leading up to that date, just let us know and we'll see if we have to rearrange it because of a quorum. Okay. Approval of minutes. I don't believe there were any with this submittal. BCC recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Last Tuesday, on February 28th, the Board of County Commissioners entertained a request by the applicant to have the Sabal Bay amendment continued to the next Board of County Commissioners meeting, and that was approved. I think the applicant wanted to respond to the questions raised by some of the commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a blinking light bulb here. So, I guess, K.D., if you're listening, could you have somebody from maintenance take the bulb out? It stopped. Oh, there it goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now it's on. So doesn't that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's going on and off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Brad, you look the type that would like strobe lights, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's bringing back different memories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't sure. We're going to go right into our public hearings in a minute. Before we do, there's a chairman's report and, basically, all I wanted, to make sure everyone was aware of that when we get into the Dunes, we received a lot of emails, and during disclosure I don't even know how we're going to list them all other than saying we received a lot of them. Staff has got copies of every email that I received, and I believe everyone on this board probably has. This board is limited to reviewing a project or any kind of application to the standards of our code, and some of the emails were in that direction. They talked about the code and things like that, and others were in issues that may not be relevant to this board's ability to weigh in on because it's not directly related to the code. So all I'm asking is that when you come up and speak today and you listen to the course of the meeting, you'll hear a lot of issues about the code, and it's the code that we have to weigh in on, and that's all this board is limited to. So as we get into the discussions and the presentations, we'll try to focus our -- at least on this board's behalf, towards the code - related items. And then Tony Pires had emailed me a couple rather lengthy emails. I'm not sure if he was trying to use up all the ink in my printer or not, but the one I received last night was 31 pages, and the first four pages contained a lot of code - related references that I was going to check out. I printed it four times, and each time this is what I got. So, Tony, I didn't get a chance to thoroughly check out your concerns. I don't know why this -- I checked and did a regular print, and everything else worked, but your one email came out black each time, and I'm not sure why. So I may have to ask you to walk through some of that today so I understand where you're coming from. And I'm sure Richard, if he had gotten a copy, maybe he'll be addressing that as well. With that in mind, let's move into the first advertised public hearing. And, actually, we'll do both of them Page 3 of 94 161 2V A4 March 1, 2012 simultaneously and vote on them separately at the end of the discussion and public testimony. I'll read them off together, and the presentations will follow concurrently. ** *The first one is PDI- PL2012 -159, the Dunes PUD. And this is the one involving whether it's an insubstantial, substantial, and the graphic on the PUD showing that there's a dock in place on the waterway. The second one would be the boat -dock extension. It's BDE- PL2010 -979, the Vanderbilt Partners Limited, II, or II Limited. And that is for the actual dock extension, the part of the dock that goes out past the allowable 20 feet, which I believe is quite a bit in this case, so -- quite a bit of area in this case. So those two are the items that we're going to be discussing first. All those wishing to testify on behalf of either of those items, if you're going to want to speak today, if for any reason you're going to be here as a witness in any manner whatever, you're going to be talking, please rise to be sworn in by one of the court reporters. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our intention today is not to omit anybody from speaking. We have speaker sign -up slips that we use, but we still -- I will generally ask, from the audience, when we're done with the registered speakers, if there's anybody who would still like to speak. And when you get up to speak, it's important that you try to focus on the topic. We ask that you try to summarize in five minutes; however, that's flexible. We've never really cut anybody off. We've asked a couple people to, you know, change it a little bit because they're redundant or they've been off into issues that aren't relative to the application. But just kind of please keep that in mind when you speak. Now, for disclosures, let's go to the Planning Commission. Phil, we'll start at your end. Any disclosures on your part? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. I met with residents of the Surf Colony as well as Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, I had a brief meeting with Mr. Pires, and I had a meeting with our staff, and I received probably 100 emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yeah. I also dealt with Susan Snyder, who is representing the same people. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you speak up, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull the mike up, Barry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Sorry about that. On February 21 st I met with Susan Snyder in representing and having other people talk to me about the docks, and I've had several conversations with Nicole Johnson from the Conservancy. That's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I have had meetings with the Vanderbilt Beach Association, site visit, I have had a meeting with Nicole Johnson, with staff, tons of emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just had well over 50 emails, and I read them all, and I didn't speak to Nicole Johnson other than messages, phone messages back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for myself, let's see. I start -- I met with Mr. Yovanovich and the people that redesigned the docked; Turrell and their company as well as their planner; county staff, of course; Bruce Burkhard; Donna Caron; I've talked with Tony Pires on the phone, I think we may have said something in passing one day; and, of course, Nicole Ryan, Nicole Ryan Johnson on the phone. Emails. Every email I received I forwarded on to Nancy for recordation and distribution. I believe that she either -- forwarded them all on to the Planning Commission members so everybody got the same mix, and I don't even know -- I can't even tell you the quantity. This morning when I came in the Board of County Commissioners, I guess, manager, Ian, had received two large packages for me involving the Dunes. When I opened them up, I found that they were, I don't know if you want to call them petitions but, letters because they're -- I don't know how many -- Nancy, did you happen to count the quantity of letters that were in those two packages? MS. GUNDLACH: I estimate the one I just received this morning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need -- MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning. For the record, Nancy Gundlach, principal planner, land development services. I received 200 letters of support around 8:30 this morning. Page 4 of 94 16121. t March 1, 0 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the letters I received. When I got here this morning, I passed them on to Nancy. I really haven't had time to read them. So I just wanted everybody to know that those came in as well. MS. GUNDLACH: For the record, it was approximately 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I received probably about 100 emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Emails? Where's your mike? You might want to grab that closer to Air, Paul. Well, you'll need it if you speak. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I also received the emails, but I did discuss it with Bruce Burkhard, Donna Caron, Nicole Johnson, and Karen Bishop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Emails and staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- Mark, one other. I did observe the last NIM meeting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- that they had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a question. Is it wise to do these together, or would it be best to separate them? One is a conversation on rights, the other one is a technical conversation on the boat dock itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is, because this is being presented as an insubstantial map change to the PUD, and we have the knowledge of what the docks are like, I thought we could benefit from that knowledge in understanding how they apply to that map change rather than separate them out. I mean, if we vote on one or listen to one independently of the other, I don't know how we're going to keep the facts separate, because in the map change the docks are there. And they'd be -- naturally, the more we would know about them, the better decision we can make on that one. So, Heidi, is there any legal preference? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: They can be discussed together as you proposed, but it's really a matter of your choice. Legally, it can be handled either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- myself, I don't care. We've always done these kind of hearings together, but if someone has a strong objection, I'll certainly be glad to listen to it from the Planning Commission. Brad, is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the -- I'd like to keep packets separate. For example, take seagrass. Seagrass is something that has to do with the boat dock extension, which really doesn't have to do with the first item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we're mixing everything together, you know -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I said was is -- I'd like to keep them apart. One thing, like, for example, is the seagrass has something to do with the boat dock but it has nothing to do with the first item on the rights. So if you start mixing these together -- you know, I don't want anybody making judgments with elements of one application to the other application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got -- I mean, I've got no dog in the fight. Doesn't matter to me how we hear them. I want to make sure the process is preserved in the best way possible. Richard, as the attorney representing the applicant, do you have any concerns either way? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, honestly, if we hear these things separately, you're probably going to hear the same speakers speak twice, because if the NIM that I attended was any indication, there was a -- people had comments on both petitions. Page 5 of 94 f 1 b I �A Zarch 1•,''A'IQ So we're going to go -- if you want to do them separately, we're going to go through probably the insubstantial change, you'll hear, if the NIM was any indication, several people get up and say we somehow gave up our right to ask for docks, and then we'll go through the boat dock extension petition and actually get into where the docks are located and the environmental analysis that was done to locate the docks there, and you'll probably hear the very same people get up and speak again. I thought, for efficiency of time, we can allow people to comment on both and distinguish the two when it came to the vote. Because you're correct, they're very different criteria to look at, but from a time perspective, you know, you're probably going to double the effort of time, and I don't know that you need to do that to keep the criteria separate. But we'll do it any way the Planning Commission wants to do it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have no objection to either procedure? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I would prefer that they be heard together for efficiency standpoint, but I'm not going to, you know, say, you know, we're going to pick up and go home if you go a different way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And I'm trying to make sure that this process is as fair as possible because I expect that any outcome's going to be appealed from either side. So based on that, I want to make sure everybody is a -- understands the -- if there's any objections, I want to know them. Tony Pires, I believe you represent the property owners' association in the area, and as the other attorney who is probably going to be speaking today, do you have any concerns over the process that we just discussed in either direction? MR. PIRES: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. PIRES: -- for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd rather -- unless this board wants to say otherwise, I'd rather hear them both at the same time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree with you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we can separate out the facts and make decisions on our own as we vote on each one separately. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Richard, we'll start out with your presentation. And you'll be presenting on both issues, and then staff will follow after we do some questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner in both petitions. With me today I have Keith Sharp, representative of the owner; Tim Hall, with Turrell Hall, handling both petitions with me; and Karen Bishop also handing both petitions with me. As the chairman has indicated, you have two separate petitions in front of you. Both of those petitions apply to the project commonly known as the Dunes. On the visualizer you have an aerial. I'll orient you as to where both petitions are. And we will be talking about boat docks located in this general area in the manmade water body, and both petitions address the same boat docks. The first petition is a petition for -- a petition for an insubstantial change to the PUD master plan, and I think we have to go through a little history about how this PUD came into being to understand how we got here. Because I will tell you from the outset, this petition should not be in front of you. We're here under protest on this petition because -- as I go through the history, you'll see why, I believe. The PUD addressed the issue, and the only petition you should be considering is the boat dock extension petition. When the PUD was initially approved in 1998, the boat docks were to be addressed through a separate conditional use process. The PUD was amended in 2000 to bring some additional lands in, increase the density of the project, and to specifically address the process by which we would be obtaining future approvals for boat docks. And in that PUD, it is very clear under Section 3.4.13.2 that boat docks are, in fact, an accessory use to the residential development approved by this PUD. And it specifically says -- and I'll read it for the record -- under Page 6 of 94 16 f arclf 1; 412 accessory use, boathouses and docks subject to Section 2.6.21 of the Collier County Land Development Code. And that's on Page 3 -1 of the PUD document, and I do not know if you have that PUD document provided to you by staff or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have it. MR. YOVANOVICH: You do, okay. So if you go to 3 -1, you will see that specific reference to the process we're to follow to get boat docks. Now, that process -- obviously, this is pre recodification. So the numbers have changed, but the process is the same, and they were referring to the boat dock extension process for the boat docks. Now, I will draw your attention, if you'll go -- near the second to last page of the PUD ordinance should be the PUD master plan, and I'll put it up on the visualizer for the public. And that's the master plan. And the diagonally identified area is the conservation easement/water body. And I would submit to you that the only place boat docks can go is in the water. So when this master plan was adopted as part of the PUD and specifically referenced going through the boat dock extension process, the boats were going to be in the water and we were going to identify the number of boats and the location of the boats through the boat dock extension process. I think that there was no need to be here to amend the PUD master plan to identify where the accessory uses go because you -- I won't say never, but you virtually never identify accessory uses on a PUD master plan. In addition, if you review the minutes of the hearing at which the PUD was approved and that conditions was imposed, that we go through the boat dock extension process and the master plan was adopted, there was extensive discussion regarding the future boat docks because, as I'll point out to you later, under the Manatee Protection Plan, we would qualify for 947 boat docks under the marina criteria for manatees. That was never the intention of this project, but it came up during the PUD discussion as to what's the number of docks you will be seeking, and where will they be located. During the discussion, Mr. Griffin from the owner came up and agreed to cap the maximum docks that they would ask for at 60 and agreed that there would be no docks in Water Turkey Bay. Because that was a shallow area, people did not want boat docks in there. The boat docks were to be in the manmade water body, which is essentially from about here south. And, in fact, that water body is identified on a plat, an older plat, and that older plat dedicated that area to use by the public for the typical uses you would allow in a water body, including docks. So with that backdrop the PUD was approved and we were supposed to go through the process of identifying the number of docks capped at 60 and the actual location of the docks capped in water -- the manmade water body through the PUD process. We got very near to advertising this petition for the Planning Commission hearing in January, and then a discussion came about, somehow these boat docks would be inconsistent with the PUD. I went through my analysis with staff, pointed out the legislative history, pointed out that, in fact, and it's -- Ray, can you zoom in, please, for me? It's still going to be difficult for you to see. But if you look over here, this is the manmade water body. The petitioner owns basically all these lands, which is the Dunes, up to, including the water body. Now, some people will contest whether we own it or not. But as part of the state permitting process, we're quitclaiming that water body to the state. So at least the state believes we have an ownership interest in that property or else they would not be asking us to quitclaim it. But be that as it may, there are docks that have been permitted subsequent to the adoption of the master plan identifying that area as a conservation area/water body. So, clearly, boat docks are not an inconsistent use with that area designated as conservation area/water body, and that any conservation easement that may be dedicated to whomever it's supposed to be dedicated to will be subject to the public's right to use that water -- because boaters are using it all the time right now -- and subject to the public's right to install boat docks in that area through whatever the county process is. So that was my argument. I lost that argument. Staff told me it's their interpretation that I need to do an insubstantial change to the PUD master plan to identify the location of the boat docks on the master plan. We started that process. Initially we were told to take the diagonal lines off. We took the diagonal lines off, and Mr. Pires objected Page 7 of 94 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 saying by taking the diagonal lines off, you are no longer an insubstantial change because that exceeds the five -acre cap, because you're reducing a conservation area by five acres. So we put the diagonal lines right back on and showed the boat docks and added a note that basically did what the board did originally which was identify exactly where the boat docks can go. And it clearly says they can go in the manmade water body and they have to stay out of Water Turkey Bay. So the petition in front of you right now is this insubstantial change to the PUD master plan to identify exactly where the boat docks will be located and to make it clear, if people didn't already know, that boat docks can be in that portion of the conservation area/water body. Now, when I objected, I was told there's a very specific process that I'm entitled to go through if I don't agree with staff, and that's the official interpretation process. And as you all know what the official interpretation process is, I write a letter to staff, I say, do you know what my position is? I get their response back, and then I can appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. That's a very lengthy process. It's an expensive process. But it's a process that, if I wanted to challenge that interpretation, staff is telling me I had to go through -- and that's important because staff, based upon the LDC and the Comp Plan, is the interpreter of those -- both of those documents, and staffs position, and I believe the county attorney's position is, if you disagree with their interpretation, there is a process you follow, and that's the official interpretation process. Keep in mind that's not only binding on me; it's binding on anybody else in this audience who disagrees with staffs interpretation, and it's also binding on the Planning Commission. So you may disagree with what staff says, how they've interpreted the LDC or the Growth Management Plan, but none of us are allowed to change that staff interpretation. We have to live with it unless we go through the formal process to have the Board of County Commissioners ultimately overrule staff. So we've filed our petition, and we're going through this process. And I put the master plan up for you but, you know, I had a -- I had a -- this morning at four when I got back into town and was thinking, what do I do? I got this letter from Tony Pires through staff last night, read it this morning. And I said, what would Tony argue if he were in my position? Well, I know Tony would argue everything I've argued, but Tony is very detailed and he would nit -pick the PUD document, and I mean that as a compliment. He would nit -pick this PUD document. And is there anything else in this PUD document that further supports I'm entitled to these boat docks or to ask for these boat docks? And I reread the document, and I noticed in Section -- sorry, I have to go to my glasses. I noticed in Section 2.10 of the PUDs, which is on Page 2 -5 for the PUD document. And I said, what are the general permitted uses within this project? And I looked down at Item No. 5, and it says, neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, and community centers. And it says I can have those uses anywhere in the PUD other than the preserves. Now, people are confusing some terms here as they're poking at this PUD document. There is a very specific preserve district, and that very specific preserve district is marked with the dots. And you'll see the word "preserve." You will note that the area designated as conservation easement/Water Turkey Bay is not within the preserve area. We are allowed under the PUD document by its very terms, together with what's already in the residential district, but in this language, to ask for the boat docks. They are a recreational facility. They are serving the community of the Dunes. It is one of their recreational amenities for those who have access to the docks. So there's two very specific provisions that allow us to go forward today with our petition for the docks under the PUD itself. It's the very specific provision in the residential district that says boat docks are accessory uses to the residential and this general provision that says I can have them anywhere in the PUD. Because I have heard the argument that if I'm going to have docks, it could only be in those areas designated R. Now, there's no water on the area designated R, so I think the argument is not a supportable argument that I have to now come in and amend the PUD to somehow -- fully amend the PUD to somehow be allowed to have docks in an area that's not designated R. But that's an argument that's out there that we think has no merit. Then I thought, I said, you know, if it really has to be on the property itself, the dock physically has to be on the property itself -- I looked at some plats involving the various communities that front water, and I know the property line usually ends at the seawall, and the water is not on their land. So if you truly have to have the dock on your own land, you probably have every -- you've created a nonconforming use for every dock out there today. It has never been the interpretation that the docks, in order for Page 8 of 94 i 161e A j March 1, 2012 them to be considered an accessory use, that it has to be on the residential lot or the residentially designated portion of the PUD. So we are going forward under protest with the very first petition, which is the amendment to the master plan to add the note that you see highlighted to identify where the boat docks will be and to identify a walkway through the preserve that will ultimately lead to the docks when they get constructed. So that's Petition No. 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, in order to keep some of our questions -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So if anybody has questions on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why don't we ask the questions on this part of your presentation from us first and then -- that way we'll keep it a little bit sorted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you have any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, to start with, on the original master plan, why would you -- if you intended to put the docks in the waterway, why would you show it going up in the Turkey Bay, Water Turkey Bay? MR. YOVANOVICH: What ended up happening, Mr. Schiffer, is when this project was going through the rezoning process, there was concern from neighbors and the then president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, and there was concern that we identify where this conservation easement ultimately was going to be. Staff at that time insisted that the entire waterway had a crosshatching on it and that ultimately the conservation easement would be placed on the waterway other -- other than those areas where the docks were going to go. So the master plan is dedicated that way. The state approvals for the boat docks have conservation easements over only Water Turkey Bay, not over the manmade water body, so that furthers the evidence that the "thou shalt not build boat docks in Water Turkey Bay" is what we've honored and what we're moving forward with today and is how we've permitted it through the state agencies. But that's why the whole area was crosshatched was staff wanted the whole area crosshatched. So that's kind of where it is, and that's what was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question was, why would you draw it -- obviously, the boardwalk goes out -- doesn't go towards where you're building the docks. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And through the state permitting process, we were reduced -- and, Tim, do we want -- I mean, this is kind of related but unrelated to the master plan, but I'm going to be crossing over if you -- you'll be hearing some of this. You want to -- I'm going to have Tim respond to you why that moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's relative to the master plan, so that's great. MR. HALL: Yeah. Originally the observation platfonn/fishing pier was shown up in Water Turkey Bay, and the intent would have then been to come off of this boardwalk out to the docks. That kept this separated from the docks and allowed access or easier access to it by all of the residents in the community, and then the docks would have been a separate facility. When we went into the state permitting process and all, they didn't like that idea. We had a couple of access walkways associated with the dock. And in terms of minimizing the impacts, they had us move it from there over to here and put it in the same structure as the docks. So that was -- originally it was going to be a separate entity, and then through the state permitting process it got incorporated into the docks themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But when you drew that, did everybody know they were going to ultimately have docks in the future? MR. HALL: Yeah. The observation platform and fishing pier. But, I mean, yeah, it was clear in the discussions when we were talking about the changes and all that that docks were there, and we actually put a limitation that there would be no more than 60 docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why wasn't it ever drawn or added or little arrow to docks or -- that drawing is totally silent on docks, correct? Page 9 of 94 1612 4 March 1, 2012 MR. HALL: That drawing is silent on docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, that's not atypical, because the boat docks -- as you go through the process of adopting a PUD -- and I've done a few. And I've tried to locate docks on PUD master plans, and the environmental staff that was in place at the time told me not -- you don't get docks through the PUD process, you get the docks through the boat dock extension process, and we don't want you to put that on the master plan to in any way imply you've been preapproved for docks in that location. So that's why you don't see the docks on this master plan and many other master plans. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. Next question -- and I'm into the PUD -- is the -- there's two areas defined in the PUD with acreage and everything. One is residential, one is preserve open space. So you're giving the impression that the waterway is not part of preserve. It's definitely within that area. But what is the waterway then? MR. YOVANOVICH: The waterway -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is designated conservation easement/water body. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in the -- I'm just looking at the PUD. So I guess you're saying preserve open space. The waterway is a subset of that, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The acreage -- the acreage is. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The preserve is only where you see the dots. That's the area designated as preserve and limited to the preserve district requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the land intensity use in the PUD has so many acres for residential, so many acres for preserve open space yet does not include open waterway. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's open space. It is open space. That area is designated as open space that will be -- it doesn't have the limitations that are in the preserve district. It's open space subject to a conservation easement/water body where the boat docks will go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The next thing, let's -- so you're saying that's the open space; the preserve is the docks. The open space is the water. MR. YOVANOVICH: The preserve is a subset of the open space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. The other one I like better for you, but anyway. In the SDP process, when you were going through there, there's quite a few references in the PUD that you have to show all of the final intended improvements. MR. YOVANOVICH: For site development plans? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. So in this process, especially when you were kind of wrapping up the final towers, is there any reference to boat docks either in the water or even up in the mainland? Is there any parking for it? Is there any road to it? Is there any -- anything that has any reference to boat docks? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is you cannot put on a Site Development Plan uses that you haven't yet received approval for; however, we do have identified parking area on this site plan and a drop -off area. Do we have it? Now, those -- that's where it will occur. That's where the drop -off and pick -up areas are and parking are for the Dunes project. But I'm not allowed to identify in an SDP a use that hasn't yet been approved. So I can't point you to an SDP today that's approved that says boat docks are future or approved. That's why we're going through this process, and we will amend the SDPs to ultimately allow for the docks at the time we go through the next step, which would be the SDP process, and then finally the building pen-nit process. But right now there's not an SDP that specifically approves the docks, because I don't have the right to do them yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is this drawing? And I've never seen this before. This is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: These are -- and I'll let Karen explain to you what they are. MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, for the record. This first drawing right here, this is the area closest to Building 3. We had two accesses for the docks, and this is where Building 3 -- this is after negotiating with them on what they have -- what they wanted us to do. Page 10 of 94 1612 March 1, 2012 We've created a small -- a small drop -off only here, then people that -- if they want to park at the clubhouse -- let's say they're at Building 1 or in the coach homes, they can park at the clubhouse, which is recreational, or in some cases they'll just walk there. But it's drop -off only, then they take a cart out to here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Can you slide that over so I can see the other end of the Y. Okay. MS. BISHOP: This end? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. What is that connecting? MS. BISHOP: This is where it comes into Building No. 4, and that one is here where it comes in right here, and that has already been built. This parking here, this SDP's already been approved. This parking has already been built, because these buildings also wanted some extra parking themselves. But it is -- it's going to be an area that's going to be used for access to the docks as well as some drop -off areas. They have a lot of trucks in this area and stuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. So what you're saying, though, Rich, is in the whole SDP process, even those parking spaces that were added, the word "dock" was never associated with them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And who does own the preserve areas? Is it the master association or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think that they've been conveyed to the master association yet, but some of the preserve area will be part of the master association, and part of the preserve will ultimately go to the state. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In permitted uses, except in the preserve area, I guess, the -- if you go to the -- I'm going to go to the boat dock section of the code, 503.6 (sic), in this case D, it does give us the ability to determine whether something is a principal or accessory use; a dock is a principal or accessory. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we talking about the LDC now, or are we talking -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: LDC. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's 503.06.D. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It states there that the boathouse and dock facilities proposed on residentially zoned properties will be defined as accessory use. So I guess if it's not built on the property, does it then become a principal use, or does it still say -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is, is the PUD document prevails as far as what the allowed uses are within this property. And in this particular property, the zoning document clearly says the docks are an accessory to the residential uses. So you look at the PUD document to determine whether or not this is, quote, an accessory use or a principal use. You don't go to the LDC; you go to the PUD, and the PUD says the docks are accessory. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the important word is "to the residential" versus, in this case, "on the residential." MR. YOVANOVIC14: It's to the residential uses, not on the residential parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's interpreted to mean it's to be used by the residents. MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- to put it matter -of- factly like we did at the NIM, these docks are only for people that live in the Dunes, okay. It's not open to anybody outside of the Dunes to buy a dock and utilize the dock. So it's clearly accessory to the residential development that was approved by the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me just jump a bit. Okay. I'm still -- I'm going to save that for staff. Never mind. Mark, I can pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions before -- we're sticking -- we'll stay with the PUD first. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: With the insubstantial change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Make some allowances for a greenhorn commissioner here, Mr. Page 11 of 94 16I arch 1 2012 Yovanovich, but I have some questions. In the original -- original PUD, 1998 -24, you depicted a boardwalk going to a marginal wharf at that time running along parallel to the mangrove shoreline and in the waterway, I'd assume. Now, that disappeared with the subsequent PUD in 2000. Can you just speak to the -- if you depicted a marginal wharf in 1998, I guess is my point, why would you have not depicted boat docks in your 2000 PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: You'd have to go read the legislative history, and I'm happy to provide the minutes. But the boat docks were removed from the discussion because they wanted to go through the process we're going through today, which is a public hearing process, to identify the location of the docks and how many we're allowed to have. So that was what happened through the PUD amendment process. We left it for a later day through this public hearing process, because there was a lot of discussion regarding the where and the where -- where you can have it and where you can't have it, and so that's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: No. I heard you say that earlier, and I guess it's more to the point of my question. Maybe I wasn't clear. It seems to me in just looking at the history that the original concept was to have a marginal wharf that you could walk along and fish off of or whatever, and then that concept was abandoned or you changed your mind or something. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You had the initial marginal wharf, if you will, but the docks that either would become part of that or go off of finger piers or whatever, was left at that time for another day, and that, at the time, was going to be through the conditional use process, which was different than any other PUD had gone through at that time, and that's why in 2000 the commission said, well, it's not fair to make this petitioner go through the conditional use process when nobody else has to go through the conditional use process. Make them go through the boat dock extension process. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Earlier you had mentioned the issue or point of ownership of the waterway itself, the manmade waterway. And according to records on Collier County appraiser, whether they're accurate or not, it shows ownership by Vanderbilt or the Dunes, and there's -- there was also then a submerged land -- what's the terminology? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lease. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- lease applied for through the state back in 2005, I believe. Why was that submerged land lease necessary if you owned, quote- unquote, the property? MR. HALL: If the docks are eventually approved and the land under the docks is conveyed to the state, it will be in state ownership, and so the lease would be the appropriate mechanism for us to have the docks located there if they're on state lands. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And that -- unless there's been a subsequent land lease, that land lease was for five years expiring in 2010? MR. HALL: The lease. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Submerged land lease, excuse me. MR. HALL: It is valid for five years, and then it's reviewed. The dock -- normally the process is the docks are reviewed for compliance with the permits, and if they are compliant then the lease is renewed for another five -year period. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But at this point in time the lease is not in force because it expired in November of 2010? MR. HALL: No. The land hasn't been deeded to the state yet, so the lease isn't valid until that happens. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. All right. One final one concerning that waterway. It's designated an Outstanding Florida Waters -- waterways -- MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- that channel, that manmade channel. MR. HALL: That channel to the bridge. The delineating line for the OFW is the bridge there at the road. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And do you feel, based upon your proposals for dredging, et cetera, that you conform to the requirements or restrictions within that type of a waterway? MR. HALL: Well, I mean, we went through the entire environmental resource permitting process with the docks. It was reviewed by both the Water Management District and DEP in this case. And, yeah, I believe we do, and they agreed. They issued the permits. Page 12 of 94 16I 2 m1a'4201=' COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the DEP found that it was clearly in the public interest and not contrary to the public interest, the construction of the docks and the dredging? MR. HALL: Correct. And some of the components that went into that decision was the actual deeding of lands to public ownership, both some of the preserve areas and the waterway itself. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Even though the subject docks are going to be exclusive for occupants, residents of the Dunes, not the public? MR. HALL: Correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on just this part of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, in the master plan, the PUD itself -- I'm sorry -- 5.3 discusses the PUD master plan, the exhibit, which is the one that shows the wharf in Turkey Bay. It does actually, in 53C, give us some guidance on what would be a minor change or a refinement to that plan. Why wouldn't the docks have been mentioned in that, essentially the final location of the docks? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I don't mean to answer your question with a question, but what this -- what this -- well, let me take that back. What this allows you to do is move the lines on the master plan, because they're not -- they're conceptual lines and they're allowed to move, okay. That's, in fact, the process that we think we should have gone through in the first place was to identify the docks through this minor process. There's a -- there's different processes you can follow. You can have an insubstantial change process, which is the process we're going through right now, and then you could have something that's less than that where you don't even -- that's an administrative -level decision, and the moving of a line can be an administrative decision. Now, the reduction of the preserve area by more than X number of acres puts you into a different level of review, just like something less than that number is considered insubstantial. So you've got different things here, and this is intended to mean -- to deal with the minor moving of internal lines to the PUD document. Identifying what uses can go where on the PUD isn't one of those things that's an insubstantial change to the master plan. Just like, you know, where you ultimately decide on that document to build the clubhouse; that's an accessory use. It doesn't show up on the master plan. I mean, is it an insubstantial change to the master plan? Now, is it -- I guess if you want to go further out, it would -- I'd have to amend the whole PUD to identify where the clubhouse is if I'm not allowed to put the improvements that are allowed under the master plan on the master plan within the project. It never was intended for the actual location of accessory uses. That provision deals with, if you want to shift residential line to the north or the south, you can do that as an insubstantial minor change through staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this part of it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Rich, you mentioned the docks that were permitted across the canal. Can you explain a little more what you -- you stated that this master plan was already approved prior to those going in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can you just explain the process and what happened a little more. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the property owners across the canal went through, I guess, the permitting process because they're within the 20 feet. I don't think they had to do a boat dock extension. So they went in -- they got a building permit to locate their docks within the manmade water body that had already been identified on this master plan as a conservation easement/water body. So we do know that docks are a consistent use with the designation of this area on the master plan. Staff -- you know, it was there. I mean, it was already there and staff hasn't said, so you're not allowed to apply for those docks, and they issued them the permit. So my point is is it's clearly not an inconsistent use with the designation "conservation easement/water body." Page 13 of 94 1612 A4 _= March I, 2012 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this portion of it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one follow -on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Rich, can you point to the aerial view and show -- illustrate where those docks you just spoke of are located, please. Those two -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's four docks within that area that are clearly in the area designated conservation. It's hard -- I mean, I wish I had a better close -up, but that's -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's not the docks within that inlet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have a better picture. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Well, just to save time, those are the white -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- appearing objects there in the waterway? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's good enough for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? MR. HALL: You'll see them later. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, in going back and looking at the Board of County Commissioners, the '98 BCC meeting -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- I stumbled upon a couple things here and would -- it probably would be with Ms. Bishop. Mr. Hancock is saying to her, what is called a marginal wharf, he said, which I still look for in the dictionary and can't find exactly what it means -- but it looks like a boardwalk along the mangrove area. That obviously has to be permitted by the state. But I wanted to ask that overnight docking of vessels be precluded along the wharf. And a little later on Mr. Hancock says, my concern is that that boardwalk becomes a marina. And Ms. Bishop said at the time -- what we did at the time we put it in there, we wanted to do some sort of water activity. What I'd like to be able to do is stick it in as a conditional or provisional use, like you said, and come back to you again with that plan, if I can even get a permit. There's certain criteria that I would have to adhere to state level. Because of the width of this canal, I can assure you there will never be a marina here. It's not wide enough. That was her own -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and -- I've got to ask that you not respond to things like that from the audience, please. This meeting needs to be fair and unbiased. We need to proceed without any input like that. So please refrain from that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And this was in -- Commissioner Hancock then asked her, please respond with detailed plans, opposed a marginal wharf. And she said, thank you. That's what I would like to do, provisional or conditional use, whichever you prefer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and then fast forward to the time 2000 when the PUD was changed, and you have it in its current form. There were changes to the PUD. The provisional use process was removed. We can cite for you the definition of a marina, if you would like. And I believe if you put it in the context that people were concerned about, it was going to be a -- marinas require a combination of uses, together with the dock. And usually the combination of uses will include either fueling, boat repair -- that's the context of marina. Now, we were to come back through the process with an actual configuration of the docks in the future through the provisional use process up to the year 2000 when the PUD was amended to no longer require the provisional use process. It made it very clear that the docks are accessory to the residential uses, and that if we needed to go out more than 20 feet, which we knew at the time we did, we were going to go through the boat dock extension process, and that specific provision in the LDC or process in the LDC was included in the PUD. There is no question that we are allowed to come in and ask for boat docks through this process, that we're Page 14 of 94 �K 16 I M March 1, 2012 going to go with a second petition today. We at no time gave up our rights to do that, and that's what we're going forward with today. We got sidetracked on a process that's probably going to take the better part of the morning -- or who knows, maybe I'm optimistic -- to get through just that process before we get into the boat dock extension process, but that's kind of where we are. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Rich, as far as accessory uses in a PUD, I've seen it in other PUDs where there is nowhere to have a boat dock or fishing pier and yet it is in the PUD as an accessory use. And I was not going to go forward to the 2000 portion yet of this, but I do have some questions when it comes there also. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's what we're on, because that's the only zoning document that applies to this property. So I'm happy to answer any questions regarding the current existing zoning on the property. And if we need to talk about 1998, I will, but I think 2000's the discussion that we need to be having. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, I'll just kind of wait just a little bit, and I have some for staff also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, staff report's not going to come until Richard finishes two presentations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on this part of Rich's presentation? Rich, I have a few. The PUD in 2000,1 thought you said it was -- it was amended. It didn't. It repealed and replaced the prior PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had mentioned, or I think Tim had mentioned, that there were 947 boat docks supposedly allowed by the Manatee Protection Plan. The only reason I'm mentioning this now is because you put that on the record. I don't believe that's accurate based on the Manatee Protection Plan, but we'll get into that when we get into the boat dock discussion. Tim, if you don't mind answering a question. You had said in your -- previously that there were 60 boat docks were stated in the public meeting that would be -- you know, they were talking about up to 60 boat docks being allowed. MR. HALL: That was the maximum, that they would not go more than 60. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did your company apply for 84? MR. HALL: The application was originally made before that. When we started the boat dock application process, or not -- the boat docks with the original exhibits and all, it was before that PUD meeting actually occurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- I mean, I went to the South Florida preliminary portal and down -- and read everything there. There's thousands of pages. But I did come across that continuous bank of finger docks. MR. HALL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think there was 84 or 89, I can't remember which for sure. So the date on that would be after -- or prior to the date of the commission meeting in which the 60 was discussed, when I go to check that during break or lunch today. MR. HALL: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: It's a long time ago. I mean, I believe so. If it was after the date, then it was -- you know, it was corrected when we did realize the mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had for you. Thank you. And, Ray, could you put that overhead -- or that coloring graph. Richard, I have some questions about the various areas. Forget the penciled numbers. I was trying to figure some things out. The yellow, I believe, is an area of wetland preservation that has a different preservation easement over it, then orange area in the south. That orange area's another preservation easement, but that one allows uses like boardwalks; am I correct? Page 15 of 94 1612 A94 March 1, 2012 MR. HALL: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The green area, which follows the water lines, is a conservation easement that's over Turkey Bay in those areas in that -- or that lead to it; is that correct? MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I pulled these off of the best records I could find. The area that is to the south, and the pink line, that's the submerged land lease area where the proposed docks are going to go. MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the white area around that line and where it leads up into the mangrove wetland, which is where the orange kind of hooks into a cul -de -sac there in the south, that area is not yet under any kind of conservation easement; is that right? MR. HALL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your intention is to put it under a conservation easement when these -- this dock thing is figured out with the exception that you can have docks in that -- within that easement as well? MR. HALL: Right, and then convey it to the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that's -- will the conservation easement occur prior to the conveyance? MR. HALL: It should, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm asking -- then the conveyance to the state means you're quitclaiming the deeds to those areas, both waters of Turkey Bay and the water channel to the south, to the state; is that right? MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the water of Turkey Bay been quitclaimed yet? MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I've got, I guess, a question of the county attorney. Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Uh -huh. I speak better with a pen in my hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The waters of Turkey Bay and the waterway to the south, if the conservation easements are provided now or prior to the quitclaiming of those over to the state, does the quitclaiming of those to the state have any impact on the validity or changes needed to the PUD for loss of area for reduction in PUD acreage? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking whether those conveyances affect the density or intensity that the PUD already has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you change the configuration of a PUD and you change ownership, are they going to have to come back in to deal with that in the future? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: In my opinion, no, because when I reviewed the previous records of the meeting, they -- even without that area they still could have asked for more density. So even though that was -- might have been area that was used to maybe have a lower per -acre density, they still could have asked for it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I could supplement that, if it's appropriate. Remember, the entire area is still subject to the PUD. You frequently will convey portions of the PUD to third parties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's still used in the calculation of space regardless of who ultimately owns that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understand that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And I think that, you know, when the property gets deeded to the state, you know, all the conservation areas that are specified can either go to a governmental entity or to Collier County. So the fact that this would be quitclaimed to the state, that -- in my opinion, that would comply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And it could have some subject to conservation language in the deed to the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Richard or Tim, then, when all this is put into easements and your preserve areas already exist that are, will you have any changes to the quantity of acreage pledged in the PUD for preserve open space? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are not decreasing the conservation easement? Page 16 of 94 A4 161 Zrch 1, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue of the accessory use being placed in the residential tract -- I had pulled the definition of accessory use in the code, and it is interesting, because it puts a whole new twist on the way we may have to look at things in the future, although I doubt if it's the right way. Accessory use, a use or structure located on the same lot or parcel and incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. I would have to suggest, I don't ever -- think we've ever done a boat dock that's been on the same parcel or lot in this county, unless they happen to own the submerged land bottoms. Ray, are you aware of any that fit that description? If not, we need to certainly correct that definition. MR. BELLOWS: I'm not aware of any, but we c look at the definition. I think sometimes we treat docks as an accessory use, but not falling under that kind of recreational use or definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sometime maybe we can talk ibrther -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because I would love to see how that's applied then, because if it's not -- well, okay. Do you know how much parking you have in the overall project versus number of units you have; how many spaces versus units? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know it off the top of my head. We can do our best to try to get that number for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally, I think we run, what, 1.5 parking spaces per unit. If you could, sometime today, validate that, that would help with the parking questions that I've seen come up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you know if the docks -- and I didn't see this till today. Those docks at the Surf Colony -- or maybe they're not Surf Colony, but to the south of that inlet across the way that are on the opposite seawall, were they required to be shown on any -- is that an RSF -6 or -12 zoning, or do you know if it's PUD zoning? MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to defer to Nancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can answer that later today. I'll look during break. I didn't know if anybody knew offhand. And according to the staff report the intensity of the land uses that are being asked for, the dock on the master plan, Question "I" says -- it asked about the intensity and says, this does not increase the intensity of the pennitted land uses. The proposed amendment will not change approved density or intensity authorized by the PUD or otherwise affect any element of the GMP. So does that mean that the required parking for an accessory use, as these are considered, was already calculated into the parking requirements provided in the PUD for the Dunes residential? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe the answer to that question was taking that into consideration. It was really the intensity of the number of docks. The docks are a permitted use within the PUD. So this, by showing the docks on the master plan, does not change that relationship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the question has come up that -- do the docks need additional parking? And if they're an accessory use to a principal use, then if they need additional parking on this PUD, they need additional parking in every PUD in every residential unit in Collier County. Is that how we look at accessory uses? Do we change their -- do we require additional parking if an -- depending on the type of accessory use approved with a permitted use, such as a residential unit? MR. BELLOWS: The LDC has definition -- or parking requirements for specific uses. One of those would be clubhouse or recreational facilities serving -- sometimes PUDs have specific parking allotment for those kinds of accessory uses; some don't. Where the PUD is silent, then we fall back on the requirements of the Land Development Code, and those are typically determined at the time of SDP based on the square footage and the like being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a requirement in the LDC to provide additional parking for a dock as an accessory use to a residential structure? MR. BELLOWS: There's nothing in the Land Development Code that has a parking requirement for docks as an accessory use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means that the calculation then for the accessory use is included Page 17 of 94 s �� :. 1612 A March 1, 2012 within the residential component when it was approved for this PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I was trying to go on the first question, okay. That's all I've got. Thank you, Richard. If you want -- are there any other questions on the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. Richard, did you say or, Tim, did you say the orange area down here is not in conservation easement? MR. HALL: No, ma'am. The orange area is under what's called a passive use conservation easement. So it's an easement that allows for passive use activities, like boardwalks and hiking trails, access walkways, and that sort of thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: There's two different easements, Ms. Ebert. There's easements we have to give to the state, then there's easements that we have to give to the county. We have not conveyed to the county any preserve easements yet. That's one of the conditions. When we get approval, we have to convey the necessary preserve easements to the county, and then those preserve easements will have the reference to our ability to have boardwalks to get to our docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as a matter of clarification, you have conveyed easements to South Florida, which are the ones I have outlined on here -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because I did find those and trace them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. HALL: And there's actually one -- an additional one that will go to DEP that you're not showing runs along this shoreline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one foot? MR. HALL: The one foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The cheater strips so they can't -- so they can stop you from expanding the docks. MR. HALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read that, but I didn't know how to put one foot on a scale like that, so I didn't bother. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because there was -- in the 2000 Environmental Advisory Council, Ms. Bishop was saying that -- they were asking questions about this wharf, and she says, well, at this point there was discrepancy between staff and them, and she said at that point, because the Conservancy was interested in something there, she said, at this point negotiations haven't gone that far because we haven't gone that far into building a boardwalks or any type of wharf along the canal. And she said, the piece that heads into Water Turkey Bay, we have set aside our document. There will be no impact of Water Turkey Bay at all. As a matter of fact, we have two separate conservation easements. That particular one in the area allows nothing at all. But the south allows some boardwalks and some little hiking areas and some educational areas, but that's it. There is, you know, no kind of development in those areas at all. And our conservation easement's already in place so there is no question that there (sic) isn't already taken care of. That was from the environmental council. And that's why I was just asking this. So the one at the south is just for the boardwalks, but there will be no development in that area? MR. HALL: Well, there will be no building development area. The boardwalk goes through it to access the docks, which are along the waterway, and outside of that particular passive use easement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody else on this portion of Richard's presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Instead of going into your next one, why don't we take a 15- minute break for the two court reporters today, and we'll be back at 10:30 to resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody would please sit down and take your seats, we'll try to move forward with the meeting. Page 18 of 94 t a 1612 44, 2012�� The two court reporters are fully refreshed, and I thought we'd have a contest with how fast we can talk to see who wears out first. By the way, Cherie and Terri are always our court reporters, but they're never here both at the same time, but they do switch off. So it's kind of interesting they're both here today. Brad, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just wanted to make sure. We -- the only thing we have for the Lost Grove is one handout, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to go over that in a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During break we got some handouts, so I'm going to walk you through them. One actually we got earlier this morning has a cover page with Alico on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is from staff. That is a -- part of our package, I assume. There may be more coming for the meeting on the 15th. It will be the fifth meeting, I think, on -- well, Lost Grove takes the record. While this one today is complicated, that one certainly carries the weight in that regard. A citizen has submitted another package regarding Lost Grove and asked to have it dispersed today so that we'd have it in time. That is the second package with the black binder. And then Mr. Pires decided that since I couldn't read this blacked -out mess he emailed all of us that he would give us a printed copy on his printer and ink, instead of mine. And so we have that, and I think there's 31 pages or so in that. So that's -- the handouts we received during break. And with that, housekeeping's done. Richard, I think we can move in. Unless there's any other questions on the first part of the presentation. If not, we'll move directly into the boat dock extension. Oh, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Speaking of documents, I have a copy of the neighborhood information minutes of meeting from Monday evening's meeting, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you pass those out at lunch, because we're not going to get to it before lunch. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or at the time we get to your staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: It's just related to the PDI, that's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd rather we were paying attention to the presentation. We can read this, though, certainly before we -- on one of our next breaks. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Rich, it's all yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. We're now on to the boat dock extension petition. And, you know, I want to do some just brief introductory comments and then turn it over to Tim, since he's truly the expert here and will take you through how we meet the criteria and that our request is both consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. But we've been through several meetings, at which the public speaks, and I think what's lost in this whole public process is people are forgetting that there's a very important public that I'm not sure is being given fair consideration. And part of the public is actually the developer. He's part of the public and has rights under the documents, but also you have all of the residents of the Dunes are part of the public, and the Dunes have the right to go through this process and get boat docks. We've heard from several people as we've held NIMs at -- why are you doing this? Clearly the public doesn't want this. Well, with all due respect to those who don't want it, the property owners have rights, and we're moving forward with that. I don't know if I've said that to them. But please also consider the residents of the Dunes as you're doing your deliberation, because I think frequently they get left out of what is considered the public. What you have in front of you as part of the boat dock request is a request for 49 boat slips, which is less than the 60 we committed to as part of the PUD process. Page 19 of 94 161 A arch 1, 2012 We have all of the permits we need from the state agencies. We are now going through the county process. Their request you have before you is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan based upon not only Mr. Hall's review, but your own staffs review. Your staff is, in fact, recommending approval. I'm going to ask Tim to take you through in greater detail the boat dock request in front of you and how we have addressed the criteria in the Land Development Code and the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. When he's done, I'll get back up here briefly to make some more comments, and then I can answer any questions that you may have. But it may be helpful to let Tim complete his presentation before asking any questions, if that's acceptable to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. HALL: Thank you. Again, for the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. We have been working on this project for, I believe, about 15 years, looking at the Dunes and the waterway and the boat docks themselves. And I'm going to try to basically walk you through just the -- a series of exhibits showing how we got to the configuration that we are now with the docks. And I need to figure out which way to go with these. To start out, generally, when we -- when we try to permit projects, we look to put docks in areas that have been previously disturbed, if at all possible, or in areas where they'll do the least amount of damage from an environmental standpoint, if there are no previously disturbed areas. This exhibit, it's a 1952 aerial. You can see the construction of Vanderbilt Lagoon is underway. This water body up here to the north is Water Turkey Bay, and the waterway that connected the two, if you will, is that yellow line that runs through there. When all of the waterways were then constructed, there was a manmade channel put through that area and, you know, it gives us the waterway that we have done now. That was actually done in a couple of phases. In the mid 1960s I believe it was dug to about 80 or 90 feet wide, and then it was later expanded to the -- you know, to the dimensions that you see there now. The access from the site all the way out to Wiggins Pass, that is the access to the Gulf of Mexico for boaters that are using it. There is a defined marked channel that starts in Water Turkey Bay and goes through, and it also kind of runs to where the center span of the bridge is. That's an approximate. We don't have good, I guess, latitude /longitude coordinates for that bottom section of the channel, but that's how it's depicted on some of the NOAA charts and all. So, you know, knowing that the docks were going to go into the manmade portion of the waterway, we looked at several different configurations, as Mr. Strain had mentioned previously. Started with 84 where all of the vessels were perpendicular mooring with finger piers and some of the on -site investigations, and then we had the mangrove fringe that we were trying to protect water depths and some submerged resources, seagrasses issues, that all led to us pushing the docks further out from the mangroves than they were originally planned. If you look at where the -- where the dock kind of comes out here, the original plan basically had this walkway going, you know, right along the mangroves. But through all of the changes and movements, we pushed it out to the configuration that you see today. Getting into some of the boat dock, you know, criteria, one of the state requirements is that you're not allowed to impact or protrude more than 25 percent into the width of the waterway. And they apply that to mean the navigable waterway or those areas where a boat, canoe, kayak, you know, whatever could travel, so -- and on this site it would be from the mangrove fringe line on one side to the seawall on the other side. And what we drew or have shown on there then is the 25, 50, 75 percent of the waterway protrusion associated with that. And we wanted to make sure that everything that we did stayed on the landward side of that 25 percent line so that we weren't protruding that far into it. Early on in the state permitting process, back I think it was in 2006, there were a lot of concerns raised about navigation in regards to the state permitting process. At that time one of the representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, who kind of oversees navigation in some of the waterways around here, or at least they provide the opinions to the state from another state agency on navigation. They did look at this plan and did not have any concerns related to navigation problems because of the Page 20 of 94 16 12 44,2012' separation from where the docks were to where the channel is, and the width of the channel in those areas they felt gave a lot of space for people to maneuver and that, combined with the fact that it's an idle speed zone, you wouldn't have boats running up and down there at high speeds and, you know, impacting people trying to get in and out of the slips or people backing out of the slips and impeding people trying to speed through the waterway. So the north and south side, you'll see in the BDE, the protrusion, 281 feet. In the boat dock extension process, the width of the waterway is measured from the mean high -water line, not the navigable portion of the channel. So you'll see in our submittal that's the one primary criteria that we don't meet. And if you look at why, this -- where the mean high -water line is in relationship to the overall waterway, it's about 40 percent. There's no way that we could put the boats along the shoreline without being more than 25 percent under that -- under that definition. So the protrusion is the 281 feet, which I believe is 261 feet more than the 20 allowed. And all along in the exhibits that you have -- you should all have copies of these exhibits -- we showed the -- you know, the protrusions in different areas, and you can see that the intent to keep at least 50 percent of the channel open for navigation is maintained in all areas. The other thing we looked at was impacts to the vegetation or impacts to environmental resources out there. We had mangrove impacts associated with this project, and you can see it's about .14 acres. There was mitigation required at the time of the environmental resource permitting for the project. It was originally a different location that was permitted that impacted more mangroves. It was about .17 acres with the relocation of the boardwalk. That actual impact area went down; however, the mitigation that was provided was still for that .17. So that -- you know, that was covered. And then the other thing was there's a potential behind those docks for seagrasses to grow. So we have committed to doing some metal grating which allows more light penetration actually through the structure, and that's proposed and -- over that area where it's possible that seagrasses could grow based on, you know, previous surveys. I will say that the majority of the surveys -- and, you know, at this current time there are no seagrasses there, but that grating is still proposed because it is possible that they could come in and colonize that area later on. I won't really bother to go through the cross - sections unless you guys want to see them later. So basically when you get to the -- I think a lot of the discussion that we may have could revolve around this exhibit. We've got an access walkway that comes from the uplands, and it's a -- doubles as a cart path and a pedestrian walkway, and that goes out to the dock. We have a marginal access dock that goes along the mangroves, and then there's parallel mooring along some of it and perpendicular finger pier mooring along the rest of it. At the northern end there is a -- the small fishing pier and overlook that will be accessible to all of the residents at the Dunes. In going through the different primary criteria, like I said, we do not meet the 25 percent with the waterway because of the mangroves that are there; however, we do feel that we meet the other primary criteria, the number of slips that are proposed, 49 versus the 600 -plus residents that are -- that are in the buildings. Also, in terms of the length of the shoreline, they own a little over 9,000 feet of shoreline which, as Rich said, equates to 900 -plus slips that, you know, the Manatee Protection Plan allows. I think everybody realizes fitting 900 boat slips into an area anything like this is not possible. But if you look at the actual letter of the rules and what's allowed based on the shoreline, the 900 -plus is if you assume it's a moderate ranking with -- which allows 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. So the 9,000 feet is 900 slips. There's no interference with any neighboring docks. You have the docks that were pointed out before. And I didn't say that, Mr. Brougham, but you can see the four on this exhibit a little bit closer. The separation between, you know, the Dunes facility and the docks on the other side of the waterway is more than sufficient for both sides to maneuver in and out and also for the traffic going north and south through the channel to all be accommodated. There's no impacts. I went over the navigation channel. No impacts to the navigation through that area. And, yeah, the number of slips are appropriate. So in terms of the BDE application, we do feel that we meet the primary and secondary criteria except for those, you know, that were outlined, and I believe that it meets all of the Comp Plan and Land Development Code Page 21 of 94 k 16 i A4 arch 1, 2012 amendments that would allow you to approve it. So if you have any additional questions -- I know that there's questions in terms of, like, responses to Tony's letter to some of the other comments. I don't know if you want me to try to go through that stuff now or later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tim, you guys need to go through whatever you think you're going to need to defend here today at whatever point in the process you want to. We can ask questions whenever's convenient for you during the interface. It's up to you. MR. HALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you miss something, it's on your shoulders. MR. HALL: All right. I actually like the way Tony puts his stuff together, because it's -- it's easy for me to follow as well. In terms of -- I guess I'll just go through were he's saying that we're inconsistent and why I don't think we are. Policy 7.2.2 he says we're inconsistent with because seagrass beds shall be protected through the application of these other policies. And 6.3.1, 6.3.2 -- basically the 6.3.1 is the -- has some of the Manatee Protection Plan guidelines. And, like I said, we're subject to the 10 per 100 square feet -- or per 100 linear feet, and I think we're well below that. So we're consistent with 6.3.1. 6.3.2 talks about impacts to seagrass beds minimized by locating the docks more than 10 feet or, where this is not possible, to be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds. There's a height restriction of 3.5 feet NGVD, a terminal platform no greater than 160 square feet, and the access dock no wider than 4 feet. Our access dock is currently proposed at six feet wide. The ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, requirement is that it be five feet wide. So what we have been told by staff is that the ADA requirements trump this. So five feet instead of four -- and I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong. But the -- that -- they feel that the five -foot limitation would be in place instead of six feet if we're closer than 10 feet -- than 10 feet from the existing seagrass beds. So -- and then the Policy 6.3.3, protection of seagrass beds shall be a factor in establishing new revising existing speed zones to regulate boat traffic. I'm not sure that that has anything to do with this application, so I don't think we're, you know, either consistent or inconsistent with that one. The -- then he goes to, the BDE must be denied for failure to comply with 10.1.6. And, again, that's kind of the same information that's -- oh, I'm sorry, no. 10. 1.6 is the fiscal analysis if there is destruction of wetlands. When we went through the state and Corps permitting process, the impacts to those areas were accounted for, and they were mitigated. In our opinion, there was no actual destruction or loss because the functions associated with those wetlands have been mitigated for through the on -site enhancement activities and the mangrove enhancement that occurred in other areas of the property which, from an acreage extent, is a lot greater than what we're -- the .14 acres that we're impacting. Inconsistent with 5.0.3.6.J.3. I need to remember, actually, what that one is. J.3, oh, that's the one that -- yeah, we go back to the previous where you have a contiguous bed of seagrasses and your facility is within 10 feet, then you have to, you know, comply with these conditions. Our dock is higher than .35 feet NGVD. We don't --the facility that we have is a marginal dock. It's not, you know, a terminal platform. The access dock is -- we talked about being 5 feet, and we're impacting the smallest area of seagrass as possible because we've sited everything outside of the seagrass beds. So I do believe that we're compliant with that section. The criteria in terms of primary and secondary, I went through the primary criteria and why I think that we are consistent with that. Aside from the 25 percent width of the waterway, we do meet the rest of the primary criteria. And the seagrass bed, secondary criteria, is in the application going through the secondary criteria. The water depths that we have as well as the seagrasses and all justify the need for moving the docks out as far as they are. I would love to move them out further to get further away from the mangroves and from the seagrasses, but we're constrained on the outside by that 25 percent, the width of the waterway. So between the seagrasses and the mangroves and that 25 percent with the waterway, that's our envelope where we felt we could put the -- put the docks. And so, given those confining conditions, you know, the extension that we're requesting, we do meet that -- the first secondary criteria. The second one, we're not using excessive decking area. What we're proposing there is what we need to get Page 22 of 94 FL 16 I ! L M rc� 1', 2012 to and from the docks. And the impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring property owners, we're changing the waterway. The view's going to change. And it's a personal -- you know, personal opinion as to what the extent of that is. I guess it's a judgment call, and that's something that you guys are probably going to hear a lot of today. In terms of the state, the waterfront view that's afforded a property is similar to their riparian -- riparian rights area. It generally is from their property to the center of a waterway. Their view is not guaranteed to the horizon. So, you know, if you have a neighbor anywhere that decides to change their house or build a house on what was a vacant lot, your view's going to change, and we don't deny that. The view for the neighbors is going to change, but I don't believe that it's a -- it's a major impact. They still have the view to the waterway and to the center of the water that they have always had. And then whether the seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock. That's one -- if there are seagrasses there at the time of construction, it is possible that we could be impacting them, that the access coming out to the marginal dock will cross over them. And then the marginal dock, actually, along the edge of the waterway, if the grasses grow out farther than they have been documented in the past, it's possible that we could impact them there as well. But those impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent that we can and still provide for the 49 slips that are being proposed. We are subject -- anything that's more than nine slips is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan in Collier County, and we meet all of the criteria of the Manatee Protection Plan in terms of the rankings and the avoidance of those issues. So going through, back to Tony's letter in terms of the primary and secondary criteria, aside from this -- the one secondary criteria and one primary, we believe that we meet all of the rest of them. And Rich already talked about whether or not this is valid as an authorized use in the proposed location. I'm not going to get into that any more. The other issue that he stated about the maximum draft -- and he's correct with that. When the permit was actually issued, when we submitted the BDE and all, I used permit exhibits from before the application went to the State of Florida, the governor and cabinet for approval. I talked about the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer that came out and looked at navigation. When he did that, he said he did not have any concerns related to navigation, but he noted at the time that he did his review that the water depths in Water Turkey Bay were very shallow, and he had some concerns related to the sizes of the vessels that were at the facility. And as a result of that, when it went to DEP, the maximum depth allowed for the slips was reduced from three feet to two- and -a -half feet. And when I made the submittal for the BDE application, I didn't reflect that change. And so we have redone the exhibits now to show that the maximum depth is two- and -a -half feet, not three feet. I think that's the majority of Tony's letter, and I believe it covers a lot of what will be stated by your other public speakers and all that you're going to have. So I'm going to stop right there, and hopefully we'll have a chance, if something new does come up or that I didn't address, at the end, I can briefly response to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And, Richard, you want -- any more of a presentation, or are we going to questions at this point? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's -- I think that there'll be enough questions, so let's go to questions, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who wants to start? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a couple, Tim. You said there are no seagrass currently present. MR. HALL: I said there's no seagrasses currently present where the -- based on our last survey, there's no seagrasses where the access out to the dock is, where we are proposing the grading. The last couple of surveys that we've done showed no seagrasses in that area. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The specific area where the access walkway would cross over and go to the dock? that? MR. HALL: Correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But there are seagrasses present, to your knowledge, north and south of Page 23 of 94 61 ►Z A March 1, 2012 MR. HALL: Not to the north. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not to the north. MR. HALL: All of the seagrass that have been present in the past have been, I would say -- there have about -- I think it was the 2006 survey -- we have noted grasses actually all the way up to where this little bump -out is in the past, but the last few years most of the surveys have shown that the grasses kind of concentrate about from this building down to the mouth of this channel. That seems to be the area where they -- they are concentrated the most. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. You mentioned marked channel, and when I was out there, currently there are no markings for that channel, per se, that exist, right? MR. HALL: For this portion of it, no. The channel markers are through Water Turkey Bay. There are channel markers in Water Turkey Bay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the positioning of what is called a channel there is based on what? MR. HALL: It's based on the -- some information that we have gotten from, you know, different charts. We know that the boats -- the majority of the boats that go under the bridge go through the center span. So going from there, and then following the area of deepest water through there. When we did the water -depth surveys and so forth, that's kind of where the deepest water lies, through that area. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So, I mean, that's your conclusion of where it is based upon the depths you surveyed and so forth? MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one other, and I guess it's -- I guess it's a question. The conflict with the 25 percent seems to occur because of that big dip back into the mangroves of the mean high -water mark -- line, excuse me. MR. HALL: That's the majority of it. I mean, that's what creates the need for a 260 -foot extension. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. MR. HALL: If you look at where we are up here, it's about a 40- or 50 -foot extension. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Did you ever consider -- well, that's rhetorical, never mind -- avoiding that conflict, if you will? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got something, Diane? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: As long as I've asked it. MR. HALL: The original plans, like I said, had the docks right along the waterway and all perpendicular, if we pushed everything right up to the edge of the mangroves with the docking. The downsides to that is it requires more dredging because the water gets shallower as you get behind these docks and up towards the mangroves. And with having found seagrasses there in the past, that just no longer became an issue, or no longer became an option. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: But the upside would seem to be that you would avoid any potential disturbance of the seagrasses to the south of that. MR. HALL: I don't disagree with you -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. HALL: -- but in terms of -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just an observation. MR. HALL: In terms of the state permitting to -- with the configurations that we had to use and to fit the number in, that was -- you know, we used what we could and what we were allowed to by them. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To fit the number in? MR. HALL: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So the number drove the decision? MR. HALL: Well, there's still less -- I mean, the hope was to get up to 60, which was allowed, and we couldn't fit 60 in, so we dropped it down to the 49. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, Tim. I also want to know why there were no channel markers in the channel. And there was -- I noticed on the side, the property where the seawall is, there was a "slow no- wake" through there on their property. Page 24 of 94 1 2 kle 1, 2012 But when I was at the site visit, I was surprised at what I saw. I wasn't there that long, but I did notice that one of the boats coming through had people sitting on the bow of the boat on folding chairs with no life jackets or anything. And they were doing a small wake. Then there were also two Ski -doos, or that type, that came through there barreling through like crazy, and there was another boat going through who absolutely made him stop because they were making wake like I couldn't believe. Do you know how deep that channel is? MR. HALL: It varies, but it ranges probably from about four - and -a -half -- in that stretch of area from about four - and -a -half to maybe six - and -a -half feet deep, and then it goes up -- as you get closer to the mangroves, it goes up to less than a foot against the mangroves themselves. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because the other night when I was at the NIM meeting, someone did ask what you considered a channel, and I'd never heard this explanation before. But you said if you can get a canoe through it, it's a channel. And -- MR. HALL: That's in -- when you look at the definitions of navigable waterway, going way back, they have -- the Corps of Engineers, you know, a lot of times uses the fact that if you can paddle a canoe through it, it's navigable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd not heard that before. The other thing is the pump -out system. You mentioned you needed that because of state permitting. And I have kind of looked through the conditions, but I have had so much reading material available. I didn't see it in there. Is it under the special, the general, or the consent conditions for the pump -out? MR. HALL: I believe it was addressed in the conceptual permit from the -- from the Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did find it. I can't remember which document it is. It may have been the submerged land lease, but there is a requirement for a sewage pump. I saw it in the documents I read. MR. HALL: Yeah. It could be in the submerged land lease document as well that it would be a requirement. But it's -- if I'm not mistaken, it may also be something that is asked for in the county code also. I don't remember where that may be. But with marina facilities I think that they talked about having sewage pump -out facilities as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And you mentioned you were going to use it like a vacuum cleaner. MR. HALL: I was trying to explain the use of it. It's on a cart. It's a mobile unit that you can bring out onto the dock, take to the boat, it pumps the material out of the boat into a storage area on the cart, and then you wheel the cart back, and they can be disposed of in -- you know, properly in the sewage treatment system. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, then why do you have a 313 - square -foot pump -out station here? MR. HALL: That's -- the labeling on that -- it says "pump -out station." It should say "pump -out storage." That's actually the storage, because there will also be the -- some of the emergency and safety equipment associated with the docks will also be stored in there. We'll be required to have protective booms in case there's -- a boat sinks or a fuel spill or something like that. All of that material associated with the operations of the dock will be in that little storage area. It's not a defined or -- that whole area is not a pump station. It's a -- basically a storage shed, and the pump -out cart and all of this other material will be stored in there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because on here it says "pump -out station." MR. HALL: I understand, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, before you go -- well, is it pertaining to that, because we've got -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. No, Brad's going to defer to you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGI IAM: Just -- Tim, one follow -up. You said that the draft -- maximum draft has been reduced to two- and -a -half feet -- MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- maximum? Has there been any modification to the length of the boat Page 25 of 94 or vessel? A4 16 1 arc, 2012 MR. HALL: No, the length -- well -- and I should explain that, too. The lengths that were permitted are 30 and 35 feet, and it's important to realize that that's length overall. That includes anything sticking out on the front of the boat and anything sticking out on the back of it. So when you're talking about hull length for a 35 -foot boat, you're probably going to be between 30 and 32 feet, because then you have the motors and swim platforms and whatever else they put on there. So it's that overall length from the very tip of whatever they have on there to the very back that is -- that's that 35 -foot. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I guess where I was going is if you reduce the maximum draft by a half a foot, does that have any corresponding impact on the maximum length if you think -- MR. HALL: It won't -- it doesn't have any impact on the maximum length. That's still 35 feet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. HALL: It will -- it does have an impact on the types of vessels that could potentially use it, because there are some 32 -foot boats that draft more than two -and -a -half feet that won't be allowed there at that facility. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So it's the more restrictive that's going to apply. MR. HALL: Yes, sir, absolutely. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me wait till they're focused. MR. HALL: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let's describe -- what's going to happen on the dock itself? What kind of amenities and stuff will you have down there? I mean, obviously you're going to have this cute little cart going around pumping out the sanitation system, so that's your sewage. You're going to have water lines? MR. HALL: There will be -- there will be water, electricity, and we'll also have to have some type of fire- suppression system out there as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which will probably be a stand pipe, which could be dry. MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then up at the pump house, you'll have a tank so you'll go do the rounds, and then you'll bring it up to that pump house and discharge it into that? MR. HALL: There's be a -- there'll be a hookup. And maybe in that pump house, if the people from the Conservancy and all, you know, have their way, it will actually be on the uplands outside of the walkway. It will be taken back to the actual uplands that are part of the common areas associated with the buildings. And the -- and the discharge will be done there. Their concern is having that discharge occur in an area over the preserve may not be a good idea. There'll be really three different levels of safety in terms of double wall pipes and containers and all to prevent that, but if that is something that comes up when we're doing the Site Development Plan, that may -- that that needs to be relocated, then we will probably end up doing so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The building that's out there on the end of the dock, the north end, how big is that building? MR. HALL: I believe it's -- yeah, I have a cross - section. It's 8 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know the square footage of it? COMMISSIONER VONIER: It's listed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It is? MR. HALL: Yeah, I -- it's either 10 -- 10 diameter -- 10 -foot diameter or 12 -foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. MR. HALL: Diameter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not that big. MR. HALL: No, it's relatively small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing, you mentioned that this has to be wider than 4 feet because the ADA has a requirement that docks are 5 feet. Page 26 of 94 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 MR. HALL: To provide -- to provide proper ADA access, they asked for 60 inches, which is 5 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's the turnaround dimension for ADA. MR. HALL: That's actually the dimension that I've had to do for the entire length of other walkways so that they can turn around at any point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Are you going to have lifts on all these docks? MR. HALL: The lifts are optional. So they -- it's up to the slip owners to whether or not they will or will not put them in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if they do, they get the expectation of the canopy that goes with the lift. MR. HALL: No, no canopies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that somewhere restricted? MR. HALL: I can do it right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that's the end of the canopies. MR. HALL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see. The riprap, explain that concept a little bit to me. MR. HALL: The Water Management District had a concern. We are proposing some dredging on some of the boat slips at the end, and it's going to be, you know, where the previous -- again, where the previous seagrass surveys showed it, anywhere between about 5 and 12 feet away from -- I'm sorry -- about 10 to 15 feet away from the seagrass areas. So their concern was that if we did that dredging, that the bottom could slough a little bit and it could eat back or erode back into where those seagrass areas were. So the riprap was proposed to go along that cut to shore it up so that that sloughing didn't occur. But the riprap won't extend any further above the water than -- or above the bottom, sorry, than where the existing bottom elevation is now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do the manatee access that seagrass? MR. HALL: They could. I wouldn't -- I have not seen manatees foraging there, but I haven't spent enough time to say one way or the other. The seagrasses are there occasionally. There are manatees in the waterway, and they could definitely go into that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then what is the length from the nearest roadway to the furthest dock on that? And the concern is if there's an emergency situation at that dock, and emergency, whatever that would be, pull up, how long a way do they have to go with, essentially, hand - pushed carts, correct? MR. HALL: The handed -push -- the main access walkway there can be done in a mobile cart or a golf cart. So from the little circular turnaround that you see out to the bottom end of the dock is a little over -- around 2,000 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then back to the mainland, what do you think you have, another thousand? MR. HALL: To go from there, to go back to it, it's probably another 1,500. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, in other words, that furthest person with a heart attack is 4,500 feet away from the emergency vehicle? MR. HALL: I tried to put in additional boardwalks, and they, were -- you know, they were eliminated through our permitting process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In the code -- and maybe Ray can also answer this -- it states that we're supposed to measure from the most restrictive of the following, and it says property line, and then obviously there's some other things, and then mean high -water line. So in this case, what does most restrictive mean? The property line, since it's claiming to be part of the residential, is quite a further distance away. So what does that clause mean? MR. BELLOWS: The clause in regard to measurement of the dock extension? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: It would be -- the mean high -water line would -- typically is used in measuring that, but if -- unless it is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll read it again. It says, measurement is made from the most restrictive of the following -- and I'll list the two that apply here -- property line and mean high -water line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't the property line in this case not be the parcel line that you're referring to Page 27 of 94 16 12,arch Al, 2012 but the line that borders the PUD, the outside boundary line of the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think it would be, which then you fall back on the next restrictive, which is related to the waterway, which would then be the mean high -water line, I would think. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the property line -- I would interpret it to go back to the residences that are -- this is an accessory to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there is a defined line surrounding them, an ownership line, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But prior clarifications by staff and OIs written by staff look at the district boundary, the zoning district boundary. And I have those with me, so that would preclude looking at parcel boundaries in regards to the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then it would be the property line across the way, coming across the water to measure. That wouldn't make any sense. MR. BELLOWS: Obviously that won't work, so you take it from the mean high -water line from where the docks are coming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would work if they put the docks across the way where, you know -- that might irritate somebody. MR. BELLOWS: The most restrictive point in this case is the mean high -water line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your motion, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, but I don't think that -- I think, you know, this is a residential parcel, and they're claiming these are accessory to it, so I would take the dimension back to it. But that's not an important part of this application. Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Do I understand you have changed the width of that from 6 feet to 5 feet? MR. HALL: We have agreed to do so, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And so it reduces the potential shading of any seagrass? MR. FALL: It reduces the overwater area, so yes. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Is it possible to consider grading for that entire dock area that -- from the walkway all the way out along the seagrass? MR. HALL: Well, if -- the issue with grading is usually used when the docks are actually over the seagrasses. The shading that you're concerned about with this dock being waterward of the seagrasses is more of the halo when the sun gets to a certain orientation where it's going to shine, so the grading won't really help in that effect unless you have the grading oriented towards where that sun is going to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I just have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, Bill's done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are these docks going to be built out of, combustible material? MR. HALL: Probably, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it -- you know, it makes that -- if a boat caught fire midway in the dock, it would make a pretty major -- and if you're a NASCAR fan, you realize it's amazing what can catch fire -- you know, that would be a major problem because the dock itself would be on fire by the time emergency vehicles could get there. MR. HALL: It's -- they're -- they are intending to have a security system in place out there. The docks will be monitored but, I mean, that's the case at any place that stores boats. It's -- if a fire occurs, it's going to take a while for the fire department to get there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is a very long dead -end. I mean, the design of this is not typical. Will there be staff out there at all times? MR. HALL: Like, 24 hours or -- there's not going to be anybody -- I would assume that there will not be Page 28 of 94 D 16 12 A4 March 1, 2012 anybody there 24 hours, but there will be a dock master on staff that's in charge of taking care of the facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And can people live aboard out there? MR. HALL: No live - aboards, no, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a restriction somewhere. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're making it now, or is it somewhere in the -- MR. HALL: No, that's actually in the lease. If nowhere else, it's definitely in the lease. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's also in the Land Development Code. It wouldn't be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the boat docks at this time? Okay. I've got quite a few. We normally break at 11:45 for lunch, and we're still going to try to keep that schedule today, so I'll just cut off at a point if I'm not finished by then. I'm trying to think of the most organized way to start. Let's start with the hardest question. Your policy -- or our policies in both the GMP and the Land Development Code talk about a terminal platform area of a dock shall not exceed 160 square feet, and that does apply -- or the 160 square feet or that section of the code does apply to this particular dock application in regards to the staff recommendations and report. The discrepancy seems to be what we're calling the area that the boats are mooring against. You've called it repeatedly today a marginal dock. You are aware that the Florida Administrative Code and DEP have a definition for marginal dock, and I'll read it to you. Marginal docks -- well, DEP says, marginal docks may be placed within 10 feet of the riparian lines. Marginal docks are defined, Chapter 18- 21.003(29), Florida Administrative Code, as fixed or floating structures placed immediately contiguous and parallel to established seawall, bulkhead, or revetment. MR. HALL: That's incorrect. If you actually go to the definition section, 18- 21.003, the definition of marginal dock is a dock placed immediately adjacent and parallel to the shoreline or seawall, bulkhead, or revetment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that the -- this is a marginal dock because it's parallel to a shoreline? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why isn't it a terminal platform? Because the definitions for tenninal platform, it's the part of a dock that a boat can moor along and -- well, there's a series of those. MR. HALL: I can help you here. Again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: -- if you go to the Florida Administrative Code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have it in front of me. MR. HALL: -- 18- 20.003, which is the definitions for the aquatic preserve portions, the terminal platform means that part of the dock or pier, including finger piers, that is connected to the access walkway, is located at the terminis of the facility, and is designed to secure and load or unload a vessel or conduct other water - dependent activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. So everything past the graded area of the uplands connection is a terminal dock based on the activity you -- MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- created by the dock boxes, the electrical, and the moorings. MR. HALL: Based on the fact that it has to be located at the terminus of the facility, if we were to have terminal platforms, there would be one at the north end and one at the south end, which is the terminus. The entire dock is the facility, and if it has to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. HALL: -- be located at the terminus, then that's the north end and the south end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I believe that you have different purposes. You have an access walkway, which is also defined as that walkway which connects riparian owner's property to a terminal platform. Once you complete the exercise along the access walkway, which is only used for getting to and from the T at the end of that -- and then once you hit that, you're at an area that is being used for activity, which is part of the definition of a terminal platform, and that activity that you've chosen to put there -- and, by the way, this contradicts Page 29 of 94 1612 March 1, 2012 some of the response to Bill -- you have dock boxes on one side of the walkway and you have boats moored on the other side. That entire area becomes a very active site. You have activity going across by boaters loading and unloading their passengers and their dock boxes. And all that becomes another reason why this is a terminal platform. Now, you can call it a terminal dock, but the function of it is still the same as a terminal platform. MR.14ALL: And I won't disagree with you, but just because you have mooring at a facility does not mean it's a terminal platform. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just because you have a definition that says a terminal platform is to be limited to 160 square feet, and you take a duck and call it something different, even though it quacks and walks and sounds and looks like a duck, doesn't mean it isn't a duck. We have a terminal platform that -- we have a situation that meets the criteria of a platform. You can call it anything you want, Tim. I don't see how you get around that. And that does have a huge bearing on how this case will be discussed today, because I would think, then, that all of your parallel boats where that creates an accessway that's a terminal dock can't be there because of a 160 -foot limitation along that entire boardwalk. MR. HALL: If -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me try to -- he'll go next, but I want to clarify the discussion first. The portion of the walkway, 5 feet now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was only 5.5 feet, by the way, to begin with, because a 6 foot measured to the center point of the pier. So they're only 6 inches less than the original one, but that doesn't include the 18 inches that you're going to add to cover the dock box. MR. YOVANOVICH: Hang on. But let's just talk about the portion that you walk on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure Bill understands that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to focus on the issue, and I'm with you. Just one second, okay. Mr. Strain, give me a second. The portion that runs in the north/south direction -- and let's just call it 5 feet wide for purposes right now. Forget anything -- no dock boxes, no nothing, just if I have a long walkway, no dock boxes, you're telling me no parallel parking on that long portion because in your opinion it becomes a terminal dock. Now, the walkway that gets me to the finger piers, that's a nonissue because the finger piers themselves are the terminal dock. And as long as they are less than 160 square feet, we're okay. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- I'm trying to frame the issue. So in your opinion because we are now mooring boats along the parallel portion -- and I'm asking you the question, is it because they can stay for a long period of time, is that what's crossing the issue? Because a marginal wharf could be for a period of time. It just can't be overnight. Let's just use overnight. Is that the issue? Because then it becomes active, and then that portion becomes a tenninal dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A marginal wharf is a temporary facility for unloading and loading of passengers and/or equipment. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a permanent mooring generally wouldn't be there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be permanently mooring here. Now, how you do that by either lease or sale of a slip, regardless, that's where the activity portion of the dock lies. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're talking about the parallel portion -- parallel parking, if you will, not the finger piers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no dispute on the finger piers in regards to that definition. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to focus the question. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? Page 30 of 94 i i 16I MarcZ, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: I have a question relating to this. If five feet is necessary for the access pier along the -- along the mangroves, why isn't five foot required for the finger piers? How can you load -- if it's necessary for a turnaround -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: EPA. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- if this is not a finger pier -- if this is not a terminal pier, the five foot, and the four foot is a loading pier, why isn't that five feet? MR. HALL: That's a good question. It's the way that the code reads the -- it's the walkways where people are going to be going back and forth that have to meet that. As you go off to the actual loading area for the boat, it can be less. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Well, that would imply that the long walkway is not a loading area. MR. HALL: It can --it can serve both purposes. I mean, if -- trying to --if you had a Christmas tree dock orientation where you're accessing here and going out on the dock and there are finger piers out there, you've got an access walkway, you have a terminal platform. This is the terminal platform. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are the other T sections down below it, because those are the active areas of the dock in between the two boats that are moored alongside of them. MR. HALL: That's not -- it's not at the terminus of the facility. If they look at that entire dock as the facility, it's only that platform that's at the end of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the intent of limiting the square footage by calling something a terminal platform, whether you call it a marginal dock, terminal plat -- in this particular case? The intent is protection of seagrass beds; is it not? Because it only kicks in when you're closer than 10 feet. No, I want to see the dueling reporters. That's what -- I'm giving them the test. I want to see if the intent -- and I've pulled up -- I've read the Coastal Zone Management Plan, all several hundred pages of it. Fran Stallings did a report on seagrasses in 1992 that I've read thoroughly, and I've also read the various documents from DEP, and everything talks about damage to seagrasses from the restriction of sunlight. MR. HALL: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the purpose of the 160 -foot limitation is -- only kicks in when you're within 10 feet of seagrasses, and that is to minimize the amount of shadow under the seagrasses. MR. HALL: The county code is if you're within 10 feet. With the state and the other agencies, that 160 -foot limitation is when you're over seagrasses. When you are impacting seagrass, you're limited to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Policy 13.1.2 of our CCME says the county may adopt regulations to strengthen existing permitting programs. And based on the documents I read from Fran Stallings and the documents that I reviewed in the Coastal Zone Management Plan at the time all this language was added, it certainly seemed clear to me we were trying to make sure we had better protection of our natural resources than may be afforded by the state. MR. HALL: And that was because Fran was trying to account for those docks that went through the permitting process under the exemptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. HALL: And that's the single - family docks where, if docks would go through and they're under 1,000 or 500 square feet, depending on where they're at, he was trying to make sure that the county had additional protections in place to cover those instances -- single - family instances where that was an issue. And I think I can point you to that. It says that the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation exempts private docks less than 1,000 square feet in area or 500 square feet in Outstanding Florida Waters of the state from dredge or fill permitting, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed LDC amendments will ensure that adverse impacts to this important resource are considered in the dock construction process. And then the -- required in order to slow degradation of the fi•agile -- and then he has a point in there about duplication of effort. And he says, again, the Florida Administrative Code provides standards and criteria for docking facilities in Florida aquatic preserves, and Florida Administrative Code 17.312.808, regulates construction of certain piers and associated structures. However, private, single - family docks less than 500 square feet in OFW or less than 1,000 square feet in Page 31 of 94 16 12 A March 1, 2012 other waters and dock repairs projects are exempt from Florida Administrative Code conditions, and the standards for dock construction and aquatic preserve apply in Collier County only to those projects in Rookery Bay. Therefore, what he was proposing in this did not duplicate those efforts, and it was because it was aimed at looking at single- family docks that met the exemption criteria, not for all the other docks. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not done yet. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, but to stay with that theme, above 13.1.2, there's Policy 13.1.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill's read that to me many times, Bill Lorenz. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it says, there will be no unnecessary duplication of existing regional, state, and federal permitting programs. So that dovetails with -- the intent of this document was to create a program to regulate docks that were not previously regulated by the state. If there is a state program to address it, that's what applies. If there isn't a state program to address it, the county policy -- that's what the county policy was intended to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, the staff recently opined on that, and they disagree with your conclusion, based on what I was told. Secondly, if you refer to Section 3.1.2 of the Manatee Protection Plan, it reads the following: Multi -slip dock facilities with 10 slips or more in all commercial marina facilities shall comply with the stipulations listed in the LDC. Those -- the guidelines for the construction of boathouses and docks are listed in LDC Section 2.6.21 and contain language for the protection of seagrass beds and other ethnic communities. See Section 2.3.2, and that's of the Manatee Protection Plan. 2.3.2 of the Manatee Protection Plan contains the same language that we've been talking about, limiting it to 160 square feet for a terminal platform. So I think clearly -- and this is after the document that you just read from -- when the Manatee Protection Plan was formulated, it intended to apply this to multi -slip docking facilities, because it says so in Section 3.2.1. And I just don't see any solution to that argument, Richard. I understand your position on it. If 1 was in your shoes, I'd argue the way you have, too. But at the same time, strict adherence to the code, I can't get to where you're going just by simply labeling the terminal platform something different to say it isn't a terminal platform. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're in agreement that the finger piers are not an issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far I have no problem with finger piers. I'm going to hear the rest of the testimony today, but right now at this point, I don't see them as an issue regarding the terminal platform language. Now, let's move on. I think I kind of beat that one up. Tim, what are the total mangrove impacts? I think you said they're .14 acres. MR. HALL: Point 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are the total seagrass impacts? MR. HALL: Point -- well, again, I mean, right now there are none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What are the proposed total seagrass impacts that is outlined in the applications that went to the agencies which you got your permits? MR. HALL: I believe it was .02 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: Oh, .002. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you add those two together, do you come with impacts greater than that allowed by the Manatee Protection Plan in regards to natural resource impacts? MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you figure? Because you're not counting the mangroves? MR. HALL: No. The mangroves -- I mean, under the Manatee Protection Plan the mangroves count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how much is the total impact that you believe are allowed before you lose a position in the Manatee Protection Plan for being moderate to protect it? MR. HALL: It would be 5 percent of the mangrove area, which is more than, what, 5 -- if we got 100 acres of mangroves, it's 5 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you -- and it's only 100 square feet of seagrass, correct? MR. HALL: Correct. Page 32 of 94 A I 16! arch 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your graded area, I believe, is about 85 square feet based on the percentage you just said. Well, what about the shading effect that's going to cause a loss to the fringe of seagrasses that was acknowledged in the permitting applications? I think it was 1 foot or something like that, 1.1 feet. MR. HALL: Those were -- we have to do -- we're supposed to do some monitoring -- post project monitoring to determine whether or not those impacts actually occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're not impacts until you can prove they occur, but the proof of he occurrence is going to be monitoring. And I've checked your other monitoring that's online at the portal for South Florida. Your seagrass studies or seagrass surveys generally aren't done at the peak of the seagrass season or when they flourish. They're either done at the very beginning or a couple times in the very latter part of the season. How do you -- when seagrass starts growing, do they just start growing in the beginning and pop up to their -- because originally you had 80 percent seagrass in that area, then you found none, then you came back and said there was 25 percent, then you came back and said it was, I think, sporadic and it's up to a certain width at an average. I think it was even 25 feet. Why don't you do these studies in the peak of the seagrass growing season instead of the extremes? MR. HALL: It's been --I mean, it's just been timing of when we get out to do the surveys. There's no, you know, definite reason why one date or another. It's basically when we can get it scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the most prolific occurrence of seagrass occur at the peak of their seasons or at the very beginning or at the very end? MR. HALL: It can occur at any time. I mean, the density of seagrasses, when they grow, is regulated by the conditions that are in place at that time. For this type -- the example I can give you for Pelican Bay for this type of seagrass, if you do these surveys early in the growing season, you will occasionally see this grass in Pelican Bay. If you wait until later in the growing season, it goes away. So you can -- the best way to do it is to vary the times of your surveys throughout the season to make sure that you can cover whenever it does or does not occur. And a lot of recent requirements that we have now, like in terms of monitoring dredge areas and so forth, DEP has been requiring twice a year so that they do get a little bit more coverage of that growing season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the fact that your first survey showed up to 80 percent coverage in some parts of that seagrass area that's in question here today, would you believe that's a viable area for seagrass growth? MR. HALL: Is it a vi -- absolutely. I mean, we've seen grasses there before, so it's viable for growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to roll through some of my questions from the document, and some are statements, a combination of both. I'm just throwing what I found as some interesting facts out. This area was platted up until 1998 for a series of upland construction similar to what's across the way at Surf Colony, I believe. The property was zoned through a zoning evaluation ordinance that actually granted it perpetual rights to build there from the zoning perspective as an RMF 12 area. From what I can estimate based on acreage, there could have been close to 200 units there with almost over 3,000 feet of seawalled shoreline that would have had some right to boats and docks. So I understand that there is some rights that go with the property for docks in that location. I think that the fact that that -- that that plat was vacated in 1998 -- and, by the way, the plat is what provided the public with perpetual access to that waterway in the form of a public easement. What you're doing doesn't change that. What the state's doing doesn't change that. That easement is a platted easement to the benefit of the public forever. So the interesting thing about this is that condition that you see there was what could have occurred on this property prior to the Dunes project taking it over. And that's just simply to justify the dock --any docks at all from a perspective of what could be there and what couldn't. MR. HALL: Yeah. It was actually pointed out to me this morning that there's a 10 -foot dock shown all along that property line on that plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The double line? One of the notes I see consistently on your renderings is the seagrass beds are dynamic in nature, and the exact footprint will be determined prior to the issuance of the local building permit. Page 33 of 94 16 2 A March 1, 2012 Now, how will that weigh in on what we're being told is your building -- your boat dock application today? Are you suggesting by that that you're going -- you can move the docks around much? Or what is it you're trying to say with that notation on each one of your plans? MR. HALL: I don't think we have the leeway to move the docks around any. But the -- I mean, what you're being asked to render a decision on is the maximum number of 49 and the place where they could go in terms of the protrusion from the shoreline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we're also looking at the effect on the seagrass beds, because it's one of the criteria, and it's a very important aspect of all of our CCME and other documents. So if you're going -- if your intention by that notice is to tell us you're going to move it if you go out there and find no seagrass beds, I'd like to know that now. MR. YOVANOVICH: The location is fixed. The question of whether or not seagrasses exist is really determined at the time you pull a building permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then why do you need to have the clause in there that the footprint is going to -- could possibly be changed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it could be that it results from, at the building permit stage -- remember, we disagree with the terminal platform analysis. So the intent of that was, is we still, at the time of the building permit, are going to have to live with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, so that could result in a change to the dock configuration lesser, if you will, not greater or have it move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lesser dock configuration. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, you've got me puzzled by the meaning of that. And I don't want to -- if we go through this today and something comes out that provides any acceptance of this, I certainly don't want that phraseology to be construed to allow random changes to these docks, and I'm concerned about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The resolution that is in front of you -all today says we have to comply with all of the criteria you have just mentioned. The terminal dock cannot exceed 160 square feet, okay? So we're going to live with that, and that will depend on when we go pull the building permit. If there are no seagrasses there at the time we pull the building permit, then that Growth Management Plan provision does not apply, right? We all agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If your terminal -- if your dock is 10 feet away from seagrasses -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If there are no seagrasses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and we are more than 10 feet away -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right, it doesn't apply. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- then it doesn't apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, it doesn't apply. MR. YOVANOVIC14: But that provision's in there that if we are within 10 feet of a seagrass at the time we pull a building permit, we've got to meet the 160 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're covered in the resolution. You're covered in the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure your intention was not to change the configuration of the docks from what's being discussed today. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, the configuration of the docks is going to be what's set forth in your exhibits, okay. So in some areas it's larger. If it's, you know, within 10 feet of the seagrasses, then they have to cut down to the smaller five -- 4 or 5 feet and the 160 feet limitation between the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're kind of hitting on the point that concerns me. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: -- platform. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the seagrasses are by survey and everybody says, oops, they're going away, and you now don't have them within 10 feet, so now the dock -- the docks that couldn't be there because of the parallel mooring of the limitation of the -- calling it a terminal platform or marginal dock, whatever, goes away, then all of a Page 34 of 94 A4 A4 16 1 ?,March 1, 2012 sudden all those moorings happen. And I'd like to know -- before today's over, I'd like to know what your intent was with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. Now, there's something else, too, because in your document -- and this could get longer than we're going to have -- in fact, this is going to be a long one. We'll wait. We'll take a break, and we'll come back at quarter of one, and we'll resume where we just left off. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. I'd ask you to quiet down and please take your seats. We are late. And Mr. Yovanovich needs all the time he can get, so we need to move forward as fast as we can. But there has been a change. During the lunch break, Mr. Pires approached me and said he is having to leave early. He wanted to at least make his comments, before he left, when we got back from break, and I said that would be fine as long as there was no objections from the applicant. And, Richard, for the record, do you have any objection taking Tony out of sequence? MR. YOVANOVICH: How long is he going to talk? I don't care. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Richard said he didn't care. So, Tony, you have -- let's see. It's 12:46. How about to 12:50; does that work? MR. PIRES: Tomorrow morning? I'll watch how they do the filibuster at the Senate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission and, Rich, thank you for the professional consideration. Unfortunately, I have a long- committed meeting set for this afternoon up in Fort Myers, so I have to leave here at two o'clock. So thank you. I initially want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to be here to be able to raise some issues, and we think there needs to be some additional hearings as outlined in my materials. I represent, as indicated in my correspondence, the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, Inc., and a number of other residents listed on the correspondence that I provided to you -all. And I know you've seen quite a few resident people here today. Some will speak, some will not, but I think you understand that the overwhelming majority, if not all of them, are in opposition to this for well- founded reasons that I believe you will hear this afternoon. Also, Ms. Gundlach presented to you or waved at you the pink- and -white stack of 200 petitions in favor of this project, and I believe they are all from the Dunes residents that appeared, just a quick glance at it. And then I'm sure that -- once again, I think what's important is to understand the basis for any support or objection, and so I think it's important to note that back in April of 2011 there was a settlement agreement between the Dunes of Naples Property Owners Association, Inc., and Vanderbilt Partners II, LTD, where a number of issues were resolved involving construction issues with the project, but also there was a specific section referenced at Page 4 of that document -- I'll leave this document with the court reporter. It says marina. The developer has permits and other authorizations from all applicable governmental and quasi - governmental authorities other than Collier County to construct a 49 wet slip marina. Marina. Now today it's a dock facility, but I guess it's a marina at the time of this agreement. When the developer applies to Collier County, for this approval, the board of the directors of the association shall, in good faith, support and encourage all of its members to support the developer's application to construct up to 49 wet slips within the marina area, including encouraging attendance at public meetings at Collier County. With regards to the first matter, which is the insubstantial change as outlined in my letter in the attached materials, it's our position that the proposed change to the master plan is, in fact, a substantial change which requires a more detailed public hearing process, more rigorous review, in consideration of review by you -all as a Planning Commission and a recommendation and final decision by the Board of County Commissioners. Now, we've heard enough discussion today with regards to whether or not the docks are permitted uses within this particular area, just this waterway area of the PUD. And so we object to the consideration by the Planning Commission of this matter as an insubstantial change and request that you make a determination that it is, in fact, the substantial change that's being requested. We also object to any consideration in this application, because we believe that the title owner of the property Page 35 of 94 J 161 Z A4 3 March 1, 2012 involved is not here today and has not signed the application, that being the board of trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. And I'll get to that in a little bit, because the -- you've heard some discussion about quitclaim deeds. Well, with regards to the -- you know, I'll do that matter first. There's a discussion that has been referencing that the developer, as a condition of the permit from South Florida Water Management District and from the submerged land lease, will quitclaim title to that channel to the State of Florida to resolve any dispute that may exist. Now, a quitclaim deed conveys what you own. If you don't own anything, you don't give anything. If you have good title, you give good title. But as outlined in my letter, one of the conditions that they agreed to as part of this was they acknowledged that the State of Florida owns that land, and I attached it as an exhibit to my correspondence. So at the first instance we would submit that they don't -- this application should not be in front of you because the State of Florida is the true titleholder, and that's attached to my correspondence as Exhibit K. Where the applicant, Vanderbilt Partners 11, LTD, states, grantee -- they're the grantee under the submerged land lease -- agrees that all title and interests to all lands lying below the historical mean high -water line or ordinary high -water line are vested in the board -- that's the board of trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, the State of Florida -- and shall make no claim of title or interest in said lands by reason of the occupancy or use thereof. But the first instance they agreed that all title's vested in the state. So, again, our position is they do not -- the applicant does not have the authority to have submitted and to have its application heard. I've outlined in my letter the various concerns we have with how this process has been slapped dashed, slapped along. And I won't go into any greater detail, but it seems as if the process of having this reviewed and considered has been ceded to the developer as opposed to looking out for the public interest. It's been more inclined towards the developer /applicant's interest at the public's expense. With regards to the issue as to whether or not the docks are permitted uses, we were -- we would assert that at the present time docks are not any permitted use in this waterway area of the Dunes PUD and, therefore, by adding docks on the master plan, you are adding a use, an intensity of use not originally provided for and, therefore, it's a substantial change under the Land Development Code. We heard discussion about how this property was originally zoned, and part of the transcript of the November 14, 2000, County Commission meeting when the Ordinance 2000 -74 PUD was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, it referenced -- one of the staff members referenced that this property used to be zoned RMF 12. And if you recall the graphic that was provided in the applicant's presentation that showed how it was originally platted with the lot and land coming right up to the channel, that was zoned RMF 12 abutting the channel. The residential was abutting the waterway. The master plan, as approved in'98 and then again in 2000, has the residential hundreds of feet away from the waterway. There is a preserve district in between the residential development area as described in the PUD and outlined in the master plan and the waterway. And the language in the PUD provides that, you know, the docks are accessory to the residential development area. It doesn't say it's accessory to the residential development, the residential development area, which is a defined area on the master plan, and that's where all the high -rises are. So we would submit to you that docks are not a permitted use today in that area. They're a permitted use in the residential area. And, quite frankly, whatever discussion occurred at the Board of County Commissioners in 2000, if it was not included in the PUD, has no force and effect. It was a discussion. It was a chat. And so, once again, we would submit that the docks being added to the master plan are an additional use and intensification of use that does not exist today. Your discussion with Mr. Yovanovich said that he went back and looked at the PUD and found the language that said accessory uses include recreational uses and that's allowed throughout the whole PUD. And I think Mr. Bellows indicated that the county staff treats docks and recreational facilities differently as accessory uses. I think that's borne out in the residential zoning districts and the traditional zoning districts of the Land Development Code in Section 2.03.02. There are 2.03.02(A), (B, (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G). Those are the residential zoning districts: Single - family, multifamily, multifamily, multifamily, residential tourist, village residential, and mobile home. In each and every instance, they list the permitted uses, and then they have the categories of accessory uses. And there are two -- there are different categories of accessory uses, and docks -- private docks and boathouses are always listed Page 36 of 94 1612A arch 1, 2012 separately, and there's always a separate listing for recreational facilities. And I have copies of this to provide to you, hand out. So I would submit to you that they are separate and distinct uses, that recreational facilities are not, per se, dock facilities. And if they meant to say dock facilities, they would have said it like they said in the residential development area of the PUD that docks are accessory uses in the residential development area. So, again, we would submit to you that the proposed changes are a substantial change because they're neither referenced or listed in Section 210 of the Dunes PUD, they're not listed as permitted uses in the preserve district, they're not listed as permitted uses in the easement -- conservation easement, waterway, manmade waterway area, and they're only listed as permitted accessory uses solely in the defined residential development areas as outlined in Section 3.4.2 of the PUD. And, again, another factor that we believe is -- leans towards the conclusion that docks are not accessory uses -- permitted uses in this instance, not permitted uses in that waterway. They were not referenced in an EIS in 1999 that was utilized as part of the 2000 rezone amendment in restating and repealing. I submitted that as Page -- Exhibit J to the correspondence I've provided. And it talks about impacts of the boardwalk. It talks about impacts of the high- rises. It talks about impact of the multifamily. It talks about impact of the gazebo. It does not talk about impact of any docks. It does not talk about boating facilities at all. So I would submit to you that whether they made a mistake, that's their mistake. It is not included in the PUD. There was a general kind of discussion before the County Commission. And we would submit to you that adding it by virtue of this process is a substantial change to the master plan as an intensity of land uses. And I recognize that they've taken off the table the idea of reducing the acreage of the conservation area by five acres in trying to take that substantial change off the table. But what's disconcerting, again, is this process, because there's different applications with different dates but no re- submittals, that the advertisement occurred before the application hit the door. I'm not aware of any other project in Collier County where the application was advertised, notice sent out to people of a public hearing before the application came in the door. And, again, that's disconcerting. It may not have any bearing on you -all's consideration of this, but I just think it's a process I hope we would not utilize in the future, because the public is not well served, and it does cede control of the process to the developer. With regards to the -- bear with me. Just a few other particular points on the insubstantial change. We're not saying it's inconsistent use. We're just saying it's not a permitted use. Pure and simple. The area that they want to build the docks in is not a residential development area under the PUD, and it's not a residential district. With regards to the boat dock extension request, I appreciate 'Tim's kind words about my letter, but as far as the issues involving the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, the Manatee Protection Plan, and those other aspects, as you note from my correspondence when you have an opportunity to review it, I incorporated the materials and the explanation and position of the Conservancy as outlined in Nicole Johnson's letter of January -- February 27, 2012. She articulated it very well. I won't belabor or elaborate a lot of those points because Nicole will handle those in a more detailed fashion when she has an opportunity to speak before you -all. But, again, we concurred with the Conservancy, that based upon the language in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, that this particular facility is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. And, therefore, it should be denied. Now, one area I need to address with regards to one aspect is the language that's in my correspondence with regards to the fact that they have not provided a fiscal analysis. Section 10. 1.6 of the Conservation Coastal Management Element is very clear. This is all new marinas -- and it's not a marina -- but all new marinas water- dependent and water - related uses -- and this is a water- dependent and water - related uses. You don't have a boat dock without water -- that are proposed to destroy viable naturally functioning marine wetland shall be required to perform a fiscal analysis in order to demonstrate the public benefit -- key component -- demonstrate the public benefit and financial feasibility of the proposed development. Now, Mr. Hall said, we are taking care of that because while we're destroying some, we're mitigating, so we're making South Florida and DEP happy. The Comp Plan doesn't say all new marinas water- dependent and water - related uses that are proposed to destroy viable naturally functioning marine wetlands except for those who are Page 37 of 94 16 12 A4 March 1, 2012 mitigating and making up for it elsewhere. It's very clear, very black and white. And they have not provided that fiscal analysis. They've not shown or demonstrated the public benefit. And, again, on that basis it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One other aspect they're inconsistent with, the facility has been focused on being solely for the residents of the Dunes; we understand that. But Policy 10. 1.5 says, marinas and water- dependent water- related uses that propose to destroy wetlands shall provide for general public use. Again, we have, again, an application that's been zipping through the system. We believe in addition to the areas and elements that were pointed out in the Conservancy letter, which we adopt and incorporate in their entirety, we have this other issue, the application is deficient for not providing that necessary fiscal analysis. One other aspect from an -- I guess you'd call it highly technical, but I need to raise it. All the letter -- objections of my letter are being preserved -- is I have -- going through the files, I have a difficult time finding out who is on first as far as the applications. And no disrespect to anybody, but on this boat dock extension application, there was one signed by a Keith Sharp on the front page, the one indicated the applicant was Vanderbilt Partners II. The one with Vanderbilt Partners II didn't have a box marked for boat dock extension -- for boathouse, I mean. The one signed -- that Keith Sharp's on the front said boathouse. And then I recently received a page saying the February 2012 application for the boat dock extension has the boathouse marked. But none of them are dated, and it's very confusing. And then, I guess, to compound it is the legal notice for you -all's hearing of February 16th, which was continued to today, they're not advertising the boathouse. It said, boat dock extension. So, again, we have some legal deficiencies. If you -all decide to go forward on that boat dock extension application, I would submit you cannot even consider the boathouse, which is that fishing pier that's roofed, and it's a boathouse because of that. Again, we've gone through, and you'll hear a number of the residents. They will speak better to the issues about failure to achieve the requisite number of primary criteria and secondary criteria. I briefly outlined what I believe you will hear, and I will leave it to the residents and those who are familiar with the area to provide that testimony that, at a minimum, it is our position that the following primary criteria have not been met: 5.03.06.H. 1.C, as we believe the proposed dock facilities will have an adverse impact on navigation within the adjacent navigable channel; you've already heard Mr. Hall concede that they've not met the criteria in 5.03.06.H. 1.D, as the proposed dock facility protrudes more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway; and we also assert that it does not meet the criteria, primary criteria, Section 5.03.06.H.1.E. And as the secondary criteria, we believe three of those have not been achieved: 5.03.06.H.2.D, as the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront properties. Now, on that point Mr. Hall said, well, you know, riparian -- the only -- as the riparian law in the State of Florida says, you only have a view to the middle of the channel. We're talking about the Collier County Land Development Code, and we could be more restrictive and more protective of the rights of our property owners and our residents in this community. And I believe you heard testimony that the proposed facility will have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront properties owners. We believe it does not meet the criteria either of 5.03.06.H.2.E, as seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility and will be impacted, and then we also believe it does not meet the criteria, secondary criteria, of 5.03.06.H.2.F, as the facility is subject to but not in compliance with the manatee protection requirements of Section 5.03.06.E.11. And you will hear, again, Nicole Johnson, elaborate in more detail on that particular matter. For all the foregoing, we would request and submit that, first of all, the PDI be treated not as an insubstantial change, but rejected and say it has to come back as a substantial change and, therefore, really should have no necessity done of even hearing the boat dock extension because it wouldn't be allowed, but if you find that the request for the change in the master plan is insubstantial, we request that you deny the boat dock extension as submitted for the reasons that we've articulated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the extra time that you've had is an acknowledgment that you do represent a large group of people here today, and so that's why the exception was made in time format. Page 38 of 94 161 2 A4 March 1, 2012 Let's see if there's any questions. Is there any questions of Tony at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, when the original plat was shown today -- and that's the first time I've certainly seen it -- there was a comment made that there was an easement given to everybody to use that channel. MR. PIRES: Yeah. I'm not familiar with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PIRES: But then Mr. Yovanovich or Tim, I think, indicated that that plat was subsequently vacated, or Mr. Strain did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It was vacated with the exception of that reference. And I have the documents to prove that. MR. PIRES: Okay. I've not reviewed the vacation, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the question is, would that allow them to build a boat dock in that easement? MR. PIRES: I go back to what the PUD says. In my opinion, the PUD does not provide for the ability to have a dock in that area. It's not an allowed use, and that's what they're asking for. It's an intensification of use. If that's going to be granted, it needs to go back through a substantial change to the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question -- and I agree with that. But my question is that based on the fact that there's an easement, wouldn't you be allowed legally to build into that easement, essentially blocking some of that easement? MR. PIRES: No. I think the fact that you may have an easement for a particular use, that's different than a land use. You know, you may have -- you may be granted an easement, but if (sic) its inconsistent with the land use regulation. And, recall, the PUD was an application that they made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony, I can read this for the record. MR. PIRES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may help Brad's situation. The dedication on the plat, the one item that did remain on the plat, know all men by these presence that Florida Development Corporation, owner of the herein described lands, by its undersigned president, Harold J. Baker and Secretary Richard Baker, has caused to be made this plat entitled "Wiggins Pass Landings No. 1," does hereby dedicate the streets, easements, and waterways as shown on the attached plat to perpetual use of the public for proper purposes and uses shown therein. MR. PIRES: Yeah. I would concede it allows people to travel to and fro on it like you would a street but, again, having the public granted an easement over roadway doesn't authorize people to put garages in the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Yeah. What I also have is sort of a two -page summary of the boat dock extension summary, and a three -page summary as to the PDI, if I can -- should I give them to Ray to hand out, pass out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, at break we -- do you need them for this discussion, or is there something we're supposed to be reading? MR. PIRES: No, just as you all are discussing and deliberating the matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can pass them out during the break. Ray will take them for now. MR. PIRES: Thank you. And thank you for the consideration of allowing me to go out of turn. And, Rich, again, thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Thank you. Appreciate the input. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow -up with the county attorney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anybody know how to whistle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't want to whistle in this mike. Heidi, I have a question on something Tony said. I want to make sure the record's clear on it. Did you review the ownership rights of the property to confirm that the applicant is the right person holding the ownership of the property to request the PUD change on the boat dock? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. I'm satisfied that the applicant, Vanderbilt Partners, is the appropriate entity Page 39 of 94 r 161 2 A4 March 1, 2012 and that any consent, if any, needed from the State of Florida, if they have any interest in it, has been provided through the granting of the permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else have any questions or comments on Tony's discussion? If not, we'll move back to where we left off before. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I follow up on something Tony just said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ray, can you -- I circled the plat that Mr. Strain just read from, and included in the rights that are on that plat, it says, 10 -foot wide docking area which is adjacent to the water. That was vacated. It's in the waterway. The waterway remained public, and we're part of the public. I just want people to understand that included in that plat was always the intent that there were going to be docks in that area from a historical standpoint. The PUD also dealt with that issue. I'm not saying that -- I'm just saying that that's the -- let's put this in perspective. And I want to respond directly to Tony's -- has he already left? MR. PIRES: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- his allegations that the public doesn't know what's going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, let's -- your first statement about that particular reference to the docking area, the two arrows that show the 10 foot go from the property line that's part of the lot, inside not outside. So you claim that it was part of the waterway. Are you sure that that's part of the waterway by having tracked the legal description of the waterway? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm saying is it's clearly adjacent to the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a different word then, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I will have to go look at the title to figure out exactly where that line is because, clearly, there's no seawall built that was originally contemplated. I say that for purpose of the public there was always the intention that there were going to be docks in this manmade waterway, so this is nothing new since at least the date of that plat that there were going to be docks there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- your statement, though, has a bearing. I wanted to make sure it was clear that -- I don't see how that 10 foot shown here is inside the waterway. On this plan it's shown outside the waterway. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have not tracked the legal description that carefully, but I did track it earlier. I just didn't look for this point. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have not either -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- but my point is this is always intended to be parallel to that -- parallel -- parallel to the other side of the water. It was always intended to be a line of docks. So for anybody to come in here and say they never thought their view of docks was ever going to be taken away, that's, in fact -- I don't know who that is. I don't think it's me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what it is. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: It's been going on for more than just this session. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa has a question of you, Rich, before you move forward. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Rich, when was this platted? MR. YOVANOVICH: Seventy- three, I think it is. Let me put my eyes back on. COMMISSIONER AHERN: The reason I'm bringing it up is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: 1970. COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- in all likelihood, in'73 there weren't as many requirements in terms of permits. So putting the dock where it's shown probably wouldn't have been a problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And to -- I almost -- I -- to now claim -- and I know what Heidi said, and I agree 100 percent what she said about the ownership -- but to come in here now and say that every application for a dock that's in water needs to have whoever the rightful owner is, the waters in all those canals are waters of the United States. Are you going to make them join in, the United States join in on every application for a building permit for a dock? Page 40 of 94 '4 1-114 ' 14qrch 1 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is Collier County, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's fine. Honestly, I was shocked -- I was shocked to hear -- to hear that that's the basis for why we shouldn't be here today was you don't have the rightful owner in front of you. I wanted to make sure I could respond to that in front of -- in front of Mr. Pires, because I just thought that that was, you know, quite an aggressive stance to take on why we shouldn't be here today. And I will address all the public comments, but in response -- I wanted to respond to Mr. Pires while he was actually here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there more you want to continue on? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm ready -- we're ready to answer any more questions or wherever we left off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I left off with me, but, Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on this plat. Rich, could you slide it over and give us the width of the waterway that this represents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe it was 250 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Two hundred fifty feet, and that's kind of what it is. I think the real world is closer to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where would 250 feet be today? Would it be -- which side of your docks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Their docks are within the 250 feet, because their docks go to 249 right now. So there's about a foot change in the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're in that 250 -foot range. We're within the area where the docks were going to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your docks are into the 250 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: We're within the 250 feet, I believe, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Yeah, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, did you have something else? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Can we go back to that plat, Ray? Can you zoom into the bottom left? It looked like there was something with a -- okay. So it looked like it showed seawall, seawall line, and then the dock between the seawall and the lot line. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it is -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: It looks like the docks would have been within the water, and the seawall is, whatever direction that is, east, I believe it is. So I believe the width of that waterway -- I don't know where it was measured to, to be honest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 250, you might look on the north end. I think there's another reference to the 250. It certainly would be with the property line, though, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I mean, I know the docks would have been in the water by that description. Whether it would have been in the property line, I don't know. But, I mean, I haven't gone back to figure out the exact vacation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd be out in the water. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Were these lots originally going to be single -- single - family, it looks like here? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe they were multi - family -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: RMF 12. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for purposes of -- we brought -- remember when we did the 2008 and the 1998 -- and I don't remember which one it was -- but they came into and were rezoned to the PUD, so the actual density went down from what could have been there. And I would say that clearly that was the public benefit that was received by Page 41 of 94 16 12 AA March 1, 2012 the PUD process together with getting all that nice preserve land for nothing. So I would -- I would submit that there's plenty of public benefit related to the rezone and the boat dock petition. But I'm -- we're ready -- I just wanted to respond mainly to the ownership comment from Tony. But we're ready to answer any -- continue to answer questions you may have on our petition itself, and then we'll respond to the public as the public speaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is everybody done? Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, the staff recommendations. On Pages 12 and 13 of the staff report, are you in agreement with those recommendations? MR. YOVANOVICH: Give me a second, please. I believe the resolution that included it says that we give the -- we give the conservation easement at building pennit, and we're agreeable to what's actually attached to the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that differ than -- from No. 1 then? MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought it says within 30 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says, shall be recorded in the public records of Collier County at time of building pen-nit application free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I thought it -- I may be reading it wrong. I saw within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution in No. 1. 1 may be reading it wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 12 of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And maybe I have an older staff report, so -- could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know. Then let's find out what the right one is, because we better all be reading off the same page. Because when we ask you to agree to things, if you're agreeing to things, I'd like to know they're all the same things. Mine is dated February 22, 2012. What is your date? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the confusion. Mine said February 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, yes, we're -- if it says building permit, yep, we're fine with that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one I want to focus on right now. The attachment -- and they said in the recommendation it was attached to Exhibit D. When you go to Exhibit D, the standard conservation easement has a reference in section -- on Page 2, 2B, that says, uses permitted by Section 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code. When you pull that section of the Collier County Land Development Code, it talks about the allowable uses within county required preserves. "I," the following passive uses are allowed within the preserves. It talks about boardwalks, but it says, minimum width for shared use paths for use by golf carts, trams, bicycles, joggers, et cetera, is 10 feet. How do you not have that apply to you? Because you are using trams or something because you need turn- around areas for golf carts or something on that; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the standard conservation easement appears it may require you to be 10 feet. Is that -- do you see why you wouldn't be? MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we -- how wide are we? We're 8 feet, and I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I would understand that probably to be a maximum of 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't state that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have that provision right in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says minimum widths. So it's not a maximum. The maximum is 12. Widths greater than 12 feet may be allowed, but then you've got to -- then there's -- only if they serve as fire breaks. Minimum widths for shared use paths for use by golf carts, trams, bicycles, joggers, et cetera, is 10 feet. And since you're going to be using it for more than just pedestrians, because I think that's why you have turnarounds, how do you not fit that need? And that's in the standard conservation easement that's consistent with the reference in the code. Page 42 of 94 16 12 A4 March 1, 2012 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll need to look at that, Mr. Strain. I need to pull that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's important when -- before the hearing's over that you come back with some kind of analysis on there, let us know what you're -- then further on down there's two items here -- since you've got other people here who could be looking at things. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Further down it talks about more uses, and it lists, besides the pathways, which bring in the question I just brought up, there are a few other uses listed. One is shelters without walls, but I don't think you're proposing a shelter; educational signage and bulletin boards; benches and seating, viewing platforms, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation - related and recreational activities, and that's it. So how do you get a sewage treatment house in there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what we're going to have to do, Mr. Strain, is that document needs to be reconciled with the uses allowed under the PUD preserve district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What document? MR. YOVANOVICH: The standard form conservation easement needs to be consistent with the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that brings my next question up then to Heidi. If the conservation easement isn't the standard conservation easement referred to in the staff recommendations and isn't the one pursuant to that section in the LDC, does that become a deviation to the LDC, or how does that get changed? What's the process for -- which is -- which way is the best process to proceed with that issue? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, if they're to present a conservation easement that's other than our standard form, then it would go to the Board of County Commissioners for the board to approve that conservation easement. What I don't know is whether or not they have already received any permits for the boardwalk that they're proposing, because there are some other sections in the code that deal with structures that had permits prior to June 8, 2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would imagine that you and your staff are not quite familiar with those offhand right now, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Whether we have any other permits? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, how the other permits you may have, whether they do or do not fall under the criteria that is subject to the different time frames that Heidi just mentioned. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Have you already gotten any permitting for the boardwalks and so forth? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, not from the county, not from the county. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- so the outcome of this then, Heidi, would be that either we do a deviation for the LDC to avoid the reference to "H" in the conservation easement or change the conservation easement, which takes a request separately through the Board of County Commissioners; is that what you're saying? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a whole -- and that's -- the conservation easement come before this Planning Commission? I don't believe they do. That language would -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, it would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll make a note for further discussion, Richard, but I think it's something that you need to address. So -- okay. I was going to try to find my other questions here real quick. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I respond to the -- I think you had a bathroom question or pump -out, is that what you're -- was that one of the questions you had? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand how that fit into the reference to the LDC language for the language in the conservation easement. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. But when you look at our preserve district in the PUD, it allows the following uses as a matter of right in those districts: Passive recreational areas, boardwalks, including recreational shelters and restrooms, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So those are permitted uses that I would believe would be authorized to be made to the standard form document because they have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners already Page 43 of 94 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 through the adoption of the PUD. If we didn't have that topic addressed in the PUD and I wanted to change the standard form document, then I would agree I need to go to the Board of County Commissioners. But if it's a use that's already specifically identified within the preserve, the form, the standard form, needs to be modified to address what had been previously approved before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, before you affirm, let me -- hear me out. The boardwalk reference in the PUD, I cannot remember offhand, does it tell how wide it will be? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does not address width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If width is silent in the PUD, what does it fall back to? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it also says in this section, subject to the permitting we receive, and the Water Management District limited the width to 8 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we have a standard conservation easement that has the language reference that I referred to but now that can't happen, do we need to change the standard conservation easement? Otherwise, you have conflicting documents. And if we need to change the standard conservation easement, we go back to my original question, what's the process to do that, and I think it's back before the Board of County Commissioners; is it not? As far as the shelter goes in the restroom, it isn't a restroom. It's a building to store a container to pick up -- I don't know how to politely say it -- but things out of boats. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Discharge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discharges from boats. So it isn't a restroom, is it, or is it going to be both, a place to keep -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the part I found to be kind of ironic is I can have a restroom in the preserve area to be served by (sic) the 640 multifamily units yet I can't have a portable pump -out facility that probably -- Tim, what was the gallons? What was the gallonage of the port? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a storage shed. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Are we talking about the pump -out facility or the storage shed now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought they were one in the same. You've got two buildings out there? MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got a pump -out facility that -- it holds 40 gallons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's a machine. It's not -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But it's almost -- they described it almost like a shop vac that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I bought one for the marina I was involved with. Yeah, I know what they do. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 40 gallons. It's 40 gallons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You wheel them into a storage shed. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can have a full- fledged restroom that could serve 640 people, but I can't have a pump -out facility -- 640 units, and I can't have a 40- gallon pump -out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you're missing the point. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The point is, we have a conservation easement that requires you, if you accept it as part of the staff recommendations, to be compliant with Section 3.05.07.H of the Collier County LDC. Based on what I'm hearing, you can't be consistent with that without changing the conservation easement. All I'm suggesting to you is to cross the is and dot the is and get it done so that it's not subject to challenge as you go down the road for being inconsistent with the document you agreed to be consistent to. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I get that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you're asking me specifics that I'll have to deal with in the context of the PUD document. I don't want the public to walk away and say, I've got to ask for permission to put certain things in the conservation -- in the easement document itself, because those things are already addressed in the PUD. I'm not -- maybe we're talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not the public's position to walk away and make that kind of decision. It's going to fall back on staff. You're going to come in with a building permit. Staffs going to look at your conservation, they're going to Page 44 of 94 4, 6 12 V-41, 2012 turn to 3.05.07.1-1, and they're going to say, oh, the boardwalk's supposed to be 10 feet. You're going to say, well, no, it isn't. We have an allowed boardwalk in our PUD. Staffs going to say fine. Where does it show it's 10 feet wide? You're going to say it doesn't. What does that mean? It falls back on the LDC. I'm trying to get the trail clear for staff. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hear you, okay. MR. HALL: For the record, Tim Hall, again. The issue did come up. And that area, you've got to remember, is already under an existing South Florida Water Management District conservation easement. It's permitted, it's allowed under their permits, and it's already there under that easement. When we do the conservation easement to the county, which is, in order to meet the native preserve preservation requirements, if this is an issue, that area around that building can be carved out of that easement that's going to be given to the county. It's not needed for the native vegetation retention. So it could just be -- we could just cut the conservation easement that's going to be deeded to the county or dedicated to the county around to that, and it's not an issue anymore with regards to that. And then that standard document would still be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That takes care of one of two issues. MR. HALL: It doesn't take care of the boardwalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The boardwalk. So now how are we going to resolve the boardwalk? You've got to remember -- and, Bill and Ray, you had asked me before this meeting to make sure everything was as clear as possible so when you guys got an application it would be black and white. I'm trying to do that. MR. BELLOWS: No, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you feel that you understand it over my questions, then please just tell me, and I'll back off. But other than that, I think we need to understand how you're going to address the width of the boardwalk in conflict with the conservation easement language. Are you going to request a change to the conservation easement if one is needed? Are you going to request a deviation to the LDC? What is your intention? Because when staff gets it, they're going to have a conflict. How are you going to resolve their conflict? What would you say to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll deal with it. We're going to have to deal with it through the standard form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You'll have to deal with it before the meeting's over. This is more of it. I'll wait. I've got staff questions. I'll catch them when they get up here. The constructed material used for the piling on the docks, your pen-nit with South Florida says the following: Docks and walkway pilings shall be constructed of plastic, concrete, or green heart, non -CCA treated wood or wood wrapped in an 30- to 60 -mill PVC. Your details show the wrapping going 6 inches below the bottom, but that would leave the -- and that shows the rest of it being CCA treated wood. Are you changing that detail? MR. HALL: We're not at the moment, because the wrapping that's referenced in the permits has to deal with potential leaching into the water body. So the requirement that they normally -- the wrapping that is normally required is as we've shown it on that detail. If -- if you have a concern and want the piling wrapped all the way to the bottom, we can do that. But in terms of being consistent with the permit, the detail that we have shown is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even though the permit says you're supposed to use non -CCA treated wood and it doesn't limit it to just the water line, you're saying that's what it means and that's what the -- do you have anything in writing from the South Florida that says that's what they'll accept? MR. HALL: I don't have anything in writing with me. I have, you know, the hundreds of other projects that we've done in exactly the same manner. But I don't have anything in writing. If that's something that we have to provide at the -- you know, at the permitting or SDP -- time of SDP, we can do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we have no conflicts, wherever this is worked out. MR.1-IALL: And I understand. And going back, after you had pointed it out and looking at it, it isn't real clear. But the wrapping of pilings that have the potential to leach is more an issue associated with the water than the sediments. So they want that area that's going to be exposed to the water to be wrapped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the salts that are used and the chlorides, or whatever the chemicals are, or arsenic -- I'm not sure what CCA -- all the chemicals are that are in those -- they leach into the ground table -- ground Page 45 of 94 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 -- I mean, the ground, the soils just as much as they leach into the water. And I'm wondering where -- they're only concerned about the water table in this particular area and not the entire column that these pilings are going in, because they said, plastic, concrete, or green heart. And if you -- so you couldn't do half concrete and the rest wood below the water line, so I would think that kind of lends to that they intended the entire piling to be of a measure of safety not -- and to avoid CCA. But you -- I know that's not your experience. It doesn't mean that it's been -- anybody's checked it in the past either for that matter. MR. HALL: I'd be happy to get that clarified if we need to. I'm not going to be able to do it today, but we can get that clarified. Most of the metals, copper and arsenic, that are associated with that far enough down into the soil -- I don't disagree with you, they do leach into the soil, but they're usually bound there. And unless they're disturbed by pulling the pilings out at a later time, they're held there in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm satisfied, as long as before building permit is issued that's clarified to staffs -- you know, staffs -- staff is satisfied with the clarification. MR. HALL: I will definitely do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have agreed to go to the two- and -a -half foot draft that I have all my notes on that I couldn't -- so. Well, Tim, I'm getting through it all. I just got all the two- and -a- half -foot draft references earmarked. It will just take me a minute. Does anybody else have any questions while I'm going through this? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could fill the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, how am I supposed to think of the Outstanding Florida Waters? What does that mean to this site in your opinion? MR. YOVANOVICH: My opinion is to have my expert talk about what it means, which is Tim. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. I missed the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, what am I supposed to think about the Outstanding Florida Waters which, essentially, this beautiful strip of mangroves is part of? And it doesn't look as good with a bunch of boats in front of it as it does right now. MR. HALL: Okay. What's the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the question is, I think it matters, and you don't want me to think that, so how does that happen? So -- MR. HALL: Well, I mean, the Outstanding Florida Waters designations, it's a designation put on waterways to protect waters that the state considered to have special environmental or historical -- that needed additional protections. And it adds an extra level of review or layer of review when you go through the ERP process. It also imposes additional limits on you, if you will, when you go to construction and how you do the construction because you have to maintain -- I guess turbidity levels is the easiest one to talk about. In a normal non -OFW waters, when you go into construction, you're allowed some increase in turbidity levels while the construction is going on. And there's monitoring that you do to make sure that those levels don't go above a certain -- it's 29 NTUs over the background. When you get into -- and, you know, you have an area above and below the project site that you have to maintain with that. When you get into the OFW designation, instead of allowing you that increase to 29, they say when you get outside of the boundaries of the settling base and whatever they set, at that limit you have to be at zero. You're not allowed to increase that turbidity level at all. So it generally changes the way that you do construction and at -- sometimes the type of equipment that you use to do it to try to make sure that you avoid those turbidity issues. I'll give you an example. On this project with the dredging that we're proposing, the north and south ends of the project site are our boundaries. The dredging is being done hydraulically with a suction pump instead of with a backhoe, and what that does is allows the material to be sucked up and put on land to where it can be dried and all, and then hauled off. The back -- if a backhoe was doing it and pulling it up and putting it onto the barge, you get the problems with maybe stuff filling off the barge and more turbidity being created. So it's a matter of defining in the permits how Page 46 of 94 161 2 94 1 1, 2012 you can do that to maintain that higher water quality standard in those waters. And that's just, I mean, one example. The separation of the docks from the seagrasses, you know, protecting the resources that are already there, requesting the boat lifts, they would prefer to see all of the boats on boat lifts because it gets them out of the water, but they did not make that actually a requirement on this site. The flushing potential and the amount of water going back and forth on a daily basis they felt was enough to make sure that the -- there weren't going to be any increases in water quality impacts associated with the project site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you know of any other Outstanding Florida Waters that have a situation where they have in front of the mangrove docks like this? MR. HALL: There are some further north. In Collier County there aren't many shorelines that still have, you know, the mangroves associated with residential developments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. HALL: So I'm not -- I can't -- Outstanding Florida Waters in Collier County, I can't think of any. There's maybe some further to the north. Isn't Barefoot -- yeah, the Barefoot Beach Condominium Club has a lot of docks, and they have a mangrove fringe along their shoreline as well. It's not as deep as this one. It's basically just about a 15- or 20 -foot area behind the docks. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Excuse me, Tim. How about Hamilton Harbor? MR. HALL: Hamilton Harbor was actually dredged. That was a basin that was dredged back into it. They do have mangroves adjacent to it, but there's a neat kind of system of weirs established around that basin. When the tide comes up, the water's able to flow in and out of those mangrove communities, but there is actually a wall there that separates the basin from the mangroves in that instance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HALL: Yeah. And it's also pointed out that that's not an OFW right there. Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve starts just to the south of that, but Hamilton Harbor's not included in it, I don't believe. Yeah, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The rest of my questions are going to be of staff. Are there any other questions to the applicant at this time? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one, one I forgot to ask earlier. I was provided by Ms. Snyder a letter from the Corps of Engineers, Colonel Pantano, dated August 19 -- August 19, 2009, regarding this -- regarding the boat docks. And it states that their -- their permit, being the Corps' permit, requires docks to protrude less than 25 percent of the waterway. And we've already talked about the fact that it's going to protrude more than 25 percent, but -- MR. HALL: But we're protruding more than 25 percent the way the county defines the waterway but not the way the Corps defines the waterway. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I'm quoting the letter from Colonel Pantano. MR. HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And he states that their permit, "their" being the Corps of Engineers, requires docks to protrude less than 25 percent of the width of the waterway. MR. HALL: Right. And we have a Corps permit for this project. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Let me ask my question. MR. HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: They're stating that their permit, okay, requires that it not protrude 25 percent. By admission, it is going to protrude 25 percent of the waterway. MR. HALL: Depends on whose definition of waterway you're looking at. Again, we go back to definitions. The Corps does not include to the mangroves in the waterway. As far as they're concerned, it's the open -water portion of that, and that's already been through their review. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There seems to be a lot of contradiction or interpretation of terminology here, and that's what's personally confusing to me. Channel, marked channel, navigable waterway, waterway by someone's definition, waterway by the Corps of Engineers' definition. And be that as it may, my question is -- and I think I know the answer -- because you're in excess of 25 percent of the waterway, somebody's waterway, it does not negate the Corps' permit to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Page 47 of 94 u 16 I 4 arch 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Now -- can you substantiate "correct" to me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The Corps gave us the permit and exactly where we're allowed to do the improvements, okay. So the Corps has approved these docks in this specific location. So but when -- so when they're using their terminology of the waterway, they actually mean the open waterway. County has their own definition of waterway, which would include the mangroves, okay. So it's the county's definition that's creating confusion in this particular case, because the mangroves are a part of the county's definition of waterway for purposes of their 25 percent criteria. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Whereas, the Corps -- if I'm understanding what you're saying, the Corps looks out there, does a survey, whatever, and they do, and they see H2O. MR. HALL: Right. I mean, they see -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that's their waterway. MR. HALL: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's -- yeah. They take a, okay, "where's the boat really going to go" approach. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I mean -- okay, fine. It's just very confusing people using -- people -- agencies using the same, literally the same terminology in conflicting manners. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- I'm finding it very difficult to separate the weak from the BS. Pardon me. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this tune? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, did you have any -- you finished up on your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. Yes, we're done with our presentation, and we'll obviously respond to any comments from the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. No problem. And now we'll move on to staff presentation. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Review Services. And staff is recommending approval of both the PDI and the boat dock extension. And on the boat dock extension there are conditions of approval 1 through 6, and they are listed on the last two pages of your staff report. I also have copies of the minutes of meeting from Monday evening's neighborhood information meeting. This is the second of two meetings. I'd be happy to hand them out, perhaps, after we have our -- answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we have a break, you can hand them out -- maybe somebody else could hand them out while they're -- if Ray doesn't mind helping. MS. GUNDLACH: Thanks, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And also we have our environmental specialist here today as well as our Growth Management Plan manager to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Let's start -- Brad? Thanks, Ray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, one of the problems I'm having is -- hold on a second -- is Ray being in the way -- no, is, you know, the argument over should this be on the residential parcel or not? I mean, I read the PUD in the residential section. I really do get that feeling. And then the other question I think you can help me with is, you know, when do they submit what is the final plat? Because, you know, when I read through this it appears that at certain times all the uses should be shown. And now they're saying they can't show it until they can get it. I mean, they could put a little dot and say, "if allowed," I mean, so there is ways to bridge that gap where, you know, everybody would see it coming. But what's your opinion of -- well, let me go to the basic thing. They're saying we have a residential area, which is the thing that includes this as an accessory use, and all the accessory uses are -- that they've done prior are in that area, and then we have a preserve area, and then we have this thing "open space," and the reason it's called open Page 48 of 94 1612 &41,20112 space is because the area in the PUD has preserves and open space, so the left over must be the water as an open space, but it has no development criteria, the open space. So do you agree that that's what's true? Is that the -- what's happening here, or is that waterway part of the preserve? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I'm going to try to -- it's a very complex question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a complex problem. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. The boat docks are an accessory use to the residential uses. And for me it was sort of common sense that they go in the waterway; however, the reason for the -- the insubstantial change to the master plan up the PUD was so that it would be clearly depicted and hopefully easy to understand the location of the boat docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And -- you know, and I asked Rich a similar question. He pointed out, well, look, we have other accessory uses like the clubhouse and stuff that we really don't show, but they do honor the part of the code where they do, in fact, fall in the residential section. I mean, there's no question that wouldn't be allowed. But what do you believe -- I mean, how does -- what gives us the ability to take this use that's defined in the residential section, and it says the purpose of this section is to establish land, you know, use regulations for the residential areas, not for the preserve or the now open space. How do we jump out of the -- how are we allowed to take an accessory use out there and move it outside the residential? What gives us the ability to do that? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The PUD lists permitted and accessory uses. The accessory use in this case is -- has -- includes a provision that it is subject to the boat dock extension provisions and also based on the historic permitting of the project where the docks were originally intended. It was my opinion that the docks are accessory use and that's where you'd put them. The reason I felt a PUD master plan amendment was required is because of the conservation easement. The conservation easement is not specifically defined in the PUD document. It's remained very clouded as to the applicability of that easement and what that could do to restrict or hinder or impact any proposed docks that, in my opinion, are allowed in the manmade waterway. Hope that answers your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, kind o£ Let's go back to the final SDP. In other words, in here there is some verbiage -- I could read some of it. It's in the residential -- stating that -- for example, one is, final track configuration and actual acreage of all developments shall be provided at Site Development Plan or preliminary subdivision plat. In other words, the argument they've made when I ask that question is, well, we're not done yet. So we're not final. But the impression of these things is to kind of -- when you're dealing with the SDPs, you're actually dealing with all the cards up and you know -- you know, you're making decisions based on what's going to happen in total. Even in 3.5.0 it says, development uses not specifically specified in the table shall be established during the Site Development Plan, and, again, the docks aren't in the table. So the docks are silently going through this, and they never pop up, there's never a little parking for dock, there's never a power line for dock, there's never anything for dock, and yet they've jumped out of the residential site. So wouldn't you expect something during the prior SDP process? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe the SDP would require all accessory structures that are allowed in the PUD to be shown on the SDP. They could come in at a later date, and we have a process to amend the SDP to reflect those accessory uses when the applicant feels it's ready to come online. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then there's words like final track configuration and actual acreage of all development tracts will be provided at the site -- time of Site Development Plan. I mean, that's kind of telling me all cards are up when you're dealing with the Site Development Plans. But you don't think so? MR. BELLOWS: Not in regard to -- CHAR AN STRAIN: Brad, maybe I can help clarify something, because I did go through some other documents trying to understand some of the questions that I expected today. If the residential parcel was up against the water and there was no separation by a preserve, basically the water abutted the residential parcel, would then the docks be acceptable based on the fact that they're mentioned under the residential section as an accessory use? Page 49 of 94 161 A 4 March 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, yes, you agree, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And the dock code would even tell us that they'd be accessories, accessory uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: October 23, 2002, Margaret Wuerstle, who used to be our planning services department director, came to the following conclusion: It is my opinion that the term "abutting" -- and this is when you're in a PUD -- references the zoning district boundaries and not the property line boundaries. In this case the zoning district is the PUD. I don't -- I would think that she was suggesting that if that's the case, separations by other areas does not prohibit the accessory use as being in the waterway as they are here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I would argue that the PUD residential boundary is the boundary she's referencing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, in other words, these boat docks aren't adjacent to that. They are way out on the other side of the preserve. They're not even in the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're within the same district. They're all within the same zoning district like the general requirements refer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in a PUD we establish different zoning areas. In this case it's just residential and preserve. So they're not in the residential district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the PUD itself is its own district as a whole. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, let me just get the -- in our dock section, there's this thing on -- determination as principal or accessory use, referring to docks, and it states, boathouses and dock facilities proposed on residentially zoned property as defined in Section 2.2.2, which I can go to, of the LC (sic), shall be considered an accessory use or structure, meaning it has to be on the residential. When you send there it says -- and residential's defined -- and I don't want to go through all the different zoning, but it is the residential component of the PUD only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is -- you'll never have a dock on a residential property. I mean, it ain't going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you know, the concern --well, where the zoning is, just take where these people live, that whole block of area is zoned residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but the water that the dock is in isn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the waterways -- I'd have to go back and look at the zoning map. I don't think the zoning follows the bulkhead line. I think that whole chunk of land is zoned residential; therefore, essentially, the bottom of the waterway is residential. But that's -- we can go back and look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll check it. Maybe this -- was this waterway zoned -- would you assume this waterway then was zoned residential -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since all the rest of it is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Is the preserve zoned residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was at one time, until 1998. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we're talking, you know, 2000 when this -- it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It changed in'98 from our -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the preserve is not residential, that's the point. The open waterway, which isn't -- doesn't even have its own district, is now called open space, and the -- its not residential. But anyway -- I think -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The unique nature of this is that the PUD boundary incorporates the mammade waterway and Water Turkey Bay because they had -- at the time, it's my understanding, that they owned the land under the waterway. Page 50 of 94 161Z arch : w 1 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Submerged lands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And who would ever believe we could build it on an adjoining lot? I mean, they can't build it on Baker Point, which I suggested earlier, so -- MR. BELLOWS: I think -- my logic is that the waterway isn't in a district. It isn't in the preserve district. It isn't classified as anything. But we do have language in the PUD that says boat docks are allowed as an accessory use subject to the boat dock extension criteria. You can't put them in a residential tract with no water, so the intent is that they were to be put in the manmade waterway, but that isn't in -- part of any district that would prohibit. The one caveat that I was -- I wanted to clear up as part of the PDI is what is that conservation easement doing? Certainly, I haven't found anything that says you couldn't put a boat dock in -- within this conservation easement. We just want it cleared up as part of this process. But certainly -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- MR. BELLOWS: I don't know where you'd put the boat hocks, quite frankly, if you don't do it this way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We do -- out in the middle of nowhere we do PUDs, and we've even had some chuckles over this thing where we have lakes and we put docks in. So you have lakes in the R district. You may want to put a dock on that. I don't care. But the point is that, you know, there are docks on lakes, too, so that's not totally freaky that an accessory use to that -- Rich, you wanted to say -- jump in. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind. Mr. Strain, it just clicked. This is an RPD in the new terminology. This is a residential PUD. The entire number of acres is a residential project, okay. So we are, in fact, putting our accessory uses on residentially zoned property. The whole -- the PUD applies to the entire boundaries. In today's terminology you would have the R in front of it for residential PUD. So it's a residentially zoned piece of property, and the docks are on residentially zoned property, just like the neighbor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we referred to -- so when we referred to residential components in PUDs, it means this whole site? That's what you're telling me. MR. BELLOWS: I think the point Mr. Yovanovich is trying to make is this is a residential PUD to the boundaries of the PUD. There are tracts within the PUD that may restrict or allow uses that are prohibited in other areas. The thing is, this PUD doesn't say that it is restricted or allowed, but it does say accessory uses to residential boat docks. And where are you going to put them but the waterway? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the section that the docks are in -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- states that this section is to establish the land uses, regulations, and development standards for the residential development areas indicated in Exhibit A, which is not the preserve or not this open space. Anyway, enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were on questions of Nancy. Does anybody -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nancy, one of the things I noticed is there was no fire code review fee collected MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --with this back in 2010. That was missed. MS. GUNDLACH: No, it was not missed. The fire code review will be conducted at the time of SDP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm going to read to you the environmental advisory board staff report back in September 6th of 2000. This is with Stan Chrzanowski and Barbara Burgeson. In reading this over it says, impacts to jurisdictional wetlands as shown on the PUD master plan include an eight foot wide boardwalk and gazebo. That was in there, the one that was going to go out to Turkey Bay. It says, a marginal wharf is also proposed to be constructed in the canal along the western property boundary seaward of the mangrove fringe. The wharf will provide vessel mooring for the residents of the project, but that was crossed out. And then when I go to the end where it gives the recommendation and the environmental things there, Page 51 of 94 16 f 2marcfg.-412 environmental says, remove 3.4(B)(2) from the PUD document, as this is in contact (sic) with the discussion and proposed protection of this area in the EIS. The consultant stated also the applicant will preserve the eastern shoreline of Water Turkey Bay. So they also say, amend Section 4.4(A) of the PUD, which reads as follows: Principal structures shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the preserve district boundaries in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. I'm shortening it a little bit. It says, remove Section 4.4(D) through 4.4(I) as they are not appropriate for the preserve district. And it says, revise Section 5.10 of the PUD document to read the Florida Fish and Wildlife. That was the only thing that was changed. This was before the PUD came to the Planning Commission, before the Planning Commission, and I started -- I looked back in the PUD, which I have in front of me. Boat docks was not -- boat docks were not crossed off. Okay. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the meeting of the Board of Collier County Commissioners, it was also asked that on 3.3, Page 3.3 of the development standards, that non jurisdictional open space be crossed out from then on. That was not crossed out. Of -- 4.4, the development standards, A, which says 5 feet, which was supposed to be 25 feet, that was not crossed off. That was not changed. Where it -- also in 4.4(D) through (1) was to be crossed out. The only thing that was crossed out was (I). Nothing else was crossed out. This kind of reminds me a little of Stevie Tomato's. And why isn't this taken out before it comes before the BCC? Because this was asked to be taken out. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll tell you why; because they were recommendations that the EAC made, and the developer didn't agree with the recommendations. So we went forward with what we wanted, since that's how PUDs work. It's the developer's land. The developer asks for the zoning. And the board either votes for what the developer proposes or they don't. The developer -- in this case the board voted for what the developer wanted. The EAC made a recommendation. We respectfully declined their recommendation, and the board voted on what we wanted. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I will go back later to the board minutes of the BCC, then, where they made, with all these stipulations -- and even the county attorney at the time said -- when Ms. Mac'Kie said, well, the boat docks aren't even in here, you know, we'll check this later. It was not done. I mean, I find a lot of inconsistencies here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on Page 6 of your staff report, I just want to understand for clarification purposes some of the things that were written here. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Is this the boat dock or the PDI? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the boat dock. I don't have any questions about the PDI. The -- one, two -- about the fifth paragraph up from the bottom, it says, during final construction plan, parenthetical, Site Development Plan, review, these findings may change based on the information submitted at the time. What -- what was the intention of including that in there? What were you thinking? MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, I could ask the staff person who wrote this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you did. I'm sorry. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, the staff report's composed of several, so I'll direct it to the authors. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sure. That would be great. Whoever wrote it. MS. GUNDLACH: That would be Summer Araque. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find out to what extent things are expected to change that we're reviewing today. That's what my question's going to be, so -- hi, Summer. MS. ARAQUE: For the record, Summer Araque. Can you please repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 6, the fifth paragraph -- it's just a sentence actually -- up from the Page 52 of 94 16 � Aardh 1, 2012 bottom. It starts, it says, during final construction plans, site development review, these findings may change based on the information submitted at that time. I'm not sure what you're referring to as what may change. And depending on your answer to that, then I'll have another question. MS. ARAQUE: Well, when they come in, we will do another consistent -- to make sure that it's consistent at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure what's consistent? MS. ARAQUE: With the Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing today, since it's part of the code? MS. ARAQUE: Right, but we'll make sure when it comes in again -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the findings can't change then, right? MS. ARAQUE: Well, here's an example. Between the time that the -- this was -- this language is from the consistency determination -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which I'm going to have questions of in a few minutes. MS. ARAQUE: -- as you may know, which was done in 2009, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: -- since then I have, in the past three years, meaning like in the past few months, I've looked at current data to make sure that the current data doesn't change everything. So that's what we'll do. I mean, if this comes in, or two or three years from now, we'll make sure at that time that it's consistent at that time as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: Because that can change with water depth, impacts, manatee use, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern is if we vote on something today but they have the ability to change what we vote on today through submissions in the future, these findings -- it says, these findings may change based on information submitted at the time. Are you saying, then, the only change would be for inconsistency, because -- MS. ARAQUE: Right. They don't have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they wouldn't be allowed to go forward? MS. ARAQUE: They don't have the ability to change the ranking. The ranking changes because of -- what happens in the environment can -- say manatee deaths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even if we find a -- even if a boat dock extension of any kind is approved based on the Manatee Protection Plan that they submit at the time, if the criteria has changed, they no longer are consistent with that plan, then they can't go forward, even though we've approved it, or the board has approved it? MS. ARAQUE: I'll let Bill step in. MR. LORENZ: That would be correct. At that particular point, at the final development order, we could not approve something that's inconsistent with the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But, see, a lot of the inconsistent stuff -- I say "stuff' for lack of a better word -- is ambiguous sometimes; it's subject to interpretation, and that's kind of where I'm going is, I don't want to -- whatever comes out of this meeting or any boat dock meeting, if it changes the concepts that were represented to this board, I don't think those are the things that you're going to say are changing your inconsistency. It's actual factual data based on manatee mortality or things like that. MR. LORENZ: That would be correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. Thank you, Summer. Then, Nancy, I'm going through what I have left. If there's any -- I think the next item on staff is comprehensive planning. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the -- and I have a comprehensive planning question. And I saw Mike's been dying to say something today. So we'll wait for him to come up, and then we'll -- you didn't have to wear that sport jacket for me, Mike. Nick never wears one. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's wearing Nick's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's wearing Nick's. It's probably a little too small for you, isn't it? Page 53 of 94 1.61 2 March 1, 2012 MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. Two questions. When I read your comprehensive report -- you and I have talked about this -- you're going to be prepare to respond to a couple of other sections of the GMP today; 7.2.2 and 10.6.1. Did you take a look at those? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you let me know what your findings are on those as well? MR. BOSI: The findings from comprehensive planning would be whenever an SDP submission would be submitted that those plans would have -- be consistent with those specific policies that you just referenced, 7.2 and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7.2.2 and 10.6.1. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only reason I'm asking is because you didn't reference those in your planning letter, and those were definitely -- they mimic the other one that you did reference, which is 6.3. MR. BOSI: 6.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just want to make sure they are part of your analysis and consideration. MR. BOSI: Those are all part -- or the considerations -- I thought 6.3 was the one that was applicable specifically to this instance. But -- and those other policies are more general and have applicability, but I did not reference them, and -- but that wasn't because they do not apply and they won't have to be adhered to by -- whatever the SDP submission to implement this boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they are then -- but you are in agreement that they are applicable to this application. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fiscal analysis requirement that was mentioned by Tony Pires, it's 10.1.6, what is your department's position on how that is relative to this particular application? MR. BOSL• Well, in speaking with Bill Lorenz, the past interpretation that David Weeks, the actual GMP manager, has made was related to the term -- and it's related to the term, and I guess it's a term of art, it's construction. The individual application is not destroying the wet -- the wetland system. It is impacting it. There's no net loss. And because of that, there's no requirement for demonstration of the public benefit or the financial feasibility. And from discussion with Steve Lenberger, that -- those were something that we have never had triggered. We've never had those requirements triggered for an -- individual boat docks related to a residential development. And -- haven't connected the dots with the conversation, but I believe the reason why that would be was because the terms in terms of how we're viewing the terms "destroy" versus "impact," and we believe that this particular instance, as most instances, is you are impacting the marine wetlands, but there's not a destruction of the wetlands -- or the marine wetlands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you think of an instance, not that it has happened, but could happen, not on this particular project, but just so I can understand it better, of how we would enact a financial analysis, what would be -- what would they have to do require one? I mean, how extreme is that? MR. BOSI: If you remember, during the EAR -based amendments of just two weeks ago, this was one of those policies we said, you know what, we've never utilized it. On a residential project, how could we -- I mean, they would have to show us a construction estimate. They would show us revenue that they have enough in the bank or can secure a loan to provide the construction, and that would satisfy, I would imagine, the financial feasibility for an individual project like that. But that has never been applied, and that was part of the discussion -- and part of the discussion, if -- we probably won't get to hear it today -- but when we do get to pull that up, that's going to be some of the last issues that we're dealing with within the EAR -based amendments and one of the reasons why we said the financial feasibilities for a residential project doesn't make a lot of sense and doesn't have the value for -- compared to the cost that it would be to the applicant and then the cost that it would be to staff to try to make an evaluation of whether that financial feasibility closed the actual loop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I don't -- the financial analysis that I'm used to seeing on projects that are made as instructed, they're virtually useless. So I don't really -- I tend to agree with you on that issue. But I wasn't here two weeks ago, and so I missed that part of it, and so that's why I had to ask. I didn't even know it was discussed, but I appreciate you telling me. Page 54 of 94 16 12 M'h 41, 2012 Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mike, can you tell us, do you have concurrency on waterway protection? Do we have any policy on waterway protection? MR. BOSI: No, none -- we have no -- in terms of concurrency. The concurrency management system does not apply to that particular aspect. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. There's a reason I ask, because in trying to find out some information on this, I called the Sheriffs Department, and he said we only have seven people, plus myself, doing all the waterways nine miles out from Bonita Beach Road all the way down to Chokoloskee. And he said, we do not have the staff to take care of the problems. And I went, you only have eight people for all our water -- I was really kind of shocked to find that. And so they are not -- they're mainly down, he said, at Gordon Pass and Marco Island because that's where the biggest offenses occur. So I was just wondering if we had any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike, appreciate it. Nancy, thank you. And we are going to take a break for 15 minutes. We'll be back at 2:30 and resume at that time with public comments. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please have your seats. We're late again. Okay. Just for the record, too, the -- we had a whole bunch of stuff on our agenda for today, and we're not going to get to it all. The one that we're not going to get to, I can tell you for sure, is the EAR amendments. So any staff members that are sitting here, or any members of the public, the EAR will have to definitely go up to the next meeting, on the continuation meeting on the 6th or the 15th. I would expect it's going to be the 6th, but we'll see. We have two other -- three others. I can tell you we're going to -- we're going to fit Lot 80 in for Plantation Island today. I was approached on that, I think, yesterday by a phone call or today, this morning maybe. The individual for that one is here. He flew in. It should be a quick hearing, but at 4 o'clock we will move on to that one. The SSP Associates will take time, so I don't see how we'll get to that today, and the Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, I'm not sure we'll be able to get to that today, because that's last on the agenda. But we'll do our best to -- but I do know if anybody's here for the EAR, at least we can assure you that one isn't going to be heard today. So with that in mind, we left off, we were going -- we finished our discussions and questions with staff and with the applicant. We'll go into registered public speakers first. And then after the registered speakers, I'll ask if anyone who hasn't spoken would still like to speak. Whether you register or not, we'll still give you some time. Ray, how many public speakers do we have, do you know? MR. BELLOWS: We have 35 to 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you -- when you come up to speak, you can use either microphone. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but that's not a hard, fast rule. We're here to listen to you. It's helpful if you're not redundant. And, you know, if you agree with -- if you just agree with the person ahead of you or prior to you, just say, I agree with that person, and we just note that for the record. So however you want to proceed, though, it's your five minutes. So, Ray, would you start calling the speakers, please. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Pamela Leck, to be followed by Jill Nesbitt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only other thing I ask is if you were not sworn in this morning when everybody had to stand up and be sworn in, just tell us so we can swear you in because, otherwise, your testimony becomes not as valid. MS. LECK: I was. I was here at nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Pull the mike down. Page 55 of 94 1.612 A 4 March 1, 2012 MS. LECK: I had written "good morning," but I guess it's afternoon now. Good afternoon, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pamela Leck. I live in the Dunes and chair the boat dock committee comprised of ten representatives, one from each association. Everyone at the Dunes is in favor of the 49 slips that hopefully will be coming our way. Much input, time, and thought was put into the rules and regulations by this committee to ensure that owners would be particularly diligent in observing the regulations pertaining to the waterways and our outstanding natural environment. In this respect, a dock master will be appointed who, in addition to his duties, will ensure that each member will be aware -- be aware of and abide by all the rules and regulations, particularly those affecting the surrounding waterways and environment. The State of Florida and the federal agencies have approved the plans after lengthy reviews. We have their approval and respectfully request that you do the same. We are all residents, voters, and are members are taxpaying public of Collier County. We ask for your approval of this dock project. Through boating we may further enhance the enjoyment of living and working in this spectacular environment, as so many of our fellow neighbors already do so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MS. FRASIER: I am a resident of the Dunes. MR. BELLOWS: Can you state your name again. MS. FRASIER: I am Joan Fraiser, but I am representing the comments of Jill Nesbitt, also a Dunes owner. I'm just reading her comments here. She could not stay. My name is Jill Nesbitt. I have owned properties at the Regatta and at the Dunes since 2005. I am a registered voter in Collier County. I am in favor of the proposed 49 -slip marina. I feel as a property owner I have the same rights as any other resident in the area to access the bay. I have been witness to several projects planned and completed by Vanderbilt Partners. Every one of these projects have been completed with beauty and respect for the environment. Therefore, I urge you to support your staffs recommendations and approve this project today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: John P. Henry. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: To be followed by? MR. BELLOWS: To be followed by Carl Knudsen. MR. HENRY: Hello. I'm John Henry. I'm a taxpayer and owner down here. I've been a boater for about 35 years. And I live right at Surf Colony III overlooking the site. And every day I see speeders going back and forth. I think there's a serious safety issue involved here that's being underestimated by the board and by the builders. The fact is, nobody pays any attention to idle speed. It's either very fast or super fast. And I can visualize, if these docks are built, it's going to be a very crowded waterway. And the spots are very narrow and they could, you know, bump up against our walls or have an accident backing out or going in. And I think it's something that you should give serious consideration to. I think -- I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an accident every two weeks if this project goes ahead. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. KNUDSEN: I'm Carl Knudsen. I live at Surf Colony III. I'm against the BDU (sic) change. And I have a -- I have a kayak. I kayak in this area. And once these docks are built, if they are built, they're going to force all the boaters closer to our seawall, and it will be a narrower channel, and I think it will be more dangerous. The only time the no wake rule is enforced is when the police officer is sitting in his boat, which is about one hour a week. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Ray, do you want -- MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Ronald Mines, to be followed by Bruce Burkhard. Page 56 of 94 1 61 2 March 1, 2012 MR. MINES: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I have been very impressed with the process. Thank you for treating it in a very serious and fair way. My wife and I moved to Surf Colony I in 2007 to the eighth floor because we used to live at 5 Bluebill on the second floor. So our key objective in making that move was being able to see our beautiful, pristine area. And we're Florida master naturalists. We love to look down at the coastline with the birds, green herons occasionally, night herons every once in a while, always lots of great blues and great egrets. And it's a very important part of our enjoyment of that property. The other thing that I wanted to mention was that I have gotten my grandchildren into fishing. We fish in that -- in that waterway, and they are now -- have gotten old enough that they can cast a bait out into the middle where the fish are. There are -- they're actually even pretty good at avoiding the boats when the boats do -- you do tend to go up and down through that channel awfully fast. And, of course, if we fill up the half at the channel, it's going to move everybody right over against the dock, or over against our side. So bottom line, I would encourage you to reject the extension. I came with the idea that I was going to encourage you to vote against that PDU (sic), too, but I have come so -- become sufficiently unsure of the details there. I can just say to you that the impact on me is very substantial. So, obviously, that isn't the key issue there. Thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard, to be followed by Susan Snyder. MR. BURK14ARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I'm a resident of the Vanderbilt Beach area. I've lived there for 13 years and boated out of my house for that whole time as well. I've been a member originally of the Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners' Association which later on merged with another homeowners' association in the area, and we're now called the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, and we represent about 1,100 residents in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I've also been a member of -- in fact, on the board of that association and the chairman of the zoning committee for the last six years. So I've had some experience and acquaintance with the Land Development Code and the various codes in the county and the state. I think that Nicole's letter to you from the Conservancy, which I'm sure she's going to talk about more when she gets up here, is right on the point. She's done an incredible amount of research, and all of that research points to the conclusion that 49 boat docks, which is really a marina -- this -- is a request that constitutes a substantial change, not an insubstantial change. Backing up Nicole's opinion, Mr. Pires was up here, a seasoned land use attorney. He pointed out many of the finer points of the law. And his conclusion as well was that this is not an insubstantial change but rather an insubstantial (sic) change. That's what's being requested. Furthermore, we have another attorney who we use periodically, and he is both a land use attorney as well as a litigator. His name is Mark Muller of Muller Law, 5150 Tamiami Trail. He submitted a letter to the county regarding this substantial versus insubstantial change. And to the best my knowledge, from what I've seen of the county's package, his letter was not included for your review. So I would like to readjust a little bit of what his conclusions are, what he has to say regarding this matter. He says that we believe the application must be denied because Ordinance No. 2000 -74, the amended PUD, which governs the project, does not allow for the construction of any boat docks in the manmade waterway shown on the amended master plan, and thus the boat dock extension application is premature. The amended PUD must be amended by the Board of County Commissioners to affirmatively allow boat docks in the manmade waterway before the application can be addressed by the county -- Collier County Planning Commission. The only reference -- he goes on to say, reference to boathouses and docks in the amended PUD is in Paragraph 3.4(B)(2). This paragraph is contained in Section Roman Numeral III of the amended PUD, which establishes land use regulations and development standards solely for the residential development areas shown in the amended master plan. The amended master plan shows three residential areas, R1, R2, and R3. None of the three include the Page 57 of 94 March 1, 2012 manmade waterway or any land contiguous to the manmade waterway. While boathouses and docks are allowed in R1 2, 3 subject to Section 5 of the Land Development Code, boathouses and docks are not authorized by the amended PUD in the manmade waterway. Section 5 of the amended PUD sets forth development commitments for the entire project. Paragraph 5.10(F) requires that all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation preservation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County. The legend in the amended master plan clearly shows that the manmade waterway is a conservation area and is required to be subjected to the conservation easement described in 5.10(F) of the amended PUD. He goes on to talk about defining what a conservation easement is according to Florida Statutes. And in it, it says it -- construction of buildings, roads, signs, billboards, or other structures on the aboveground are not pennitted in a conservation easement. Excavation, dredging, or removal of loam peat, gravel, soil, rock, and other material substance in such a manner as to affect the surface are also not permitted in a conservation easement. And as you've heard already, there -- the developer's proposing dredging in this area. The manmade waterway must be dedicated to Collier County with the conservation easement which retains water areas predominantly in their natural, open condition and retains such areas as suitable habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife, maintains existing land uses, and prohibits or limits construction of structures on the aboveground. The construction of a 1,540 -foot dock with 49 slips protruding a maximum of 280 feet into the manmade waterway from the mean high -water line is completely incompatible with the conservation easement. Twelve years after the amended PUD was adopted the developer has still not dedicated the preserve area and the manmade waterway to a conservation easement. In fact, the application includes a proposed conservation easement which dedicates only the preserve area and completely omits the manmade waterway. And he goes on to say he won't speculate on what the motives are for that. The original PUD is dramatically different from the amended PUD with respect to boathouses and docks in at least three ways. First, the original master plan showed only two land use designations, residential and preserve. The manmade waterway in Water Turkey Bay did not have a land use designation and were not dedicated to a conservation easement. Second, the original master plans showed a marginal wharf contiguous to the preserve area which extended from Water Turkey Bay to close to Bluebill Avenue. The amended master plan does not show the marginal wharf or any docks, and I think that's been pointed out previously. Finally, Section 4 of the original PUD, which established the land use regulations and development standards for the preserve area, specifically referenced the marginal wharf in Paragraph 4.4 1, and stated that the marginal wharf shall be in compliance with the Manatee Protection Plan at the time of final development order approval. Paragraph 4.41 was deleted from the amendment -- amended PUD, and no language authorizing a marginal wharf or any docks was added elsewhere in the amended PUD. Section 3.4(B)(2) authorizes boathouses and docks to be constructed only in the residential areas of the project and does not authorize their construction in the preserve area or the manmade waterway. The developer's reliance on Section 3.4(B)(2) of the amended PUD to gain approval to construct docks in the manmade waterways is clearly wrong. The plain and unambiguous language of the amended PUD does not allow docks to be constructed in the manmade waterway. In fact, the manmade waterway is required to be dedicated to a conservation easement which would prohibit construction of over a quarter of mile of docks. The highly reliable sources have all come to the same unequivocal conclusion; this application is not an insubstantial change but rather a substantial change and, therefore, must go through the substantial change process. Our organization requests that you deny the petition for a PDI and require the applicant to go through a properly vetted PUD amendment. And, Mark, the way I had this arranged was -- I didn't know how you were going to do this, so I set up remarks for the PDI section and then for the dock extension. So if you can grant me time for the dock extension portion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much more time do you need? MR. BURK14ARD: Oh, I'd say about 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MR. BURKHARD: No, probably about -- hopefully less than five minutes. Page 58 of 94 Y Ah 1.6 12 March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Okay. My name has already been stated. So as the zoning chairman of the VBRA, I received a copy of a staff study analysis of the entire Dunes PUD from the start all the way through the amendment to the PUD in 2000. That study was done at the behest of the commissioner in District 2 at the time because of all the inconsistencies that he saw in the whole PUD permitting process. So Joe Schmitt at the time directed his staff to do a study to see what happened through this whole process. And it's -- it was somewhat revealing. In one of the first hearings -- this went before the EAC, the Environmental Advisory Commission -- the community was insistent that it wanted to see the mangroves preserved and, thus, it did not think that boat docks along the estuarine shoreline were a good idea. And our commissioner at the time agreed with that and pushed to see that that would be accomplished. And what he -- the concept that he came up with was this thing that's been talked about today, this passive wharf idea. And what that was designed to do was accommodate people in the Dunes to allow them to come down, watch the sunset, fish off the pier, but not impact the waterway with boats and docks. One of the -- part of the stipulation that was put in by the EAC was that this passive wharf would not permit any overnight docking. And that has been a key -- that was a key element of the passive wharf concept. Unfortunately, what this study showed was that this stipulation was never put into the documents as they went forward to you folks or the people that sat in your chairs, the CCPC at that time. So when they made a recommendation to approve the PUD they thought and were assured that they were -- they were supposed to include -- their decision included all stipulations when, in fact, that didn't happen. The CCPC recommended approval, it went to the BCC, and the BCC approved the PUD, again thinking that they had all the stipulations when, in fact, this passive wharf concept had never been discussed. They were not aware of it, and it was not addressed. And our concerns as a neighborhood were not addressed as a result of that, and we were extremely disappointed in that. One major problem, besides the fact that they were never formally included in the PUD nor were these docks shown in an SDP, was the public was never notified during the PUD amendment process. In fact, even the County Commissioners, the BCC, was not aware that docks were going to be discussed during that PUD amendment hearing. So everybody came into that hearing unprepared, and somehow this concept of docks that we were told constantly that everybody knew were going to be there from the start was, in fact, not true. What all of us were expecting was at best, or maybe at worst, a passive wharf. By the time the PUD amendment was over with, discussions were going on about approving docks; however, as we've pointed out, the docks were, for some strange reason, not included in an SDP, not included in the discussion of the actual location of these supposed docks that everybody knew about were never shown in any of the documents and were never fully vetted. And as I say, the public was not aware of the discussion. We had no -- virtually no input into saying that the -- that this dock idea was too invasive and that a passive wharf was the recommendation of the EAC, the district commissioner, and that was somehow bypassed. And now we're faced with essentially talking about a marina and -- in a very controversial area, and we're trying to amend the PUD again through sort of a backdoor process rather than going through what should happen is a proper full vetting of the dock system, and that would mean a substantial change process coming before you as the Planning Commission and then going to the Board of County Commissioners and being vetted that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to let you know, you're outside the limits of what you previously told me. MR. BURKHARD: You're watching the clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not try for 20 minutes, though, if we can help it. MR. BURKHARD: Okay. I'll try to shorten it up as much as I can. In looking at the various documentation that's been presented to the board, I looked at the packet, and I was noticing one of the things that we're very concerned about is boating safety, navigation safety in this relatively narrow section of the Vanderbilt Lagoon. And when you were given this slide, I -- I thought, my goodness, you know, that does look like an awfully Page 59 of 94 16124 March 1, 2012 wide thing. And then I looked at the scale on the top, and the scale is off by double. So, in other words, this looks like a really wide body of water, but it's essentially showing that it's 500 feet wide instead of 250, or your documents actually say the average width is 226 feet wide. So what I'm saying is that we have a very -- really a narrow channel that's of safety concern to all of us. My boat is a 24 -foot boat. It draws 3 feet of water. The boats that are being proposed for this area are 30 and 35 feet. I guarantee you they're going to draw more than two- and -a -half feet. They're going to draw 3 feet or better. So we have kind of a problem there. Kind of an indication that this is not a really good project in this location is the fact that they need to dredge. If this was truly a good project in the proper place, dredging wouldn't be required. So that creates a problem. My boat is a deep V hull. At slow speeds it tends to wander back and forth. That's a characteristic of deep V hulls. So as a result, when I'm going down this channel, if I'm passing a boat coming in the opposite direction, I have to make sure that we give each other plenty of leeway because of this wandering tendency of the boats. Additional problem, the boat dock design is set up for boats to be bow in. In order for them to leave the docks, they're going to have to back out. A boat -- a power boat is not very maneuverable at -- in a reverse mode. It's more difficult to steer and control. While it's backing out, it will be subjected to winds and also tidal currents. So that's going to create a problem. Boats coming in from the marina, the basin on the other side, add additional problems. What we have is a huge increase in density if this 49 boats -- boat marina is approved. We're going from zero boats in that area to 49 boats. And it's, I think, unconscionable to put that number of boats into that confined an area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, when you said 20 minutes, you weren't kidding, because it will be 20 minutes in one minute. So I'd like you to please wrap it up, because we do have quite a few other speakers we need to get to. MR. BURKHARD: So anyways, I'll just conclude with this marina's a bad idea and should not be approved. I don't think we should approve it at all, and I would ask that you would consider the hazards to navigation as a very serious concern when you consider the matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: Thank you for your consideration, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just for clarification, Attorney Muller's letter was fully included in our packet. MR. BURK14ARD: Okay. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You had read to us what we already read. MR. BURK14ARD: Okay. I'm sorry for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Next speaker is Susan Snyder, to be followed by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that pause because you -- MR. BELLOWS: It's a tough one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. BELLOWS: I would say William Sjosfrom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SNYDER: Good afternoon. And, Commissioners, again, thanks for allowing us to speak our mind and be a part of this whole public hearing. I'm a person who lives on the point that we've been talking about, and I've written to each of you, so you've seen my name come across your desk a few times. You've heard a lot I had to say. I'm one of those people that was listed separately on the Tony Pires listing as representing the Surf buildings and from the others on the Baker Carroll Point. And I want to start by saying it is a substantial change, and I'll give you three reasons. One is it will create an increase in intensity of land use as has been just stated before; two, it will decrease the conservation easement by more than five acres. And Section E of the LDC changes and amendments, No. 1 states, for the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be deemed to exist where, quote, there is a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development not to exceed five percent of the total acreage previously Page 60 of 94 i 1612 9-4 March 1, 2012 designated as such, or five acres. And the third reason I would say it's a very substantial change is that even if docks were a permitted use in the residential area, as has been said before, the proposed location is not in the residential area. It's adjacent to the preserve. And then I'd like to talk about some of the reasons I don't think that this project meets the criteria. The first one I'd like to talk about is the primary criteria, which I've seen it in different forms. Some places it says No. 3, some places it says C. I guess it's the third item, whatever, and it's about navigation and safety, which Bruce talked about. This is a no wake zone. The developer's absolutely right, on the books. But it is not enforceable. In fact, for three years I've been personally involved in trying to correct this. Boats frequently speed through the -- excuse me -- the channel. There are no permanent signs saying it's an idle speed. The only signs posted are on private property. I contacted Sergeant Dave Bruening of the Sheriffs Department and Marine Bureau because I saw that there was a problem. And I said, you know, what can we do about this? So I actually got into the position of taking pictures and sending them to him, but he couldn't do anything because he wasn't there. And he also said, even if I was there, there are no signs, so an idle speed zone can't be enforced. So I said, well, what can we do about that? So he referred me to Pamela Keyes with the environmental specialist -- she is the environmental specialist with Coastal Zone Management. She referred me to the ordinance, 97 -10, that states that this area is a no wake /idle speed zone, but the Fish and Wildlife Commission must sign off before the signs can be installed. Ryan Moreau is the planner of the FWC, Conservation Commission, Division of Law Enforcement, boating and waterways section, and to date he has not okayed the signs. So as it is, there is no way to do anything about enforcement. It seems kind of ironic that the county has the authority today to grant the building of a marina which will add boats where an existing safety and navigation problem already occurs that the county is unable to correct. Another safety navigation issue is that the satellite maps -- and I think I sent you -all a satellite map -- of the area shows that the deepest part of the channel is eastward of the center of the channel, not in the location depicted on all of the drawings that we've gotten from Vanderbilt Partners. They depict it kind of in the -- in the center to the western end closer to the seawall where I live, and they call it the approximate channel location. If the satellite is taking the picture correctly, it isn't in the -- it isn't there at all. So the boat dock planned diagram is flawed. The deepest part of the channel is where the marina boats will be backing, and other deep draft boats are going to have to be in shallower water to get by. Another one of the criteria I'd like to talk about is the effect it will have on our docks, and to do that I'd like to have this picture put up for me. Okay. You can see the distance from the back of the Dunes marina boats to the seawall adjacent to the mouth of the Baker Carroll marina. And for those who don't know, my pencil is pointing to the marina, so that's 192 feet from the back of those boats to the opening of the marina. Now, imagine a 35 -foot boat -- a long boat backing -- and you'll notice that those boats are backing -- from the Dunes marina. Now, I've heard various things from people about how much distance it needs to turn around, but I'd say a minimum would be about a boat and a half length. That would be about 53 feet. That leaves 139 feet for boats to back out of the Baker Carroll Point marina, and they are backing, if you look at these others. They're backing into the same water. At the same time you're going to have boats going back and forth through that channel to get to and from the Vanderbilt Lagoon. Potentially, I mean, optimistically, I guess, there are going to be fishing boats out there, too, and canoes and kayaks and paddle boarders. So congestion's going to be a real problem, especially during season. Okay. Another criteria that they don't meet, in my estimation, is these -- a secondary criterion called major impact on water view. During the neighborhood meeting the other night, I asked Tim Hall what the total height of the structure will be with the boats on the lifts, and he didn't know. And I said that I thought in his drawings it showed a 5 -foot off the water line, and he corrected me to 3, and I went back and checked, and it is 3. Page 61 of 94 T 3 16 12 A4 March 1, 2012 But I've also measured some boats myself. I've gone and done measurements with my husband's help, and a 25- foot -long boat catamaran that I measured stood about 10 feet above the walkway, and the walkway being 3 feet, we could estimate how tall this is going to be. A 26 -foot deep V stood 11 feet, and a 29 -foot deep V was 11 feet above the boardwalk -- or the walkway. So it seems that a 10- plus -foot height is average for those of the boats that I measured. None of the boats that I measured were as large as a 35 -foot boat, so I don't know whether the height of these boats would be similar or what, but I don't think they'd be shorter. With a 3- foot -high walkway and a 10 -plus boat added on there for elevation above it -- and this would be a 13 -foot height thing made out of the dock itself or the walkway, the lift, and the boat, blocking -- imagine the wall a quarter of a mile long blocking the view. The fishing dock, which is another thing at the end, is 5 feet above the water, and the drawing shows that it's going to have a 15 -foot roof. That makes that one 20 feet high, another barrier to the view. And, incidentally, for comparison, mangrove, the average red mangrove is 25 feet high. So if you're in a canoe at the base of one of these things, you're not going to see the mangroves. You know, this is just kind of a cutesy thing I threw in. I thought it could be called the great wall of channel. This blockage to view will be significant along the narrow channel. Now, this wouldn't be a problem in a much wider channel where we can see the horizon. Incidentally, in referring back -- oh, I was going to refer back to Nicole because we actually ordered things, so Nicole would be talking -- but she'll be talking about the seagrasses, and 3 feet seems to be -- or 3- and -a -half feet seems to be something she's going to be talking about. This drawing shows that the marina walkway at 3 feet clearly isn't high enough to do what she's going to explain. Now, I've been coming to the area since the 1970s. I came to visit my parents when I was still pretty young. My parents owned two different places on Baker Carroll Point at different times of their lives, and I bought there because it's tranquil and beautiful. I was also a science teacher, and I love the life around it. The area is surrounded by mangroves that are supposed to be protected -- the state's supposed to be protecting those for us -- and the waterway is classified as Outstanding Florida Water and should be receiving outstanding protection, too. So I thought, wow, I got an ideal setting here, and it's almost impossible to find it anywhere in Florida. With the possibility of a 49 marina -- dock marina, I feel the value of my property will be lowered because of the drastic view change, and my quality of life will be affected. Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: William Sjosfrom, followed by Ruth Ann Rittermeyer. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Bill had to leave early. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. I still had to pronounce his name. All right. Ruth Ann Rittermeyer. MS. RITTERMEYER: Yes. I'm Ruth Ann Rittermeyer, and I live at Surf Colony III. And when I bought back there I thought all that was protected. I never thought I would lose my view. I feel sorry for people. I understand that you want docks, but we should sacrifice something that nature put in and should be protected for all the wildlife in there? We should sacrifice that because you want a place to put your boat? We have such few protected areas left. We've got to draw the line somewhere. We've got to start protecting things. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Dick Palen. MR. PALEN: I'm Dick Palen, 15 Bluebill Avenue, and I am homesteaded there; have been there since 2005. Some of the -- I also am president, by the way, of our recreation association. Surf Colony Recreation Association is three buildings, 198 homeowners, who are vehemently opposed to this project for reasons that you've already heard. I would just like to take a minute, though, to discuss -- discuss it from a safety standpoint and -- from a deeply personal safety standpoint. I am a kayaker. I've been a kayaker for years. I'm an experienced kayaker, and I Page 62 of 94 X61 March 242 can tell you that on a given Saturday or Sunday, kayaking in that little manmade channel now is scary. It's hairy. You've got boats coming both ways. You've got boats passing. You have people driving these boats who do not know the rules and the laws of the waterways. We've heard many comments about no wake. It's ridiculous. The other thing, when I visualize that channel reduced by 25 percent and those brand new boat owners, no experience boating in the end of the waters in Florida backing into my kayak, can you visualize a 400 - horsepower motor backing into a kayak? I have almost experienced that. I experienced it up at Marina Bay. Missed me by inches. Either they don't look or they can't see you. And believe me, when you're in a big good -sized power boat and you're sitting forward at the steering wheel, you probably can't see that kayak or the paddle border behind you. This is ridiculous. I'd like -- in fact, I'd like to invite every member of this commission to come out on a Saturday and Sunday and kayak with me. I have a tandem, double -- two- person kayak. Please come and spend a couple of delightful hours, delightful everywhere except that stretch, that quarter mile between the bridge and Turkey Bay. Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You couldn't get it down to one page, could you? MS. JOHNSON: Technically, yes. Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy has reviewed the Dunes' boat dock application, and we believe that in its current configuration the docks are inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 6.3.2 and 10.6.1, the LDC, Section 5.03.06(J) and specifically Subsection (J)(3), and the Manatee Protection Plan, all of which contain policies to protect seagrass beds. We ask that the application in its current form not be approved because the proposed dock configuration does not protect seagrasses as required by our local regulations. Oftentimes when I come before you talking about wetlands, listed species, water quality, I end by saying, it would be nice if Collier County could really step in on this, but this is one of the areas where the county defers to state and federal agencies, and then I end by saying, of course, we need to put more teeth into our plan to protect local natural resources. Happily, that's not what I'm going to be saying today. Because while the county has deferred its authority on many things, seagrass protection is not one of those. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about seagrasses because we have our Conservancy science director, Kathy Worley, who's going to be going into that subject, but suffice to say, seagrasses are ecologically important and they are among the most productive coastal habitats in South Florida. Many of us think of seagrasses and we think, important manatee habitat. And that's true, but seagrasses are so much more than that, for commercial fishing, for the sea life, for water quality. This gets into our human quality of life issues also. So Kathy will address that in more detail. When we look at how we got our seagrass policies -- and this was talked about a little bit earlier, but I think that it's important to go back and really establish that foundation of our seagrass policies, because in the early 1990s Collier County decided that seagrasses were important and they wanted to study the grass bed issue. In 1992 the county did release a report. It was entitled "Avoiding and Minimizing Damage to Seagrass Beds from the Construction of Docking Facilities," and this report clearly identified seagrasses are important, and it also identified that human activities can negatively impact seagrasses, including the construction of boat docks, the shading of boat docks, and just boating itself with the turbidity that it can stir up. And it did not distinguish between single- family boat docks and multifamily boat docks. It said "docks in general," and that was the basis for the Board of County Commissioners adoption of Ordinance 93 -37 which, at that point, amended the LDC section addressing private boathouses and docks. And it remains in the LDC today, albeit under a different number, and I gave that -- a copy of that language to you. But I think it's important to just pull out a couple of those policies and read them into the record, because I will be talking about them in a moment. And that's LDC Section 5.03.06(J), Subsection 3, under protection of Page 63 of 94 16 12 A4 March 1, 2012 seagrass beds. And it states, where a continuous bed of seagrasses exist off the shore of the property and adjacent to the property, the applicant shall be allowed to build a dock across seagrass beds or a docking facility within 10 feet of the seagrass beds. Such docking facilities shall comply with the following conditions: First of all, the dock shall be at a height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD; second, the terminal platform area of the dock shall not exceed 160 square feet; third, the access dock shall not exceed a width of 4 feet; and, finally, the access dock and terminal platform shall be sited to impact the smallest area of seagrass beds possible. And then similar language was later incorporated into the CCME in Policies 6.3.2 and 10.6.1. The question has been raised about, was this ever meant to apply to multifamily residential? Was this just restricted to single - family? And in looking at how these LDC amendments got into the LDC, the Conservancy has read the background material, we've read Fran Stallings report that was part of the Natural Resources Department report, and it did not distinguish between impacts from single- versus multifamily, and there's nothing in the LDC or the GMP that says it applies only to single - family. So we believe that that's pretty clear. But if that wasn't clear enough, we also have the Manatee Protection Plan. And Commissioner Strain mentioned it, but I think that we need to circle back and mention it again, because in this context the Manatee Protection Plan was adopted in 1995 after this 1993 ordinance was put in place. And in Section 3.2.1, it's very clear that multi -slip docking facilities with 10 slips or more in all commercial marina facilities shall comply with the stipulations listed in the LDC. The guidelines for the construction of boathouses and docks are listed in LDC Section 2.6.21, and that Section 2.6.21 has now been renumbered to 5.03.06. So it's in there. The Manatee Protection Plan is in the LDC by reference. You have to follow the Manatee Protection Plan. The Manatee Protection Plan says it applies to multifamily, so we think that that is extremely clear, it applies. And, of course, this project does consider putting the docks within 10 feet of the seagrass beds. So all of those stipulations under (J)(3) have to be followed. So how does this plan measure up? In the Conservancy's opinion, Condition 1 requiring the height of at least 3.5 feet NGVD, it does that. Condition 2, which is a really key condition, references the terminal platform not exceeding 160 square feet. And there's been discussion about what is or isn't a terminal platform. And I think it's important to, again, reference back to the Florida Administrative Code, because Collier County does not define a terminal platform, but Florida Administrative Code Section 18- 20.003, Subparagraph 67, defines it as that part of a dock or pier, including finger piers, that is connected to the access walkway, is located at the terminus of the facility, and is designed to secure and load or unload a vessel or conduct other water - dependent activities. So it's that part of infrastructure used for securing or docking and loading or unloading vessels which are boats; that makes a terminal platform. And terminal platform includes, but it's not limited to, finger piers. So based on this definition the proposed configuration of the Dunes boat docks is inconsistent with the LDC and the GMP due to the fact that they're proposing docks along that entire stretch of the 1,540 -foot north/south portion of the structure. Condition 3, in limiting the width to no more than 4 feet for the access walkway, ADA is going to supersede, so that's taken care of And Condition 4 is the other key condition because it requires that the access dock and terminal platform be sited to impact the smallest amount of seagrasses possible. The Conservancy believes that the proposed boat dock configuration is inconsistent with this portion of the LDC since the applicant has not protected the adjacent seagrass beds through minimization of the length of the north/south part of the structure or by staying 10 feet away from the seagrass beds; therefore, this project as proposed is inconsistent with the CCME, the LDC, and the Manatee Protection Plan. And while we do not believe that any docks along this channel in close proximity to the seagrasses are appropriate from an environmental perspective, if the Planning Commission does decide to find a compromise configuration, we have put forward our suggestion as Attachment 1 to our letter, and I will put that on the visualizer. In this configuration we have, first of all, addressed the issue of removing all of the docks from that terminal platform, the north/south expanse of the boat dock. And, in addition, we have -- and -- so the boat docks would be limited to the northern boat docks as part of the finger piers, and then -- in the central location with boat docks there with nothing along that stretch except the access walkway to get to those northern and southern boat docks. Page 64 of 94 161 2 A4: March 1, 2012 In addition, to be consistent with minimization of impacts to seagrass beds, we suggest that the length of the docks themselves be additionally shortened. Kathy Worley, our science director, has indicated that there is a fairly healthy area of seagrasses just outside that bigger Carol Point marina area. So we suggested having the docks cut off in that location, and in that way that minimizes the impact of the boat docks and at least leaves the southern seagrass areas in a somewhat more protected standpoint. Now, yes, our configuration does not allow for 49 docks. It would be somewhere between about 22 and 24 boats. It's significantly less than what is being requested, but any dock configuration has to be consistent with local policy, even if that results in a significant reduction in the requested amount. The Conservancy believes that what we've proposed is fair and a defensible compromise, and we ask that you consider this. And, now, one critical component that I think is going to be coming up in your discussion is the issue of seagrass presence at the time of the SDP or those permits being pulled, and I think it's very, very important for you to understand that going out on October 31 st, or even during the middle of seagrass growing season, looking down not seeing grass does not constitute that there are no seagrasses there. Seagrasses come and go, and just because you don't see it at one time does not mean it is not a viable seagrass bed. So that's very important. Kathy will talk about that later. The second issue that I wanted to address very briefly is the issue of the pump -out station. The applicant is proposing to put this pump -out house or station in the preserve district, which the Conservancy believes is inconsistent with the allowed uses of the Dunes PUD preserve district. If it has to go somewhere, it really needs to go outside of the preserve. So we ask that you consider that. And, finally, I will just say that we echo Tony Pires' concerns about this being insubstantial change. We do think that it creates an additional intensity, and it should go through the full PUD amendment process. And Commissioner Klein actually asked me to condense everything down to a one - pager, and I said there's no way I can do it, but then I decided, well, one - pager, two sides with no margins, I can do that. So everything that I have said I have put into a one - pager, and I will distribute that along with another copy of the map that was in your letter before. And I appreciate the extended time that you have afforded me. And I will answer any questions or go ahead and hand this out if there are no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you providing magnifying glasses with the typeset you've used in that one page? MS. JOHNSON: No. I did use 12 font. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Leave that with Ray, and he'll see that we get it all. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The next speaker is Anthony Presh, R -e -s -h (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like he's here. MR. BELLOWS: Susan Burkhard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's not here. MR. BELLOWS: Hal Linnerud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He is here. MR. LINNERUD: Good afternoon. My name is Hal Linnerud. I live in Vanderbilt Surf Colony III on Baker Carroll Point. I have one comment to make, and then I have a question to ask of the commissioners here. My comment is that I do not appreciate the scare tactic on the part of Signature by threatening us with 900 boat slips. They've taken credit for 9,000 feet of shoreline, and most of that shoreline, if you look in through here, meanders through the mangroves. They would never be able to use that for boating purposes and putting slips in. I just do not appreciate that, and I hope you take that into account. Now, my question -- a little more background. Back in the mid 2000s I was president of the Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreation Association. And in that regard, it was during my tenure that we got pennission from this Page 65 of 94 b 12 A4 March 1, 2012 organization to put boat slips into our existing marina. We got 16 boat slips approved in that marina; however, to gain that approval, we had to stipulate -- we were forced to stipulate that we would not -- I underline the word "not" -- put any boat docks inside the waterway where we're now talking about putting 49. The portion of the seawall -- I'm talking about a seawall. I'm not talking about mangroves. I'm talking about an existing seawall where we had every right to put boat slips along that seawall if we wanted to, but we concurred to do that to get the permit for the 17 or the 16 slips that we've got now. Why were we forced to stipulate that we would not put boat slips in there when we're now talking about allowing the Dunes to put 49 in there? I don't understand it. And this is a question to you, and I'd like it addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Bianco, July 3rd of 2008, Page 56 of the transcript, your -- Mr. Bianco said of your organization, these three associations went to court to fight to be sure that there would be no boat docks built along the very same seawalls that you're talking about. If as a condition of your approval you believe that each of these three buildings should provide you a letter, I am 99 percent sure we can get that. At the same time Mr. Scofield represented you at this time -- at the time, said these docks are confined to the base, and the owners have no intention of placing box docks along the waterway. I assume that is correct? MR. BIANCO: That's absolutely correct. MR. SCOFIELD: And there will be no more docks along any of the Vanderbilt waterway, and we're willing to stipulate that in this petition. I can give you the transcript on July 3, 2008. You're more than welcome. It's a public record. It's replete with references by your own organization volunteering that to this board, and that's why that board went along with it, and your expert volunteer did. So that's how it got to be a stipulation, sir. MR. LINNERUD: All right. I also have minutes from your meeting where I quote you. I think there were only two members of this commission who were at that meeting. The rest have all been changed. And -- okay, there are three stipulations we've worked out. One is that this boat dock approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining letters from the three different buildings. There will be no more docks added in the waterfront, and basically that's -- that was a direct quote from you, Mr. Strain. And then you, additionally, followed up with a question from Commissioner Caron, and you said, or the additional recreational area that we're in control o£ It was not a matter of trying -- you know, we don't want to have any more docks in there, but we were forced to sign and give away our rights to get the 16 slips that we've got there now. And, you know, for us to sit here and look now at 49 going in, it's a little disheartening, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure stand by the record. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's gone. Marcia Craver (sic). MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon. Marcia Cravens. I'm a master naturalist, Florida master naturalist for Coastal Systems. I'm also co- conservation chair for the Sierra Club's Caloosa Group, which is our regional group. And I've done a lot of research here, particularly trying to find the most recent records that are relevant to this petition before you today. And one of the things that strikes me, as I look at the agenda today, is there's a slippery slope of invalid logic that's kind of being put forth here; whereas, you have a request to amend a PUD for the use of that, and then you also have a petition for a boat dock extension; correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those are the two agenda items. But yet your first item for the amendment assumes that the boat dock extension is already a reserved right. But yet I can't find anything in the original PUD or the amended PUD that specifically states that reserved right for boat docks, okay. So I think that's an invalid assumption. So what you have here is an attempt to get an amendment on the PUD to assume a reserved right for the boat docks before you even consider the boat dock extension, and I think that's problematic. And I'd like to just address some definitions. And one thing that I think we're deficient in with our Growth Management Plan, when it was redone as Ordinance 2004 -41, they eliminated some definitions that had existed in the Page 66 of 94 ' 2 previous one, which I think was 7638 or something like that. They used to have a definition for land, and that definition for land used to include that land that was covered with water, being submerged land, was also considered when you were addressing uses. Currently, there is no definition of land. There are some other definitions I'd like to -- if you'd bear with me -- because I think they have some relevance to what's before you. Accessory use or structure. A use or structure located on the same lot or parcel and incidental and subordinate to the principal use of structure. That's not what you're being -- I mean, you're being told to consider a different definition. You're being told that accessory use jumps over the actual parcel or lot and, in fact, it doesn't. Another definition is conservation uses. And that's for conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality, including areas designated for such purposes and so forth, or protection of vegetative communities or wildlife habitats. And then when I tried to find a definition of development -- which, again, I think we're deficient in our more recent change to our GMP; however, it is not just a building, meaning house or something, but the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation. The making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land. And so I believe that this is development, what you're talking about here, in allowing this use on the conservation easement. And then, lastly, the distinction between docks and marinas. You were told by the representative here for the developer that this is not really a marina; however, in the definition for 2004 -41, dock is singular. Dock is a structure -- any structure constructed in or over a waterway for the primary purpose of mooring a boat or other watercraft. And then it indicates dock facility, walkways, piers, pilings associated with it. But under marina, a boating facility chiefly for recreational boating located on navigable water frontage providing all or any combination of the following: Boat slips, plural, or dockage; small boat hauling or launching facilities. So I do think that what you're being asked to approve is actually a marina, and that would have to be specified in the PUD or in an amendment to it. And then I'd like to move on to a couple of things. In the amended PUD, 2004 -74, it has some interesting items, I think, that will also help you with your determination. General description of property area: It's bounded on the west by the Baker Point subdivision as recorded, bounded on the north by jurisdictional wetlands, on the east by Vanderbilt Drive, on the south by Bluebill Avenue. The project extends east from Baker Carroll Point on the west and includes part of the manmade waterway on the west to mangrove forest and so forth. So we've established that it does include that portion of that canal. But if you go to the additional sections of this amended PUD in Section 2. 1, it generally describes the project plan. When we talked about intensity or density use, residential maximum density uses is 640. Preserve /open space, not applicable. Further, under Section 2.4B, Exhibit A, the PUD master plan -- and I have -- there's a map of it. Sorry. That might still be back there. But, interestingly, the map that's in the amended PUD shows preserve as all of that area, and the waterway is a preserve waterway. It's got hash marks. So it shows vegetated area where the mangroves and so forth are as preserve, and then the canal has hash marks on it as preserve waterway. Some questions about whether or not you can use a conservation easement when you're calculating shoreline for docks. That was a hot topic in 2009. It came before you then. It came back before the Planning Commission in 2010. But questions were asked in 2009. Collier County staff, including the county attorney, addressed this. Mr. Lorenz responded to some emails by indicating staff will calculate the shoreline not covered by a conservation easement. And the length of shoreline not within a conservation easement then determines the maximum allowable number of wet slips. There's actually a determination in here by the county attorney, which I believe that Heidi reflected in the 2010 opinion from her, and -- sorry. I'll just -- think it's right here, okay -- from Jeff Klatzkow dated March 9, 2010. It is my opinion that where there is a conservation easement involving shoreline, if there is no reservation of rights in the easement, one, there can be no shoreline development, including boat slips and, two, there are no developmental rights that can be transferred to a different property. Page 67 of 94 16l 2 A4 March 1, 2012 If a property owner wishes to retain such rights, they must do so by an express reservation in the easement deed. Unless the record indicates a contrary intent, this applies to all existing shoreline conservation easements. Given this, unless there is a different reason for the proposed amendment, I do not see the need to amend the LDC. There is, of course, plenty of time to get the amendment into it, and that was when there was a question whether or not to amend the MPP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marcia, we're running out of time with your portion. Could you wrap it up, please. MS. CRAVENS: And then I would just go to the June 8, 2010, BCC meeting. And in the BCC meeting, they voted unanimously to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation, which was that you would not amend the Manatee Protection Plan; therefore, the conservation easement's shoreline cannot be used to calculate the boat slips unless 50 percent -- unless it's a project that is for 50 percent of public usage. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Lymangood. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Diane Ketcham. Jerry Ketcham. MS. KETC14AM: Jerry Ketcham has gone boating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What channel? MS. KETCHAM: Good afternoon. My name is Diane Ketcham. I know some of you on the Planning Commission from my years as president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and later president of Save the Vanderbilt Beach. I retired from being a civic leader. Some of you are still here working on our behalf, and we greatly appreciate it. This has really been a very informative -- I know we all feel very positive of how much thought you're giving this today. So I retired to enjoy paradise, but now what you have before you, I believe, is such a blatant misuse of county regulations and such a disregard of environmental considerations that I felt compelled to be involved in one more county issue, and I do hope this is the last one. I've lived on Vanderbilt Beach so long that I remember when the Dunes actually had a dune. A cliff of beautiful white sand was on the southern border of what is now the Dunes complex. That's how it got its name. But the dune was removed by the developers to give them more land to build on. One thing, however, that they couldn't remove or build on was the mangrove forest that borders the west side of this development. Those mangroves and the seagrass nurtured by them are an important part of our waterside neighborhood. They preserve an environment necessary for our wildlife, our fish, shellfish and, perhaps most importantly, our manatee population, the manatee, an endangered species, protected by Collier County with its Manatee Protection Plan. The last few years have been the worst in manatee deaths in Florida since records have been kept. In 2011 the most boating accidents, deaths of manatees, occurred in Lee County, which is just to the north of us, and now in an area where the threatened manatee feed, give birth to their young, a developer's proposing a 49 -slip marina with a pump -out station and 35 -foot long boats. What will that do to the fragile environment of our Vanderbilt Lagoon, and what will that do to the manatee population which you, as county officials, are required to protect? The Manatee Protection Plan offers ratings or ranks of waterfront areas that need to be especially protected from overdevelopment. The criteria are water depth, impact on marine habitat, and impact on the manatee population. This proposal would put 49 boats between the manatee and its feeding area. It would destroy seagrass by dredging and erecting boat docks. It is also in an area where the water depth is very shallow. This puts the project in the extreme, as far as I'm concerned, protective rating on your Manatee Protection Plan, and that would mean one boat per 100 feet of shoreline, not the 7 or so that this proposal asks for. We ask that you closely look at this before approving what could be so detrimental to the coastal environment and so unsafe to the boating population that would have to pass by 35 -foot boats backing out of a 60 -foot channel. I haven't done this in a long time, so we're just -- you tell me. I don't know quite how it goes. This, as I Page 68 of 94 March 1, 2012 understand it, is the developer's scale of showing you what they're doing. And if you look at it, it isn't in scale at all. The boats that are down here -- whoop, am I doing it -- these three boats that have been the talk today, those boats are, like, 22 feet in length. I think one is only 18. Now look across at what the developer says are 35 -foot boats. There's no way that there's any scale. We are boaters. We live down -- further down on the channel on the bay. We have a 30 -foot boat. For my husband, who is a seasoned boater, to back out of that -- our slip, we have to go all the way out 30 feet. If the wind is blowing, you can't go sideways. Look at the poles -- the back of this pole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ketcham, you've got to stay near the microphone, because the recordation doesn't pick you up if you don't. MS. KETCHAM: Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay, okay. s Anyway, there is a back pole. You have to back all the way out of the pole before you can make a turn. That means at least 70 feet. That means they're going to be in the middle of the channel. That means kayakers, be prepared. That means, as has been discussed, if there's any wind at all, there's no way they're going to control exactly how far they're backing out. Also, who supports this project? We certainly know the developer supports this project. They want to sell the boat slips to some of the homeowners there, and certainly there are homeowners within the Dunes that support this project, but there are 600 homeowners in the Dunes. You have heard person and person and person come forward today, and you'll here more, of people who are concerned about this project. I'm not seeing a great amount of Dune people come forward. So I'm not as sure -- because they're only 49 docks -- and I have spoken to Dune (sic). As president in the past, I know a lot of Dune owners. There are people in the Dunes that do not support this project, because they're not going to get a dock and they like keeping the area pristine. So I think it's time Collier County -- it is good government to allow a profit for a few at the cost of hurting the environment for thousands of both people and marine life? Is this a project that is in the public interest? No. Is this a project that is -- has an unsubstantial change to the current PUD? No. Is this a project that the Manatee Protection Plan should allow? No. So I ask you to say no to this project. Please, help us save the waterways of Vanderbilt Beach. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before we go any further, Ray, it's -- I'm watching the two court reporters. Now, Terri's in the lead, as far as getting everything. So -- but I can tell we need to get to a break. But real quick, before we do, does anybody on this Planning Commission think we're going to finish this hearing before five o'clock today? I don't either. And the problem I have is there are other people here on other cases. I just wanted to give them a heads -up as early as I could. Mr. Corradi, we have to ask you to come back on Tuesday. We will continue this until the 6th, I think -- I think that's Tuesday -- when we get to that point today, and SSP -- Michael Fernandez, I don't believe he's here, but we're not going to get to his today. The only one I would like to try to get to is Plantation Island, if the gentleman's here, because I heard he had to fly in from an outside area for this meeting. Is he here? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, he's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just from the board, do you have many issues with the Plantation Island application? It was the one right after this one? Okay. Richard Yovanovich. Okay. Rich, would you mind, when we come back from break, if we pause to do Plantation Island -- it should be short -- and then jump back into the public speakers for yours? MR. YOVANOVICH: The only request I have -- and the answer's, no, I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I really do need to finish the petition, our petition, today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think Plantation Island's going to take more than 10 or 15 minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know that, but I'm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do our best. I mean, I've already talked to K.D. about staying later. She's acknowledged it. But we're only going to stay later for yours. We're trying to get -- because we can -- everybody else is local, and this other gentleman had to fly in, so we're trying to resolve it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. No, I'm happy to help him. Page 69 of 94 x.612 A4 ` March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break till 4 o'clock. At 4 o'clock we're going to resume, but with Plantation Island, which shouldn't take very long, then we'll go right back into public speakers. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you'd please take your seats. We're going to change gears real quick here just for a short period of time. I appreciate the applicant for the Dunes two applications cooperating on this matter. * * *We have another petition for a variance. It's for Lot 80 on Plantation Island. It's VAPL2010 -2285. 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: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, the presentation by the applicant? Looks like you got elected, sir. MR. WU: My name is Richard Wu, architect. I'd like to thank the commission chair and the ladies and gentlemen for allowing me to speak -- interrupt the other hearing. Hopefully mine won't be as controversial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You never know. MR. WU: I represent Mr. Robert Beedie (phonetic), who's the landowner for Lot 30 on Plantation Island. It's a mobile home community out on the other side of Everglades City. And when I went to the preapplication meeting with the Collier County staff they advised me that we had to go through a variance process in order to remove some of the mangrove cover on the property in order for us to build the structure that we had proposed. You can see on the site plan that we have up there the shaded area shows the mangrove portion that we want to remove. The property now is a corner lot. It fronts on Plantation Drive. And since it is a corner lot, the dotted line on this plan shows the restricted area that's caused by the setbacks. We have two front yard setbacks on this property. So to put a small modular home on the property, we're pretty much restricted to where we can place the building. And right now the property is -- a portion of it is in exotics, which have to be removed, and the back portion of the property, which is -- has the mangroves along the canal. We're proposing to remove a small portion of the mangrove area cover within the guidelines of the -- your plan, which allows up to 2,500 square feet of removal of mangroves. Our removal percentage is -- I think we're about 2,000 square feet that we're asking for so we can place the structure on the property. Basically, my design encompasses a pier foundation, because the modular home, which the owner will purchase, will have to be raised above the flood area, of course, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, sir, we probably reviewed the packet thoroughly, all nine of us, so we -- and it's a pretty straightforward application. So maybe if you have any other pertinent information we can move on to the staff report. MR. WU: Sorry. I can't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure we all have reviewed the application. It's pretty straightforward. I think we understand what you just said, and if you have nothing else, we can move on to questions and then to staff report. MR. WU: Well, I think it pretty much covers it. Yeah, I think the application covers pretty much what we're asking for, just for approval to grant the variance to remove the mangroves so the home can be built for the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any questions of the applicant? MR. WU: Thank you. Is there questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. You're fine unless -- let's get staff report. Thank you, sir. MR. WU: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services. And staff is recommending approval of this variance petition in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nancy, I think, for the record and for the members here that are new, because this is Plantation Island, this is a result of a settlement agreement between Collier County and the State of Page 70 of 94 k 1b12 A4 March 1, 2012 Florida Department of Community Affairs in regards to how -- this is a previously established subdivision that was in the ACSC, and because of that, it has the -- they took a different view of this and allowed up to 2,500 square foot per previously divided lot to expedite the process, and that's different than your regular guidelines, so -- MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure -- that's why this is being asked. It's a unique process. I think it only applies to Plantation Island, if I'm not mistaken. MS. GUNDLACH: As far as I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. In fact, this was requested by the Board of County Commissioners to be settled with the DCA quite some years ago. Ray, and we have -- MR. BELLOWS: One speaker, Harold Hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Harold's going to upset the apple cart, okay. MR. HALL: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you wouldn't, Harold. It's good to see you again. MR. HALL: Harold Hall, 1082 Rainbow Drive, Naples, and owner of Lot 17, which is on Plantation Drive, which is about 500 feet from the subject lot, Lot 80. Lot 80 is the corner lot, as he said. I'm very familiar with that lot. Have been for years. I previously lived on Plantation Drive on Lot 39. Now, I'm recommending that you approve this quickly. Nancy has obviously done a good job reviewing everything. But bear with me, I'd like to take just a few minutes. I want to make seven points, and I'm going to start with the last point in case you cut me off, Mark. By the way, these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have I ever cut you off? Harold, that's not nice. MR. HALL: These tears -- I've got an allergy. I'm not crying because I'm here with you folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would be after waiting all day. MR. HALL: But at any rate, the -- I want to point out six things that's happened, and I'm going to tell you what that seventh thing is right now. The seventh thing is, on Lot 17 I'm paying taxes on $60,000 assessed value for taxes on a lot that is practically worthless because it's completely covered with mangroves. How did we get there? I'll tell you. 1988 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's some relationship to this application, right? MR. HALL: Yes, there is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: -- because what I'm wanting you folks to do -- these things are going to come up. As Nancy's pointed out, this is this arrangement, this agreement between the county and DCA, and everything comes up on Plantation Island you're going to have it, and we're going to have more of these. You've already had one or two. 1988 the county realized that the Future Land Use Map didn't show Plantation Island on it even though there was probably 50, 70 residences on it. The county had used a real old Department of Highway's map. The county, realizing this -- Charles Goodier (phonetic), some of you remember him. He was the principal planner -- took the steps, revised the Future Land Use Map, put Plantation Island on it designated urban. Now, we realized at that time that DCA had it in the area of state critical concern. I talked with DCA, two different people. Obviously, they had and they told me they used the same old map; Plantation Island wasn't on it, so they included it in the area of state critical concern. Now, come forward to, I guess, four years ago, DEP approved a clearing field application. DCA didn't object, so the owner paid about $8,000 mitigation, cleared it, filled it, the county turned down the building application, made him take all the fill out and haul it off. Litigation followed, so the county and DCA met. DCA agreed to take Plantation Island out of the area of critical state concern. I assisted the County Attorney's Office in this developing the legal description for it. Conservancy was interest in this, and old sharp -eyed Nicole -- where is she -- she saw a big real estate transaction in the area so she wanted to make sure that it wasn't in this area they're going to remove. Well, it wasn't. It was east of Plantation Island. But at any rate, they ended up then people realizing -- and by the way, even this lot owner thought that this had all been cleared up. DCA backed out of the arrangement, but it's too late. Already a lot had sold for 60,000, one Page 71 of 94 .61 2 A4 March 1, 2012 for 70,000, and I heard one for over 100,000. And then they find out that the DCA had backed out of it. The DCA and the county agreed to this arrangement that brings him here today. You can't install a mobile home on probably 800 to 1,000 square feet, and that's how much area that you have if it's a mangrove covered lot. By the way, these mangroves are all second growth, but second growth mangroves can be very productive, so they should be protected. We all agree on that. Okay. The end of it is I've got Lot 17. I've managed to get the assessed value down. I started paying taxes on 60,000, got it down to 30,000. I think if everything has gone okay, that I'll get it down to 10,000, but it's still practically worthless. So that's my story. You folks think of this every time one of these things come up to you. DCA, I'm unhappy with them, I'm a little bit unhappy with Commissioner Coletta that he didn't advise me of this revised arrangement, which the County Attorney's Office -- I'd worked with them. I wish that they let me know that the deal didn't go through that was changed, or maybe I could have prevented some of those sales of 60 -, 70 -, 100,000. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Harold, thank you. You've made it a brighter day for us. We appreciate it. MR. HALL: I intended to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers on this item? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you do, I have one disclosure I forgot to mention. And during one of the breaks, a lady who was waiting for this, Kay Farlin Britt, wanted to tell me that she is a neighbor to this area, and she's very in favor of this project, so I told her I'd make that mention. So other than that, no disclosures. Go ahead. Oh, I'll close the public hearing, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward VA- PL2010 -2285 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Melissa. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: 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 9 -0. Thank you all, and that -- I guess -- I tried, Melissa, to make your record of doing a quick one, but it still took 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Not looking good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off with public speakers on the Dunes dock application. We're going to move back to that, and we're going to stay as late as we can today. MR. BELLOWS: We had three individuals withdraw their names, so we're down to two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kathy Worley, and Donald Savino. Page 72 of 94 i 1. b 12 Marc 1 2012 MS. WORLEY: Hi, good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi. MS. WORLEY: My name is Kathy Worley, and I'm the director of science for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just want to take a moment to speak for something that can't trot on down here and testify in front of you -all, and that's the seagrasses. Seagrasses were historically present in Water Turkey Bay, and regardless of whether the channel is manmade or not, it's the only remaining section in the Vanderbilt Lagoon/Water Turkey Bay area that still has seagrasses. And they're known as a keystone species in estuaries. They're an important part of the base of the food chain. They provide sustenance for a lot of different species, including the manatee, which you've heard a lot about probably, and they also provide shelter for a lot of our shellfish, fish, species like shrimp snook, mullet, redfish, pompano, spotted sea trout, all of which are important, not -- some commercially and some recreationally for people in the area. And these species use seagrass usually for some portion, if not all, of their lifespan. So the species of seagrass generally found in the area of the proposed docks is called shoal grass. Now, this species is not the type you've seen on TV where it waves around in the water. It's not that species. It's the species that is very close to the sediment, usually only gets more than, you know, an inch, maybe two if you're lucky, above the sediment. And it has a couple of interesting characteristics. First of all, it's ephemeral. And what I mean by that is it's not around all the time. You might see it one year, and then you don't see it the next year. You can think of it kind of like it goes into hibernation or dormancy for a while and then picks up and grows out when the conditions are favorable for it. It's very picky. It only likes to, you know, stick its little blades out when it's got the correct salinity and a lot of other different -- temperature and a lot of other different characteristics. And the second interesting characteristic is that these beds in this area, and others like Clam Bay, this species, its extent and where it is, how dense it is, whether it's patchy or in, you know, big clumps or, you know, contiguous, it changes. It's not the same size -- the bed is not the same size or configuration from year to year, if it's there at all one year and not the next. The seagrasses that we and others like Tim have found over the years exhibit both of these characteristics. They're not around all the time, and they also -- they aren't in the same areas all the time. They're in the same general vicinity. And where we found them to be more denser over the years has been from the area at -- what do they call it? I had to write this down because I couldn't remember it -- Baker Carroll Point boat basin and south to the bridge. That's where it's typically been denser. And another thing -- one thing that kind of concerned me that I heard today was that what -- whatever -- the statement that was -- something went like this, whatever seagrasses are present when the building permit is pulled could dictate future actions or something like that. And because -- it is really important that you not look at one day for a survey or even one week because it might not be there. It might not be there that year, but it could be there the next. The seed source is still there buried in the sediment getting ready for when it, you know, thinks it's right to come out. So -- and also you -- generally when I do a survey, I only do it in June or July because that's usually when, typically, the conditions are best for blooming and when you typically find it. So, you know, you need to look for it during its growing season, and you need to look at it not just one time and take that as, okay, there's nothing there, because it might be the next year. Seagrasses have been found in marine environments, shallow marine environments for over a hundred million years. They've persisted in face of climate change and changing seagrass levels; however, in the last hundred they've declined. And most of this is due to manmade alterations to their habitat or near their habitat. And because these changes take place rapidly, the seagrasses don't have time to adapt like they can to sea level change and other types of environmental changes that occur. So boat docks are one of the human alterations that can be detrimental to seagrasses. Since seagrasses require one thing, I'll just mention -- they require a lot of things, but one of the most important in regards to this issue here today is light intensity. They're generally more robust in areas of open water -- open shallow water where you don't find shading. Now, since light availability is necessary for seagrasses to thrive, any structure that blocks the sunlight from open water, including docks, decreases that light availability. Page 73 of 94 � F r J Now, the proposed area already has some decreased light availability due to the shading effects from the condos across the way. And the installation of docks in close proximity to seagrasses, even 10 feet, is -- it's only going to exacerbate the problem. It's just really not a good idea to put structures next to seagrass not only because of the light, but because of the dredging that is involved in putting in docks generally. Seagrasses don't like turbidity either, and you can basically smother them, if you want to think of it in a human term. Anyway, so putting boats that close to seagrasses is basically -- can be a recipe for disaster since it increases the likelihood of stirring up the sediment, which could then cover the blades, and also it decreases -- docks decrease light intensity. And then there's also the consideration of crop rot -- prop washes from when these boats all start up. I mean, you know, not all boat water -- boat people are conscientious about the environment that they're around. And if you rev that engine good enough and you've got a, you know, two- and -a -half, three -foot draft, whatever draft you've got, and it's a low tide, you're going to stir up the sediment that is right next to those seagrasses. And, of course, it's going to create an obstacle course, these docks, for any manatees that wants to utilize the area. Although I would recommend that you avoid putting any structures of any kind close to this area where other seagrasses are, if docks are allowed to be built, all efforts should be made to limit the extent of the project and keep them -- keep at least, at the very least, the southern areas south of that opening of that point clear of any docks, because this is the area where the seagrasses have been typically more robust. And remember that this is the last remaining stretch of seagrass in that area. And, you know, a lot of people say -- you know, you think about, well, if we impact it, we'll mitigate. How can you mitigate? You can't. You're not going to get seagrasses back in Water Turkey Bay. It's been tried. And this is the only place where they seem to like it. And I'd just like you to think about protecting this from even potential harm when you make your decision. So thank you for listening, and I'll let you go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before -- there's some questions. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Do we know why the seagrasses no longer are in Water Turkey Bay? What caused them to disappear; do we know? MS. WORLEY: There's several speculations. One of them was when they moved the channel. The channel didn't used to be there. It used to wind along the outside near the mangroves is where the natural channel was and where it was deeper, and then they dredged through the center, and they've made a big, silty mess. That's been one speculation. It's never been proven what exactly caused that death, but they have not come back in over 10 years, which signifies that they're not going to most likely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on second. Don't run off so quickly. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you reviewed what's happening on the water with the riprap and that -- what they're doing there? In other words, where they're dredging out, they're putting riprap to keep the soil, which would be where the seagrass is, from slumping in. MS. WORLEY: From what I understand, it -- and Tim can answer this if I'm incorrect. The area that you're considering dredging is not the area that has any seagrasses next to it; is that correct? MR. HALL: It runs actually -- you know, the area we're dredging goes along the bed, that whole area where we've defined that they could be. So like, you know, at any given time, there could be seagrasses there when we're dredging. There aren't, you know, now but there could be. MS. WORLEY: It's just not a good idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's dredging west of the whole seagrass bed; isn't that right, Tim? MR. HALL: Yeah. All of the dredging is going west of it. There's none of it in the bed itself COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the point is is you're going along the whole thing, from the drawings you have here. MR. HALL: Yeah, I believe most of the -- along most of the dock area. MS. WORLEY: You'11 be dredging? MR. HALL: Right. Page 74 of 94 161 2 kh March 1, 2012 MS. WORLEY: You know, again -- you know, dredging, you know, you can put a lot of things in place, turbidity curtains and things like that to try to keep down the siltation. But the fact of the matter is is you're going to get some in there, and it just depends on the extent and how careful they are when they dredge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? I have just a couple. You said there used to be a lot in Turkey Bay. Now, this waterway is not part of Turkey Bay. Turkey Bay is just to the north of it. So now there are none in Turkey Bay. MS. WORLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you said the last remaining colony is where this project is -- happened to go, and you said specifically the south end is more robust. How do you know that? MS. WORLEY: Several surveys over the last 10 years. So, I mean, like I said, some years it's there, some years it's not. But typically when we found patches in that general area, and other peoples' reports, it's been denser south of that in the southern area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where you mean. MS. WORLEY: -- opposite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole provided a graphic. MS. WORLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who did the surveys? MS. WORLEY: We -- several different people. I did them. I did some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WORLEY: Tim did some -- are the ones that I'm referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your own personal discovery during the survey verifies the robustness of those seagrasses south of that area. What are they like north of that area? MS. WORLEY: Patchy. But I agree with Tim in that the tip on -- it's sort of off the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know where you mean. MS. WORLEY: The tip is generally not -- does not have any. Where it enters Water Turkey Bay, I've never seen any there. Maybe Tim has, but I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are the areas that are patchy, or in the area that's robust, too, I'm assuming, though, that all those areas are viable, potential seagrass beds. MS. WORLEY: Yeah. They're viable, potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray? I think you said you had two. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Donald Savino. MR. SAVINO: I must be the caboose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. SAVINO: I'm the caboose. The last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe. We'll see. MR. SAVINO: Well, my name is Donald Savino, and my background is construction. And what I'd like to talk about is completely -- this is a new one -- is the seawall across the way with all these boats. I've got 40 years of building and repairing seawalls up in the Boston area. Okay. There are 667 units on Baker Carroll Point, and we're going to -- for that we're going to sacrifice and try to put in 49 boat docks? Now, in this proposal, the bulkhead on the west wall is 35 -plus years old. It's getting old; it's tired. With all this backing, turning, and shifting, it's going to do a lot of impact. The impact on that wall is going to be devastating. I've been to a couple of the meetings that the developer had, and all the discussion is about the mangroves, which is great, the corpuses, the manatees, which we enjoy anyway, but no one seems to want to look across the bay, the channel, at what impact it's going to have on that 700 -foot wall that Surf Colony III owns. And it's going to be drastic. In other words, they're going to put a greater expense on our shoulder with those 44 (sic) boats. And a good point was made, are they all seamen? Mostly, no. A lot of them aren't. They shouldn't even being driving a boat. And they're going to be putting a lot of hydrostatic pressure behind our wall, because of that Page 75 of 94 16 1 Z A4 arch 1, 2012 water -- when the water -- the wave action goes into that wall. Most of that action is underground. That wave action is a hydrostatic water building the pressure up, and that's also on the backside of the wall, because the water in front of that wall is the same as in the back of the wall. So that wall is almost like it's floating in muck, and those are not seawalls. They're bulkheads. They're 6 inches wide. They're panels that are pitched down into that muck. So -- this is going to be short anyway. The stress on that wall is going to be bad. If -- the size of this project, it's a quarter of a mile long. There's this 44 boats. All those boats back -- they're pushing all those boats back to the west. Boats coming in and out are going to be up against that seawall, and that's going to make a lot more pressure on the seawall. Now, the way I see it, we're going to -- we're going to incur a lot of expense down the road if those docks go in. Now, if they're going to do something like that, then they should do something to control that water of pushing all that into our seawall. So with that, I would like to thank you people, you gentlemen and ladies, for the opportunity to speak on this one thing that nobody's discussed all night, and I appreciate the opportunity that you gave me. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, is that the last register public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other members of the public who have not spoken that wish to speak on this issue? Sir, come on up and identify yourself. Ask that you limit yourself to five minutes, please. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? MR. HAJEK: Yes, I was. In fact, I did register, so I'm unclear as to why you didn't have my ticket this morning. My name is Brian Hajek. I live at Surf Colony 11. And I -- really I think almost everything's been said, so there's not very much for me to add. I would like to say thank you very much for all of your difficult questioning, I think that you've done today, and for following this through so completely. I have just a few items. There was a recreational boating characterization of Collier County that was done in August, or published in August of 2009. 1 don't know if you've seen that, but I did find in it that the Wiggins Pass area was one of the most crowded areas for boating in Collier County already. And so now in this channel, as has been said many times today already, you're going to add 49 boats. And I'm very concerned about safety. I think safety is the primary concern that we should all have here. The boats are coming out 50 feet, roughly, 200 feet, coming out 25 percent of that. They will back up, it's been said, I think, about 53 feet further. My understanding is that the channel comes off the center of the bridge. It's been 62 feet wide, and so these boats are going to be coming into the primary channel. I have kayaked in this area. I do not have a lot of experience kayaking, but I have been out there. And we have been passed by boats going very slowly. And while those boats were going very slowly, there was a lot of wake. And, you know, we just really had to steady ourselves very carefully. So I'm concerned about kayakers being out there. If you put two kayakers -- two kayaks side by side -- a kayak is, what, two feet, three feet wide at the very most, but you have paddles, and kayakers are probably going to be 12 to 15 feet apart in general just to go down there. And then you add in the boats filling this channel further, and it becomes a very congested area, especially if you take 25 percent of it away. Backing a large boat -- Dick Palin earlier talked about this -- out of a boat dock, it's kind of like backing a Miata or -- out of a parking lot where you have a couple of SUVs on both sides. You cannot see what's on both sides of you from the front of that boat. And if you have a kayak or I've heard manatee always mentioned in that channel -- and we have seen a lot of manatee there -- they cannot be seen. Another concern that I had is that I understand that there's a benefit for the common good of these boat docks going in. It was stated that the land underneath the water is going to be given back to the state, and the state will be paid a land lease. And 11,000 square feet of space is going to be leased at a cost of -- to the developer of -- or to the association for the boat docks of 15 cents a square foot. That calculates, by my calculator, to $1,650 a year. I have $10. I'm sure I can find another 164 people on Baker Carroll Point who would donate $10 per year to help cover that $1,650 per year. Page 76 of 94 161 2 A4 March 1, 2012 Another question that I have is how badly are these docks needed? I understand there are three times the number of people in the Dunes who have signed up for these docks, but there are also, I understand, a lot of empty docks just sitting about a mile up the way near the Wiggins Pass Bridge. And if there are a lot of docks there, that's a pretty easy drive for the folks at the Dunes to drive up to. And thank you again. Appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, and I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. I think that wraps up all the public speakers. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, unregistered. I don't know. She's -- I mean, she's an unregistered type. I'm not sure about her. MS. CARON: I'm sorry. Donna Reed Caron, for the record. I'm sorry, but earlier this morning you said that you didn't have to register, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. MS. CARON: -- I didn't turn in a slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I already asked if -- but I asked if anybody wanted to speak who hasn't. I didn't see your hand go up, so I missed you. MS. CARON: Oh, yeah. I did raise my hand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. But just so the rest of this board knows, Donna used to sit on this panel before Bill was put on, so she's well aware of our rules and regulations. So it's good to see you again, Donna. MS. CARON: I'll be very brief. The attorney for the affected citizens, Mr. Pires, has filed a thorough and compelling brief asking you to refuse to hear the matter until such time as the application can be made compliant with the county land development rules and well established concepts of procedural due process. And I would concur with that. Obviously that's a debatable thing that we -- that you'll get into in a minute. Mostly I'd like to talk about the boat dock extension that you've been offered today. As it stands currently -- and I know that Nicole put up a plan. But as the petitioner's plan stands currently, it is not something -- I don't believe it's something that you can approve. I don't think it meets criteria -- Primary Criteria No. 1, because the current plan doesn't conform to either the CCME or the LDC. It doesn't meet Criteria No. 2, Primary Criteria No. 2. The petitioner claims that from mangroves to the seawall it's a navigable channel, so he really shouldn't have to be doing any dredging in this area. Number 3, whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation. If you look at the plan that's up there now, I think that the docks to the very south create, potentially -- and that's what the code says here -- may have an adverse impact. I think it clearly shows that it's probably going to have an adverse impact, having the docks way down toward the bridge backing into that narrowed point of channel while people are trying to get under the bridge. So I really think you should consider that in your discussion. Number 4, whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent. The plan does not, as it currently stands, and it certainly can't in order to stay away from the seagrasses. For the secondary criteria, my biggest concern is 5, and that, again, gets to the seagrass issue. I think we have to be very careful with these seagrasses. The whole estuarian area back there is very fragile, and the more intensity of use we put on it, the worse it gets for the mangroves, for the seagrasses, and for the fish and the wildlife that are trying to -- that make that their home. If boat docks are considered, I want you -- I would like you to stipulate that the boats have to be on lifts. That is not part of their plan right now. That's just an option. I talked about safety under the bridge. And I think, again, limiting that plan, the goal of any of our variances and -- is to minimize all impacts, whether that's to navigation, whether that's to seagrasses, whether that's to the length of the boats you're putting out there. All of it should be the very minimum that you can possibly make it. That's the way the code is set up. And I'll leave it at that. Most everything's been discussed, and I know that you will spend a good -- a long time discussing everything thoroughly. So thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we won't be spending too long, but we'll give it the best shot. We have -- we've got till ten minutes of six, by the way. I want to let everybody know we have to be out by then. There's Page 77 of 94 1 1 14 ,- MZ 1 2012 another meeting coming in at six o'clock tonight. Normally we break at five -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I figure if we can go an extra hour and get done today, we need to get done today. So with that in mind, I believe that's the last public speaker. I think everybody else that wants to speak has spoken. If I'm wrong, please raise your hand. Okay. Richard, do you have any rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, and I ask your indulgence. I would like to -- I think we need to clarify some of the statements that were made by some of the speakers regarding the prior history of this PUD. And, most notably, I think I heard Mr. Burkhard say that when the PUD was adopted in 2000, the residents had no idea that boat docks were going to be part of this petition, part of the PUD, and that's just factually not correct. And I want to from (sic) you the minutes in front of the Planning Commission, because Mr. Lydon -- we all know Dick -- most of us know Dick Lydon. He was the president of the Vanderbilt Beach -- I think it was called -- Residents Association at the time. Yes, Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association, I'm sorry. He got up and spoke in front of the Planning Commission on November 2, 2000, when this very PUD was going through the process. And he said, quote, in this PUD we have on Page 3 -1, Item 3.4, boathouses and docks. This area that they are building in Turkey Bay is classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. There was no provision in this PUD, period, as to where these boathouses and docks may take place. We would like -- there's no indication of how many. There isn't a question -- it's not a question, you understand, of where or how many or anything of the kind. We would like to see this taken from the PUD and ask that they would be returned -- that the developer return to the commission and to the Board of County Commissioners for a secondary approval, if you will, of any boathouses or docks. That was taken out of the original PUD. We think we're being responsive in requesting that that be left out. Let them come back and request their boathouses, their docks, and show us where they're going to be so we would have an opportunity to see that impact. Now, that's Mr. Lydon coming in asking the Planning Commission to take out the very provision we're relying on today to move forward on the boathouses. The Planning Commission did not agree. It went to the Board of County Commissioners with the boathouse and boat dock provision in the PUD. Mr. Lydon didn't give up. He attended the BCC hearing and, again, asked the board to -- I'm sorry -- take that out. The board did not take that out, left it in as an accessory use. And it says on Page 190, Mr. Lydon, in response to the boathouses, it says, yes, it's in the -- it's in the PUD as an accessory use. And -- and my response to the Planning Commission is the same question. That entitlement applies to all residential -- all residential property. Now, when he was saying Planning Commission, it was actually the Board of County Commissioners. So -- and, again, he talks about they own all of Turkey Bay, they have considerable frontage. Now, in the Land Development Code we also have a provision that says for every 100 feet of lineal -- of lineal waterway, you're entitled to so many docks within a multi - family -- multiple family project; however, still consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code, that no dock -- no dock configuration may protrude more than 20 feet. So the Board of County Commissioners asked the representative of the property owner to get up there and answer Mr. Lydon's questions regarding the number and the location of the docks, and the number was no more than 60, and they would stay out of Water Turkey Bay. So for Mr. Burkhard to get up there and say the residents had no idea that the PUD was putting boat docks and boathouses in the PUD, for us to come back later and go through the boat dock extension process is not consistent with the prior history. So I don't -- maybe he didn't read the minutes. But if he read the minutes, then he didn't tell you the truth. If he didn't read the minutes, then he should have read the minutes to understand the legislative history before he tells you that the residents had no idea. I have a question of Mr. Burkhard -- and it triggered my mind, because he has a 25 -foot boat, apparently, and the question I have is, does he have a boat dock extension for his property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can ask him that question. Page 78 of 94 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, that has nothing to do with relevance to your project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it does. It does, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Burkhard's not on trial here today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, but you know what, he's making comments about he is on the zoning committee, and as part of the zoning committee, he wants to make sure that people are consistent with the zoning ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, if you want to pursue that, you just call -- you file a complaint with code enforcement. This is not the forum for that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask him the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm not going to entertain it. It's not part of the application. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask Rich a question about what he said prior to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And by the way, I've been to Bruce's house. He parks it parallel with the shore, so it's not sticking out more than 20 feet. But anyway, why -- if all that's true, why didn't you put the boat docks in the general development standards? Why are they in a section that says the standards for the residential development areas? Why wouldn't you make that more obvious? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, we did make it obvious. We made it very clear that we were going to come back through the boat dock extension process to ask for boat docks and a boathouse pursuant to the boat dock extension process, and the boat docks were going to be accessory to the residential. It was not going to be a commercial marina where anybody could come in and request the ability to purchase the docks. We've spent an awful lot -- amount of time talking about whether or not we need to do a full -blown PUD amendment because people claimed they didn't really know what was going on. They knew what was going on. There had been websites up -- I read one Christmas Eve, and I call it the "kill the Dunes boat docks website." I know it doesn't say that, but that website's been up for quite a while. People have known about this process and expected us to go through this process. They fought it for many, many years at the state level. We're now finally here. The state has reviewed it. They have considered safety issues, they have considered environmental issues, and the state has, in fact, authorized us to go forward with what we're here before you today. Tim has spent time talking about how we meet the boat dock criteria, and we meet the Comprehensive Plan. And we're continuing to be prepared to address those comments and concerns. Your resolution in front of you refers to the applicable provisions for seagrasses. It's a condition when we come forward for our building -- our SDP and also our building permit that we meet those criteria if, in fact, seagrasses exist at the time we come forward with that process. That's what your code regulates. At the time you come forward with the building permits, if there's seagrasses, you have to stay a certain distance. And if you can't meet that distance, you have these other criteria. Those criteria are in your resolution. And that's what should be applied to us. We should be going through the boat dock criteria and the provisions applicable to seagrasses. And we submit to you that we meet those criteria. And there'll be further assurances that we have to meet those criteria not only today but the next step, because if the seagrasses come back, as Kathy says, we'll have to deal with it. But if they're gone, they're gone, and that's what the code requires. So I'd like Tim to take some time to go over the seagrass criteria and how we meet and -- again, briefly, because it's kind of gotten discussed otherwise, and then we're prepared to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have regarding our petition and how -- if you have questions regarding whether or not we meet the criteria that we can answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim? MR. HALL: And I'm going to go ahead and take this stuff out of Policy 6.3.1 of the GMP. I'm sorry -- 6.3.2. Impacts to seagrass beds shall be minimized by locating the boat docks more than 10 feet from existing seagrass beds. Where this is not possible, the docks shall be sited to impact the smallest areas of seagrasses possible. We've done that. We've located the docks outside of that area where we believe seagrasses are likely to grow. Page 79 of 94 1612 14 March 1, 2012 The only impact is the walkway going over the top of them to actually access the docks. That's the smallest possible impact under the -- under the conditions that we have. It should be no lower than 3.5 feet NGVD, which we are. We meet that criteria. Have a terminal platform no greater than 160 square feet. I know that Commissioner Strain and myself disagree on this one in terms of what constitutes a terminal platform. I believe we are consistent with that criteria as well. And then have the access dock be no wider than four feet. We are dropping our width to five feet in order to comply with the ADA requirements. And, you know, from that standpoint, related to that policy, my opinion is that we are compliant with it. And, you know, if there are still any further questions then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing you're missing, though, you're running this dock right alongside parallel to it. We've heard testimony that the buildings across the way are blocking sunlight to these things. Wouldn't that block a major amount of sunlight to these guys? As the sun -- you know, past noon, it gets around 3 o'clock, your dock is putting the whole thing in shade. MR. HALL: Well, I think it will be quite a bit past the noon. I mean, we're still trying to get as much separation from the seagrass beds as possible. In most of the locations we're maintaining five feet or more separation. We just don't have the 10 feet. So the sun at noon, if you think of noon as being directly overhead, it's got to get low enough down on the horizon to where it hits the dock and the shading covers that five -foot halo. And you have to remember that that late in the afternoon, when the sun is going down further, the intensity of the sun is decreasing anyway. So the later in the day that that shadow hits them, the less impact it has because the actual intensity that they would be getting anyway in an unshaded condition would be less than if it was overhead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you're five feet away, you're three- and -a -half feet up, you obviously have dimension in the water, you're almost going to be like a 45- degree angle. So that sun is not setting when you're blocking it.. MR. HALL: And I'm not saying it's setting. I'm just saying that it is lower in the sky than directly overhead. And based on a lot of -- I won't say a lot, but I know of one study that was done in West Palm Beach when they were looking at some of the shading effects of docks, you know, when they were getting statistically measurable differences or effects to seagrass beds, and what they did was look at docks built right on top of seagrasses, and they looked at how the seagrasses underneath those docks faired as well as out away from them. And they measured the measurable impacts to the seagrasses, and they generally ranged between five and seven feet out from the docks is where the shading impacts associated with the docks then became unmeasurable from a statistical standpoint. So we've -- you know, we're trying to abide by those. There is shade cast, you know, by the docks, and I don't dispute that. We're doing everything we can to minimize, you know, that impact as much as we can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you please tell me, when was the last time this channel was widened; do you have any idea? MR. HALL: I would just be guessing. I don't know. The original -- to get it to the width that it is now, I believe, happened in the mid'60s. COMMISSIONER EBERT: In the'60s, okay. MR. HALL: I believe so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they have not -- MR. HALL: I think there was one -- there's been at least one maintenance dredging activity that went through Water Turkey Bay in the -- I think that was in the late '90s, but I don't know what the exact date of that it is. Page 80 of 94 y 161 arch 1 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: But that did not -- that did not widen the channel? MR. HALL: It did not widen the channel, no. That was just to --that was just for depth. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. To do that three -foot depth through the channel; is that -- MR. HALL: I believe they went to minus five. They dredged to minus five, and that's to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fill. MR. HALL: -- up to three -foot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Fill, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I just want to follow up on, maybe, Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: There was a comment made that the buildings across the way are already shading this -- the grasses in that area. So just to follow up with Brad, if it's already shaded, how much change is there with the dock there? MR. HALL: I mean, I haven't done any kind of a light intensity study associated with it in connection with the buildings. I mean, it depends on the height of the buildings across the way and whether or not -- the areas where the buildings are, when they're casting the shade, may even be before the docks would be, if they're high enough. I don't know -- I don't think I can give you an exact answer to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The buildings would cast a shadow much later than -- during the day than these things would. I mean, I know the geometry of that area, and these docks are going to be -- you know, here's the bed. These docks are going to be right here. The building's way off. And the shadow on that would be under the dock, probably. And the effect of that would be late in the day. I'm worried about the stuff around, you know, early afternoon that the dock will cast. MR. HALL: Well, I mean, if -- I guess if you assumed that we are five feet from the docks, I mean -- I'm sorry, five feet from the seagrasses, the inside of the dock would be five feet from the seagrasses and it's at -- you know, the height differential between them would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Five feet. MR. HALL: Depending upon the depth of the water, but assume -- so assume it's five feet as well -- that will make it just easier -- then, yeah, you're talking about a -- when the sun's at a 45- degree angle is when it would start to encroach into them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would be about 3 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, the finger docks that you have, in some cases you've got two boats between the finger piers, which makes sense. What's the distance between those two fingers where you have two boats? MR. HALL: I believe it's 30 feet. It's 14 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen feet for each one? MR. HALL: Fourteen for each one and a center piling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple technical things. One thing we didn't discuss is fueling. What's going to be happening on these boats for fueling? MR. HALL: There's no fueling at the facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, when I was on the -- chairman of the state fire code committee, we had issues where tank trucks were coming in and pumping fuel through residential neighborhoods -- MR. HALL: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know, quite a few hundred feet. So how will you control -- you know, I mean, you can't -- MR. HALL: I think you heard one of the ladies earlier on talk about the boat dock committee and the guidance documents that they have been working on with the dock master and so forth. It will be regulated by the permits that no fueling is allowed there, but it will also be regulated internally to make sure that nobody's sneaking, Page 81 of 94 6 SAT March 1, 2012 you know, cans out in a wheelbarrow or anything, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, people will be bringing fuel. I mean, they'll go get it filled up at the gas station and wheel it down, won't they? Or you're going to say that's not allowed. MR.14ALL: No, no, it's not allowed. They have to actually move the boat to a designated, you know, fueling location, which would be either, you know, up around Cocohatchee Park or one of the other marinas. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There is some very confusing things here. If this channel was not made any wider since the '60s and yet Ms. Bishop is saying, I can tell you there will never be a marina there because the channel is not wide enough, how -- I mean, that's contradicting this. And then in looking at the 2000 BCC on November 14th, and you -- and they were talking about Mr. Lydon, and he mentioned the boat docks. And Commissioner Mac'Kai said, Dick, I don't think there's docks in here. And Chairman Carter says, they're not asking for it, Dick. And Mr. Nino says, I don't see it either. So to me this is very confusing. One says you can't do it it's never going to be there and yet they're saying it's not in this petition. So I have a lot of reservations about this at this point, Tim. Thank you. MR. HALL: About the BDE or the whole process? COMMISSIONER EBERT: The whole process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of Tim? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Tim, while you're there, construction of these docks, I assume, all from the water, on floating -- from floating barges or floating dredge pump. MR. HALL: Construction of the docks would be from the barge. The boardwalk going out to the docks will be built from the boardwalk itself, kind of a build -as- you -go. COMMISSIONER VONIER: How would you build the parallel walkway? MR. HALL: The parallel walkway would be from a barge. COMMISSIONER VONIER: From a barge. MR. HALL: All of the in -water docks and all will be built from a barge, but the actual boardwalk going from the uplands out to the dock will be built from the boardwalk itself. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And how large are these barges that you use? MR. HALL: Well, I -- I mean, I couldn't tell you -- COMMISSIONER VONIER: How long will they be there? MR. HALL: The construction timing? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. MR. HALL: We estimate probably around six months, I believe, was the time frame. Do you remember, Keith? I think that was right. MR. SHARP: It's a lot shorter than that. The dredging is one portion. MR. HALL: A lot of it depends on timing. If the dredging that's going to be undertaken is all done first, and then they go back in to do the docks, it will take longer than if they are dredging and then putting the docks in right behind them. So there are some construction aspects that may not be exactly known until the contractor's chosen and his methodologies are examined according to what the building permit and all of that are submitted. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And then the hauling of the dredged material after the dewatering would be through the Dunes gate, not -- there won't be any special access onto Bluebill? It will all go through the Dunes entranceway? MR. HALL: No. I believe there's an access onto Bluebill right now, and they'll be utilizing that access that's there to dispose of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill -- or Brad. Page 82 of 94 16 12 A4 • March 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Ray, could you put the uplands connections -- you showed that one drawing that showed guest parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies, by the way, for the court reporters, we'll probably go for another 45 minutes. Do you want a break before then? I don't see any affirmative. Oh, you do? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're okay? Just want to make sure. MS. NOTTINGHAM: Even though I'm slow and old. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Terri said that. I didn't. I'm teasing you. It's called motivation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray -- and I guess this is going to be for you because -- I mean, there has to be some additional impact to the site. I mean, there's -- boats are going to need servicing. You have the -- I'll be polite -- the honey wagon coming in to take the pump -out station. So is this all set up properly? Is there -- we did get some neighbors who were concerned that -- and I could see why -- that one parking lot might become the parking lot for guests of people who are going out on boats and stuff. So have you studied this site plan and you feel that there's enough parking, enough everything for service trucks, fire department access, and maintenance and guests or whatever? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitions before us today do not include the review of a Site Development Plan. That is a subsequent development order. And we will review it at the time to make sure it complies with all applicable codes. But it's not part of this petition, so I didn't review any site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what if those kind of things can't happen? I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: They have to meet it at time of SDP or they can't build. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they would be denied the ability to build it if you're not satisfied? MR. BELLOWS: You can't build anything that isn't consistent with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The one thing is, we had a four -foot walkway, and then you said, well, wait, it has to be five feet because of the ADA. So what your -- that's an outside code that's increasing the size of it. Could any other code increase it? For example, could the emergency /fire department get together and say, wait a minute, we need a much wider area than this. We want to run our new motorized something or other up and down it. Would that cause it to increase in size after it leaves here today? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the subsequent development order would be an SDP or an SDP amendment, depending on what's on the official record, and at that time it will be routed to the fire department, and they will have review comments, and the applicant will have to comply with those review comments, and they certainly cannot do anything (sic) that the boat dock extension or the PDI allows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is, that if there's something dimensional and an authority having jurisdiction, can they increase that, or would it make the project unbuildable? MR. BELLOWS: Any recommendation from another agency cannot -- doesn't give them the ability to get a variance from the county or deviate from county standards. They would have to either amend their approval if they're inconsistent in some way, or if they are consistent, certainly they can be able to work with those review agencies and find out a way to comply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So let me give you an example. If they say they need nine feet, not eight feet, you wouldn't change it to nine. They would just have the hardship that they can't build it because they need nine feet. MR. BELLOWS: If they're shown and the plans are approved at eight feet, then that's what they get. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Approved during this process? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That will close the public hearing, and I need to ask some questions of Heidi about procedure from this point, and then we'll need to go into motions, discussions, whatever this board wants to do. Heidi, we have two issues in front of us, one is the PDI, which we'll do first, and the other is the BDE. The Page 83 of 94 ................. . 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 PDI, if there's a motion to approve the PDI, how does that impact the BDE in regards to what is on the PDI? For example, the PDI's very specific in the way the graphic is shown. It shows the layout of the docks that are here today. If we approve the PDI but we want to change the layout, can we do so, or does the PDI lock us into a general graphic that's shown on the PDI that's in front of us today? You need to bring the mike -- we can't hear you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sorry. If you don't want to approve the layout that's proposed in the boat dock extension, it looks to me that the site plan that they've given you as the master plan does reflect what's on the DBE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you don't want to approve that, then I would suggest that it just show the area of where boat docks would go if approved. So that could be modified to put a label, boat docks will go here, you know, if approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the detail that's on this particular site plan -- thank you for putting that up, Ray -- it more or less would be another hatched area from the north to the south that shows the general area that boat docks could be approved as a PDI? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the BDE we would handle right after that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does it make sense to do the BDE first without the PDI? I think the answer's no. So we are kind of forced into doing that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, because I think you need the -- you know, you need the zoning first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if we turn down the PDI, does that mean the BDE is a done deal? I mean, there's no further -- it's over with because of the fact that it didn't get approved on this master plan? I mean, there's a potential of a negative. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I think you need both. I think you need both. So if you were to deny it, then the applicant would have to decide if they want to submit a different type of petition relating to the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the motion maker is inclined to acknowledge that some docks are permissible, some plan, then the motion would have to really be that this particular PDI be approved subject to a clarification that the dock locations be crosshatched or signified on here but not the detail that's on here today? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we get into the BDE, and any particulars on that one, then, would then allow something to happen in the area that is shown? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, may I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think if you were -- if for some reason the PDI is denied, we have the right to appeal that. So I think you also need to vote on the boat dock extension as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what she said. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I thought she said it would -- you would -- if you denied the PDI, you wouldn't even go to the boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. no. I thought she said we still do both. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that whoever makes the motion understands the ramifications of the motion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I misunderstood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other discussion on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- someone want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, Mark. Page 84 of 94 1 ,. 1b 12 A4 March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's Heidi. Heidi, have you ever reviewed to see if there is an access easement of 250 feet up that waterway? Remember when they showed the old plats, there's the impression that that waterway has been given to the public via easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Via plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The plat that you brought out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, which I still have them. I can give them to Heidi if she wants. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, I didn't -- no, I did not review that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you don't know if, in fact, that statement is correct that there is today the public access, an easement through that area of 250 feet wide? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't have any independent knowledge other than what Mr. Strain put on the visualizer and said that it was not vacated, because we were told the rest of it was vacated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it doesn't say easement. It doesn't say that waterway's an easement. It says it's a waterway. And the way it reads on the plat -- and if the plat's not valid, then someone certainly needs to tell me. I'm only going by the document that's recorded against this, and it says, the -- has caused to be made this plat entitled "Wiggins Pass Landings, Unit No. 1," and does hereby dedicate the streets, easements, and waterways as shown on the attached plat to the perpetual use of the public for proper purposes and uses shown thereon. Now, the waterway is called out on the plat. If someone's got it over there, you can put it on there. It doesn't say the waterway's an easement, because it went further than that. It just platted it as -- for the public use. If that's not a legal way to do it, then someone needs to tell us, because it's a recorded plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then here's my question. That plat today has been amended. It doesn't exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's only -- it was amended only -- and I -- if you give me a few minutes, I can give you the amendment. I actually pulled it and read it, because I —when I did my search, I found all that information. And the amendment amended it to remove the subdivision but specifically left the language about the waterway. I've just got to find it so you'll -- I certainly want you to have a level of comfort, Brad. So I'd rather you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll take a five- minute break. Let the girls relax, and you can find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do it. Let's take a break till 5:15. How's that? I'll move fast. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're back on record. The document has been found. I gave it to Ray, and I don't know where it is now. MR. BELLOWS: County Attorney has it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What the document says, it vacated the plat, so Wiggins Pass, Unit 1, then there was a legal description it referred to. The legal description was less than accepted, 250- foot -wide waterway, and it provided a legal description for that waterway. The problem is, I didn't track that legal description, but there's a graphic that shows where the legal description lies. We can -- and it's a recorded document, so - -'98 something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that means that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she'll tell you what it means. I mean, I'm -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, based on what I'm looking at, the Plat Book 10, Page 44 for the Wiggins Pass Landings, Unit No. 1 that Mr. Strain put up on the visualizer, yes, there is a 250 -foot waterway. It does appear that was dedicated for public use in 1970. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Now, you know, we don't have the benefit of a title search, to look at the documents like Mr. Grant did when Mr. Grant did his opinion before the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners when he said all this property was under the ownership of the developer. It would seem to me that there would be some easement rights out there for the public and, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, yeah. I mean -- so all these kayakers and everybody that's -- I mean, we would be denying them access to the areas we're sticking these boat docks and the area behind that. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't know that that's true. You know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they'll bump into them. Page 85 of 94 1612 44 March 1, 2012 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It would appear that there may be an easement for waterway usage that's up to 250 feet. Now, under easement law, the owner can use the land in a way that's not inconsistent with their -- with the easement use. You know, you're getting into some private rights issues potentially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intention of an easement is to -- for example, an access easement, if I'm given that, I can't build a building in the middle of it because it's no longer a good access. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right, because a building would be inconsistent with the access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if I have the use of 250 feet of waterway, I can't build a bunch of docks in it. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I can't answer that question for you. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: Heidi, but is it an easement? Isn't it just dedicated waterway? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, somebody has to own the fee - simple ownership. And the case law that I've read in these dedications is that unless it's very clear that fee simple is conveyed, then only an easement is conveyed. So I tend to take conservative opinions, and when I've looked at these kind of things that we've had in Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City and so forth, I've taken the position that it would have conveyed an easement. There are some people that might have a different opinion, but my opinion is it would convey an easement interest because it doesn't specifically say "in fee simple." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then in the -- to answer Brad's question, do you have any concern that this waterway is not usable by the public based on any action we could be taking today? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think that the applicant's demonstrated sufficient rights to go forward and request a boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. I'm just -- want to make sure. Anybody else? Okay. Does anybody -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question. Tim? Sorry. MR. HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the staff report, the very first page, 1 of 14, it says the waterway varies from 150 to 471 feet. MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The canal is not that far, so you're going where, to the mean water line? MR. HALL: This is done -- it's a Collier County staff report, so they're going to use the Collier County definition of the waterway, which is the mean high -water line. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, did you measure that? I mean, that's got to be scene from Papillion (phonetic) or something, you wandering around. MR. HALL: There was a surveyor (sic) done -- yeah, there was a survey done of the mean high -water line. That's why you get that crazy shape right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have about 25 minutes to finish this up, and we have two motions to make and discuss. So if we don't get moving, we're not going to finish it today. We will be leaving this room at ten minutes to six because somebody else has it. So I need someone to consider a motion. Does that mean there's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make the motion to approve PDI- PL2012 -159, Dunes PUD. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion was made by Ms. Homiak, seconded by Melissa. Now, we had talked about making it subject to a general area in which docks may be considered, and that language was considered. Are you accepting that as part of the request to make your motion, or are you just making it pursuant to exactly what's on that master plan or what? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you want to take this out and not be specific, just mark the area for the master plan. Page 86 of 94 16 12 A h 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm suggesting -- I would strongly suggest that we don't be specific in case we want to change the dock plan on the BDE. That's why I would suggest that we use general language to describe the area in which the dock can be, and that's what I'm suggesting. But you're the motion maker. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well, I'll amend my motion to take out the specific -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Layout. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- layout of the dock area in the master plan and just, I guess -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Indicate. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- that area -- indicate that area on the length of the manmade waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a general area in which a dock could be -- might be approved? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VONIER: I'd like her to restate it a little bit more clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll take a shot at it for you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The area --just --the general --the area that has already specifically -- specifically out of the docks, just takeout the specificity in just that area --just mark that area. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Manmade waterway? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, why don't you take a shot at summarizing the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest that where the docks are shown now is the general area in which we will consider docks to go in the future based on the BDE that we finally approve or disapprove, whatever happens with that. But that's the general area in which the docks will go as a "may," not a "shall." And that's what I'm suggesting. Is that -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It doesn't have anything to do with the number of slips that were suggested? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why it's being worded this way because -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Quite to the contrary, in my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's correct, because I think there's going to be a lot of discussion about the docks themselves, and I don't want to be locked in, and I don't want any of us to be locked in to this plan, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. But aren't we also amending the master plan to show the movement of a boardwalk, stuff like that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I was going to ask you if you could leave the boardwalk where it is with the note that it's eight feet, because that's what was permitted. And then you can -- we have the note on there that talks about the location, and you might want to say "general configuration." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't got to my stipulations yet, but I did have stipulations, a couple of them specific to the PDI if it were to be approved. And besides the change in the configuration of the docks to be a generalized area for a possibility, I also would suggest that it require the storage area that's being shown on the master plan, which is a little stub out over by one of the residential tracts, to be outside the preserve area. So that means you've got to cut a notch out of the preserve area, and you've got to move it into a common area. That's rather simple to do with the excess preserve that you have. And No. 2, to save you the concern over the preservation -- or conservation easement, to go ahead and put a note on the master plan that says the boardwalk will be -- or the access -way will be eight feet; that way you're locked into eight feet, which covers Brad's concern about other agencies, and you're covered when the conservation easement gets enacted for that language to the LDC. And those are the only two items I had that pertain to the PDI. So the motion -- and I'll ask for the motion maker, after I restate it, to amend it if they're willing -- is to provide a generalized area on the plan that shows where a dock may be considered through a boat dock application. And, second, to show that the new location of the boardwalks are on there and that the boardwalk will be no greater than eight feet wide; and, third, the location that's shown for the pump -out sewage center will be outside of the preserve area. Is there anything that I missed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. How can you throw that onto somebody else's property? Page 87 of 94 X612 �4 ' March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Throw what onto somebody else's property? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The pump house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not doing that. They'll just redraw the preserve line around it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then that will -- isn't that one thing you can't do with an insubstantial change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if you go over five acres. This is right next to the edge of the preserve. It would only take a tenth of an acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then who gets it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to go with the dock association. They're going to have responsibility for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not worried about it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So I amend my motion to include those last three stipulations that you CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Do you second? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain? MR. HALL: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. I just -- I had one concern with the limitation to eight feet. There is a turnaround and a pull -out on that boardwalk -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MR. HALL: -- that is wider. And if you just say eight feet only, if you could allow for those two allowances, we'd appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with that. That was the intention. Does the motion maker have any -- well those are whatever they need to be on the drawings. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I make that amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you accept it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the eight foot is excepting out the turnout required areas that are shown in the drawings. Now, is there any other issues with the PDI? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- we're going to call for the vote. Before we do, is there any further comments? I have one. I am going to vote in favor of the PDI, but I want it to be noted that it's not as an acknowledgment that I accept the PDI process that we went through today as the right process for that project. So it's just the way to get to it from a -- it's just a way to get to the end of the discussion so we can move on to the next one, for me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I -- may I make a comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I will not be voting for the PDI because the fear of when the SDP comes, we don't know when it's going to come, and they can do it at a time when there are no seagrasses around -- I mean, this one is very crucial, and it's not like a normal PUD amendment. And this is so environmentally sensitive. I just -- the seagrass and the SDPI (sic) on this, there's too many questions on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. Page 88 of 94 w t 12 A4 March 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion carries 5 -4. I'll just do that one more time so we're clear. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. Okay. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same four. Okay. Let the record reflect the vote. With that we'll move on to the boat dock extensions. Does anybody have a recommendation on the boat dock extension? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would suggest that we take the compromise offered by the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to make that a motion then? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney has made a motion to accept the compromise offered by the Conservancy. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's interesting. The biggest problem I have is I think it's an extremely unsafe layout the way it is. It's a major, you know, 3,000, 3,500 -foot dead -end boathouse thing. And, obviously, I guess, if I voted no on the one before, why would I ever vote yes on the boat dock? So that's my opinion. That's an interesting thought to reduce it to protect the seagrass, which is my problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Melissa. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aren't we protecting that when it goes through the process? If they're existing, they have to reduce already? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We can't hear you. COMMISSIONER AHERN: He made a comment that -- to take the Conservancy's layout that it would reduce the size and protect the seagrasses. My question back was, wouldn't that already take place in the current process? Because if they go forward and there's seagrasses, they'd have to reduce it anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my response is I'm not a big fan of the process. Terms like at the final SDP you have to show everything, or before you get an SDP -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you have to show everything, which means we shouldn't be here today, Page 89 of 94 • .j 1612 A4 March 1, 2012 because they should have showed the boat docks or where they're going to put them. Look what we did in the last motion, we put "potential boat dock" area, which is what they should have done all along. So the point is don't trust the process, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER AHERN: But I would also state that there's -- and especially now with everybody revising their projects, we're adding so many various uses, you're never going to show them all. When you go through SDP, you're never going to show all the uses that you were approved for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think when you're in the SDP, all cards should be up, nothing in your back pocket when you walk out of the SDP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad, that is kind of what I was saying on this SDP process. It just does not -- it does not sit well with me at all, in this particular one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. There's a good example of why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had prepared some stipulations on the condition that we would have a boat dock approval of some type. I firmly believe that they have a right to some boat docks. I don't think the plan that's in front of us today is consistent with a whole mess of levels of our -- both GMP and our LDC, but I think a plan could be worked out that would get us to a consistency position. Some of the things that would happen at the same time would be better for the area. I think they volunteered to leave the draft at 2.5 feet, which the South Florida permit did, even though the Corps permit didn't. I'd want to see that reflected. That the overall length of the boats is -- they're no greater than 35 feet, not just the boat. That's a big difference. There are going to be no canopies. The seagrass notation that appears on Tim's plans that refer to when they submit for building permit, I would suggest that get removed on all of the plans. The -- because it's too ambiguous. You'll have to submit it to whatever extent the code requires you to at the time you do. I don't care what your notation says. The conservation easement language, I think we resolved that by clarifying where the sewage treatment plant -- or sewage treatment area was going to be, or that house, and then the eight -foot reference on the master plan. I think the area -- the CCA issue involving the application at the time of building permit needs to be resolved from the agencies to see what they intended when they restricted it to that way. I would also suggest -- and, Ray, could you put that plan I just gave you out? That the dock configuration -- no, that's the Conservancy's -- that the dock configuration change to the benefit of the seagrasses. What I'm suggesting is the only remaining portion would be the perpendicular docks, and that's why I asked for 15 feet to know where the clearance would be, that the marginal dock, as they're calling it now, the terminal platform as it's seemingly defined, gets moved out to the 25- percent mark and it becomes a five -foot wide access walkway with railing on both sides with no dockage parallel to it. And that happens in both the north and south area. Now, that leaves the perpendicular docks as docks that they can use. It protects the seagrass beds the maximum possible by being out as far as it can be away from those beds so that the potential of the last remaining seagrass beds in that area can survive. So that's the plan that I would suggest that -- that's why I couldn't support the Conservancy's plan. The maximum width of the walkways in that area will be four feet unless the ADA requires a greater width. And if it does, it's the minimum width the ADA requires. There'll be no dredging and no riprap and there'll be no fueling at the docks. And that's the stipulations that I'm suggesting. For that reason, I can't support the Conservancy's plan. I think the Conservancy's plan is a good plan, but I think this one's better because the length of area that the access boardwalk is -- from the north to the south, it's left in the Conservancy plan, and it's still closer to the seagrass beds than I think it should be. I think the farther we can push that away from the seagrass beds in this case -- it might be 15, 20 feet -- we'd be in much better shape for those beds' survival rate. So that's my suggestion on -- well, anyway, that's what my statement is. I can't support your motion. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark, I'd like to say something. I do agree with you. I think we would be well advised to think about moving all of the finger piers close to the access -- to the walkway, even if we suffer a little punishment to the seagrass in that area. I think extending that long walkway is an unnecessary procedure. I don't think we need to run those finger piers all the way south. I think the closer you move to the access dock the better off you're going to be. Page 90 of 94 1612 N Arch, 2012 And as I say, you might impact some of the seagrass in that area, but I think I'd rather protect the larger part of the seagrass with having no walkways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have is our rules don't allow us, that I can find, to impact that seagrass to that extent. So I can't -- myself, I couldn't vote for that, because in my mind it would be inconsistent with the code. I keep trying to find something consistent with the strict language of the code, and that's -- this is a scenario I came up with. I mean, it's just mine. Anybody else could -- if anybody else has another scenario, that's fine. It doesn't meet all the needs of the applicant, it doesn't meet all the requests of the public, but it's the best scenario I could find in my mind. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm just going to state for the record that that is a denial of the petition because without the riprap and without the dredging, we have zero docks. So just -- you know, I understand your motivation, but those last two conditions mean there's no docks. And if your intent was to give us something, you gave us nothing with that proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just stating it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just wait a minute. The way I read your documents is the riprap and the dredging only occurred along the parallel moorings. It didn't occur in the finger docks. I mean, you actually show a detail of it along there every 100 feet or every 100 foot blocks. So now you're telling me that's not the dredging that you're proposing to do? MR. HALL: Yeah -- no. The cross - sections clearly show with the finger piers that there's dredging done on some of the finger piers as well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark, suggestion. Can we take a vote on the motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's take a vote on the motion. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- and the second, and then if that fails, we can go on to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just stating my reason to not support the motion. It's not a bad motion. The Conservancy always -- I mean, most of the time they have very good ideas, so I'm not saying it's wrong. It's just -- it's not as good as I want to be, and I still find it inconsistent as far as the maximum protection to the seagrass beds in all the areas. So I won't support it. Is there any other -- anybody else have any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll do it by show of hand. All those in favor -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What's the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to support the Conservancy's plan. Mr. Midney made the motion, Mr. Brougham seconded it. Does that -- is that -- does that read right? Does everybody understand it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two in favor, three in favor. Okay. All those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion fails 6 -3. Is there another motion? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well, I'll make a motion that we deny the BDE as currently submitted. Page 91 of 94 Aar 1612M ch 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Brougham to deny the BDE as currently submitted, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I would like a response back on the dredging from Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- the current motion has -- oh, you mean before you decide on this motion? COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim. MR. HALL: Yeah. And I apologize. My -- the permit exhibits that I have are not going to show this clearly at all, but it does show a -- I don't -- I mean, I don't have anything that you're even going to be able to see from the permit drawings. The -- they're not legible with the -- showing the dredge area, but it was about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how would I understand, then, that you intended to do that in the perpendicular? Because I was not trying -- my concern was where I saw the dredging on the plans I did -- that were clear, it showed the dredging in the areas to accommodate the parallel dockage. And when I met with you -all, I told you I had concerns about the parallel dockage right from the beginning. It's not the finger piers I have the concern about. So if we were -- I would have no problem allowing the dredging and riprap where the finger piers are going to go, but I did not want to see it happen in any other area. So that was my intention. MR. HALL: Okay. And I understand that. I know that it's shown -- on the cross - sections that are part of your submittal, there's a finger pier cross - section that does show the dredging there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Oh, I didn't see that. Okay. But my intention from my part of it -- that plan that I'm showing you there, the intention was to eliminate the dredging and the riprap in the areas shown in pink. I didn't realize you had it in the other areas, and those areas don't concern me because of the depth of those areas. It's more the areas in pink. MR. HALL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were closer to the seagrass beds in the other areas. But, anyway, that's just my intention. I'm not -- it has nothing to do with the motion on the floor. The motion on the floor was to deny the boat dock extension. It was seconded. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd like to give a reason, that I don't think it protects the seagrasses as our GMP and our Land Development Code does. I do think that the waterways should be investigated -- you know, but it's a public waterway. At least by estoppel, the public is intending to use that. As it turns out, with that plat that came up, it might even be set aside for the public. And we do need to come up with reasons why we're -- you have others, Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would also like to comment. I made that motion based upon the fact that I don't believe, of the primary criteria that Item No. -- Criteria No. 3 and Criteria No. 4 have been met. I question whether Criteria 1 has been met or not. On a secondary criteria, I don't feel that Criteria 4 and Criteria 5 have been met, particularly as concerns the seagrass. And as I read the staff report and so forth, all of the boathouse criteria, all six must be met. And in the staff report they state the Criteria 6 is not met. So, therefore, based on all of those factors, I made the motion to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason why I'll be supporting the motion is because of the changes to the view, changes to the navigation and the congestion of the waterway, changes to the seagrass, which the dredging will be unavoidable, do serious damage to, and safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll just add the reason I will not support that is because I do think the Dunes has a right to boat docks. Maybe the current design is not the best and some work could be done on that. And I'd agree with some of your compromises, but I do think they have a right to have boat docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? Page 92 of 94 3 1 b Mach 1, 2012 COMMISSIONER VONIER: I will agree with Melissa. I think the Dunes has a right to some boat docks, just not in accordance with the plan submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about -- Brad, did you having something else that you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment. I think a yes vote is an outstanding vote for an Outstanding Florida Waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's do this by hands again and information. All those in favor of the motion for denial, signify by raising your hand or saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. Five in favor. Those against the motion? COMMISSIONER VONIER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER AHERN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four against the motion. Okay. The motion succeeds as far as a denial goes. That's a denial on the boat docks but an affirmation on the master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we have finished the boat dock hearings and the Dunes issues. And we have to continue this meeting to 6th of March in this room at 9 o'clock in the morning. Ray, did you have anything? MR. BELLOWS: Can we respecify which petitions are going on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was getting there. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The petitions that will be continued till the -- in the -- this is the order in which they'll be heard on March 6th, will be RZ- PL20110001572, SSP Associates, Inc.; CPSS2011 -1, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict; and then after that we will go into the balance of the EAR, both hearing and consent agenda. Been -- is there a motion to continue? MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: Can you also note on the record that the other item, the Wahl variance and boat dock are going to the 15th. Just to -- I know it's on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, I'll be glad to. The last two items on our agenda that were noted to be continued to March 15th will be on that date as well, but they'll be after the ones I just announced. Oh, no. I'm sorry, March 15th is another week away -- VA- PL2011 -1410, the Wahl variance, and DBE- PL20 1 1 000 1 409. I don't even know where that is, but those two will be continued until March 15, 2012. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I make a -- you know, I won't be here on the 6th, but I am leaving in the afternoon. Would it be okay if you did the EAR first? Because I'll come in in the morning early and do that. And the only reason I'm asking that is there is that stuff from the housing department we worked out that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's an easy way to resolve that. Is anybody here objecting to do the EAR first on the 6th? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're all gone, so let's move the EAR up first on the 6th, and then we'll go into the other two regulars. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can cover that. Page 93 of 94 I:. y; 1612 A4 r March 1, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sounds good. MR. HALL: That helps me out, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Melissa. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VONIER: By Bill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: 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: Motion carries, thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION �'U' � "� MARK TRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on _q';- 1 , as presented 1,�or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 94 of 94 16V.?t A4 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12 -_O �___ A RESOLUTION DENYING PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL2010- 979 FOR A 261 -FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FEET ALLOWED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 281 FEET FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE WHICH WILL ALLOW A NEW DOCKING FACILITY OF APPROXIMATELY 11,300 SQUARE FEET OF OVER WATER STRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE 49 BOAT SLIPS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE DUNES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 11495 VANDERBILT BEACH DRIVE IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 261 -foot extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow a 281 -foot protrusion for an 11,300 -foot boat dock facility on submerged lands adjacent to the Dunes Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number BDE- PL2010 -979, filed on behalf of Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd by Timothy Hall of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: See Exhibit "A" Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd/ BDE- PL2010 -979 3/05/12 Page 1 of 2 1612 A4 be and the same is hereby DENIED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this I S day of CA--, L, ��_ , 2012. ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, Deput inistrator Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: P (, /I (-, - Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A — Legal Description CP\ 10- CPS - 01042 \72 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark P. Strain, Chairman Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd/ BDE- PL2010 -979 3/05/12 Page 2 of 2 16f2 All of Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1 Addition, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 10, at Page 81 of the Public Records of Collier County. Florida, and all of Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1', according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 10, at Page 44 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 4 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1 Addition; thence N.89 052'20 "W. along the southerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 599.96 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 4, the same being the southeast corner of Lot 10, Block 1 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1: thence N.89 °52'20 "W. along the southerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No. 1, a distance of 1400.65 feet to the southwest corner of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.00 °14'00 "W. along the westerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, a distance of 1608.90 feet; thence N.34 026'15 "E. along said westerly line, a distance of 439.48 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.87148100 "E. along said northerly line, a distance of 1481.48 feet to the northeast corner of lot 3, block 3 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence S.02 012'00 "E. a distance of 163.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 3 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1; thence N.87 °48'00 "E. a distance of 200.00 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence S.02 012'00 "E. along the easterly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, a distance of 668.16 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said'Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1, the same being the northeast corner of lot 1 of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1 Addition; thence S.02112'00 "E. along the easterly line of said Wiggins Pass Landings Unit No.1 Addition, a distance of 1209.93 feet to the point of beginning, parcel contains 88.56 acres, more or less. Exhibit A 16 12 h4 RESOLUTION NO. 12 — tJ L A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER PDI - PL2012 -159 FOR INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DUNES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPICTING THE AREA WHERE DOCKS MAY BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPLICATION IN THE MANMADE PARTION OF THE WATERWAY LABELLED "CONSERVATION EASEMENT/WATERWAY" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11495 VANDERBILT DRIVE IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Master Plans in accordance with Subsections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2.a.4 of the Land Development Code of Collier County; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly elected constituted Planning Commission for the area hereby affected, has held a duly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of Petition No. PDI— PL2012 -159, insubstantial changes as shown on the revised Dunes Planned Unit Development Master Plan, being Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2000 -74. The Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2.a.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Master Plan do not change the amount of acreage to be retained for preservation, conservation, recreation or open space; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented. Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. / PDI- PL2012 -159 Rev. 3/30/12 1 of 2 16 12 A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Petition Number PDI- PL2012 -159 filed on behalf of Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. by Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples, be and the same is hereby approved for an insubstantial change to the PUD Master Plan having the effect of revising the Master Plan to depict the area where docks may be considered through a boat dock extension application in the manmade portion of the waterway labeled "Conservation Easement /Waterway ". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number PDI - PL2012 -159 be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this f <�+ day of fflCLr-C)A , 2012. ATTEST: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Xdministrator Growth Management /Planning & Regulation Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: ^ LLA k- Vfo H idi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A — PUD Master Plan 12 -CPS- 01144 \41 Vanderbilt Partners II, Ltd. / PDI- PL2012 -159 Rev. 3/30/12 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Mark 1. Strain, Chairman ....................... PRESERVE i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I • ..- .- ..•...•.•(�'�.•- •- .- -.•• -- d . . . . . _ . . . . A �Nr1v4 - I o TT 150 ]oo •� • _ _ ]l,]6 SC�UF IN FFFt PRESERVE 11 . . . . . . _ _ _ _ LEGEND . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ •�li WETLAND /UPLAND PRESERVE } _ _ _ _ ✓. ®CONSERVATION EASEMENT/ WATERWAY I I PART OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT /• WATERWAY WHERE DOCKS MAY BE CONSIDERED THROUGH A BOAT DOCK EXTENSION APPLICATION . . . . • LAND USE AREAS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION/ CHANGE PRIOR i0 CONSTRUCTION V I I PERMITTING. PRESERVE — . . . . . . _ . . NOTE: TO 9 DOALK' r0 DOCK CK FACILITY _ .. � THE AREA DEPICTED AS CONSERVATION EASEMENT /WATERWAY WILL ALLOW THE TURN AROUND PULL -OVER AREA AREA 1 PRO.ECr ACCESS USE OF THE CONSERVATION • " . " " _ _ . '�` EASEMENT /WATERWAY FOR BOATING . . _ . . I �° AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. _ . . . . . . . I NO BOAT DOCKS SHALL BE PERMITTED " . m WITHIN WATER TURKEY BAY. THE BOAT . ' ' ' ' _ I- WILL BE AN ACCESSORY USE 1 . TO TO RESIDENTIAL. �-- I im ■ ! ■ II R2 R3 ■ \ %Awwwwwas�• DIKE AFEA •� •-�BLUEBILL �� AVENUE --- —��•J� ----------------------------------------------------------------- PUD MASTER PLAN - EXHIBIT A THE DUNES — PUD sxFrF I PUD MASTER PLAN II — ` oA2 EXHIBIT A ,.,,.�,Nl. --xiu . o °`,`;o,,,.,,. °"° ..._.....- _.�_.._�_� -lame Ca� 16 12 A4 March 15, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 15, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Bill Lorenz, Land Development Services Director Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton - Cicko, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 87 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain William H. Vonier Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Karen Homiak Diane Ebert Barry Klein Phillip Brougham Melissa Ahern (present after the luncheon recess.) 1612 14 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. If everybody will please take their seats. Welcome to the Thursday, March 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. As we get into the discussion of the agenda, I will relay to you how complicated today's meeting's going to be. So please rise to be -- yeah, to be sworn in -- yeah, for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Vonier? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Midney is not here yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He usually shows up right -- a couple minutes after. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern will be late. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Present. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Addenda to the agenda. One item that has been at least timed for convenience -- there's an item on our agenda, two of them for the Wahl variance. It's a boat dock extension and a variance request on the Isles of Capri. In order to save members of the public who may be here wanting to attend that and the applicant, we will not hear that before one clock. Now, that doesn't mean we're going to hear it at one, but I can tell by the amount of work we have to do this morning on the Lost Grove Mine, we won't be hearing the Wahl issues until sometime after one o'clock today. So if you're here for that one, at least you can relax until then. And I don't believe there's any other addenda to the agenda. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is our regularly monthly -- scheduled monthly meeting in the first week of April. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? COMNIISSIONER KLEIN: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll be here? Thanks Barry. We need that. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I buy dessert today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Paul Midney is now here. I told you, two minutes after. Paul, hi. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Last time we had a continuation of a meeting on March 6th, and not everybody was here, so I want to repeat some issues that were brought up at that date. On April 12th we have a special meeting on the Master Mobility Plan, and we were going to try to go into the LDC amendments that afternoon. I have been told this room is booked that afternoon, so we can't do that. So on April 12th we will have a meeting just in the morning, then we'll come back on April 13th and have an all -day meeting on the LDC amendments, or at least the first round. We'll probably have several meetings on these, but that would be the first. And then on June 19th -- and if anybody has problems with these dates, just please try to let me know. On June 19th from nine to noon we will have a second meeting on the Mobility Master Plan. It will be just one of those Page 2 of 87 16 I A4 March 2012 phasing introductory, up -to- speed -type meetings, so that will just be three hours. Now, we're trying to schedule special meetings between our regular meetings; that way if we have an LDC meeting or a Master Mobility Plan meeting, we can do it on an off week. Hopefully we can have more time to study it then. That's why -- those dates in some cases are picked; other cases that's the only time this room is open. So that's the only things, I believe. Bill, do you remember anything else -- that covers most everything to date, doesn't it? MR. LORENZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I know we're looking at more dates for LDC, but I don't recall if we have any yet. MR. LORENZ: We don't have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next up is the approval of minutes. We had the minutes dispersed electronically January 26th. And we'll start with that one. Does anybody want to make a motion or changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Homiak. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Second one is the February 16, 2012, regular meeting. Is there a motion or changes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just Mr. Vonier's name was spelled incorrectly throughout there. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, do you have -- do you know the correct spelling of the name now? I don't know if it was you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That wasn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't you? Aha. Wait till Cherie comes back. Okay. You want to make a motion to approve subject to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Subject to that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Ebert. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. Page 3 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 13th the Board of Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Sabal Bay. They approved it 5 -0 subject to the CCPC conditions, plus they made a modification to the ALF use. They required a Type C buffer to be placed on the tract where there is an ALF if an ALF is developed. The Type C buffer would add an additional tree buffering at 14 feet height, I believe, was what they stipulated. And I believe they may have altered the height of the building somewhat. Maybe Kay can elaborate on the height of the building. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem. Yes, they incorporated a Type C buffer for any ALF use that is along U.S. 41 frontage, and they changed the height of the ALF use in the overall PUD to 60 feet zoned and 75 feet actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what was it prior to that? I can't recall. MS. DESELEM: I want to say 80 and 90. That runs in my mind. I'm not certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This board's job is to try to ferret out all the issues and give the Board of County Commissioners the best complete package that we can. How did these issues come up? Was it something we should have known about? MS. DESELEM: My understanding is the applicant met with the commissioners and offered the height reduction up front. So, I mean, we would have had no knowledge of that offer on the table. And then as they were doing their final motion, and they were talking about the D buffer, it was just a discussion that came up that they would rather see a C, so they changed it to a C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure if we can find out ways that we can provide a more complete package, things that are missing, we will do it, so -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: If I might, I watched the meeting on Tuesday, and there was comment that the application was in conformance with the Land Development Code requirements as to buffering and setbacks and so forth, so there wasn't any dispute about that, but they were concerned about the height of the building along U.S. 41, and that got into the discussion where the Type C buffer came into play and was brought up by Mr. Coyle, and everyone agreed to it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Kay. MR. BELLOWS: The board also approved the PUD amendment for Tuscany Reserve on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you. Chairman's report. Well, my issues are going to deal mostly with the activities we have today, so I'll just -- as we open up each one, I'll present my issues on that. So let's move forward, then, into the consent agenda. Oh, there is one thing in chairman's report. Actually, it's more important than some of these things. Diane Ebert, Heidi Ashton, and Steve Williams in the back and Jeff Klatzkow, who is hiding somewhere, have all had birthdays in this past week or so. So, congratulations. Happy Birthday to all of you. It's good to hear. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Diane actually did some cooking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah --no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at some point today I'm sure we'll enjoy what she concocted. So Happy Birthday, everyone. The first thing up today is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is on the Dunes PUD. It's PDI- PL2012 -159. Consent agenda items are purely for the acknowledgment that the direction given to staff by our stipulations and the vote on a particular item are relayed correctly in the paperwork that follows that eventually goes on to record. So there isn't a public process for this as far as public speakers. It's purely acknowledgment that what we Page 4 of 87 k 1612 MarcAh 15, 2012 voted on is on the page. There may be some confusion over that because I understand there was a news article that may have led people to think differently, but that is the rules. 4 So with that in mind, the consent agenda on PDI- PL2012 -159, the Dunes PUD, we all have it in our packet. Does anybody have any comments about the graphic? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I just wanted to make sure, the only thing I received is the Exhibit A in two scales; is that all we all got? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's what I got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I got it in one scale. I don't know about -- I got one Exhibit A in one scale -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then a large plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh that, I'm sorry. Yeah, the big one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all I got also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question is these changes to Exhibit A. I don't remember any of that being part of the vote. First of all, I think any document that is changed, the dates and all that should be changed in the title block and everything, and note what the change would have been for, so that's confusing that they didn't do that. Secondly, they added an area that I don't remember us ever discussing whether that's the area that we would be allowed to have a boat dock through a boat dock extension application. They -- they add some notes to the boardwalk and stuff like that. But the problem is I don't remember any conversation of amending this exhibit or certainly amending it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That was the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That we were expecting them to draw in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was specifically what was said. We wanted them -- instead of showing a dock configuration, which we were concerned that we'd be bound to if they showed it that way, we requested they put a cross - hatched area in to show the general area in which they may be allowed to have a boat dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was voted on 5 -4, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what we got then, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was -- yeah, I thought it explicitly met our intention from the vote. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, this is not a vote to say "yea" or "nay" for the docks. It's simply to acknowledge that this is consistent with the direction provided by the motion. So all those in favor of this consent agenda item, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I voted against it originally, so I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That has nothing to do with the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So we're just going to --okay. Page 5 of 87 16 1 U A4 5 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have voted for or against it. This is only acknowledgment that this reflects the intent of the motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The intent of what our votes were last week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So are you voting for this motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am voting for it, the consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion in favor of the consent item is 8 -0. All that does is affirms the direction provided in the original vote. And that's it for the consent agenda items, and that's it for the Dunes. ** *Next item up is the advertised public hearing. And this is one that has grown to be -- take a record from what my -- at least my sitting on this board. We've never had so many meetings over one item that I can recall. This is CU- PL2009 -1412, Alico Land Development, Inc. 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 affinnative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. Start with Mr. Vonier. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Staff, including the county school staff, and the attorney for the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. County school staff, you don't mean Tom Eastman, do you? COMMISSIONER VONIER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've had nothing since the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I talked with Nicole and Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have talked with the applicant, their attorneys, and I've talked with Nicole numerous times, and there may have been somebody else. I think Marcia Cravens submitted something. I didn't know what it was until days afterwards, but -- then she submitted it at the last Planning Commission meeting, so that's the best I can remember at this time. Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing since the last time. I think I spoke to Bruce Anderson briefly in this room. Oh, I'm sorry. Nothing since the last time. I think I spoke to Mr. Anderson briefly in this room at one of the meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Ebert. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nicole Johnson's the only one since our last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I have not spoken to anyone since the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Nothing since the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The procedure for today is going to follow as best we can the outline laid out at the last meeting which this was continued from. The applicant is introducing some new expert testimony both in written form and, I believe, in presentation form on acoustics and another one on visual. Because of those presentations, we are going to allow public comment limited strictly to those two items. And if it gets out of hand, we will ask you to sit down and discontinue your discussion. So I'm suggesting, and not strongly suggesting, everybody in the public keep that in mind when you want to talk. We already heard a lot of public input on many of the other items. So I want to make sure today we stay on focus. The intention today is to try to finish today on Lost Grove. After the applicant's presentation, we will have, obviously, questions from the Planning Commission. We will go into public comments. After the last public commenter will be Judge Starnes. I promised him that two or three meetings ago, and we will follow that. The applicant will then have any concluding remarks that they would like to have. At that time the Planning Commission can finish up with its questions. We will then close the public hearing and then go into our discussion and motion. So that's the general outline that we'll follow today. Page 6 of 87 i A4 16 U 15 2012 There is an issue with -- we received an objection to some documentation that was distributed to the Planning Commission at our meeting that we had two weeks ago. That meeting was primarily about the Dunes. But if you recall, we received a package from staff as their distribution for changes to this Lost Grove Mine application, and at the same time a member of the public came up and wanted to distribute something, and she was directed just to distribute it to us. It turned out it was also for the Lost Grove Mine. And then that is, I guess, where the objection from the applicant has risen. And I want to address that up front, because I met with the County Attorney's Office trying to understand if the objection by Mr. Menzies is something we need to uphold or we should, as a board, allow that written record. And, Heidi, do you want to tell us your conclusion on that? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, I would. First of all, I've reviewed all the minutes up to date, and where we are in your process is we are at the rebuttal by the applicant, and all the rebuttal has been concluded except for the issues of noise and sound. So there were two documents that were submitted; one was distributed by the Southwest Growth Coalition, and that was forwarded directly to you, and then there was another document that was submitted by Lee County that went to Ms. Deselem which was a summary of the review of the mining analysis by Gary Dannon Miller. Both of those documents relate to hydrology, and they don't relate to the issues that are before you today of sound and visual. So, therefore, I've opined that they've not been timely submitted. However, your rules do allow you at your discretion to accept documents that you think are necessary to decide the issue. So with that said, I want to disclose that that is available to you; however, I've opined that those documents have not been timely submitted with respect to the issue of hydrology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so we have two sets of documents, one that was distributed to us, although I'm not sure everybody may have read it at the time because it wasn't part of our accepted package prior to that point, and another that apparently came into staff, and I don't even think it's been distributed yet. So let's take them both separately. The first package that we got a couple weeks ago, it was distributed to us informally at this meeting during one of the breaks by a member of the public. I have not reviewed it. Right after it was distributed I saw the objection from Mr. Menzies. Before I reviewed it, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't opening the door to a procedural error by looking at documentation that we may not have had the -- that may not have come through in the right process. It isn't until last night, I think, or yesterday that Heidi mentioned that it could be voted on by this board to be accepted into record if it has a relevance to our decisions involving this case. So I'm going to ask -- I guess ask the panel what they feel they want to do with this information. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I received the document in question; however, I did not review it at all. In fact, I haven't even opened it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't review it, and I think that it's material that we've already covered, and I think that the person who submitted it should have submitted it at the right time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly tend to agree with that statement. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: There's been adequate time for anyone to submit information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm inclining to agree with you -all on this, because it -- to keep this material keep coming in and expecting us to be prepared to go through it four meetings over and over again when we're done with it and focus on new issues coming in -- and the package that we got was pretty intense -- I'd just as soon that we not accept that material into evidence. Does anybody -- if that's the agreement of the board, can I get a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak made a motion. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Brougham. The motion is, just so we understand, is not to accept the package that was distributed to us at our last meeting into evidence, into the record. Is that agreeable with the motion Page 7 of 87 161 z A4 March 15, 2012 maker and second? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 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. Second package comes in under the same auspices. It was a package from Lee County. We have not seen it yet, so it would be hard to know how it would impact our hearing, but at the same time it's one of those issues that could have came in at any time prior to now. If it has to do with acoustics and visual, they need to be here to present their case on that. And if they're here today, fine; they'll be allowed to discuss it. I'm -- myself, I'm inclined to follow what we just did with the first one on the second one. Anybody have any different mindset? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, we have not seen it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll make a motion that we do not accept the second package. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry, made by Mr. Brougham. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 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. Okay. I think that resolves the first objection that was filed by Mr. Menzies. If it doesn't, I certainly would like you to explain to us any concerns that you have if there are any. If I don't see you come up here, I'll assume there aren't any further. Okay. Let's move on to the presentation. I don't know who from your side's going to do it, Mr. Anderson. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. SCHROTENBOER: For the record, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development, the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think his mike's on, Ray. Page 8 of 87 a 16 f AA arch 15, 2012 MR. SCHROTENBOER: Testing. Is that better? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We just need to shorten your height. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Does that work? Testing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not working. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Testing, one, two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's better. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Does that work yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHROTENBOER: That one. Thanks, Ray. Good morning, again. Thank you very much for your continued patience. And I appreciate that that "thank you" is probably getting worn out a little bit. But trust me, I do truly appreciate your continued focus and patience in looking at this and evaluating this application. By your own admittance, it certainly has been an unusual and unorthodox and very complicated application before you; probably one of the most complicated in some time. And we certainly, as you do, look forward to completing this process today in one fashion or another. Although with my words of being unusual and unorthodox and complicated, I think, though -- I think we can truly say that the hearing process has allowed for a tremendous amount of input into this project. Through the public input, your request for additional information, and our responsiveness to that input, I think we certainly have forged a better project in relations to compatibility with the surrounding neighbors than where we were three or four months ago when we started this process. So, once again, thank you for that. I think these changes in demonstrating a better project are demonstrated by the recent changes that you will learn more about today. The elimination of direct access onto Corkscrew Road; the reduction of the mining lake size in itself by 79 acres; the increased setbacks to a minimum of 500 feet in the areas that are most highly populated, and I say that loosely. In the southwest corner, some buffers of over 1,200 feet; an increased height of the perimeter landscape berm to 12 feet; and through what has been a really difficult development of specific operational processes far in advance of where we ever anticipated going, we have learned and are going to utilize additional stockpiles from the overburden and from the aggregate itself to substantially reduce the noise in the surrounding area. And, again, in our presentation, you will hear more specifically about that. Again, all of these responses are because of your input that we have received, and we appreciate that. As I said, later on in just a moment you'll be hearing more specific details about the noise analysis -- and in all due fairness to the consultant, I think it's referred to as an environmental acoustic analysis. I think noise analysis is easier and better -- as well as the visualizations of what could be expected to be seen out at the site in various locations at any given time. These changes that I have briefly run through were communicated with the residents in a neighborhood meeting. On Saturday, February 25th at 9:30 out on the site of Lost Grove Mine, we invited and hosted a neighborhood meeting. Twelve days in advance of the 25th, 67 invitations were sent out to the neighborhood. We used a radius of 1,500 feet from the perimeter boundary in that notification, and there were a total of nine who attended that day. Of the nine, seven were of the 67 that were invited. One resident lived beyond that 1,500 -foot perimeter and found out about it from the neighbor and came, as well as the Conservancy of Southwest Florida had a representative there as well and was most welcome. What we did is we covered the highlights of the proposed changes of the reduction of the access off from Corkscrew Road, we discussed the increased height of the perimeter berms, as well as the reductions and the increased buffers, and through that we had a few questions, but some very good questions, and I think it was a great dialogue. And there was appreciation, at least from the residents who attended, for our willingness to have that meeting and share that information with them ahead of time before it received your desk. While I truly believe the process has been done to forge a better project here, there remains little to no meat left on the bones. And maybe more appropriate for this project, there's little juice left in the orange. At some point one reaches a threshold in maintaining a viable project. My board of directors, shareholders, and I believe we are reaching that threshold. I truly understand the process. You start here, through public input, Page 9 of 87 16 A4 March 15, 2012 willingness, you move here. And it's all a balance. And I think that this process, our responsiveness has shown that balance. The reduction in mineable lakes by some 79 acres is forfeiting over 15 million tons of aggregate. That's over tens of millions of dollars that are being left on the table, but that's not just for Alico. There's also other revenues that are derived from that for the county, for the state, for the federal government but, more importantly, for the public, won't have access to that rock that may be needed sometime in the future. The conditions before you are considered extremely restrictive, probably more conditions and more restrictive than any other application that has come before you, particularly a mining application. Although I don't know Lee County's conditions in all of their mines, I would have a hard time betting that these conditions are even less restrictive than anything they have in Lee County. I think they're more restrictive. And while we are, as a company, fully willing to adhere and comply with these restrictions, there are ramifications with that, and it's increased operating cost and risk that we are placing on ourselves by accepting those conditions. What that does is create an unlevel playing field. Other mines, whether Lee County or Collier County -- JUDGE STARNES: I hesitate to do this, but I raise a point of objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind coming up and stating your objection for the mike. Excuse me, Don. JUDGE STARNES: My name is Hugh Starnes, and I have been an opponent to the application. And my understanding was the purpose of this hearing primarily was -- in the first instance, was for the applicant to present additional evidence on sound, and then they said at the last hearing, and they've added, visual. And he is presenting a final argument and giving the reasons why you should take final action. I think the appropriate procedure is, if they have additional evidence, put it on. And then either as president of Alico he can come up or their attorney can come up and sum up for the entire procedure what he's saying is obviously applicable to that. But the purpose of this hearing is first to present the evidence, and that has to come in before somebody sums up what you should do on the entire project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. JUDGE STARNES: And that's my point of order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objection is noted for the record. I'm going to allow Don to continue as he was. I see this more as a reflection as to an explanation where they stand on the submission that they have remade to provide less intensity on the project. We always seek less intensity. We are a very fluid body in regards to how we want things to happen, and I applaud the fact that we can effect change as we go through the process. So at this point I'm going to allow the testimony to continue. So go ahead. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you, Chairman Strain. I look at it as an introduction to where we're going to get here in a minute. But as I said, it really sets an unlevel playing field as far as competition but something we're willing to take on. Some of you certainly may be taken back by my remarks of capitalism and entrepreneurship. Frankly, I'm sure there's many in the room who just really don't care. But the reality is, it's business and it's economic development. By no means -- absolutely, yes, Alico stands to benefit from this project, as it has made a living from the land that it has owned for over hundreds of years. This is no different. However, not only will Alico benefit, but still will the nation, the region, and the county. At our corporate tax rate of 38 percent, all of our ordinary income, 38 percent of it, goes to the federal government. There's also going to be over 50 percent, over 50 --more than 50 full -time jobs created by that in addition to increased ad valorem taxes to the county as well as transportation fees. But the greatest person or persons that benefit from this is the public. Through the generation of locally processed aggregate that does not have to be shipped into our region, through increased competition with other mines, we're able to keep the cost of building materials and road construction materials down for the public. Lee County's position that they have permitted enough mine supply for the region's aggregate for the next 30 years is simply misleading. Included in that projection are all mineable products that come out; fill, sand, and Page 10 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 aggregate. It's just not aggregate. It also doesn't demonstrate that after 2026 there's only one mine operating; that's monopoly. And we can only anticipate what will happen to the price of rock and the supply of rock if this region is controlled by one mine operator. Alico has always had an evolving long -term vision for this property. Alico and its predecessing founding company, Atlantic Land Improvement Company, for which its acronym comes from, has been in control of this property for over a hundred years. The first 55 years this property was in cattle grazing, and the last 45 years has been a citrus grove. As I mentioned previously, Alico has always made a living off the land that it owns. It's also been considered an excellent land steward. It supports the environmental and the conservations of land. This has been demonstrated by the donations of thousands of acres to the state, as well as donations of CREW land in its initial setting up of the CREW. We are also a very active participant in the Florida Panther Protection program right here in Collier County. While citrus is a viable business venture today, primarily due to near all -time high in juice prices, there's no guarantee that this grove will always remain a citrus grove regardless of what happens with this mining application. Increased foreign competition from Portugal, Venezuela, and others that we don't even realize today, diseases such as cankering and greening, although there is a pretty good handle on cankering today, there is no remedy for greening, and it is a constant battle for all citrus growers to be able to keep those from coming into the property. Climate itself is a risk. One freeze can wipe out an entire crop for a year. And water, the water to maintain our crops, some of the very groups in this room today that oppose this mine are fighting us as well for the water that we need to maintain our agricultural supply. You can't have it both ways. The reality long term is that these challenges and impediments to the citrus industry behooves Alico to look at other land uses other than what is there today. Just like the mining application before you today, it's an evaluation of its land in trying to determine the highest and best use. So I ask you today in your evaluation of this application to separate emotion from fact. And the facts are, No. 1, this property is in Collier County, not Lee; therefore, you're required to evaluate this project based on Collier County's Growth Management Plan and land development codes, not Lee County's. Number 2, your staff has determined, utilizing the very same Collier County Growth Management Plan as well as Land Development Code, that this application meets all of its requirements. Number 3, the Environmental Advisory Council supported unanimously the recommendation of approval for this application. Number 4, the CREW board was requested numerous times to oppose this project, but they decided not to. Number 5, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in collaboration with the South Florida Water Management District, issued an environmental resource permit for this project. Through that, it was fully and scientifically evaluated, the hydrology and the surface water management for this particular mine. Through that -- there is a statement in there that through this project there is a net benefit to the water table because of the reduction in irrigation versus that being utilized for the mine. The Army Corps of Engineers performed an on -site evaluation and determined that there are no impacts to U.S. bodies of waters, including wetlands. We are currently, as we've indicated, working extremely closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service on a technical review for any impacts to the Florida panther; thus far have concluded that no panthers have ever denned on this property. Citrus groves provide poor to marginal quality habitat for panthers, and protection of such a small and isolated area would not be in the long -term benefit of the Florida panther. Fact No. 8, the property is zoned agricultural and, as such, mining is an allowable use. Number 9, through the various testimony, in addition to the testimony that you will hear today in today's presentation, we have demonstrated that the proposed mine is compatible to the surrounding area and poses no detrimental impact. Again, in concluding my remarks, I'd like to thank you again for your time and patience. And unless there's any questions that the commissioners have of me at this time, I'll introduce our first speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the summary. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Certainly. Page 11 of 87 1612 'A4 � March 15, 2012 Our first speaker is Gary Siebein, who will be speaking to you on the environmental acoustic evaluation. Thank you very much. MR. SIEBEIN: Good morning. Do I have to do something to turn this on? Good morning, hello. MR. BELLOWS: Just speak up. MR. SIEBEIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Gary Siebein. I'm senior principal with Siebein Associates, Inc., a specialty environmental and architectural acoustic consultant firm located in Gainesville, Florida, since 1981. We've worked on over 1,400 building and environmental acoustics projects in Florida, across the United States, and around the world. I'm also a professor in the school of architecture at the University of Florida where I direct a graduate program for people to get masters and doctoral degrees in building and environmental acoustics. I've written several books, book chapters, and over 150 technical papers and presentations on building and environmental acoustics topics. Our firm conducted an environmental acoustic assessment of the Lost Grove Mine project. General conclusions of the study are that the assessment is based on acoustic measurements taken at distances much closer than the 500 -foot minimum setback proposed for the Lost Grove Mine so we could get accurate acoustical signatures of each mining operation to use in our computer models. And with the berms and setback conditions placed on the mine operations, the noise levels from the Lost Grove Mine will be significantly and substantially less than the day and nighttime noise levels permitted by the Collier County noise ordinance for residential properties, which are the most restrictive in the ordinance. The performance standards and assumptions used in the study include four items: Establishing a 500 -foot setback for mining activities from the external property lines, establishment of a 12 -foot vegetated berm adjacent to the property line in areas where excavation will be taking place, establishment of a 25- foot -tall overburden berm between the excavation trench and dragline operations and the property line of any parcel under separate ownership, and establishment of a 60- foot -tall mobile aggregate materials berm between field crushing operations and the excavation trench and dragline operations. The method used in the study included taking acoustical measurements of nine specific mining operations at three different mines in Lee County to use as sound source data in a computer model, constructing a computer model to evaluate the buffers required to reach compatibility with surrounding areas defined by meeting the sound level limits of the Collier County noise ordinance at the property boundaries, and providing acoustical design recommendations for buffer distances and heights of berms to reduce sound levels to the Collier County noise ordinance sound level limits for residential receivers. The next sequence of slides summarized the acoustical measurements made for each of the mining operations at one of the mines. Similar illustrations of measurements made at other mines and the actual data recorded are included in appendices in the written report. The sketches show the name of the mining operation measured, an aerial photograph of the mine where the measurements were made with the distances from each piece of equipment to the measurements location, and the associated range of A- weighted sound levels measured. C- weighted octave band and one -third octave band data were also taken for each mining operation during the study. Please note that a specialty consultant will address issues related to blasting, as that is not within the areas of expertise of our firm. So the first slide shows drilling where we go out at four sides that we have access to at fixed distances to measure the sound levels for the operation. The next is a diesel - driven pump. In this the pump sits right next to a large body of water so we can only get to two sides of it. The large electric dragline, which I'll come back to in a couple of minutes; the dragline also sits by a body of water and with large piles of mine material adjacent to it, so access is limited to usually one or two sides. The mobile rock crusher, front -end loader, and conveyer belt where the mine material is taken and shipped to the central operations plant. This sequence of slides shows an example of how we derived the maximum sound pressure levels used in the computer models for each piece of mining equipment. Multiple individual measurements were made of each piece of equipment as it went through its normal operations. Page 12 of 87 1612 a� March `15,2012 This example was for a large electric dragline, which is the piece of equipment that will be located closest to the setback area. The graph shows sound pressure level on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis of the graph. So in this graph we look at a couple of minutes; the dragline lifts a load of material from the water, dumps the load in the aggregate pile, turns, and enters the water again, and it's 75 feet. This is in the, kind of, high 60s to the mid to -- mid 70 decibel range. It lifts, spins around, dumps the load, turns back, splashes in the water again, and we see a similar range of data. It lifts, spins, dumps the load, turns back, splashes in the water again. Kind of turns away from where the sound meter is, so the level decreases just a little bit. Lifts, spins around, dumps the load, turns back, splashes in the water. Little bit further distances. We have multiple distances also to compare. It runs through basically the same operation. Then the dragline moves to the next location. The blue box highlights the maximum sound level reached for all of the measurements made for the dragline. The octave band spectrum reached at this point was used as the data input into the computer model for the dragline. So we're not taking an average over this whole time that the dragline is operating. We're taking the instantaneous, highest sound level that's used for projection of what is ultimately a truly worst -case scenario. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: May I ask you a question at this point? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It may be inappropriate. But the dragline that you were obtaining these measurements from, is that the identical model that will be used at Lost Grove? MR. SIEBEIN: We measured several draglines in this, and so that data are included in the appendices, and they're all within a couple of dB. There's also a website that the U.S. -- I think it's the Federal Highway Administration has for sound levels of various heavy equipment that are used in kind of roadway, heavy construction for bridges and so on. And the data for the ones that we measured and that are in the highway department database are within a dB or two of each other. This one was a rather large one. And when we looked at all of ours, we took the highest level. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. MR. SIEBEIN: So then it goes through the same process. So as we go through this process, we went through a similar process for all of the nine mining operations that we measured to make sure that we were using the maximum sound level for each mining operation so that we're really looking at kind of a worst -case scenario. So we'll continue with other mining operations. The stationary rock crushers with the conveyor systems that bring the aggregate material to them; second rock crusher at this mine with conveyor systems coming in and out; the loading of materials from the stockpiles, loaders and dump trucks coming in and out and the operations associated with that; the weigh station as trucks come and the material is adjusted slightly before they leave the site; and then the ingress and egress of trucks after they leave the weigh station. We constructed computer models of three components of the mine: The central plant operations which stay fixed in the center of the property; the dragline and mobile rock crushers that operate in movable locations starting at the center moving towards the perimeter, the extents of the mined area; and then loading and truck operations using CadnaA software. This is a special exterior environmental acoustic modeling program used in many countries around the world for regulatory purposes. The program propagates sound from one or more sources, and it counts for topography, distance, vegetation, and so on, and botched noise level contours in accordance with international standards. The results of the computer model studies were compared to the sound level limits contained in the Collier County Noise Ordinance. The Collier County Noise Ordinance requires sound levels to be less than 60 dBA and 72 dBC at residential properties during daytime hours and 55 dBA and 67 dBC at residential properties during nighttime hours. This slide shows A- weighted sound level contours propagated from central operations activities, including the stationary rock crushers, conveyors, weigh station, ingress and egress to the site modeled to the site boundaries. These activities were modeled without the effect of the 25- foot -tall overburden berm and the stockpiles of mine materials that are usually present in the central operations areas of the mines, which will further reduce the calculated sound levels. Page 13 of 87 1612 March 15, 2012 Sound levels on the east, south, and west sides of the proposed mine are all below 48 dBA which is significantly less than the daytime and nighttime sound level limits in the noise ordinance, and it's in the vicinity of typical ambient sound levels in the CREW area, which is current day /night average sound levels of 42 to 52 dBA, and of residential properties to the east, south, and west of the site which have current average sound levels at 40 to 48 dBA. This slide shows the C- weighted sound level contours for the same activities modeled across the site boundaries. Sound levels are less than 57 dBC on the west, south, and east sides of the property, which is less than both the daytime and nighttime sound level limits contained in the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Excuse me. Could you go back to the previous slides. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It looks as though there's, like, a wave pattern, like, between. Why is there areas of gray and then green and then gray and then green and gray again? MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. That's where -- the gray area is actually shown as vegetation in the CREW area. And so I think when, you know, this -- when it's on the -- when it's on the computer screen the model was at, you could seem them a little better. But when it's printed, the vegetation shows up, I guess, takes precedence over it as it's printed out. And so, you know, if we look at here, the edge of the red, this is actually 55 dBA. So here's 50, and this green is -- sorry, this is C- weighted, so this is in the 45 to 50 dBA range right in this area. Out here, this is in the 40 dBA range. The actual contour is, you know, kind of in -- right along the edge of the roadway here coming through the site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's still kind of confusing because it looks like there's some gray areas that are quite close to it, and then there's gray areas that are far away. Are they all the same sound level? MR. SIEBEIN: Gray areas? The areas that are -- the areas that are hatched -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MR. SIEBEIN: -- are not the gray, okay. I mean, those -- are you talking about up here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The hatched area, yeah, all the hatched areas, yeah. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. The hatched areas are where -- I mean, those are vegetation, actually. And I mean, unfortunately, these contours are kind of obscured a little bit as they come through. So what happens is that here, as the sound moves at the -- up to the berms, the colors change rather dramatically because that's where the sound level drops by 10 to 15 dB as it interacts with the 12 -foot perimeter berm along the property lines. So the same thing happens on these sides as well. So the sound level limit there is actually 72 dBC during daytime hours, which is most of the time that the mine is in operation. And so where you're down at 40 and 50, you know, we're way below that and in the vicinity of the ambient sounds that are there at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I was just going to see if I could help Paul a little bit. Paul, the gray is not sound. The gray is the location of vegetation. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah, the hatched area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you go back to that slide, though. I have a question. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You referenced, and I was going to ask you, how the red went to gray on the west side of this. So, quickly -- and you seemed to solve that by saying that's the effect of the 12 -foot berm. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the effect of the 25 -foot berm? Is it deflective? MR. SIEBEIN: We'll see that on the next slides. A 25 -foot berm is actually not in this model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SIEBEIN: And we'll see that as we get to the next slide. But it's similar to this except the magnitude of sound reduction is much bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 60's going to be shown, too? We have a 60 -foot berm coming into play as well. Page 14 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 MR. SIEBEIN: Yes, correct. That's on the next slide, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SIEBEIN: So this slide shows a section sketch at the bottom of the proposed performance standards for the mine which were used in the models. Beginning on the left side of the sketch, you have the property line, the 12- foot -high berm, you've got the 500 -foot setback that goes from the property line to the mine side of the 25 -foot berm, which is the overburden that is piled up. The dragline operates in a windrow between this 25- foot -high berm and this 60- foot -high pile of mined material. And then the mobile rock crusher is located -- mobile rock crusher, conveyors, loaders, and so on are actually located between the 60- foot -tall pile of mine material. So what we're looking at now -- because the dragline is not a stationary piece of equipment, the dragline will move across the site. So it will start and gradually move as it gets from the central operations area to the perimeter of the site. And so this is a model that shows the section is across the bottom that we just saw, the 12- foot -high berm, the 25- foot -tall been, the 60 -foot berm, the location of the dragline between the two, and the rock crusher. So here is the dragline, here is the rock crusher, the pump, the loaders and so on. So this is a section that occurs for a very short period of time as the dragline and the mobile rock crusher reach the point that is closest to the setback. So the sound levels from these activities, when they're at the closest point, are less than 53 dBA. Once the equipment moves farther from the property line, the sound levels for these operations will decrease to even lower levels. So, I mean, this is the point where it is at what we would call the design condition. It's important to realize that these sound levels only occur for a very short period of time while the dragline is at its closest point to the setback. Once it reaches this point, the dragline returns to the beginning of the tract so it can start a new row of dredging. It returns to the perimeter area some weeks later. So the scenario in this model would move around the perimeter of the mine over time and would exist at these levels for only those times when the dragline is at the closest point to the setback. It would never return, in fact, to the same location during the operation of the mine, because that material has already been removed. This slide shows the C- weighted sound level contours for the same operations at the same location. The sound levels are less than 57 dBC, which is less than the daytime and nighttime sound level limits contained in the noise ordinance. This slide shows A- weighted sound level contours on the left and C- weighted sound level contours on the right derived from a simulation of front -end loader and dump truck operations that was conducted on the Lost Grove site when the loader and trucks are about 500 feet from the property line. The sound levels are less than 52 dBA and 62 dBC, which are both less than the daytime and nighttime sound level limits in the noise ordinance. And in this case the only intervening structure is the 12 -foot perimeter berm. So in conclusion, based on a 500 -foot setback from property lines for all excavation activity and the proposed conditions and operational site plan, typical sound levels from all mining operations measured will be significantly less than the residential daytime and nighttime sound level limits of the Collier County noise ordinance. The operational parameters to be established for the Lost Grove Mine excavation should include establishing a 500 -foot setback from external property lines, establishment of a 12 -foot vegetated berm adjacent to the property line in areas where excavation will occur, establishment of a 25- foot -tall overburden berm between the excavation trench and dragline operations and the property line of any parcel under separate ownership, and establishment of a 60- foot -tall mobile aggregate materials berm between the field crushing operations and the excavation dragline operations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just --I want to be sure that I understand this modeling and its results and the positioning of those results onto the Lost Grove Mine proposed site. I mean, at several different times you said that these measurements taken at the Lost Grove site, et cetera, et cetera. Now, this -- or perhaps I misunderstood. You did measurements at different mining operations in Lee County or in other locations, right -- Page 15 of 87 1612 March 15, 2012 MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- of the equipment? Help me understand how those measurements were then transformed or put in place in a computer model representing the Lost Grove site. That's where I'm having a little difficulty with your process -- MR. SIEBEIN: Oh, okay, sure. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- if you will. MR. SIEBEIN: Sure. The process was to build a three - dimensional computer model of the Lost Grove Mine site, okay. So we construct this with the property boundaries on it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now, you say three - dimensional. That would include the current site, I mean the orange grove site, the -- MR. SIEBEIN: We took out the trees. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You took out the trees. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. Okay. So what we used this, the basis for the model, we can kind of see it here. This is the proposed mining plan. So you can see the proposed lakes that kind of outline here in blue. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Right. MR. SIEBEIN: The area for central mine operations with the locations of the rock crushers, the weigh station, the ingress to the north off the site. This is another mining lake, and another one. And so we basically constructed or took the mining plant and made a computer model on the Lost Grove site of these activities. So we did several, because some of the activities are fixed in place, and so that's what this model represents. So this is all the, kind of, central operations area. You build a weigh station; it stays there for the duration of the mine. You build the entry road; it stays there. We build the stationary rock crushers; they stay there. So this model is then -- when we measured the sound levels of each piece of equipment at several of these mines, we used that data so we have a sound level at a given distance, and we convert that mathematically to what's called the sound power level, which is the ability of the sound source to produce acoustic energy. The sound power level is pinpointed at the location of this operation. So here we -- in the center we have the stationary rock crushers and the conveyor systems and so on. We input the surrounding bodies of what would be bodies of water, the grassy areas, the trees, you know, so we have -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You took out the trees. MR. SIEBEIN: Well, we took out the orange groves. We left the trees that are in -- you know, you've got both on the sites and conservation areas and then heavily wooded areas that are just off the site. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think I'm getting there. But at the sites that you took your measurements the other mining sites -- MR. SIEBEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- okay, I'm to understand that the topography of those other mining sites was equivalent to the topography that you modeled for the Lost Grove sites on the orange trees. And I'm thinking that Mine A that you took measurements at, it might have different contours of land, it might have different characteristics of aggregate or non - aggregate substance. MR. SIEBEIN: Okay. Well, so here we are at the large electric dragline. So we go out to the dragline; we're 75 feet away. The only topography that's between us and the dragline is a flat piece of -- you know, I don't know the right name. I'm an acoustic guy, but not a mine guy. But anyway -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A piece of flat ground. MR. SIEBEIN: It's a piece of flat ground with no grass and, you know, it's kind of substrate exposed. And so when we're here -- and this is why we took these measurements at very close distances, because we have minimum effects from distance and interfering areas. So we weren't -- in all cases we're as close as we could possibly get to the equipment for safety purposes so we don't get run over by a dump truck backing up and so on, and also so that we can gather the acoustic signature of the dragline, for example, or the loaders without those being influenced by other operations that are around to the sides and so on. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I think I'm there. In other words, the topography makes no difference because you measure the noise level or -- MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. Page 16 of 87 161 2 14 March 15, 2012 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- sound levels of the operation of these pieces of equipment clear of any obstacles, then transpose those into your model for the proposed site? MR. SIEBEIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. SIEBEIN: You let the computer account for the benns and the topography. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I'm there. MR. SIEBEIN: And the sound source data we got as cleanly as possible. I mean, ideally, you would take a piece of equipment and put it in an acoustical test chamber. But a dragline doesn't fit in one. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean, I can envision if you wanted to fake the results, you could, theoretically, have taken that measurement. There's a 25 -foot benn between where you're measuring and that dragline. MR. SIEBEIN: We didn't do that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not insinuating. MR. SIEBEIN: My firm has professional liability insurance. I mean, the last thing in the world we want to do is kind of have someone, you know, kind of get permitted under false pretenses. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I just want to have a clear understanding of how this process evolved, and sorry that I insinuated something. MR. SIEBEIN: You know, if you look at the sketches, if you look at all of them, we're trying to get 50 or 75 or 100 feet away, as close as we can reasonably safely get to each of these operations, and we've just got flat open ground between us and the mining operation. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That helps. Thank you very much for your explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The acoustics where you show it, you're the closest to the 25 -foot berm between the 60 where the dragline's operating? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As we move away from that property line -- and one of the conditions we have here is that we start closest and move away. The sounds on the other side of that 25 -foot berm, will it lessen or -- MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- will the berm become less important the further away you get? MR. SIEBEIN: As you get -- well, you have two things. As you get farther and farther away, every time you double distance, the sound level of the source decreases by 6 decibels, okay. So as you get farther away, you're decreasing the level of the source. And the 25 -foot berm that is there, as it -- as you back away, although it's -- I mean, a 25 -foot berm and a 60 -foot berm are huge. We do a lot of work, you know, as you go down I -75 here and the Florida turnpike by Miami, a lot of development projects. We work with the developers on building sound walls to shield from highway noise. You know, like Tuscany Reserve down the road here has the kind of funny thing along I -75 WCI built. When you get up into the 20- and 30 -foot range -- I mean, because most highway noise barriers are 8, 12, 16 feet -- this is a huge amount of insertion loss, which is the reduction of sound as it goes across the berm. So as you back up you lose a little bit of insertion loss, the sound reduction at the berm, but you're making that up because the sound level of the source is actually decreasing as you get further back. So it's a net reduction at the end of the day. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in your opinion the further away you go, the less the sound would be on the other side of the 25 -foot berm? MR. SIEBEIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other thing is when you look at your sound studies, the sound seems to be constant within -- like right there. In other words, it is -- during the operation of the day, it is always going to be between that 70 and 80 dBA constantly. MR. SIEBEIN: Well, these measurements are taken at one - second averages. Your noise ordinance actually asks for one minute. When you take sound level readings in shorter time periods, you actually get somewhat higher levels than when you average over longer periods of time. So, again, there's another case where we're really trying to look at worst -case. But what this is saying is, so the dragline turns. When the exhaust, the kind of back end of the dragline, is Page 17 of 87 N 1612 March 15, 2012 pointed towards, in this case, the microphone, it's louder, and then as it turns away to scoot material, it gets quieter. So, I mean, this variation of 10 decibels is actually a pretty large variation, you know, as you look at it. So in a way, yes, kind of, it turns towards you and you have this kind of "nTr" of the motors that come out, and then it turns away and that falls off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But my point was that when they come in in the morning and they start work till they stop work, there's a constant low -- or sound wave within this range; is that right? MR. SIEBEIN: Well, for the dragline -- if you're talking about the dragline in particular, for the dragline in particular, this will operate for a limited period of time at the place where it's closest to the property line, which is what we're showing in the model, because there's only so much dirt that you can move there, and then it moves farther away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the sound would drop? MR. SIEBEIN: Then the sound drops, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else at this time? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there, like, a formula about how many decibels you lose according to the height of your berm? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you tell us? MR. SIEBEIN: Can I tell you? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MR. SIEBEIN: The algorithm in the computer model? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if it's really complicated, no, but -- MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah, it's kind of complicated. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SIEBEIN: I mean, I could draw a sketch if there's a way to show it. But it's related to what's called the acoustical height of the berm or a Fresnel number, if you're familiar with optics. So if you had a source and receiver that are here, the effective height of the berm is equal or is related to, mathematically, the height that the top of the berm is above the straight line of sight between the source and receiver. So you construct it perpendicular up to the top. And so that kind of determines the -- basically it's the diffractive path of sound as it goes over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this time? I've got a couple. Could you go to the -- Page 28 of your slides. It's just a -- D, 65- foot -tall. Did you base it on 60 or 65 feet? MR. SIEBEIN: The math that we did was based on 60. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that 65 should be 60? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your report and in your statements you said that your expertise is not in blasting, and I could understand that. You're a sound guy. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the sounds from blasting should have been your expertise; should it not have? I mean, if you're measuring sound, wouldn't you understand the sound generated by a blast? MR. SIEBEIN: I think we have another consultant that's going to address that topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have another acoustical consultant who's going to address the noise from a blast like -- similar to the way you have addressed it? MR. SIEBEIN: He will -- I mean, is that correct? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. MR. SIEBEIN: We have another consultant who will address the issues related to the blasting activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In some of your general maps that you've provided, I notice that you didn't do a bull's eye -- and I'm calling it that from laymen's terms. I'm sure you've got a better name for it -- for the southern lake, Lake No. 3, and that one happens to be the closest to residential, or did you, and can you show it to me? Because I didn't pick it up that way. MR. SIEBEIN: Well, if we look at these -- Page 18 of 87 IA4 1612March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SIEBEIN: -- okay, this is meant -- the activities -- well, two things. The southern lakes are here that you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's one southern lake proposed; it's right there. And that one happens to be the one closest to CREW and the closest to where neighbors live. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. So this shows the contours from the central operations that move across that area. So for the central operations, that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a point. MR. SIEBEIN: -- covered this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. MR. SIEBEIN: Now, this -- which the axis is shown going up and down on the sheet paper, but this is actually a movable scenario. So as you excavate this mine, you know, if here's your 500 -foot setback, that bull's eye, so to speak, will move around the perimeter of this just the way it will move along the perimeter here and it will move along the perimeter here. So, in other words, that's looked at as a generic situation wherever the dragline and the mobile rock crushers are at a given moment in time. That model applies to them. And, I mean, we just didn't know another way of being able to take something that moves around the site and -- you know, so we could place that diagram and turn it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But did you actually -- do you -- MR. SIEBEIN: Sideways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have a visual that we can see where that has been done? Only because that southern mine, if you look at the three locations, the southern mine is the most critical when it comes to adjoining neighbors and the CREW lands to the south. It's right there. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. That is what this is showing, because the only thing that's in here is the dragline with the 500 -foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the bull's eye that's in the middle, it would move further south, is what you're saying? MR. SIEBEIN: This whole section would -- this whole drawing would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slide down. MR. SIEBEIN: -- move south, turn sideways, go up the angled side, move around the perimeter as the dragline moved around the exterior of the site. So I mean, other than having, like -- I mean, I guess we could have an animation of kind of showing the dragline as it moves across the lake and what these bubbles do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. For my conception, trying to understand things, it would have been helpful to have a graphic showing a bull's eye overlaid on the mine that probably -- the mine location that is going to be more impactful than possibly some of the others. And that's the only thing I was trying to seek is that kind of relationship. MR. SIEBEIN: Well, what we were trying to do here was say that the -- for any of the situations that would be considered worst -case, i.e., where this is going to be at the 500 -foot setback, this is the model that would apply, and it would kind of wrap around the perimeter of each of those mined areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I understand the way you did it. I was just -- visual would have been easier to understand for me. See if I have any questions that you haven't answered. In your report on page -- well, it's Appendix B2, and it's just -- I'll give you a generalization. You have a series of, oh, Location R1 -- and I'm trying to look for a title on this. It's -- I don't know what this particular one -- what piece of equipment it was trying to show. But a lot of them portray significant spikes above the average curve, and this one is -- goes -- it's extreme. It goes from an average, it looks, around 50 up to 100. How do you -- what do you think those spikes are from? I mean, if you did this in the field, what would cause something like that? MR. SIEBEIN: These -- Appendix B contains data that was recorded by sound level meters that were placed at these locations: RI, R2, R3. R1 was actually the CREW area. R2 and R3 are at the northern and southern edges of the western Lost Grove Mine property. So these are measuring -- there's no mining activities here now. These are measuring current ambient sound levels on these particular dates. Page 19 of 87 161 14 arch 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this wasn't measuring mine activity. MR. SIEBEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just measuring, say, something that was on the road or -- MR. SIEBEIN: Ambient sound, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SIEBEIN: It's either -- it's probably either a plane that's flying by or possibly -- at the time we had this meter out, they had done some controlled burns in the CREW area, and maybe there, I don't know, some vehicles that went nearby or something. I mean, you know, these were unattended measurements, but these are of existing ambient sound levels in those areas. There's not -- they have -- I mean, there's no mining operations at all that's involved with this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you have your paper, or your appendix out, on C2, I notice you provide measurement location and sound levels for a series of different kinds of activities, everything from birds and wind, to -- which I think was the most intense -- two cars passing a dump truck. So did you actually measure that, or is that from a book or something? MR. SIEBEIN: No, no, no. These are -- so we went to these locations, which are shown on a map -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SIEBEIN: -- which are around the periphery of the Lost Grove Mine site. These are actual measurements of sounds that are occurring at this time. So, you know, as you're going -- I mean, there's a lot of cars and heavy trucks that travel on Corkscrew Road. And if we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I understand what you're saying. What that means is, you -- during this time you're out there, when two cars pass a dump truck, the accumulated sound was, in this case, 79 dBA, the height. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. Look on Page E2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: E as in elephant? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes, E as in Edward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's easier than elephant. MR. SIEBEIN: Okay. E2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri's got to spell all this each time. MR. SIEBEIN: E2. There is a site map where these measurement locations are keyed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I saw that. MR. SIEBEIN: Okay. So if you look at -- this -- where are we here? The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: M3. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. So M3 is kind of at the bend in Corkscrew Road. And, you know, there's a little pull -off there where it's kind of like a little dirt area where there's some mailboxes and stuff. I mean, so, you know, as a couple of cars and trucks pull by, I mean, this is their sound level. As they get father away, it's a little quieter. As they pass by it's a little louder. But these are all existing sounds. Appendix C and B are existing sound levels that are measured in this vicinity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those might be most of my questions. Hold on just a second. You said, by the way, an exhaust on the dragline, but it's an electric dragline. MR. SIEBEIN: It's got some kind of big fans in back. I don't know what -- I'm not sure how they -- big fans in the back of it that are part of the noise source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure we're still talking electric and not anything else. MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also mentioned that for every doubling of the distance there'd be a 6 dBA drop in sound? MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah, that's in what's called a free field, an area without obstructions. It's a rule of thumb. I mean, you know, calculations show sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. It's kind of a rule of thumb that's generally notched. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were 2,000 feet or 4,000 feet away and this whole study was done at 500 feet, you would just use that multiplier by 500, distance -- is it by the -- say it goes from 500 to 1,000 and it drops 6 dB. It goes from 1,000 to 15 -, is that another 6 or is it only 3? MR. SIEBEIN: No, it's another -- from 500 to -- I'm sorry? Page 20 of 87 161 2 A4, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Say you go from 500 to 1,000, it drops 6 because you doubled the distance. But if you go from 1,000 to 1,500, you only half the original distance of 1,000. So it's 3 or 6? MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. It's not 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be 3? MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. Well, I mean, approximately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's half of 1,000, so that means -- MR. SIEBEIN: Well, sounds are logarithms, so it actually decreases 10 times of the log of the distance squared. So, you know, it's not exactly half, but it's close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just curious on that. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Acoustics are very important. It would be nice if you could put the acoustics completely around the mine and just only operate it where it's all enclosed. Just with normal hearing, you put people in an acoustical place to test their hearing, it's a lot better than if they're out in the regular open air to do things. The noise travels completely different than in an, you know, acoustical setting. You put me in a hearing test, I can hear fine in there. You take me outside of that, and any background noise, that changes. So when you're doing -- when you're doing all -- you're just doing the acoustical things, your measurements and everything are just -- how do I want to say this? It's not quite the same as when you're a controlled area, I guess is what I'm saying. So if there are other activities going on around this at the same time, that still changes the level? MR. SIEBEIN: I'm not sure what you're asking. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, you -- different environmental things happening around there at the same time will still make these levels vary; is that correct? MR. SIEBEIN: Well, the levels from the mine activities -- this is done in isolation, so -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SIEBEIN: -- for example, at the location we were just talking about that is at the bend in Corkscrew Road -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Corkscrew, sure. MR. SIEBEIN: So the car comes by and it's -- two cars and a truck comes by and it's between 50 and 79 decibels from that. There's no mining operations now. The sounds from the mining operations are modeled in that area to be in the 40s. So the net result is is that, you know, the 40- something of the mining activity there and the 50 to 79 of the truck pass, you will hear the truck pass plainly, and you won't hear the mining activities. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you will not hear the mining activities, is what you're saying. MR. SIEBEIN: Right. When you add sound levels, because decibels are a logarithmic quantity, you don't add them numerically the way we would other numbers. So, like, 50 and 50 is 100 the way we would normally think, but, acoustically, 50 and 50 is 53. So, I mean, you know, they don't add the way that regular numbers add because they're logarithmic quantities. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think, too, what you're kind of saying is that the loudest noise is what's going to be heard. And if you've got the 79- decibel issue with a 60 from the mine, the 79's going to be heard over the 60 from the mine? Is that -- MR. SIEBEIN: When it's of that magnitude, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on this gentleman right now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And I think we're going to -- not think. We will take a break to 10:35. We'll come back at that point. (A brief recess was had.) Page 21 of 87 161 Z A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats. We'd like to resume the meeting from the break. During the break a few people came up to me to ask about specific issues they were concerned about that didn't seem to be up for discussion today, and I reminded everybody we've had -- this is the fourth meeting, and we are going to stick to the issues at hand today. But one thing I just said to one gentleman, and he wasn't aware of it, so I thought I might make it available to the rest of you. We are a recommending body. We do not make the final decision. Our decision is to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. This entire process and hearing is going to be repeated at the Board of County Commissioners. I mean, they won't probably take four days on it, but they will hear it in depth, and they will -- public speakers are always welcome at that board's meetings. So if you feel that something was missed that you want to get on record before a final judgment is made on this case, by all means you have that available to you at the Board of County Commissioners beyond what we will hear today and beyond what we've heard for the past three days. So I just wanted to sure everybody was aware of that. So with that, we'll move on. Alan, I guess you're next, huh? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, good morning. My name is Alan Reynolds. I'm the vice president of Stantec Consulting, formerly the CEO of WilsonMiller. I've been a practicing professional planner in Collier County for many, many years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't hear you. That speaker's been giving us trouble today for some reason. MR. REYNOLDS: How about this one? How's this one? How's this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's better. Maybe during our lunch break we can get that worked on today. So thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Again, my name is Alan Reynolds. I'm vice president of Stantec Consulting. I'm a professional planner. Been practicing in Collier County and other parts of the State of Florida for about 34 years. And I'm going to walk you through the visualizations that we have prepared. And we have a PowerPoint presentation. It was part of your package. But let's just kind of start again with the purpose of the visualizations, and the purpose is to provide you with a graphic representation of what a person would see at various locations around the Lost Grove Mine site, and these different locations represent different kinds of perspectives that you would have, depending on the conditions both on site and off site. The technique we use is we use a modeling program called Google SketchUp. We take an AutoCAD drawing, we put that into Google SketchUp, we create a three - dimensional model, and then with that three - dimensional model, we can select different viewpoints, different height elevations, and then you can see a representation of what's in the computer model. We then take -- after we have different viewpoints, we actually have someone go out to the site, they take a photograph from each viewpoint, and that photograph then can be composited with the computer visualization to give you as realistic a view as we can give you as to what you would actually see if you were standing at that location. So we have five different viewpoints that we're going to show you. In each of these visualization viewpoints, we go through a sequence of slides. What you're going to see first is where is the viewpoint located in relationship to the site. We show that both on the site concept map, and we show it on an aerial photo to kind of get you oriented with where we are. We then are going to show you an eye -level photograph taken from that viewpoint. We then will show you what the model shows you from that same perspective. We then put the two together so that you have a composite of the photo and the visualization. And then in the last slide we actually take you up a hundred feet above the ground so that you can see over the berm, over the perimeter vegetation. And it shows you what actually is in the model that is either seen or not seen from that viewpoint. So that's how this works. This just shows you the various parameters that were used for the elements within the plant in terms of the heights of trees, the spacing, the height of the perimeter berm, and this has been previously described. We also have modeled into it both the 25- foot -high stockpile berm and the 60- foot -high material berm. Page 22 of 87 i 61 A 1 arch 15, 2012 Viewpoint 1 is a representation that is pretty standard along the west property line. As you know, because we have private property that abuts Lost Grove Mine, we had to pick a point where we had public access so we weren't trespassing on somebody's property. So we went to the end of Tina's Lane, which is where the arrow is shown. And that location then is pretty representative of the conditions all along the west property line. So here it is shown on an aerial photo. And, again, the visualizations wer4 taken at two places from the property line, 75 feet and then 25 feet; and I'll show you the reason why we took two different visualizations from that viewpoint. In this case, and actually in all cases, we have modeled the location of the dragline to be as close to the perimeter of the property as it will get during the course of operations. So, for example, in this location the very first cut that will run from the north to the south along the western edge of Lake No. 1, we put the dragline directly across from the viewer at that first cut. And as we go through the visualizations, I can explain to you where the viewpoint and the dragline is. This is a photo that we're actually standing on the site approximately across from where that viewpoint is. And what I just -- the purpose of this photo is to just show you that in many cases along the western property line there is fairly significant existing vegetation that is offset. You can see the ditch here. The ditch is along the property line. So the reason for doing the composites with the photo and the visualization is to show that not only is the improvement of the berm going to have an impact on what you can see, but existing vegetation will also have some impact on what you can see in each visualization. And, actually, in that slide you can barely make out looking through the trees, the location of a home, which is, actually, the closest home in adjacency to the west property line. So here's the photo from Tina's Lane. We're about 75 feet from the property line. You can see it's actually a dirt road, and that's what the picture looks like. This is then the computer model, and it shows a 12- foot -high perimeter landscape berm, it shows the Type A buffer plantings, it shows the dragline, again, at its closest point to the property line, which is about 645 feet from the -- actually, in this case about -- yeah, 645 from the viewpoint. So that's the computer model. Now, we superimpose the photo and the visualization. And, obviously, in this location you can see that there's some existing vegetation that has some screening effect, but you also have the landscape berm that you can see in the background. When we showed these to Kay -- I'm going to give her credit -- she says, well, isn't it convenient that that tree happens to be right in front of the dragline. And I said, well, that was the viewpoint so, I guess, let's try a different approach. So we did a second one. We just moved the dragline 300 feet to the south. And it would take about three weeks for that dragline to move that distance using kind of normal operations. So there's the dragline 300 feet south. So it's a little bit further away because we moved it -- we've moved it that direction. And there you can see the composite with the photograph and computer model. So is it visible? Absolutely. It will be visible from certain points off site. Is it -- you know, you have to judge whether or not you think that that's offensive. But please understand that in the course of activities on the site, obviously, the dragline is going to be moving, so there will only be a limited period of time that it's going to be in any one location and, obviously, only one time where it will actually be at the closest proximity to the viewer. So now we take -- we just went up a hundred feet in the area. And this is the exact same computer model. And what we're really showing here is that, yes, all the activities in the mine are in that computer model. You can see the stockpile berm, you can see the cut, you can see the aggregate stockpile. The rock crusher is behind the 60 -foot aggregate stockpile and in no case, because of these two berms, will you ever be able to see the mobile rock crushers because of the way that the operations take place. But if you went a hundred feet in the air, you would certainly be able to see the dragline when it's at its closest point. So now we've just moved 50 feet closer to the property line, so now we're 25 feet away, which is the rear setback for the agricultural zoning in that location. So that's the same view. That tree that we saw before is now in the corner of the photo. Here's the 12 -foot berm with the plantings. There's the superimposition of the photo with the visualization. You probably notice that in the prior view, the top of the dragline was a little bit above the tree and now in this case, Page 23 of 87 16 1 '4 arch 4, 12 as you move closer, obviously, the tree in perspective takes more prominence and, actually, the top of the tree is now higher than the dragline. So, again, as you move around the site you're going to get different perspectives like that taking place. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Question, if I might. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You mentioned that the dragline will move, obviously, starting at one point and moving as it does its operation. Does anyone have any estimate at a typical operation on a given day how far would that dragline traverse, let's say, north to south? MR. REYNOLDS: Approximately 25 feet in normal operations. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: So, again, that prior view with the dragline was behind one of the planted trees. In this case we just -- again, we moved it 300 feet to the south just like happened in that prior sequence and, again, there's the visualization. So you can see, obviously, that the berm and the landscaping do a very effective job of screening out any visual penetration into the site with the exception of the top of the dragline. And, of course, the dragline moves up and down, and it rotates. So it's not a stationary object, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Alan? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You show this -- which the picture is beautiful. Those are the height trees you're going to put in there? MR. REYNOLDS: Yeah. The -- let's talk about both the trees and the hedges, okay. The trees that are modeled in this visualization are approximately 18 feet high. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: That represents about two years of growth if you start with a 14 -foot tree, which is generally what you would be starting with. So right at planting the tree would be approximately two feet shorter, but it would be roughly the same kind of canopy. And then, of course, over time it's going to grow and it's going to fill in. And five to ten years down the road you're going to get, you know, a much more solid canopy, if you will, of the perimeter trees. The hedges are approximately four feet tall. So, again, those represent, you know -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Four feet tall. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So at what picture height are you taking these now? I mean -- MR. REYNOLDS: These visualizations are all taken at eye level, and we're using 5 foot, 5 inches as an average eye level, okay, for the average person. Not Don Schrotenboer, but the rest of us folks. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twice my size, yeah. It looks very nice. It looks like you've sodded the whole side of the -- do they plan on sodding all of this? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. Well, it will have to be grassed, yes. It will have to be grassed, whether it's sod or grass seed. You know, it does have to be grassed and stabilized, and it's a four -to -one side slope. So it's a gentle berm, and it's a fairly high berm. I mean, when you talk about a 12- foot -high berm, the base width of that is almost a hundred feet from one toe of slope to the other. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: You're welcome. And, again, we just popped up to the bird's eye view, went up a hundred feet. So you can see, in fact, the -- what this does show is how the stockpile berms, particularly the aggregate berm, does a good job of screening the equipment. And way in the background, if you can see in the upper right -hand corner, is the operations of the center. So most of these views, you know, you have very little view when you get up to a hundred feet. Because the operation center is in the center of this site, there's very little ability to see that, and certainly no ability to see it when you're standing at the perimeter of the site. Page 24 of 87 161 2MarA54,012 And I'll just point out also over here at these power poles. I'm going to show you in a minute the photograph of the power line that runs across the north property line, because those power poles are over a hundred feet tall. And so they're also a good visual reference for sort of the impact that you see at various facilities on the site. So I think that viewpoint is really representative of the typical condition all the way along the edge of Lake 1, which is where you actually have the potential for the lake to be as close to the property line as it will get anyplace in the site. We now drop down to Viewpoint 2, and Viewpoint 2 is taken at the very south end of the property, looking to the north. Here's an aerial photograph that shows Viewpoint 2. This is -- here are the properties right here. I believe these are Mr. Starnes' properties. We stood on the edge of the right -of -way for the visualization. One of the adjustments that was made to the site plan that I think you probably picked up is that the edge of mining has now been moved up to this location, which is the southern edge of that grove, so this existing orange grove is no longer going to be part of the mining activity, and that has moved the lake about 1,200 feet to the north of the property line. Once again, we picked the closest point with the dragline to the viewpoint of the viewer. That viewpoint would be right on this first cut as it goes from west to east along the south edge of the lake. This is a photo just taken from the site, again, looking back to where we took the photograph for the visualization purposes. So you can see we're looking south into the property. And now we're standing on the edge of the right -of -way. This is a photo of what you can see. This is the computer model that shows the 12 -foot berm with the height of the dragline, again, at its first cut along the south edge of Lake No. 3. We've now composited the two together. So there's the -- again, you can see the dragline here. You can't see the berm because it is behind the existing vegetation in this location. That's not always going to be the case. Obviously, the vegetation varies a lot as you go along the street. So there may be places where you'd actually see the landscape berm rather than the existing vegetation. But then again, we pop up a hundred feet so that you can see where -- you know, where things are located if you were up at that level. And for the purposes of all these visualizations, we took out the orange trees, because even though we -- the intent is probably to keep that grove for some period of time, we can't be committed to that indefinitely, so we didn't want the orange trees to become a subject of a condition that says you can't take them out as part of the visualization. And, once again, we did two different positions of the dragline here, because in this case, when you do the composite, the dragline is actually behind that palmetto clump so you can't see it at all. But, obviously, we showed you the other ones, so, you know, if the dragline was in a different location, you can see what that would look like. And, again, the viewpoint, you can see now the dragline, we've moved it about 600 feet to the east of where it was in the prior view. And, again, you can see the construction of the overburden stockpile and the aggregate stockpile, and way off in the distance is the operations center. We now just moved over to where Whidden Loop Road comes into Corkscrew Road. This viewpoint shows what happens when you have one of the WRAs that's used as a buffer, because in many cases we have these WRAs, which are naturally vegetated areas, on the edge of the property that prohibits or precludes us from building the perimeter berm. And so we want to show you what that looks like. So here we are, we're looking north, Whidden Loop Road, we're about 150 feet from the property line. The dragline, again, is at its closest proximity. That's the vegetation in the WRA. It's a mix of cypress and other kinds of vegetation. I think I skipped over one there. Okay. And that's a computer model. Again, we try to render the trees as close as we can get them in the model to represent what you would see. We then do the composite and we put the actual vegetation in. So, actually, the model is behind here. In other words, all the operations are, in this case, obscured by the WRA. But if you get up to a hundred foot level, you can see that, in fact, it is behind there. Viewpoint 4 is just a typical view along Corkscrew Road along the southeast property line. Here's an aerial photo of where this viewpoint is taken. In the case of this viewpoint, you know, the lake is actually quite a bit separated from the edge of the property line but, again, we put the dragline at its closest point. So there's a photo looking back to the southwest. There's the 12- foot -high perimeter landscape berm. Page 25 of 87 March 15 '201 In this case, along Corkscrew Road we have a different buffering requirement; it's a Type D. And the biggest difference is you have two rows of hedges rather than one row of hedge. But from a visual point of view it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference because it's the same kind of hedge. So you can see the dragline right now is in this corner right here. Now we put the berm in there and, yeah, you can see the, you know, very top of the dragline in that location. But keep in mind, again, that's at its closest proximity to that viewpoint. In this case, we did keep the orange trees in because we think that there's an ability to keep that grove intact for an extended period of time, but it really has no impact on the visualization or buffering elements because the other -- the perimeter takes precedence. Then the last visualization we did specifically, because there had been prior concerns, I think, about what the impact would be of Lost Grove Mine to CREW, and although there's lots of -- you know, the CREW actually runs along this whole edge -- we took this visualization from the access point. So if -- I think the analogy was if a busload of kids comes in to go to the CREW to hike, you know, there, what would they see from that perspective? And now keep in mind in this case the boundary of Lost Grove Mine is here, so all of this property that is in citrus is not within the conditional use, it's not going to be mined, and it's going to remain as an agricultural operation. So the property line is about 2,000 feet to the -- well, the viewpoint is 2,000 feet east of the property line. And there's a photo. Again, you can see here's the edge of the conditional use boundary. This is the driveway that goes into the access point. In this case the dragline is actually over 3,000 feet away from the viewer because the mining is on the other side of a water retention area. So there is no mining on the east side of -- this is sort of the edge of that water retention area. And this is not to be mined. This is just a photo looking at the trail access point. Here's a photo looking back toward the site. There is the visualization. There is no perimeter berming here because this is off site now, but we do have some orange trees that are there. There's the composite with the existing vegetation and the visualization in the background. And, again, if we pop up, you know, to the bird's eye view, you can see over there the operations, and that's basically in the southeast corner of Lake No. 2. And then, finally, I took this photo again just to show that we do have some existing conditions out on the site that also present some visual impact to adjacent properties. In this case it's that major transmission line. These power poles are a little more than 100 feet tall. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the visualizations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the visualization? I've got one. The 25 -foot berm, it doesn't seem to have any impact on the visualization; is that true? MR. REYNOLDS: It didn't come into view in any of these viewpoints. What would happen is if you moved far enough away from the site, let's say you moved 1,000 feet or 2,000 feet away, at some point the height of the 25 -foot berm will start to be taller than the 12 -foot berm. But you'd have to be quite a distance away from the site before you could see over the 12 -foot berm to the 25 -foot berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No matter how far you are from the site, would it be safe to assume that the 25 -foot berm would at least cover 25 feet of height of whatever is on the other side of it? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, unless you get -- unless your viewpoint is higher than 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on visual? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don or Bruce, does that wrap up the rebuttal? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: There was reference to a blasting acoustical. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, we do have available for questioning Mr. Straw, who testified at your last hearing on blasting issues, and he is available for questions if you have any. We said we would limit our rebuttal to the two witnesses we were going to call. But we have all of our team members here to answer questions on Page 26 of 87 161 arcl � i f! 5, 012 any of the subjects that you have questions on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But this particular board's purview is going to extend to any questions at all throughout the course of the four days we've heard this. But my only question of blasting has nothing to do with the technicalities at this point of the blasting but more of the decibel levels and the measurements that would be used in the same correlation that your acoustical guy provided them. And then since he omitted those from his report, it would be nice to try to find out what kind of effect they have as decibel levels in the same 500 -foot distance. MR. STRAW: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good morning. My name's Jeffrey Straw. I'm vice president and area manager of GeoSonics, Incorporated. And I'm not quite sure I followed the last question, but I did bring some information. I know that there was questions about how we measure and how that would compare to your noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my specific question is that right now if they're 500 feet from the property line with the nearest blast -- MR. STRAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is the decibel level at the property line from that blast? MR. STRAW: I don't know that I've honestly calculated at 500 feet, because we would be measuring under state statute at the closest structure. The measurement method -- and there's a little difference in measurement method. I mean, Gary talked to you about how we hear. And noise is based something -- typically by definition something unwanted. I've seen it as -- it's not having a musical tone or something like that. It's something that's outside of those ranges. So what we look at typically when we measure noise is how we hear. And how we hear noise is based on what we call the A- weighted scale. And you notice that that scale drops off. It doesn't take into account low frequency noise. Okay. If you look at A- weighted noise is typically how we hear. We don't hear -- this is frequency across the spectrum from I to 10,000 hertz cycles per second. The noise drops off. As we go down in frequency, our ears don't hear as well. It's kind of the opposite of the dog whistle, if you will. The dog whistle's the higher end of this scale. Dogs hear it, we don't hear very well up here; we also don't hear low frequency noise very well at all. Your ordinance for community annoyance typically takes in the range of what we hear. So you're dealing with the A- weighting. The C scale that is also included in your ordinance takes in a little bit more low frequency noise, but it doesn't take in as much as what we use for blasting. Blasting is considered in some parts of it infrasonic, very low, frequency down below what we hear. But we have a lot of energy in the 20, 10 cycles per second range. Because we don't necessarily hear it, it's not necessarily an issue. But we are dealing with structures. Structures have an inherent natural frequency anywhere roughly -- for Florida, some of our bigger homes, bigger open rooms, 5, 6, 7 hertz; other structures up to about 20. So our structures are in this range, and that's where the air blast comes in down in this area. So we use what we call linear response. So I guess the issue is we would be measuring at those structures. The state has a series of criteria based upon the actual type of microphone of the seismograph, but there is nothing in the Collier County code that deals with frequency low enough for us to use that code. The state has said we'll use ground vibration standards that we have set forth. They also talk about air blast standards that we have. Based on our typical instrumentation, we use a level of 133 decibels, but we're measuring across all of the frequencies. And you can kind of, I guess, see what happens. This is a graphic from Charles Dowding who -- I know he's testified before this board before, but this is a typical blast sound trace. And you can see what you get from a blast A- weighted. This is C- weighted. But this is the linear response. This is what the structure -- we need to evaluate for structure. So -- and you can also see how much it drops off. This is at all -- these two are the same. But you can see what happens with A- weighted. You don't get much of the low frequency. With C- weighted you get a little more. But when we start measuring linear, as the seismographs do, we measure the whole blast. Now, I don't know the proximity of this, but you can see how much of this lower frequency energy is in there. Page 27 of 87 161 Marc 15, 2012 And either with the A- or C- weighting that we have with Collier County, they don't match up very well. That's the reason we have linear standards. I don't know that that quite answers your question, but it -- I don't have anything predicted at 500 feet. But we are measuring at the closest structure using this linear method. So there's not an apples to apples comparison for me to give you of what your noise code would limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You definitely more complicated my question than I had intended. MR. STRAW: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was simple, and I understood why you don't have it at 500 feet, but you say you do have a decibel level at the nearest structure. So can you tell me the distance to the nearest structure and what the decimal level is at that point? MR. STRAW: I think the closest structure off the top of my head is about 1,100 feet, as I recall. And the levels would have to be maintained below 133 decibels at DBL. That's what the state limit would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How does that compare to the county code? MR. STRAW: It doesn't, because there's no -- you don't have a linear number. That's the thing. They're just -- they are truly -- no pun intended to Don's orange grove -- they are apples and oranges in what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't really generate the A- or a C- weighted sound level that's of a significance then in comparison to our county code, is what you're saying? MR. STRAW: They are there. I mean, the A and C are there, but because we're dealing with structures, they have such lower frequency natural response we can't really use A or C. They don't tell us very much. There's no standard that we use for blasting that says, okay, if you have a blast and you're using A, you should be at 50 decibels. They just don't have enough of that low frequency range to match up. So we -- every standard that I know of that's been developed -- I mean, Bureau of Mines, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, even most of the international standards that I'm aware of use linear weighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Thank you, sir. MR. STRAW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Bruce, am I safe to say you've concluded your rebuttal? You can just nod your head. MR. ANDERSON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, affirmative. Then, Ray, we will use the -- we'll ask for registered speakers. For those who haven't registered, I prefer that you do; although, I'll still ask at the end. If anybody hasn't registered and would like to speak, we're still going to listen. I do, again, remind you, five minutes, and it has to be limited to the acoustic and visualization issues. Okay, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: John Ban. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First up, John. MR. BAN: Thanks, Ray. I'm John Band, live at 3350 Whidden Loop Road, very close to this operation. Yeah, Ray, you caught me offguard, but I'll do the best I can. Where do I start? I've got a lot of questions about this sound ordinance; number 1 being, where's it been for the last year? All of a sudden we get a sound expert in that's really concerned about, you know, the neighbors that are going to be adjacent to this property that's going to be developed into a mine. I just can't -- I've got so many questions about that because, No. 1, none of the weather conditions have ever been -- he didn't look into any weather conditions. I can only tell you that living there, it -- a cool dry morning, I can hear the truck traffic a lot better than a rainy afternoon. So the modeling that's been done today, under what conditions, weather conditions have they been modeled after? Because it will change, because I can hear it. That's got my concern. The other concern I have about the sound is, if he was taking measurements of a truck in that curve and it Page 28 of 87 161 2archA,412 spiked, put another 500 trips on that road a day. Then what are we dealing with? That's part of the noise that's going to be generated from the activity of this mine. The truck traffic on Corkscrew Road, even though they say they're not going to use Corkscrew Road, is going to be there, and the sound is going to be there from these trucks, especially going into that 10- mile -an -hour curve and slowing down, what have you. The idea that we're not going to be impacted by noise I find just ludicrous. There's going to be noise there from this operation. You can't sugar coat a mine. It's going to be what it is. It's going to be intrusive and very uncompatible (sic) to anybody that lives out there, not only just with the noise, but with the blasting. I know we don't even know what the blasting noise is going to be. Obviously, we haven't -- we didn't get that information. So with that, I'd just like to say, as far as the visual concerns, I mean, these are just hypothetical pictures. They're computer generated. I don't know what the visual's going to be. It really doesn't really --the visual part really doesn't bother me as bad as the noise. And I'd just like to know where this has been for the last year. How come they didn't address this? My trust is just shot. I can't believe that they're going to even think about doing something like this in an area so close to people. With that, I'd just like to say thank you. You caught me off guard, but I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Alvin Block. MR. BLOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Alvin Block, 1500 Monroe Street. I work for Lee County government. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think you're going to read that whole packet in five minutes -- MR. BLOCK: No, sir, I'm not. I just brought my package up with me in the event that the commissioners had any questions that I would have to refer to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BLOCK: Before I get started, Mr. Chairman, I do need to be sworn in for today's hearings. I was not here at the time that the swearing in occurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BLOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stick solely to today's record, as you requested, to the acoustical and to the landscape buffering or the buffering requirements of visualizations that the applicant has talked about today. First of all, Mr. Chairman, listening to the experts today on the acoustical -- the noise and the acoustical, the expert discussed the noise from both a dragline operation and from a mobile crusher operation, but at no time -- and during their analysis they talked about the dragline operation, dragline being an electric operation that they analyzed and then superimposed onto the subject property. But in my review of the conditions that have been offered to this Planning Commission by the applicant in previous public hearings, there is no limitation as to whether it's a dragline operation or it's an electrical dragline operation. So I would caution the boards and the commission in consideration of that, because right now the offered conditions do not specifically address an electrical dragline operation. Going on to the visualization that the applicant has provided today, the applicant's visualization expert indicated that along the western property line, perimeter property line the berm is a 12 -foot berm in today's presentation. But, again, going back to the conditions that have been presented in previous public hearing dates for this particular project, it's only been offered at 8 feet. So please consider that also. There is a 4 -foot difference. They've also discussed during their presentations that the overburden perimeter buffer would be created as the mine moved from the northeast to the southwest. And as that overburden perimeter berm is created, it would be created as it moved south. The visualization today, expert, indicated that the plants that were there on the visualization are two years old and did admit that the plants were going to be smaller that -- at the time that they are actually planted on the berm. Page 29 of 87 s 1612 A4 Y March 15, 2012 I have to remind the Planning Commission that right now that berm does not exist and does not have to exist in the conditions until they get to that particular area. So the berm will first be created, then the plants will be planted. So it's even going to be very new at that particular point. You may not have that visualization, as you have seen today, all across that particular site. The applicant themselves admitted that the dragline only moves about 25 feet on maybe a daily basis. And, again, all of these comments are based upon the fact of the conditions that have been offered to the Planning Commission in previous public hearings. Nothing new has been presented today during today's public hearing as to new conditions. So I'm having to base my comments on the old conditions that have been offered by the applicant from previous public hearings. And, Commissioners, that's the completion of my presentation to you -all today. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of fairness to you, they did offer some changes to their stip -- to their conditions by and through our county employees -- county staff. We received those in our packet. One of those addressed the berm height. It has been moved from 8 to 12 feet. MR. BLOCK: We do understand that, Commissioner -- Chairman, because we did receive those. We received them last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BLOCK: We have looked at those, but today's presentation and information that's been provided by the chair was that the basis of today's meeting was going to be solely on the acoustical information and on the visualization information. So I was not speaking toward any of the new information that has not been provided in this public hearing except during the visualization and the noise information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. BLOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Ray, next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: David Urich. MR. URICH: For the record, I'm David Urich, and I'm speaking for the Responsible Growth Management Coalition, of which I'm a life member. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Closer to the mike, please. MR. URICH: I'm speaking for RGMC, which I'm a life member. Yesterday I attended a generational seminar at the university and found that I was in what's called the silent generation. I didn't realize that was my place. I've never been very silent, but -- and my kid brother is in the baby boomers generation. I'm computer dangerous, not computer literate. I come from the age when we didn't have these things. And although I respect the ability to visualize things through a computer, I never really believe it until I see it in three - dimensional fact. And I, personally, do not think that it's possible to have a full -blown rock mine operation with the blasting and so on without really affecting the environment around it. And I know it's been said very glibly, and I certainly would not want to -- I'm not an expert by any means in acoustics, sound, and blasting, I'm not in a position to ask questions. I thought you -all asked some very good questions. And I hope that you look at this thing very carefully, because once it's a reality, it's really hard to change. And that's basically my comments, in addition to what I said last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Judge Starnes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He'll be right back. He said to tell you he'll be right back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we're waiting on him -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's another gentleman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, come on up, sir. That's right. If anybody else does want to speak, we certainly Page 30 of 87 16 I A4 arch 15, 2012 will accommodate you now. MR. WEINER: I'm sorry, sir. I didn't see the registration forms outside, but I'd be more than happy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I forgot to open the offer up. When they said Judge Starnes wasn't here, I'd kind of forgotten. So, anyway, I'm glad you reminded me. Thank you. MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Edd Weiner. I'm the CEO of the Lehigh Acres Economic Development Board, chairman of the board of the Community Council of Lehigh Acres and president of Lehigh Acres Community Planning Panel, all of which have authorized me to speak here today, as in previous times. I've got to tell you, I'm a pretty stupid guy, so when the professor from Gainesville spoke, I got lost real fast. I don't relate to decibel levels of 44, 50, 60, 72 unless I know what the decibel relationship is. What does 44 decibels sound like? Is that a motorcycle? Is that me speaking right now? Is that a jet plane taking off at Southwest Florida Regional Airport? I mean, we need to have -- or I need to have some better information rather than how -- what levels -- equipment or sound sounds like at that 500 feet. I live on a golf course on Homestead Road in Lehigh Acres, and at 5:30 in the morning there are two dump trucks every single day, tractor trailer trucks, that barrel down Homestead Road. I am at least 1,500 feet from Homestead Road walking my dogs, and the sound level is astounding. Now, I don't know whether that's 44 or 144 or 344, and so I would ask that the professor come back and kind of relate to some of us dumb people what those -- what those levels related to. I'm a little -- I guess I should back up. I guess I need to offer an objection to the testimony offered by the president of Alico right at the beginning. I'll offer you an objection right now. I should have done it when Judge Starnes did it, but I didn't know what your process was. But he has submitted new information to you that we're not going to get to comment on. If I understood what he said or what you asked, the entrance on to Corkscrew is now eliminated. I thought that's what I heard him say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. MR. WEINER: That means everything comes out onto State Road 82, and I'm not going to have the opportunity to talk to that issue. I would prefer -- and it seems like the Alico Corporation has done a magnificant job of concealing, confining, and hiding their operation, and it sounds like it -- you could put it in a box and probably nobody'd ever hear it or see it. My concern is what happens outside the box. What's the sound level of a tractor trailer when it starts its five -gear move to get to 35 miles an hour? What's the sound of a tractor trailer when it uses its engine for breaking on entrance into the mine or moving down State Road 82? Again, I think the testimony offered has been -- to you has been great at concealing the mine, but I'm concerned what's happening outside the mine, outside the 25 -foot berm, outside the 60 -foot berm, outside the 12 -foot berm plus the 4 -foot bushes, which is 16 feet. I think that's all wonderful, but I'm concerned about what happens once somebody or something leaves the mine. I don't think the public has access to the mine. So what's inside that berm is certainly going to -- or that site is certainly going to stay inside that site. I would ask you please to consider or ask the questions of the professor as well as Mr. Reynolds what happens outside the mine. The -- I think the professor said there was a spike -- or you said there was a spike in the graph when two cars passed on Corkscrew Road at -- the spike was 79 dBA. I don't know what that means. What is 79 dBA? Is that a rock band playing or is that a jet engine taking off? What does 79 dBA relate to? And if there's a spike, you understand what happens when trucks pass by or try to -- cars try to pass each other or trucks try to pass each other. I'm really not concerned about seeing the top of the dredging machine. Keiser University just put up a prefab building, and you've got cranes all over the place. It's normal construction equipment. Please, please, ask the proponent what happens outside the site and how we judge it from normal, everyday activity. I thank you for your allowing me to testify, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next public speaker, sir. Come on up, identify yourself for the record. Come on up. MR. CONTI: Here or there? Page 31 of 87 161 2A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Troy, if you're -- either one. Troy, yeah, some of the mikes have not been working right. He's our savior. He comes in and fixes these things somehow. MR. CONTI: Testing, one, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, you got a good one. Thank you. MR. CONTI: Is that good now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Maybe it's your proximity to it that helps. MR. CONTI: My name is Steve Conti, and I have been a blasting engineer with no degree -- because there's no degrees from college for blasting -- for 35 years until I left Gulf Oil Company. I was with their explosive division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you've got to relate -- up here, this way. You need to relate your testimony to the acoustics or the visual. MR. CONTI: Did you hear what I said previous to this? Okay, fine. This is brand new to me, Mark, testifying before something like this. Well, anyway, I think one of the things we have to be concerned with is not only the sound but what environmental effects does the blasting of the rock below the ground do to existing homes in the area? Now, different rock have different density from something like a shale to something like a granite. And then even in those specifications, the density varies. What I heard this morning was there was going to be 15 million tons of rock to be excavated in that area. The density, I don't know the density of the rock here, but it can't be below -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to relate this to something to do with the sound. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He is. MR. CONTI: Yes, okay. The concern now is there, what type of material are they going to use for blasting, gelatin, fluorite, ANFO, whatever; what type of blasting material? Because all blasting materials have a different velocity. And how much of it? Is there going to be something that the board's going to say you can only do so much blasting whether it's a thousand pounds, ten thousand pounds, a hundred thousand pounds or whatever? And I think that's important because that actually is what happens to a thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have to interrupt and ask you to cease. We need to have this related to the sound and visual expert testimonies that were here today. I can't see where you're going in relation to sound. MR. CONTI: Oh, okay. See, I'm not -- may I ask you this, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. CONTI: If I can put this in writing, who would I submit it to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay Deselem. She's the young lady there, and before -- we're going to take a lunch break in a little while. At lunch you might get her card. You also have an opportunity to express an -- that issue in front of the Board of County Commissioners when they hear this hearing as well. MR. CONTI: When is the next meeting is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the next Board of County Commissioners meet. Whenever they schedule before the board. I don't know when that will be at this time. MR. CONTI: Well, thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your consideration. Next public speaker? Yes, ma'am. MS. WHITEHEAD: Chairman Strain, thank you for giving me this opportunity to readdress the commission. And -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. WHITEHEAD: For the record, Patty Whitehead with the Responsible Growth Management Coalition. We prepared the 140 - plus -page document that as I understand you're not going to consider as part of the evidence or testimony for this hearing. Regardless, I would like to make comments to the effect that, you know, these issues are all holistically connected and related. You are -- when you -- and we're talking about the introduction of dramatically enhanced berms and buffers onto this site with the introduction of changes that will dramatically affect the hydrology and ecology of the adjacent CREW land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke to you at break, and I asked you to stick to the acoustics -- MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes, sir. Correct, I am sticking to that. The point is is that when you create -- they're Page 32 of 87 16 I h A4 15, 2012 reengineering the site to accommodate noise and glare issues. The reengineering will have effects to the hydrology that weren't previously considered. One ties into the other. They're inextricably linked. You can't deny that or try and shunt that aside. I mean, 25 -foot berms and 65 -foot berms are going to isolate lands and rob those lands of their hydroperiods. They're going to create an eco tone that will drain those lands and create denuded areas that will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Miss? MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, I don't -- I understand your concern. But you have to tell me how this relates to the acoustical issues or the visual issues. I know the berms are going to be high and they're going to separate areas. MS. WHITEHEAD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that -- how do you see that relating to noise and sounds, noise and visual? I mean, that's what we're talking about. MS. WHITEHEAD: You don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm telling -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I have a concern, because what she's really addressing is that since the last hearing the applicant has introduced these berms and stuff like that. So when would the public ever get a chance to address those -- MS. WHITEHEAD: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- additional items? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the berms are anything new on an excavation site. Every site's going to have stockpiles for the material. How is this any different than anybody that was knowledgeable about an excavation would have anticipated? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know. I mean, they've introduced new elements here, I believe; they're new conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what they've done is positioned berms to better accommodate acoustical issues that they discovered when their expert did their survey, not to change the fact that berms are going to be existing on an excavation site. I can take you to any site in Collier County that does significant excavation, including the old Mule Pin Quarry before it was Heritage Bay. Their mounds were probably much higher than these. For 30 years I've seen those sit up there. So I'm not sure how this is any different, Brad, what they're suggesting other than moving things to a point where they're more reactive to the acoustics and visual. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, obviously, these berms were presented as being acoustical elements to do it. My point is not --I agree, I like the fact that they've introduced them. I'm just saying for her sake, when would the public have ever had a chance to address these new items? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Board of County Commissioners' meeting is coming up. Anything that we don't get -- they don't get addressed here can be addressed there. This meeting was specific to acoustics and visual, and we are going to stay on track. COMMISSIONER SC14WFER: It's your call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'II ask you again, move -- MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to something more -- MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- relevant to acoustic -- that's fine. MS. WHITEHEAD: I am. It's completely relevant. What I'm telling you is that there is natural ecology and vegetation that acts as a noise and sound buffer. When you create these berms, you are isolating lands, robbing areas of hydroperiods, and, therefore, having a detrimental and, you know, sort of off balance detrimental effect. So while they say that they're introducing berms and buffers for -- to limit, you know, the noise and glare effects, you're -- there's going to be an inverse effect to the natural ecology by the introduction of those berms and buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that your point? Page 33 of 87 ,4 161 � 1 arch 15, 012 MS. WHITEHEAD: Do you understand what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. MS. WHITEHEAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't necessarily agree with it. I understand what you're saying. MS. WHITEHEAD: All right. And why do you not agree with it, I guess, is what I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not here answering your questions. You're here to express your concerns -- MS. WHITEHEAD: Well, let me just -- let me just follow up with a statement from our expert witness. As only one example, the proposed mining at the Lost Grove location would make it impossible -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't go that fast. If you could do that again. MS. WHITEHEAD: I'm sorry. There's only one example, the proposed mining at the Lost -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, slow down. She's got to write it as fast as you say it for the record to be clear. MS. WHITEHEAD: All right. The proposed mining at the Lost Grove location would make it impossible to comply with the noise and glare requirements in LDC 10.08.00.D.3 because the trees in the neighboring properties will die from the unavoidable hydroperiod alterations. These trees buffer both noise and artificial light pollution; therefore, the proposed mine is not in the public interest and should be denied as provided in the conditional use procedure, 10.08.00.17, denial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next -- anybody else that would like to speak? Judge, before you come up, I want to make sure all the public speakers are finished. You asked to be last. I'm just trying to -- JUDGE STARNES: I just wanted to make about a one - minute statement, not the final argument, but on this specific evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just do those together when you come up, okay; otherwise, you get two bites out of the apple, and we've already had four days of this apple. So does anybody in the public wish to speak before Judge Starnes does? He will be the last speaker. Sir, after this gentleman coming up right now. MR. STAIGER: I'd like to speak, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, after that gentleman. MR. LOTT: For the record, Neil Lott, Whidden Loop Road, 3319. And the wind direction is a major, major concern of ours, any blasting or the mining operation and, in our opinion, if we can hear that mine in operation, it makes it incompatible with our living quarters that we have in the area. And the other thing I wanted to address was, you know, Alico has pushed this land stewardship down our throat. I'm a born and bred farm boy, and I can tell you that if you destroy your land for the gain of monetary purposes, you're not doing land stewardship. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Sir, you want to come up now. No, the gentleman behind you. He was next. Oh, it's okay. He's waived to you, then. Come on. That's fine. MR. STAIGER: My name is Joe Staiger. I reside at 3225 Whidden Loop Road, Immokalee, and I oppose this. The acoustics, you kind of -- when you talk about it, look out on the graph and everything, you kind of look at it as right there and then. But, you know, their mine is projected to be 35, possibly, the way the economy is, could go 50 years. That's continuous noise every day, six days a week. It's not like somebody that is cutting the grass next door and all of a sudden, you know, a couple hours, turns it off. Maybe in two weeks he's cutting the grass again. This is a continuous bombardment of noise that we will have to deal with, so I oppose this mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. MEEKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Jack Meeker. I live in Estero. And to be specific about the acoustics we talked about today -- from the expert about the human hearing Page 34 of 87 161 2 range, but we did not touch on what the animals can hear, and I think that is something to be considered. As far as blasting was concerned, we did provide an expert, Dr. Rix, at an expense of the residents and the neighbors in Estero and also Lee County. So I would -- please, go over his testimony in your deliberation. Now, as far as the visual, I think the visual presentation was excellent but also was lacking. It didn't really show that line of dump trucks that we're going to see. It was a beautiful picture. I liked his color slides, but it said more about what we didn't see than what we did. So please consider that in your deliberation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Now, are there any other members of the general public that would like to speak at this time that haven't already spoken? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Judge Starnes, if you want to come up, then, and first make the statement you were going to on these topics, then I'll -- if you want to go into your concluding remark that you've been waiting for, we'd welcome it. JUDGE STARNES: Okay. First there was a question about the decibels. MR. MENZIES: Mr. Strain, can I interrupt for just a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MENZIES: Bob Menzies on behalf of the petitioner from Roetzel and Andress. I understand Judge -- Mr. Starnes is going to speak on -- respond to the visual and sound elements that's the subject of this public comment here today, but I also understand that he's going to opine or provide some other comments, and I just wanted to express our objection on the record. He's a member of the public. He's a property owner that has -- owns property there in Collier County. He's no different than any of these other folks. We just objected to any additional comment beyond the scope of what you set forth today. I understand the board could ask -- JUDGE STARNES: Well, actually, I agree with what he's saying. My view of the procedure would be, is that I was going to give a brief public comment on three -- about a minute on the stuff today, then what I was granted, not as a member of the general public, but as a lawyer representing myself, as a landowner, to respond to their summary argument which would come after they make theirs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you'd let me respond to him, I would have said just about the same thing you just said. So with that, your objection is noted for the record. MR. MENZIES: Thank you. That's all I wanted to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the judge probably said on my behalf, that's exactly the reasoning that I was -- and I had promised him from Day 1 -- you didn't object to it from Day 1, so we are going to hear his final remarks. MR. MENZIES: You hadn't started talking about it, but I understand that you can ask for additional comment, and I appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Your Honor. JUDGE STARNES: I still think it would be more appropriate for them to make their argument and then me to follow that for the argument -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not going to happen that way. JUDGE STARNES: -- but I'll go with whatever you adjudge. Well, the first thing I was saying, there was a question about the blasting. And this will be a -- and by personal experience I can answer that question. "Kawomp!" And we've all heard that. And as to the pictures, I think they were very nice. I loved the soft green. It's kind of like a Dr. Seuss book. I believe you -all have actually been to a mine in operation, and it doesn't look like that. And the other brief comment is the decibels on Corkscrew Road and at CREW of the -- what I will call the sighing of the pines and the birds chirping was equated to the same level of what noise you would hear from the rock crusher, the dump trucks, and the others. I believe that you can take into your own common knowledge that there's a difference in the quality of sound aside from the noise -- aside from the loudness, and certain things are irritating. And the sound of a dump truck or rock crusher is materially different than the sound of the wind blowing through the trees or a bird chirping and the Page 35 of 87 161 2 14 �A March 15, 2012 effect on the ordinary individual. And we don't have a psychological expert or anybody to present that, but that's what was lacking in that presentation. It is a -- it is something that, when common sense evaluates the types of sounds, you get a very different result. And I'll give you two brief examples. One is I have a place on Sanibel. We walk on the beach. We love it. On the weekends we hear -- it's somewhat faintly, but hear the band at the Lani Kai on Fort Myers Beach over three miles away blowing across, and it's irritating. It's not illegal, but it's irritating, so that's one example. Another is closer to you folks. Stevie Tomato's on Immokalee. You made a decision at your hearing, which the County Commission adopted, that the sound level would -- of outdoor music there would have decent barriers to not affect the residential structures about 200 feet away. Afterwards, after it went in operation and the music was played, the residents there were so annoyed continually by it and complained so much to the county that Collier County filed a suit against Stevie Tomato's to find a way to exclude them from playing the outdoor music. They were unsuccessful because a decision had already been made. The sound level was within the legal sound level under the Collier County ordinance. That was not in dispute. And so that, again, emphasizes the quality of sound and combined with the constancy of sound every weekday all day long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just one correction to your reference to this board making a decision to allow Stevie Tomato's, to the noise -- JUDGE STARNES: Made a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did not. In fact, I was on the board at the time, and I was an expert witness for the county on behalf of that case. We did not -- in fact, we recommended against drinking places at that location. Somehow everything we had transmitted to the BCC got -- didn't go through as carefully as it should have, and as a result, as you heard today -- in the beginning of today's meeting, we now have a consent agenda to make sure that our stipulations and our concerns get expressed accurately before they go to the board. JUDGE STARNES: I stand corrected, and I do recall that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. JUDGE STARNES: You are correct. You were under an assumption that something was taken care of that later was not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. JUDGE STARNES: So -- but the bottom line is, at the -- after the permit was issued, the sound level, although legal under the ordinance or not in violation of the ordinance, was of such great annoyance that even the county brought a suit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're right in that regard, absolutely. JUDGE STARNES: Now, I think you have to recommend denial of this application, and here are the reasons: If you go to your own code -- and I think when you make a decision on what your recommendation will be, it's important, particularly in a case like this, that it be structured according to the code. And the code has a very precise structure. It says, in a case like this with a conditional use application, that the board, the commission, must make a finding before recommending -- shall make a finding that the conditional use will not adversely affect the public use, and a lot of other things, and the satisfactory provisions or arrangements have been made concerning the following. So a specific recommendation on, and four specific things are listed: Consistency with the code and growth management; ingress /egress, traffic flow; effect of the conditional use on neighboring property in relation to noise, glare, odors or other effects; and the main one, compatibility with adjacent properties and other property within the district. Also, under Policy 5A, it's provided a new development, which is what this would be, shall be compatible with and complementary to surrounding uses. If you take that policy and the requirement for these findings, I maintain that legally you must make a finding, and there is a box at the top that either ends your consideration or allows you to go further, and that box has opposite it the rock mine proposed is compatible with the surrounding properties, which include a nature preserve, a 100 - year -old rural residential community, and a residential community on the west side bordering it in Lee County with, I think, a couple of hundred residents in it, and then another Page 36 of 87 161 P A4 march 15, 2012 residence area on the north side in Lehigh Acres in the Columbus Drive area. It defies human reason to say that if you were initially planning an area with a nature preserve on one side and three other sides with a -- with residential areas, that you would plan to put in a rock mine. And so everything that they seek to do flies in the face of you making that finding. The -- and I think this is a good place for me to go to the next thing, which is that they put on two professional planners during their original case. I think it was -- I've forgotten her name. Margaret -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margaret Perry. JUDGE STARNES: -- Perry, Margaret and then Dave Depew from Fort Myers. Neither one of those -- and I took careful note because I knew what this ultimate argument would need to be. Neither one of those expert professional planners used the word "compatibility" to the best of my recollection or gave any opinion on the compatibility. What they did was, without saying it, they assumed that it could be compatible, and then they gave ways of mitigating against those things that were incompatible. They never gave an opinion that a rock mine next to these properties were compatible. In fact, the only witness that they presented that used the word "compatibility" or included it was Mr. Straw, their blasting expert. He's not a professional planner. And the only way he used the word "compatible," I maintain to you, was legally inadmissible and would never make it into court, and that is he gave examples in other counties of where he said he saw a rock mine and there were some residences next to it. And, in fact, he went further and gave the example of a nature preserve with a rock mine next to it, and it turned out, on further questioning, there was no rock mine next to it. There was a commission decision that they would allow one. So none of their -- it's their burden to prove these conditions to put you in the position to make a finding. They did not do that. They offered no credible witness that presented an opinion on compatibility. I think also your staff has -- has a misinterpretation of the decision that you make and their recommendations to you. They are assuming that once an applicant gets all the appropriate permits, that that's satisfactory, and they just say recommend/recommending or approving the project, and that's not correct, because there is no other agency who is charged with the sole finding of compatibility. That's your job. And, in fact, in the DEP permit, which is the most stringent one, on Page 6, Paragraph 10, it specifically says, this permit does not eliminate the necessity of authorization by local authorities. Further, in their notice of intent to consider the pen-nit and in the pennit, there is not one indication, any fact, inquiry, or anything to do with compatibility, per se, period. They recognized that's your job. That's a local decision to detennine compatibility. And so I maintain that when the staff offered you a report that recommended approval that did not address compatibility, that that was inappropriate. Okay. I'm trying to be as brief as I can, so I want to go through and eliminate anything I've already covered. Only -- Matt Noble. The only witness that appeared before you that, in any credible manner, went through the factors to consider on compatibility. Even though I know you're irritated with the time it took and it came at the end, he's the only one that went through all the factors, had the pictures and the PowerPoint that demonstrated graphically the issue of compatibility. That's the only witness, and he was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make a correction. The irritation wasn't about the time he took. It was that he misled me when he set his time up, and that wasn't right. JUDGE STARNES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what I was upset about. JUDGE STARNES: Well, it was -- obviously you -all were irritated, and I would say that all of us were tired, too. And it did seem like he went on. And it's really in retrospect that I say we have to give him credit that he did address, as the only witness, the main factor that you have to make a finding on that's embodied in the code. So that's the main reason why I think this has to be a recommendation of denial. This is also a case -- because one of you, I think Mr. Minnet (sic), raised a question, oh, there could be a court case or a suit in court, and, of course, there is a procedure for doing this. I maintain to you that this is a case where, if there's any consideration of an attack on a decision ultimately to be made by the County Commission but based on a recommendation here, that what you should fear is not an attack Page 37 of 87 161 Zarch 15 2012 by the applicant should you deny it, but an attack by opponents if you -- if you should grant it for these very legal reasons. There just is no credible position to say that this rock mine is compatible with the surrounding properties. Here's the one personal thing that I've avoided saying all the way through this, because I've been, like you are, in a position of having to decide difficult cases, and you want to avoid any type of emotional approach, and that's kind of why I objected to the initial presentation. And so I'll try not to make this emotional, but I think this is factual and it's accurate, and somebody has to present it from our side, and that is for those of us who are property owners adjoining this property, our land will be devalued -- there's absolutely no question about that -- if a rock mine goes in here. Consider the fact that if you own property and there's an orange grove next to it, change that to a 12- foot -high berm. Now, that berm might be pretty well designed to try to avoid a lot of the connotations that we all see from seeing a rock mine. It won't do it completely, but it may be, from an engineering standpoint, a very reasonable approach to trying to do the best they can to make this not like a rock mine. But, again, consider, would you like to be -- have your property facing a 12 -foot berm? It's a subtle thing, but it emphasizes as much as anything else the incompatibility factor. Why would you have to put a 12- foot -high mound on a bordering property? Would that ever be allowed in a residential subdivision? Would it be allowed in a rural residential subdivision? I maintain to you that there would be objections and probably code violations if somebody surrounded their property with a 12- foot -high ben-n. So it's a subtle emphasis of that point. But when you combine blasting noise -- and remember, this presentation on the noise, every single element of activity on that property, at the site of the noise at least, exceeded the noise violation ordinance, from the dump trucks to the drilling to the pumping to each type of dragline and the rock crusher and the conveyor belt. Every single one of them. And you combine all of these things and the other subtle things such as the wind blowing dust -- I mean, you've been to a mine, and no matter how much they try to sprinkle water, there's going to be that factor. There are trucks moving all over the property, and the decibel level for the dump trucks, they've presented through their evidence, is 70, 80 decibels. It's moving all over the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get to a conclusion soon. JUDGE STARNES: I will. I'm right at -- about at the conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. JUDGE STARNES: And so, actually, that is as good a stopping point as any. If you combine everything, the noise, the site, the dust, the berm, and the blasting, this piece -- this operation is incompatible legally with the surrounding properties. And I maintain you need to check that box at the top "no, not compatible." Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. It's a good time to break for lunch. When we come back we'll resume with the applicant's conclusions, maybe some questions from this board prior to that, and then we'll resume at one o'clock. (A luncheon recess was had.) (Commissioner Ahern is now present and Mr. Eastman has left the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Welcome back from your lunch. This is a continuation of the meeting we started this morning. It's CUPL- 2009 -1412, Alico Land Development. It's the Lost Grove Mine. We left off with the final public comments. We're now going to be moving into the balance of our hearing today. Before we hear from the petitioner on his concluding remarks, I want to make sure that any questions at this time from this Planning Commission are asked as a result of any input we've received during public testimony. Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have a couple, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That's what we're here for. That's why I asked. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Based upon the public input. And I don't know who needs to come up. But Mr. Wiener was -- made a point that there were no references in the dBA, the sound analysis in the dBA to what is a truck passing, typically, and are there any examples that we could provide Mr. Weiner just to close the loop on his Page 38 of 87 1612 March A4 15, 2012 questions. I mean, what's a jet plane? What's an automobile going down the street? What's a bird chirping? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a table in his appendix that has a lot of that in it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I saw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may not have all the ones you just recited, but there are quite a few in there. MR. SIEBEIN: Good afternoon, Gary Siebein. The table was -- those are sound levels that were actually measured in the vicinity of the site, so it doesn't include things like jet planes and so on. But we're out on the site and the wind blows through the trees and there's insects and birds and there's cars going along Corkscrew Road and so on, this is in the general range of 40 to 50 decibels. If you're right up close to the road, as cars and truck pass, there is an example that was discussed earlier that it varied from 50 dB as the cars and truck were further away and 79 as it passed by. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What's a lawn mower, for example? MR. SIEBEIN: A lawn mower's in the mid 80s. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: A leaf blower, about the same? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. At the operator's position, it's the mid 80s, a gasoline powered one. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I was just asking for something to relate to. MR. SIEBEIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Another point that was brought up is that in the conditions to date, the gentleman did not see that you had specified that an electric dragline was going to be used. This is not for you, Mr. Siebein. But is that, in fact, in your conditions or in your proposal, your petition, or is it not, or do you wish to comment on it? MR. ANDERSON: That can be Condition No. 55, if I'm counting right, an electric -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not being picked up on the mike, Bruce. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh. I thought we had it fixed. MR. ANDERSON: We're certainly willing to stipulate that as a condition, add that on. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I think that would be helpful. One more and then I'm finished for now. And I think it was a relevant point that was brought up by some speaker that, although we see the improvement in the berms, in the buffering, there was no mention of the timeline for the construction or the planting of these berms and the buffer trees and so forth and so on. Do you have any comment on that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. The 12 -foot berm as shown on the site plan will be put in place concurrent with the initial mining. The dirt to make the berms will come from the lakes that are being dug, but that's a -- if that's not clear in the conditions, we can certainly make it clear and make that Condition No. 56. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So did I understand, Bruce, the berms that surround the property, basically, would be constructed in conjunction with the lake excavation, not prior to the lake excavation, because you're getting the material for the beams from the lake? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you'd see a berm construction beginning and then marching down the west border? MR. ANDERSON: No. Wherever a berm is shown, that will be -- they will all be put in place, the 12 -foot berm, at the beginning of the excavation. They just have to get the dirt from the lakes to do it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: All right. So you're going to start excavating up in that north -- the west corner, perhaps, you would excavate and transport the materials over and construct the berm, the 12 -foot berm, down the western boundary? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow -up to that, the 12 -foot berm, are you saying you're going to create that with each lake or the whole property; for all three lakes would be -- that one 12 -foot berm you created initially out of the -- before -- when the mining begins on whatever section of the Lake No. 1 you begin on? MR. ANDERSON: It will be -- the beginning of the excavation at the mine, all the berms on all the boundaries that are shown will be constructed at that time from the material excavated from the first lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The word "excavated" can mean something different in mining. Overburden, Page 39 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 for example, doesn't bring the necessary blasting and cuts that you're going to need from a dragline. Are you going to cut the -- make these 12 -foot berms with overburden, and if you are, wouldn't that be the process you'd want to use instead of having to really start the excavation? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah, exactly. There's an acronym of terms being used. I'm sorry. For the record, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development. That's exactly right, Mark. The acronyms are being used here. The commitment here is that the 12 -foot landscape perimeter berms that have been shown on the illustrations today will be the first thing constructed on site, and they will be built from the initial overburden that is taken off from the northwest corner of Lake No. 1. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the 25 -foot berms, which are also termed "overburden stockpile," that will be done prior to the dragline then being initiated? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Any other questions on -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That berm, not from me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tons of questions. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And they remain how long? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: How long do those -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER VONIER: How long do those berms remain in place? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That has really been dictated by the DEP, the ERP permit. What the ERP permit calls out for is remediation to any available part of the mining operation as soon as it's available. So as soon -- what we understand that to be is that as soon as Lake No. 1 -- well, let me back up. The 12 -foot berm will be there the entire time the mine's operating. As far as the 25 -foot berm, we intend to leave that in place until each of the individual lakes are completed. So the 25 -foot berm along the western property of Lake No. 1 will be there and stay there until Lake No. 1 is completely mined out, at which time they'll move to Lake No. 2, to the east. And then the 25 -foot berm will be removed so that the remediation of those lake shores pursuant to the ERP permit will take place. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on the dragline. At the end of the day, are they left up? Can they be -- and I guess you'd have to have a light on them -- or can they be lowered down with no light on them? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Dennis, they drop them down? MR. ROSA: No. MR. SCHROTENBOER: They leave them up? Let me ask Dennis Rosa, our mining operator, to come and answer. MR. ROSA: No, sir. They've got to be -- normally they'll be left up for maybe two days or three days at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what? MR. ROSA: They'll lower them down to be able to mark the cable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then they -- I mean, wouldn't they have a light on them then? MR. ROSA: Since there's no night operations, they probably will not have a light on them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ROSA: There's no reason to have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The neighbors won't have to look at this lit -up derrick out there. MR. ROSA: No, there wouldn't be a light. You guys -- I think the hours are six to six, and there's no need for a light on the dragline boom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it a problem to bring it down every night? MR. ROSA: Well, it's just wear and tear on the cables, I guess, that hold it up. So they would only bring it down when they absolutely have to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Wouldn't that relieve the loading on the cables when you lower it or Page 40 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 -- anyway. MR. ROSA: It depends on your -- I guess your point of view. The wear on the cable is determined by going through the shift -- the pulley. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple, not of you, sir, but of the sound expert again, if the gentleman wouldn't mind coming back up. Sir, we heard some concerns about the effects of the wind direction on the sound. Can you enlighten us as to how wind direction -- and the possibility -- also the climate, whether it's a dry, sunny day versus a humid, wet day? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. At distances when -- of -- in the hundreds of feet, so when the equipment is close to the COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's not picking you up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. The mikes again. I don't know what's wrong with these mikes today, but we've not had good luck with them. MR. SIEBEIN: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a little bit better. Thank you, Ray. MR. SIEBEIN: At distances that are in the hundreds of feet -- so when the equipment is closest to the property line, there's not that much effect on the transmission of sound by weather effects. At distances of thousands of feet, when the equipment is farther -- much farther away, there are weather effects. The most profound weather effects usually happen in this area when there are situations called temperature inversions where the -- normally the earth is warm and the temperatures get colder as they move up. In areas of Coastal Florida, particularly in the nighttime and very early mornings, 2, 3, 4 o'clock, a.m., as temperature inversions occur, where the ground is cold and the air is inversely stratified, sounds will travel at much greater distances than they would during the middle of the daytime. So there are no real mining operations that are scheduled during the middle of the night. For any of the case where there are some slight increases due to wind, I mean, wind tends to gust irregularly, so you get little blips of sound as the wind blows up or blows down. In all of our cases, we're so far below the county noise level limits that, you know, a little bit more or a little bit less, depending on wind direction, is not really going to be an issue here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any distance where an operation like this fails to be heard, I mean, just regardless of the decibels? So, I mean, whether they're a half a mile, a mile, or five miles away. And the reason I'm asking the question is there's a lot involving this location that will have a bearing on new mines in Collier County in other locations, and I'm just trying to understand where a mine could go where it wouldn't have an impact. MR. SIEBEIN: Well, I was actually -- I think it was in this room several years ago when the County Commission looked at revising its noise ordinances and, you know, trying to establish what the county feels are reasonable thresholds to define acoustic compatibility. And there were a number of experts that the county engaged to contribute to this process and a number of citizens that provided input over a fairly extended period of time to develop the document that we're actually using as the basis. And what that process resulted in were discreet sound level limits, which we've used in our analysis to define what the community sees generally as acoustical compatibility for various zoning adjacencies. We did not do analyses that ran things out to the point of inaudibility. What we're seeing at this site is that the sounds of the mine are within the general vicinity of the existing ambient sound levels that we measured at the mine periphery and in the CREW area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Paul, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Is noise additive? In other words, if you have an ambient noise and then you superimpose another noise onto that, does that increase the noise level? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes and no. I mean, it's like as -- if you and I were to talk together, people could hear your voice and they could hear my voice independently, but put a microphone in the middle, it would sense possibly a little bit of an increase from the two contributions. Page 41 of 87 16 12 A4 March 15, 2012 So, I mean, at once, your ears, because they're situated on two side of your head, allow you to differentiate between several sounds that are occurring at the same time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if you have a background noise and then you superimpose another noise on top of it -- MR. SIEBEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- will that increase the decibel level? MR. SIEBEIN: Yes, it does. And I think I mentioned earlier that because decibels are logarithmic quantities, that if you have two sound levels that are of equal sound pressure level, 50 and 50, that the additive result is 53, for example. And, indeed, your noise ordinance recognizes this, because if you measure sounds in the presence of an ambient, there's actually a table in the ordinance that says, if I measure 53 and I have an ambient of 50, I actually have to subtract from the higher level. So, I mean, that's generally acknowledged. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Kay, I've got -- since this was yours, I've got a couple staff questions. I tried to sit at lunch and think of the hardest questions I could ask you, so -- MS. DESELEM: Thanks so much. For the record, Kay Deselem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it was about some testimony we heard earlier. Did you -- to what extent did you consider compatibility in your analysis of this site? MS. DESELEM: I don't have it in front of me, but if you look at the staff report that has been submitted to you and is part of the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that's your -- I know staff does that with every project. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want it clear for the record. You did consider compatibility? MS. DESELEM: We did evaluate this project for compatibility. We did provide that analysis in the staff report. We have our findings on file with you. We are recommending that it be found consistent with the overall Growth Management Plan, which includes compatibility analysis. And we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did staff, in making their evaluation, have all of the testimony and record documentation that the CCPC has today? MS. DESELEM: At that time, no, because there's been substantially more information provided, and the conditions have been proposed to change; there's been a lot more information provided up to now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. You have attended all four meetings? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you heard anything, seen anything, or received or read any documentation that has changed staffs position from their initial evaluation? MS. DESELEM: No. In fact, I believe that the proposed conditions and the things that have been addressed up to this point make it even more compatible, because they've increased setbacks and increased buffering as far as the berms and that type of thing. So I think you're seeing an improved project over what we initially evaluated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That wasn't too hard, was it? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Kay, they mention that they just had another neighborhood -- a NIM meeting just recently. Did you attend that? MS. DESELEM: No, I did not. It wasn't required by the Land Development Code. I don't know that I was even advised that there was a meeting going on. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Which they wouldn't be required to do. They can do that on their own. In fact, normally, petitioners are encouraged to meet with the neighbors and try to resolve issues and discuss what the project is about and ongoing changes. But they're not required to let me know nor am I required to attend other than the required NIM by the Land Development Code, which was held. Page 42 of 87 i 161 Z A4 March 15, 2012 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. It was mentioned that they just had one, so I wanted to know if you attended. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. I think -- total I think that's, like, the third one, because I think they had one in Collier County which was the required meeting. They had another meeting that they held in Lee County, and then the one that they mentioned this morning. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions before we go into the applicant's concluding remarks? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a lot of questions. Mr. Schrotenboer, if you could please come up, I have some questions on your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking for them now, it's typical, we want to make sure all the questions are on the table so if they have any concluding remarks that they want to weave into the questions, they have the ability to do so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a couple questions. Why did you feel you had to go back and get more information? Because you did this complete acoustic analysis and everything else. You're trying to make conditions better. But this was just brought forward after the January meeting. Why did you feel you needed to do this? MR. SCHROTENBOER: It was a response from pub -- I'm sorry. Oh, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development, for the record. It was in response to the public comment. It was part of our rebuttal to the comments that we were hearing in regards to noise and visualizations. It wasn't after the January 3rd. It was the meeting previous to that. I don't know if -- I forget the dates. Maybe there was one in December. But it was a combination of the first two meetings. January 3rd was our original date to have the information. We were unavailable -- I mean, it was not available to present, and that's what brings us to today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I notice you're eliminating the access to Corkscrew Road. Does this mean that no trucks will travel Corkscrew? MR. SC1 ROTENBOER: I don't believe that's being applied, no. The access, the direct access onto Corkscrew Road, has been eliminated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But you still anticipate the amount of traffic that you initially had said, approximately 10 percent or so, on Corkscrew? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Our original estimates were correct, that we anticipated about 10 percent of the traffic to exit Corkscrew Road, and that's what's being eliminated. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is the 10 percent, okay. Your mining depth reduction from 145 feet down to 95, how long do you anticipate this? Because that was at 30 years, going down to 145, and now you've brought it down to 95, shorten -- are you shortening the time? MR. SC14ROTENBOER: If I understand the question correctly -- and correct me if I don't answer it correctly -- the elimination of the depth of the rock from 145 to 95 feet occurred by the reduction of the mining lake in this Lake No. 3, the southwest corner, the last lake. When we increased -- reduced that lake and increased the buffer to over 1,200 feet in that area, that eliminated the deepest portions of the rock. So any time that you eliminate mining lake, you are certainly shortening up your time period of the overall schedule for mining, as there's going to be less to mine. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. In years, do you know how many less years, or are you still planning 30 years for this project? MR. SCHROTENBOER: In my opening remarks this morning, I commented that the reduction of 79 acres of lake roughly computed to about a loss of 15 million tons of rock. Difficult to estimate the duration that's been eliminated because of market conditions. But given full capacity, you're probably somewhere -- a reduction of anywhere between three and five years overall of the mining excavation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Well, that helps. I mean, because I'm thinking there has to be something. Page 43 of 87 161 ? A4 March 15, 2012 So you're saying three to five years approximately is -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: That's clearly an estimate. And in today's market, that's probably over ten years. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Bruce, if you want -- I'm assuming you're doing the concluding remarks? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law firm. I should have identified myself earlier when you -all started asking questions. But I was so anxious to answer the questions, I forgot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think everybody knows who you are. MR. ANDERSON: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Including the court reporter. MR. ANDERSON: I want to thank you again for your patience and close attention to everything. I want to formally ask that you accept as part of the record the submission that was dated February 23rd that you -all received. Just want to make sure that that gets accepted into evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the package supplied by staff at our last Planning Commission meeting. Does anybody have any problems with that? If not, is there a motion to accept into evidence the Alico Land Development cover page and all the attachments dated February 23, 2012, as distributed by county staff? COMMISSIONER VONIER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Bill. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Phil. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: 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 9 -0. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Let me say initially that I've been surprised today that we were being criticized for trying to be responsive. That doesn't often happen, and we were just trying to be good responsive people. Back to -- I want to talk about facts and conditions. It needs to be made clear and emphasized again that the questions that have been raised by some concerning the effect on the aquifers and regional groundwater quality and the hydrological effects of the mine on CREW lands have been determined; those determinations were made by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection when they approved a permit for this project, and they made two very important findings in that regard. Number 1, replacement of citrus groves with reclaimed quarry lakes should improve the water quality and quantities for CREW lands and, secondly, testing shows that the site can be mined without adverse impacts to regional groundwater quality. Those findings are contained in the February 23rd documents under the tabs labeled "FDEP notice of intent" and "ERP permit." The Department of Environmental Protection is the state agency with the expertise and jurisdiction over these matters. And as county staff testified, Collier County defers all six determinations to DER Now, last March when the notice of intent to issue the permit was published and mailed, the notice was Page 44 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 mailed to -- and if you'll look at the last page of the notice of intent, it has the listing of who -all received copies: The CREW board staff, the Conservancy, Collier County Audubon Society, and the Florida Audubon Society. All those organizations received individual notice from the department that the department intended to issue its approval for Lost Grove Mine. If any of these groups wanted to dispute or question the science of DEP's findings and detenninations about the CREW land or groundwater, generally, they had notice and an opportunity to do so. They had a time limit within which to ask for a hearing with DEP, but they did not. So the findings and determinations became final. And because Collier County defers to DEP on these matters, these DEP findings must be accepted for the purposes of the review of this application. The opponents weren't willing to raise these concerns with people who have the scientific background and expertise. Instead, they raised fearful speculation and conjecture and, frankly, in my opinion, tried to buffalo you. The DEP -- the CREW -- and as Mr. Schrotenboer told you this morning, the CREW board, governing board, was asked several times to oppose this project, and they declined to do so. Similar -- similarly, questions concerning weather and what kind of effects the mine may or may not have on protected species, including compensation with other lands with better habitat value and other conditions are deferred to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You heard testimony that the panther compensation lands offered by Alico are better panther habitat than those that which exists at the mine site today. The statement of position from the Florida Wildlife Federation points that out and also points out that the compensation lands fill an important gap in a wildlife corridor for the panther that has been on the state acquisition list for many years. It is one of several reasons that they cite as why they do not oppose the Lost Grove Mine. The staff approval conditions require that any species - related project commitments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be incorporated as conditions of approval for the site plan. The county's Environmental Advisory Council heard all the same type evidence that you folks did, and they unanimously recommended approval. Please keep in mind that the areas in Collier County where mining of limerock is permitted are very limited. The property must meet a three -prong test, scientific and legal test. First of all, you can only dig where the rock is. Mother Nature did not distribute it evenly. Secondly, Collier County only allows commercial earth mining in the rural agricultural zoning district. Thirdly, the third stage, within the agricultural zoning district, the locations where mining can occur are further restricted to receiving land in the rural fringe into lands within the Rural Land Stewardship Area, such as this property, that are designated as open space. If these three tests are passed, then and only then is the property eligible for earth mining. The property -- the Lost Grove Mine property passes that three -prong test, and it is designated as a place where earth mining is allowed as a conditional use. The area where the Lost Grove Mine is proposed is a typical rural area where crops are grown, cattle are grazed, and the population is sparse. Because Collier County LDC only allows mining in the rural areas, rural agricultural areas, and only by conditional use, the county has previously made a determination in the Land Development Code that earth mining can be compatible with other uses allowed by the rural agricultural zoning district. Our conditions have met the compatibility test. You received evidence from the county's planning staff, Mrs. Perry from WilsonMiller /Stantec that this project meets all of the requirements of Collier County, including a finding that the conditions of approval proposed by the applicant and the staff address the conditional use criteria including, specifically, compatibility questions. Alico has held three different meetings with nearby property owners. The most recent one was February 25th. We scheduled it for a Saturday morning so no one would have to take off work to come. Alico has been very attentive to concerns expressed by residents in the area and has made real and substantial changes to address those concerns. I want to highlight some of the most important conditions. Perhaps most importantly my client has agreed to give up access to Corkscrew Road. This was a significant concession to area residents and to the environmental organizations who demanded that there be no such access. Secondly, my client has agreed to provide a minimum setback of ten times the setback that would be required by the Land Development Code. It's a 500 -foot minimum setback. Within that setback -- in addition to the setback there's a 75 -- 60 foot wide -- excuse me. The 500 -foot setback is a minimum of 70 feet wide and 12 feet in height, all Page 45 of 87 1612March 15012 of which will be vegetated. Additionally, within the mining area, there are two more berms, the 25 -foot and the 60 -foot, to further screen views and sounds. Another important point, I think, to everybody that has concerns about this, is that the conditional use. Under the conditions we proposed, the conditional use can be revoked if the mine operator violates the conditions of approval and fails to correct the violation. It's the very first condition on there. Another important condition offered by Alico is that the approval would be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners three years after the mining starts to determine whether additional conditions are necessary, and such reviews would continue to occur after that every five years. Another condition, formation of a neighborhood committee to interview and select one or more independent engineers to investigate blasting damage complaints. My client will establish a separate account in the amount of $150,000 to pay for any damages that the engineer determines were caused by blasting at the Lost Grove Mine. At all times -- that $150,000 deposit shall be replenished and will be available at all times to pay such claims. This is a private, voluntary dispute resolution that is in addition to any claims that may be filed utilizing the state administrative procedure. My client will furnish proof on or before January 1 of each year that the $150,000 balance has been maintained. This $150,000 account is in no way a limitation on the amount of any damage claim; however, it is intended to provide a timely remedy outside the judicial process for resolution of any blasting damage claims. The county requires a mine operator to maintain a $1 million comprehensive general liability insurance policy for any damage that may be caused as well. Another condition, the stacking of haul trucks on site. Queuing on a public road is prohibited. Blasting is limited to no more than eight days a month, Monday through Friday, nine to four. A preblast inspection will be offered to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the conditional use property boundary that grant permission to access their property. These inspections will be completed interior -- for the interior and exterior of the structure, provide photographs. Those photographs will be provided to the property owner and to Collier County to keep it in their records, and the cost associated with the preblast inspections and the post -blast inspections are paid for by the mine operator. A local damage contact must be established before the mining operation commences so that if people have questions or concerns or complaints, they will have a point of contact to know who to contact. We will provide the name of that contact to Collier County, and also it will be mailed out to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the conditional use boundary. Your decision must be based on the facts, not emotional appeals based on conjecture and speculation. I think the facts as they line up all favor approval of this mine, and we request that you follow the lead of the county's own Environmental Advisory Council and recommend approval to Collier County of this application. And, again, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Based on the concluding remarks, are there any questions from the Planning Commission? Did you say something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: How many conditions do we already have on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends on whose notes you go by. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I notice that Brad asked a question about no lights, so I wanted to know what condition that was going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's conditions addressing the lights. But what I was going to do is when we finish with questions of his concluding remarks and any other general questions, I was going to walk through all of the stipulations so that, depending on what motion is made, if the motion maker makes an affirmative, they can have the benefit of the stipulations. If they make a negative, at least the stipulations are on record for the BCC to potentially use. But at this point let's -- we can proceed any way you want. It's up to every commissioner to make their own mind up. But does anybody have any questions on the concluding remarks? Page 46 of 87 161 2 AA March 15 2D 12 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any -- at this point we'll conclude the public hearing and go into discussions by this panel, and that means we have the opportunity to selectively ask questions of whoever we want to get to our conclusions. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A couple things, I think, that would help us start is, first of all, Kay, you could come up again. This is an easy question. Just bring your staff report with you. The paperwork on this is over 1,000 -- I betcha there's 1,500 pages here -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have four books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at least in mine. You could save me a lot of thumbing through things if you could read for the record staffs recommendations at this point in time. Because one of the stipulations, if it were to be affirmed, would be staffs recommendations, unless they're modified by something else that we have in mind. MS. DESELEM: Staffs recommendation -- for the record, Kay Deselem, Collier County zoning. Staffs recommendations begin on Page 16 of the staff report that was last revised 10/26/11. We are recommending approval, and we started out with the Conditions 1 through -- ending with 17. And, obviously, it was my understanding we were also going to go over the conditions from the Jones Mine and kind of go over that in relationship to these. But these -- at the time, based on the information we had, these were staffs conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what my concern is, that -- if we go through a series of stipulations and they differ from staffs. But at the end of our stipulations, we include all of staffs recommendations, I don't want to have a conflict. And so maybe to expedite or save the -- save you having to read 17 of them, you could follow along carefully, and if we do something that's inconsistent with yours, point it out to us so we can understand for the record what that encompasses. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: And I'll have John Podz -- he's looking at it from the transportation aspect, and I believe Chris D'Arco is looking at it for environmental issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if anything that we don't say in the 50 or 60 stipulations that are discussed still resigns with your recommendations, please point those ones out that we did not mention. MS. DESELEM: Thank you for that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into that, I was wondering if Reed Jarvi could come up here and respond to a question that I kind of preliminarily told him I was going to ask. So hopefully -- Reed's one of the new boys on the block. Not new to Lee County, not new to Collier County, but certainly new to being part of Collier County staff. So, Reed, as you know, I've been concerned about State Road 82, and I've heard a lot of testimony about it as a failed road. Different phrases were used in that regard. So I pulled the Lee County -- what I think they have as the equivalent to our AUIR. It's called the 2011 Lee County Concurrency Report. And in there I found a lot of references to State Road 82. Basically it's a -- they have different levels of service at different points. But I was confused about how they -- the numerics applied to the levels of service. And, Reed, could you explain to us the issues with State Road 82 in regards to concurrency and/or levels of service? MR. JARVL• For the record, Reed Jarvi, transportation planning manager. And I'll attempt to do that as I understand your question. Lee County does a little different than Collier County, but it's along the same lines. And State Road 82 in Lee County is governed -- the level of service standard is governed by Florida Department of Transportation. The standard for that road is Level of Service C, and there's various volumes or capacity volumes for that Level of Service C. And the area -- let's see -- one through five segments of State Road 82 going backwards from the county line goes to Alex Bell Boulevard, from Alex Bell to Alabama, Alabama to Gunnery Road, which is also Daniels, and Gunnery Road to Gateway, and then Gateway to Colonial. That's the five segments that I have highlighted here for State Road Page 47 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 82. And that Level of Service C is on all of those as a standard, with the exception of the last one I just mentioned, which was Colonial -- excuse me -- Gateway to Colonial, going south to north, or east to west, depending on which direction it is at that point in time. The interesting thing that we -- that Lee County does slightly different than Collier County is those level of service standards, which vary from around a low of 710 vehicles per hour, p.m. peak hour, to a high of 1,420 vehicles per hour, are for that Level of Service C on -- from the FDOT standard. There is more traffic on that road in the 2011 concurrency manual for two of those -- or one of those segments, which is Alabama to Gunnery Road that exceeds their Level of Service Standard C. It is still a Level of Service D, which in Collier County is the minimum, D, sometimes E -- mostly E, sometimes D. So although the road is below its level of service standard, it is not a failing road in that it's still operating at D, which is not a failing grade. It's just below its level of service. Does that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It helps. MR. JARVI: Or did I confuse it more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I've got -- Reed, I've got their concurrency report in front of me, and it may be simpler, so the other Planning Commission members could see it, if you pass it down so Ray can put it on the overhead. And the segments you're talking about are the ones towards the bottom of the yellow highlighted area. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got a Level of Service C, it says up on top, the standard, and then the two columns, level of service, LOS, and capacity. How can the same level of service have two acceptable different capacities? Now, that isn't the actuals. That believes (sic) is the allowable capacity. So how did we get there? MR. JARVI: Okay. There are many input values to level of service capacity standards with the road; whether or not it has shoulders, number of driveway connections, how many signals there are, closeness of objects to the road that go into that calculation, so they can vary somewhat, you know, a fair amount depending -- for what would be considered the same road, being that, in this case it's all a two -lane road, because they vary, like I said, from a low of 710 at Gateway to Gunnery, to a high of 1,420 at Colonial to Gateway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the same two -lane road. I mean, it's still a two -lane road. So in that case -- in one case the two -lane road can be 710, and the other case, the same two -lane road can be 1,420. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. I mean, it is potentially possible, and that's the way Lee County has codified it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the traffic from this particular project -- although, I think the most particular or concerning piece was the third one up, Gunnery to Alabama, because it has an established C but it's operating at D. And the D that it's operating at is still below the D that the Colonial to Gateway piece is operating at. MR. JARVI: Colonial to Gateway has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,151. MR. JARVI: 1,151, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Gunnery is taken at 1,310. So that's actually got more than the one up there, but because they've established a lower level of service, it's acceptable? MR. JARVI: Well, it's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not -- I mean, it's not a higher level of service, let's put it that way. MR. JARVI: Yeah. It all gets confusing with higher or lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any roads -- I'm trying to understand how this would be in Collier County. Do we have any roads in Collier County that we have a comparison between the two -lane versions that we have here that you know of? MR. JARVI: That is compatible to the two lane? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, comparable to the two -lane differences. If a section of two lane can support 710 but the section next to it only 1,420, what happens to all of them in between? Where does the -- well, for example, if you look at the fourth lineup, the one that says -- I circled 710 on, the actual is 598. Now, above that segment is 1,151. So somehow between that segment above and the segment below, it loses half its capacity, yet they're still Page 48 of 87 i 1612MarcAA012 just two -lane roads. MR. JARVI: Yeah. And if you go a step further, you could say that it's Level of Service C, that particular road, at 500, or it's almost 600 vehicles, where the one above it has Level of Service B and it's 1,150 vehicles. So it's almost twice the traffic and it's actually a letter grade better. But traffic is strange at best, and there's a lot of influences for what the level of service standards would be, and it's not -- there's no simple formula. It's a very complex formula. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. John, did you want to jump in? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. I need to chime in for one moment. And Mr. Price from Lee County, if you could nod yes or no. We have an incorrect line that's on here. One of these that indicates that it's a two -lane is actually a four -lane segment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rob, go ahead. MR. PRICE: I can explain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I just pulled it off your website the night before last. MR. PRICE: Yes, sir. I create this document. My name is Rob Price, for the record, with Lee County. The two -lane segment there, the reason it says two -lane is because a portion of it is two lanes. What has happened recently, the county and the state have -- and the City of Fort Myers have gone together and actually widened a portion of that link to four lanes. So when we have created the capacity for that link, it's taking into account that a portion of it is a four -lane road. That's why the capacity is higher on that two -lane segment than. the next segment down and the next segment down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You acknowledge your concurrency report doesn't tell anybody that? MR. PRICE: Well, yeah. You're correct. I mean, it doesn't tell anybody that, but that is the reason that the number's higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. PRICE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, in Collier County when we have a road that has failed its level of service, we have options available to fix it. The board has many times lowered the level of service to D or E, and we have roads operating that way a lot in Collier County. I noticed that even in Lee County they use the Level of Service E in a lot of the categories. So I see they're using it. But in -- Page 56 of that same concurrency report in the same location, the road system there, it says that they've got no improvements planned for that area in question where they've lowered the level of service. How do you -- how would we in Collier County recover from that? I mean, does that mean that because there's no improvements planned you're not allowed, then, to add more traffic to it because it's reached some excessive capacity? And if so, isn't that like a de facto moratorium? MR. JARVI: It could be viewed that way. In Collier County, we typically have a possibility of developer mitigation if it's an intersection that's causing a problem or, in the extreme cases, it could be, you know, add another lane to each side of the road, although I've never seen that actually happen. I've seen the discussions of that. But we've had situations where we would donate right -of -way possibilities as a condition of mitigation, and then also you might remember that we have three areas in Collier County, two traffic transportation concurrency management areas and one concurrency exception area, that have different qualifications that would allow something to go forward if other situations were possible. And there are ways to mitigate accessing or impacting a deficient road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Along the same line, Reed; this has bothered me a little bit, and I have been in to see staff about this. I believe Alico is planning on 1,350 trucks a day around that area. We also did last year the Immokalee Sand Mine and which only exits onto this same state road, and theirs was 1,400 a day. So we have approximately 2,750 trucks just from these two operations going. Besides, I was told that this is a state road. This is under their jurisdiction. It is also a hurricane evacuation route, and --I don't know. I just thought approximately --and that's just from our two places in Collier County. And so I know they go north and south. It's -- to me that is just a lot of trucks on that very narrow road. And I Page 49 of 87 March 15 X612 was wondering, can -- can Collier County go to the state and ask for -- nothing is planned for that till many years out. Is there anything we can do -- MR. JARVI: Well, first off, I couldn't characterize State Road 82 as a very narrow road. I mean, it's a two -lane road, yes, but they recently -- and Rob may have a better idea on the timing. But recently, in the last several months, have repaved it, and it's a two -lane rural highway with paved shoulders and appears to be 11- or 12 -foot lanes. And, you know, I was out there yesterday, and it's in very good shape. I mean, not so long ago it wasn't in very good shape. But they have repaved it recently, and it's from at least Gunnery Road to the county line. And it's, you know, not a -- what I'd call a small road. It would be able to handle truck traffic. I mean, it's a state highway. That's what state highways are for. There -- you know, there's an amount of traffic on it, but it can handle it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So Gunnery -- are you saying Gunnery Road is the same as Daniels Parkway; is that what you're saying? MR. JARVI: Yes, Daniels, then south. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're saying from Daniels down to where Lost Grove would be, that that's all repaved? MR. JARVI: In the Lee County area. Rob -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So from -- MR. JARVL• Within six months, I think. It's still a two -lane road, but shoulders were added and -- MR. PRICE: Again, for the record, Rob Price. They did -- the state did just resurface the roadway and add paved shoulders from Gunnery Road all the way to the county line, the Lee County line. Before, the pavement was in disrepair and there were no shoulders at all. I believe once you get into Hendry County there's still an issue with shoulders and things of that nature, but it has been recently resurfaced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Reed. MR. JARVI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Okay. If nobody on the Planning Commission has any other questions, I'd like to move through the conditions that was -- go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Could I ask Heidi a question for my benefit? This is a conditional use, Heidi, and a lot of our decision making is going to be centered around the word "compatibility." From a legal point of view and from the LDC point of view and so forth, can you speak from just a factual point of you view as to what compatibility is? And maybe you -- maybe that's an impossible question to answer, but it's center to the decision that -- to me it's a subjective -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be more of a planning question of planning staff than legal staff. But I'll leave it up to Heidi if she wants to dive into it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Or planning. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I'll let the planning staff address it. I don't believe we have a definition of "compatible" in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, did you hear the question of Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. And, Kay, I'm well aware of the staff report, okay, and I'm well aware of your finding. MS. DESELEM: Okay. I did hear the question. For the record, Kay Deselem. I've asked Ray to look it up so that he can get the exact definition either /or from the Growth Management Plan or the LDC, so we'll have exactly what it says rather than to rephrase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's a shame Ray's got to do that. If you could put in a request for new Page 50 of 87 161 iPad 3's for all nine of us, we could take care of that ourselves. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, sure thing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The reason I'm asking is, I personally would just like it as a backdrop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. A lot of us -- I mean, I've seen that definition many times in different documents, so -- MS. DESELEM: Chip Block was kind enough to hand me what he has downloaded from the definitions of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our Land Development Code or his'? MS. DESELEM: Ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: I assume so. It says Collier County. Anyway, in here it does say -- provide the definition for compatibility, stating that compatibility is, quote, a condition in which land uses or conditions can co -exist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Do you want to put that on the visualizer for them so they can be reading it? MS. DESELEM: I figure they all just memorized that when l said it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's good enough for me, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Got it? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I didn't memorize it, but I understand it now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, thank you. And then I have one question before -- I've just found one more in my notes of Don. I'm not even going to attempt your last name, Don. I'll get it wrong. You had said something during your presentation that sparked some interest in me in regards to your property being owned by the company that you work for for quite a long period of time, I think you said a hundred years, and that you even had contributed some of the lands for the CREW lands. Do you know if you contributed some of the lands that make up the CREW lands across Corkscrew Road from the current property we're questioning? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That is correct, Mark. I'm song, Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development. Yes. The land that was donated for CREW within the CREW on the south side of Corkscrew Road, I think it may have been during Tim Durham's testimony given one of the three previous days, I think it was early on, indicated a map that showed the locations of those properties that were donated to CREW. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And at the --I'm just thinking at the time you donated those, you didn't -- there was no requested changes by them or anybody through any other -- like, that donation didn't impact this property either positively or negatively in regards to the way it was donated? There wasn't any contractual agreement or anything like that that affected the surrounding properties that you still owned? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I guess I'm not understanding the -- effectuating the properties, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, what would -- would you have given up the property that you gave to CREW lands if you knew that the fact that that was going to be used as a pristine, natural area would have negatively impacted your right to do -- to go forward with some uses you believe you had on the property you're now questioning today? See, if you anticipated that, I was just wondering if there's some kind of contractual arrangement. MR. SCHMITT: No, no, no. Actually -- maybe I still don't understand the question, but maybe I can answer it this way. The chairman of our board, currently John Alexander, thought he recalled in the donation agreement to CREW that there was some language in there that the CREW could not object to anything that Alico had done in its surrounding property. That grew a concern of mine that that was possibly out there. We have checked that donation agreement, and there is no such agreement in there or any verbiage that CREW cannot oppose anything that Alico does going forward. Page 51 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious. Thank you. JUDGE STARNES: Mr. Chairman? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Did that answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. JUDGE STARNES: Could you ask him -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Sir, come on. We can't do that. You wouldn't allow that in your courtroom either. So -- not from the audience. We will continue our questions like we have -- move forward here, get the relevance -- JUDGE STARNES: The land was sold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any other questions before we go into -- go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that the land had been sold. Was it sold or donated? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Don Schrotenboer, president of Alico Land Development, for the record. Both. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have a list of conditions of approval that were submitted on February 23, 2012, with our most recent package from county staff. I wanted to walk through those so that everybody knew where this stands and each condition. Some of them may not warrant a lot of discussion, others might. Bruce, I don't know who from your team wants to get up here and follow along with us, but we need to start asking questions on a word -by -word basis with certain elements. So it would help if you guys were readily available. And just for the record, this is the discussion that I had with the applicant a couple days ago. I went over a lot of this with them. And on some issues that weren't resolved, they were going to be able to respond to them today, and others we'll just repeat them for the record. On No. 1, Bruce, I had suggested that -- in the second line, towards the end where it says the approval of this conditional use, if the BZA finds that the mine operator has violated or not, and the words "fully comply with all conditions," and I suggested dropping the words "fully" and "all." Is there any objection to that? MR. SCHROTENBOER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 2, the review of the conditional use approval will be brought back to the BZA after three years and then every five years thereafter. I requested every -- after the first year, once mining operations commence and then every three years thereafter. One of you -- is that -- are you going to -- is that acceptable or not? I'm going to need you to respond every time I ask a question. MR. ANDERSON: No, that's fine. You want us to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the first -- if this -- if you get approved and your mining operations commence, I don't mean overburden, I mean from the time, let's say, when the draglines get on the site so you're under full excavation, that from one year after that date you get rereviewed pursuant to Paragraph 2 and then every three years thereafter, instead of every five years. That reduces the time frames. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Mark, if I were to understand it, that would create more of a change than what's listed here than just of the dates. You've added in there -- because this says the conditional use approval or upon, and you just indicated about full operation with the dragline being operated. So what are you asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was more concerned of what your full operation is going to have an as an impact versus just moving overburden. Once you've -- the big thing that is going to happen here is blasting draglines and rock crushers. You're not going to have any of that for your overburden. So if you're actually -- got the dragline in there, that means the worst part or the most intense part of your excavation is underway, and if you can sustain that for a year through another review, just a review to make sure you're in line with all these commitments, I think that would be a better time to recognize a problem than waiting three years. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Given that explanation of being under full mining, yes, we can agree to the one and three years. Just not upon the approval of the conditional use permit as it states. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. Because it actually probably wouldn't do any good. You wouldn't have that much intensity, so it would be a worthless -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: I would anticipate in the next year there's little to no action out on the site, perhaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. Page 52 of 87 1611.2,A4 Kay, staffs keeping track of these corrections? MS. DESELEM: Yes. And I wanted to offer one other suggestion for that same Condition No. 2. In Line 3 it talks about determine whether additional stipulations or mitigation are necessary, and I would ask that you add "or revised stipulations" such that if some of the existing stipulations needed to be changed, we would have the ability to do that, not just to add others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any problem with that? It would read, Bruce, thereafter to determine whether additional stipulations, comma, revised stipulations, comma, or mitigation are necessary. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 3 talks about a commitment for loaded trucks. In front of the second line it says annually for ongoing maintenance of county roads. I would just like the word inserted "Collier County" roads. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can we also put the words, after annually, "to county." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Can we, after the word "annually," put "to county "? Can you not hear me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's better. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. After the word "annually," can you insert "to county" so the payment is made to the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And then on the one before and throughout the document, if we're referring to development services, it just needs to be updated to the current term, growth management -- yeah, Growth Management Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those acceptable, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next one would be 5, stormwater runoff quality. Instead of the word "should," it shall be -- suggesting to add the word "shall," shall not be adversely affected by the excavation area. Is that okay? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into No. 6, which is one, two, three pages long. The part that I found concerning is that you list the 60 -foot stockpile on Page 2 under the west property line of the Lake No. 1, but then for the rest of the descriptions of the excavations of the other areas I can't find it again. MR. ANDERSON: We'll put that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to add the 60 -foot reference for the over -- for that stockpile to every one of those sections? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 7, you say your mining operations and blasting shall be conducted in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, Collier County Government, and the federal government, and I wanted to add the verbiage -- and, Heidi, this is probably one you need to weigh in on -- except as noted herein, which are considered more restrictive. I believe we have the right to increase restrictive requirements. We can't lessen what the feds or the state say. But I would like to be assured by No. 7 that we can. And do you see any problem with that, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, ordinarily, you can't regulate blasting; however, in this case, these stipulations are being proposed by the applicant. They're offering them by the applicant. So I would say in this case we can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, do you have any objection to that language being added in No. 7? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you restate that, please, Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm the one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can you restate it then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. The sentence would end up, when you add the following words, except as noted herein, which are considered more restricted, that way anything we have in here that -- if this were to pass, is more restrictive, then the applicant has to abide by that. It's over and beyond state and federal guidelines. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, does that work? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. If we could just make clear that it's those proposed by the applicant. Page 53 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'll just keep asking. And if you decide -- if you decline, then we'll have to take that into consideration. So if you're not going to propose it -- I mean -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we get into something that's -- if you have a reasonable response that doesn't make sense to the -- what I'm suggesting, I think I need to hear it. If the rest of us agree, then we're there. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That's fine. Just didn't know what we were getting into for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 9, the allowable depth of excavation, and you have a one foot above the confining layer. And I -- based on testimony in the first hearing where the teeth of your machine is at least 12 inches long, I would suggest -- I'm asking for 2 feet. That gives us a 1 -foot buffer. Do you have any problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: Agreed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean the lakes can only be excavated to 95 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of the lakes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of the lakes. Number 12 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: Can I just respond to Brad's comment. There are fragments -- I think it's only in one section of No. 3. As you move further to the north, they get shallower. So the 95 is the maximum depth only in one portion of one lake. That's why we're asking for it. That's not consistent across the whole site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: When you get to the north side of the site, the depths of the rock are at a 40 to 45 feet depth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What he's saying is, though, they'll never exceed 95 anywhere on the site. MR. SC14ROTENBOER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought your question was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I thought we were going to 140. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I thought only Lake 3 was cut to 95. You're saying all the lakes have been cut? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's because of the geometry of the lake, or is that a concern over the confinement? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Just so I'm clear, I mean, we're not going to exceed 95 foot in depth across the entire site in any of the lakes, okay. The way Mother Nature has placed the rock, it is much deeper on the south end of the site than it is on the north site. There's almost a -- roughly a 45 -foot difference between the north side of the site to the south side of the site of how the rock runs in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. 12? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 10 question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, just to how you're going to cut that lake, it looked like, from some of the visuals, that Lake No. 1 -- at one time we were talking about starting up in that northwest corner and coming down the whole thing and, essentially, start to break the rock from the residential and then go back up. This -- and I thought from one of the visuals, it looks like you're going to start in that northwest corner and head east and, I guess, come back west and then head east and then head west? MR. SC14ROTENBOER: I'm looking for the map I can put up on the teleprompter. Thank you. As always, somebody's always ahead of me. Let me try to explain this to you real quickly. In Lake No. 1, what our intentions are to do, if you can see my Page 54 of 87 i 1612 A4 March 15, 20 -- is there's called an initial key cut, and our intentions are to do that initial key cut in this general area of the lake. Then what we will do is -- from that key cut is we will move to the west and then down to this location and then do succession cuts from north to south as we move across the rest of this site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 12, your -- the way you have this worded, you're limited to a maximum of 700 loaded aggregate truck trips per day, and I really think it should be 700 exiting trips per day. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we don't want to count an empty truck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then don't send one out without filling it. What good would it be doing you? How often are you going to send an empty truck out of a mine? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, I would agree, rarely, but you don't know. It could be a situation of weather conditions where there's not enough rock supply to send out on that truck and that truck's been waiting there. We may have hit our limit of 700 trucks and another truck can't leave with a load. We don't want to count pickups that might be service oriented, water trucks that are coming in and out to keep the dust down. There are various other types. So that's why we would prefer to keep it as worded, or something similar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the word "loaded" concerns me. A truck takes 18 or 20 cubic yards. When you guys put in six cubic yards, that's not a loaded truck. What is a truck? MR. SCHROTENBOER: You could put either loaded or partially loaded aggregate truck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we get into aggregate truck. What if it's for supplies, which -- is everything going out of your facility going to be aggregate trucks? Are you going to have any other mixtures, or are you going to combine silicas with anything? Are you going to do anything else? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think that's a valid point. Obviously, at some point, the overburden may be sold off, if possible, for fill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about just loaded truck? MR. SC1 ROTENBOER: Agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is No. 22. This one came up in discussions, and it's about the lighting. My -- the reason I highlighted it is because -- you're not going to do any nighttime work. I think that's been acknowledged. Because you're six to six, so there's no nighttime work allowed. So what is light -- what is the lighting you're trying -- you're seeking here? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think what we're addressing here is for safety and security measures and any possibility of repairs that might take place on the equipment, that lighting is needed after 6 o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we need to add that the lighting that will be allowed after the working hours will be for safety, security, or emergency repair. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- chime in. So that means there will be no lighting on any of the cranes? Because one light you forgot is the drill. The tallest piece of equipment is probably the drill, correct? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think the tallest piece is the dragline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, anyway, is there a way, we can keep all lights on those things -- I mean, 25 feet would be fine with me because that's your berm height, but -- just so that the neighbors aren't looking at light fixtures. I don't know if the FAA has a requirement for height. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah, that's what I was just going to mention is the FAA. I don't -- you know, I don't think we're into those kind of heights for required lighting on these things. But perhaps I can look down the hall here and look at Dennis Rosa real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, under the safety criteria -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah, I don't think there's any issue there. Yeah, unless that falls under the safety criteria, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Safety, you couldn't put it up. I mean, if you wanted to put a light on the top of a dragline, unless you had a safety or security reasons to do that -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: That's correct. Page 55 of 87 1612 4 4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean, nobody's going to climb on top of a dragline. And safety -wise, if it's not required by FAA, you wouldn't need it. So I don't think you could justify it. MR. SCHROTENBOER: That's correct. We're not going to justify it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But security, if somebody meddled with it, they could say, we need a light on the top of the crane to look down on it. So can't they just -- we just limit the height to 25 feet? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I'm sorry, Mark. I'm having a hard time hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you limit the lights to 25 feet? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think they're limited to 20 feet, if I read this correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, those I think are your roadway lights and stuff, right? But 20 would be fine. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yeah, 20's fine, across whole site, 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Or no more than 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 29, it's a question I have -- I'm sorry, Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I've got one on 25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER VONIER: All access to mining operations, and then you describe that. You do have an access road from Corkscrew that's used for small traffic, pickup trucks and the like, and I assume that will remain? People use it to access the maintenance area and so forth; is that true? MR. SCHROTENBOER: That is correct. And that's currently the haul road for the citrus operation as well. A significant portion, if not all the haul for citrus comes out of that road, and that would remain as well. The access to 82 is all pertaining to the mine, nothing to do with the ongoing agricultural operations. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number 29, it's more a question of our staff just to make sure the last sentence of that No. 29 is worded correctly. This transportation condition shall not require site - related inspections by the county inspection staff. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, transportation planning. Yes, sir, that's just a cue for our inspection staff so that they don't keep it as a requirement that would hold up any further development on this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure you're fine with it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. I also need to point out one real quick correction on 28, while I have an opportunity to do so, the one right above this. It refers to the term "SDP permitting" at about the middle of the paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I need to change that to better read the words "excavation pennit," because there may not be an SDP at this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about their operation center; wouldn't they need an SDP for that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm not 100 percent clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about SDP or excavation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any problem with that, Bruce or Don? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, I think it's in there because, you know, as part of this application, in addition to the CU is also the excavation permit. So if you were to make a recommendation for approval, as I understood it, it would be for the CU and also the excavation permit, and then go to the BOCC. So if the BOCC endears itself to approve this in the future, that would indicate at that immediate time, based on your current change, that we would have to then change that over from 82 at that given point. I think we would prefer to keep it to SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm reading it. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My intention is strictly to make sure that when you guys are running trucks on Page 56 of 87 i 16 12 A4 March 15, 2012 the site that we have a trigger at that point to require your turn lanes to go in to serve those trucks. MR. SCHROTENBOER: If that's the clarification, I'm absolutely fine with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the clarification, John? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Is that when we start experiencing truckftraffic at the site that the turn lanes are installed, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, experiencing truck traffic at the site could be one pickup truck. So we've got to get down to whatever -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Aggregate haul truck traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Haul truck traffic. One haul truck? Because they could bring in lime rock that's not -- because they don't have it available on site, put their pads on. So you're got to -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'm going to defer to the applicant to hopefully define at a better point when your operations will commence with those turn lanes. We could use the term "when warrants are met for FDOT standards." And FDOT does have listed standards for their turn lane warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or when warrants are met -- SDP permitting or when warrants are met? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Number 30. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Just want to make it clear on the record that we are not reviewing an excavation permit. To my knowledge -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you brought that up. MS. DESELEM: -- that has not been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was going to ask you about that. How is that done -- why is it -- Bruce, maybe you can tell me, why is this being -- how have you visioned this to be simultaneous? MR. ANDERSON: Excavation permit was reviewed by the EAC. They do -- the LDC does provide for them to review it. For whatever reason, it doesn't come to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you. You're right. I recall that now. That's one of the idiosyncrasies of our code which makes no sense, but thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Could I just ask one clarification -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: -- on Stipulation 22? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to make sure that it was security, safety, and repair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I said it was emergency repair. That's what it was termed when you said it. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. Ms. Deselem didn't have that, and I wanted to make sure that got cleared up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the three that I -- MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 30,1 would like the reference "date" added to the project entitled, you know, "Lost Grove Mine prepared by Stantec," so whatever date the document that finally is used for the site plan is inserted in No. 30. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yep. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 38. Anybody have any questions through 38? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On No. 38 on Page 8, the second line, is to have a minimum of four constructed walls. Why don't we just leave it four walls. We don't want any debate on what's constructed and what isn't. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Agreed. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. Page 57 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Before No. 34 or after the title "blasting conditions and limitations," could we insert "of the following are proposed and offered by the applicant "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, if that's okay with the applicant. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jusf see a nod of the head. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Don't we all -- are we going to be out there also, Heidi, when they -- each time they blast? Are we going to have someone out there? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: The fire marshal will have somebody out there, and I don't know whether those rules include the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got to have somebody out there. I got a call every time I blasted. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I just want to make sure that -- from our county. MR. SCHROTENBOER: I would -- staff might be able to respond to it. If you look at proposed Condition No. 47 -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I was looking at 34, but -- I know it's regulated by the state, but I thought somebody from the county was also going to be there each time. MR. ANDERSON: They are. That's standard practice for excavations here, yes. And I -- we can snake it clearer, perhaps, if need be, under 47. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we could say, "county shall monitor on site." COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that works. Okay. Well, let's move on then. We're on -- let's see. I'm trying to see where my next markups are. Number 42. The only thing I'd like to reference here is the location that you described the key cut. Do you have any problem with that? For, like, No. 1, that's the only concern. MR. SCHROTENBOER: That is correct. As I illustrated here. If that's your understanding, we agree to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 44 is redundant, but if -- I don't know. If you guys want to keep it in for redundancy, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Mr. Anderson's trying to set a record of number of conditions, so we'd like to keep it in, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to be adding some more. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 43 I have a question. You're referencing a condition where holes could be loaded and you have to shoot them outside those hours. What happens there? How does that happen? You can't leave a hole loaded overnight or something? In parentheses, blast. MR. SCHROTENBOER: I might ask Jeff Straw to come up, but I believe there are conditions where situations do happen where they load a hole, and then weather conditions prohibit it, and there's a situation there it creates. MR. STRAW: For the record, Jeff Straw with GeoSonics. The state fire marshal controls how that works. If weather would move in, if it's still able to be blasted before -- during daylight hours, the state fire marshal will grant approval to do so. They don't want to, what we call, sleep a shot overnight if they don't have to. If it gets to the point, for safety, it's darkness, there's still a lot of rain, lightning, something like that, they will make them wait till the next day. At that point the blaster is required to remain on site guarding the shot all night. All the delays are disconnected. But somebody is there from the blasting contractor, and a licensed blaster has to stay on the shot all night. So it's not just walked away from. It is something that's there. That would be the only issue for, you know, shooting something after those hours, but it is done with approval of the state fire marshal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the latest they could shoot, I mean, you mentioned daylight. I Page 58 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 mean, it's not like, all of a sudden, 10 o'clock and they fire that hole. MR. STRAW: No, no. They're not going to do that. They will go till, you know, dark. Whatever -- whatever the sunrise /sunset is, they will -- you know, if it ends up being 6 o'clock, if it's a safety issue for them, they will do it. Most of the time they will wait and make them sleep it overnight. But they try not to do that. I mean, we have nine to four, and the thunderstorm clears out at 4:05 and it's safe, they will say you have to blast, because the state hours are till 5 o'clock. That's typically the day -to -day procedure. But there would also be a notification of the county -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. STRAW: -- at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I just wouldn't want it to goloff at midnight or something. MR. STRAW: No, no, no. That's -- there's no licensed blaster that will ever do that for their own safety, let alone anything else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. STRAW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've still got several pages to go over to finish this up, like, I think there's two to three pages left. Why don't we take a break for the court reporter right now. We'll come back at 2:40 and resume the same line. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Okay. Welcome back, everybody. We left off Page 9 of the 50 or 60 stipulations. We'll just continue from there. Actually, we're going to probably go to the next page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark -- MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 44 question. It says they can blast eight days per month. Do we want to space that, or can they blast eight days in a row or 18, 12 overture or something? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your mike -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My mike isn't working? COMMISSIONER EBERT: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the mikes are not as sensitive today as they usually are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My mouth probably doesn't work. MR. ANDERSON: This is the same language that's in the Jones mine. I mean, the flexibility is needed depending on weather conditions actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You aren't -- your mike's not working again. There we go. I heard that. MR. ANDERSON: They're trying to silence us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, do you -- do you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, how many times a day would you blast? I mean, is it set up where you're only going to blast once a day, and so you'd have multiple blasts? MR. STRAW: There is one drill pattern typically per day. It's very unlikely that they will drill two patterns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. STRAW: Normally they are not shooting back to back. But as Bruce indicated, because of the weather conditions, you could have a day where they have two things planned -- you know, two blasts planned in a week, then you have rain on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, with thunder and lightning, so they would delay those and shoot those maybe Thursday, you know, and another Friday. You know, right now most people are blasting anywhere between once and twice a week, and the -- blast, and then you have to come back next to that area and blast -- you know, and you start drilling again. So you can't drill right next to the blast you just -- you know, you already have loaded because it will damage those blast holes. So, typically, the day and at least a day in between. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. STRAW: But it's that flexibility that we need. I mean, eight times per month is not a lot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 59 of 87 R 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 MR. STRAW: -- in terms of that. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: During the break the county engineer and I spoke about Condition No. 47, because there was a concern about the county just not showing up after being given notice for a blast, and -- MR. McKENNA: Hi. For the record, Jack McKenna, your county engineer. What we discussed here was the code, not specifically for mining but for land development excavation and so forth, for blasting requires 24 -hour notice, and we'd recommend having that same 24 -hour notice apply here to the mining and have it crafted such that we are notified. If we respond back and say, no, you don't blast tomorrow, then they would be held up. But, typically, that won't be the case. We would have an inspector out there, or we'd not have the inspector out there but they'd be able to proceed with the blast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way it's written probably provides a stronger ability for the county to say no than anything else. The way it's written it says, the county shall monitor on site the conditional use of blasting, and a charge will be applied to cover the fees. So if you're not there, for whatever reason, if they didn't give you enough notice or you're too busy that day or you got sick, if nobody else shows up, they don't blast, and that's the way I read this. Bruce, do you see it differently? MR. ANDERSON: That's why we raised it. That's why we raised the concern, because we heard earlier if the blast holes are loaded, you don't want to leave them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but would you load them before you scheduled it with the county? I mean, so you're going to go out and run all these holes not knowing if anybody can come out and see them and then -- MR. STRAW: The way the line is written right now, it doesn't tell you when you have to notice. What we -- what Jack and, you know, Bruce and I discussed is that -- add to that that the county shall have 24 -hour notice. It's very similar with your construction blasting ordinance, that you provide a 24 -hour notice to the appropriate agency, and whether that's Jack's department or whomever gets that notice, then they say, okay, gee, we're on schedule, we'll have somebody there, we're fine, or if they say I've got five inspectors out and we have three other inspections, we can't be there, the blaster at least knows not to go out that next morning and start loading the holes. If these guys start at 6 o'clock in the morning, if we would -- if they would call Jack's office at 8, they could have a series of holes loaded, then we're in a catch -22 position with the state fire marshal saying you must blast and the county saying, gee, I don't have anybody there. So that's the reason for the 24 hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the county shall monitor on -site conditional use of blasting, talks about the charge. Any blasting will provide a 24 -hour notice. Does that work then, Jack? MR. McKENNA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Let's see. Number 51, ground vibration levels and/or air overpressure levels shall reach 80 percent of the -- and then it says, State of Florida statutory limits. Why not -- well, since you have various limits written throughout this document, why wouldn't we have the agreed -to limits will operate -- so that we're not -- MR. STRAW: The reason for the 80 percent rule is at one of the meetings, whether it was the last one or the one before, somebody asked about, what happens if you get close to the limits, what do you do? And that was put in there in that -- the limits that -- you know, the conditions that are in there are monthly average limits. The state fire marshal's limits are an absolute. So what we did was work backwards from those absolute numbers saying that if they got within 80 percent, it works as a caution level for the operator. It makes the operator mandatorily stop, review the vibration, the air blast levels, to make sure that they're not going to exceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the maximum per -inch second -peak particle velocity allowed by the state. MR. STRAW: Lowest -- low frequency, .75, as I explained on that chart three or four meetings ago, but it goes from .75 all the way up to 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you're limiting yourself to .50, right? MR. STRAW: The monthly average, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So wouldn't we want to say that it's 80 percent of that in lieu of, what, .75? MR. STRAW: 80 percent of the monthly average. If you shoot .02, .02, .02, .02, your average is really low; there's not any review that you need to make. Page 60 of 87 :w'4 161 a A4 March 15, 2012 My concern is when I -- and I put this language in there. The 80 percent rule is taken from your construction, you know, blasting ordinance just as notification as well -- and that comes from way back, from Broward County's ordinance and regulations. That's why we use the state standards. Those are defined numbers. The average -- monthly average is going to be kind of a moving target. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighty percent of .75 is 15 -- so that would be 70, I mean 60. So based on the fact you've got to have a monthly average of .5 0, how would you ever hit 60? I mean, so -- you give us that -- MR. STRAW: You might get .60, you might get .6 on the one shot, and then the blaster realizes what's going on. You have to look at that for the average. That's where -- we do this right now, you know, for our clients that have this type of limit. I mean, the state's an absolute. It gets within 80 percent, we let our clients know, look, you guys are within 80 percent. You need to talk with your blasters and make some changes in what's going on so that you don't go over. It provides just a safety margin for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For every eight days that you blast, eight days per month, your average will not be over .50, but you have to re- evaluate if you're 80 percent of the state levels? MR. STRAW: That's correct. It's just a twofold safety aspect of it. That's the reason it's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. 54, third line down, the engineer should be unbiased towards all parties, and instead of "and hired before," I just want to make sure it's "and shall be hired before blasting operations commence." Do you have any problem with that? MR. SCHROTENBOER: No problem; accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's five additional things I heard come up or that were discussed off and on and maybe needed to be suggested. The electric dragline. Will you make a commitment to use electric draglines? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes, we've made that commitment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concern, on your exit on 82, putting a sign up in both English and Spanish instructing your drivers not to use Corkscrew Road? Even though 10 percent or less are going to, do you have any problem putting that signage up? MR. ANDERSON: A sign to discourage them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, you can't -- you're not going to be able to go out there in a squad car and pull them down. I just want to make sure that you do everything possible to avoid Corkscrew Road. That's one reason the exit was eliminated. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The four conditions of your letter dated April -- or February 23, 2012, would be incorporated if they haven't already been, but that all is incorporated. The 12 -foot berms in the site plan will be built concurrently with the initial mining for the entire area at the time you do the overburden, and 25 -foot berms will be done prior to the dragline being used, and they'll be done with overburden. Is that -- I think we talked about that, and that's the outcome of that discussion; is that agreeable? MR. SCHROTENBOER: It's certainly agreeable in regards to the 12 -foot perimeter berm. The issue of the 25 -foot berm prior to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dragline. MR. SCHROTENBOER: -- dragline, that I'm not sure, Mark. Hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way I saw it on our plan, it was done with overburden. So my assumption was you wouldn't need a dragline for that. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, I think they may be pulling it off with the dragline, but let me get that clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROSA: That's what we're doing. We're taking the dragline and putting the berm up with it. In order to get something 25 feet high, you could do it a lot faster with a dragline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're not going to -- but okay. Then you're not going to have your deep cut done at the time you're going to put your overburden up, right? MR. ROSA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that could be limited to prior to any deep cut being instigated or instituted. MR. ROSA: That's acceptable. Page 61 of 87 161 A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions, concerns, or comments? I'm trying to see if we've got everything before we go into anything else. I believe that's most of the ones I had written down. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Does that make 57? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I -- it's above 50 -- yes, something -- well, it's hard to say. They have 54, -5, -6, -7, 58 or -9 depending if you count the berms as separate issues. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Heidi, did you have one correction you needed somewhere in that packet? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just under No. 34 at the end, the same phrase that you added on another paragraph, which is "except as noted herein," which are more restrictive, and that relates to the blasting operations for Lost Grove Mine under the Florida statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant have any problems? That's the same language used elsewhere. Can you just jump to the mike and someone acknowledge it. MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, okay. Anything else from anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Agricultural, you have trucks for ag that you're taking out of there also? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Absolutely. We do today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. No, no. That's not a problem. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Harvesting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm just trying to figure out something here. How long do you plan on harvesting -- I believe is it oranges in here that -- MR. SCHROTENBOER: It is Valencias and Hamlins, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And how long do you anticipate that that will go on along with this -- the mining? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, a couple things in regards to that. Our desire, as long as possible. Keep in mind a couple things. One, as I spoke to earlier, we're up against competition, we're up against diseases, we're up against trying to maintain our water supply as well as climate. So all of those have factors long term into the industry. Assuming that none of that affects this particular grove, our desire is to maintain the grove as long as possible, and we'll only eliminate the grove operation in the sections of the area that we're mining in at the time. So even to the point of possibly, let's say, Lake No. 1 -- Ray, could you throw that back to that site plan backup one more time. Thank you. Two things I just want to point out. Even in regards to Lake No. 1, even though we may be mining over on the far west side for that first cut, we may still be trying to maintain the grove to the east of that. So our goal is to try to maintain as much of the grove as long as we possibly can. My other point is, keep in mind that this is only one part of our entire section of land that Alico owns. This is about six -- I think the CU permit is somewhere around 1,600 acres give or take. Our entire property there is 4,600 acres, and the rest of it is a grove. There's no anticipation that anything is going to be impacted in there only because of weather or diseases that I've already talked about. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Don, can you tell me, it's seasonal, I believe, with the oranges. So what months does this run through? MR. SC14ROTENBOER: I'm not really quite an agriculturalist, but I believe harvesting season starts -- it's over the winter months, let's just put it that way. We are concluding harvesting for the most part now --between now and Mother's Day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Typically you want to get all your fruit off before Mother's Day. It starts Page 62 of 87 16� A4 15 2012 somewhere, give or take, around Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, fine. How many trucks do you have departing, just approximately? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I don't know. I don't even know. I'm sorry. I don't even know what departs there today. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So I guess I'm going to ask you, because I've heard of this orange and this agricultural, those trucks, though, can go out onto Corkscrew Road, is what you're saying? MR. SCHROTENBOER: The agricultural service and haul trucks currently exit out onto Corkscrew Road today, that is correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But you don't know how many are doing this daily then? MR. SCHROTENBOER: I'm sorry. I do not have that figure. I probably could try to text message our grove manager and get an estimate while I'm sitting here. But you recall when we went on the site tour, Diane; we came in that main dirt road. That's the haul road that exits out onto Corkscrew Road. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I was just --there's two operations going to be continuing then for this site? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing. One of the virtues of this could be 30 years or so down the road it's a great recreational site. Is there anything we should be thinking about today, or is that the something they'll deal with 30 years from now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure we have any precedent or reason that we can deal with it today. So I mean, it's their property. I'm not -- it's a conditional use permit for a mine. They could turn it into a Heritage Bay like Mule Pin Quarry did or something like that, then we would deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one thing we've done, the -- getting the buffers larger and larger and larger makes it easier to develop in the future for different kinds of uses. Could be residential, could be a park. I guess we've done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? I have one. Ray, would you put that overhead up that I gave you. I have been trying to figure out a solution to the majority of the neighbors that have residences around this property, and they lie mostly to the south of Lakes 1 and 2, and also CREW Trust which lies across the Corkscrew Road. The fact that the applicant voluntarily reduced Lake Area 3 is good. That happens -- I think he said was going to be the deepest lake because that's where the rock was deepest. But, you know, it's -- that is the area that is most concentrated with residential people in that area and closest to the CREW. If the mining CU was restricted to the area above that red line I drew on there and Lake 3 was eliminated at this point, then if they decide later on that Lake 3 is still needed after they finish those other two lakes, which are larger and will go on for many more years -- I think Lake 3 is the last one -- and the last time we spoke I think it was indicated it could be 30 years down the road -- they would have plenty of time to come in and justify Lake 3 both by their actions on this site, being good neighbors or bad, and then public weighing in at that time. So my concern is the elimination -- I would like to see Lake 3 eliminated from this conditional use. I think it would be much more compatible, especially since that area is the closest area to residential, existing homes, and many of the people that spoke here today, as well as CREW. So I will be looking for a motion that would incorporate such an action. If not, then I certainly have a problem supporting it at this point. So that's the last I have to say in the matter unless something else comes up. Does anybody else wish any other comments? Don? MR. SCHROTENBOER: May I address your last comment`' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely, sir. MR. SCHROTENBOER: I think in my concluding remarks I made a comment about no more meat on the bone or it was no more juice in the orange. A number of things. This operation is just not a happen- overnight operation. The initial investment into this operation is in excess of $35 million just for the equipment. Over the Page 63 of 87 161 2 'A4 March 15, 2012 period of time, that equipment's going to have to be replaced and repaired and continued capital. There has to be some assurance in place that that capital and the investments that are going to be made, in addition to the increased operating costs that we've imposed upon ourselves with these conditions, that there is some return on that investment, and that can only be assured by having adequate amount of rock to be mined. In addition, we've agreed to a condition that indicates that we will be back before you in one year and every three years thereafter. So we're going to be back before you already. There's also a condition in here that if we are in violation of not being a good neighbor, you can revoke our CU permit. So I think we've provided ample conditions to address anything going forward. As far as compatibility, I think we have -- certainly have demonstrated, listening to your input, the public's input, with the reduction of the lakes, the increased buffers. We've heard today visually, also acoustically that this is compatible. So to increase that compatibility any further I don't know if it garners. The people who oppose the mine are going to oppose it regardless of what size it is going forward in the future. We've demonstrated we're compatible. We have an initial -- huge initial capital outlay that we need to assure that we can recoup by this rock. So I would respectfully ask that you withdraw your consideration of removing Lake No. 3 at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As I told you when I met you and Bruce the other day, I had this as an issue, something I might introduce. And, you know, what really threw it into the introduction was that -- and at the time I pointed out to you both that the acoustics failed to address the location of Mine 3, but that was going to be explained by your acoustics guy, so I waited. What he explained is, you just slide it down. Well, that doesn't give me the picture I needed to understand how those acoustics don't have a greater impact on Lake 3 where there are more residences than they do on Lakes 1 and -- well, 1 is where mostly all of it was done. So I lost my level of comfort with Lake 3. And I don't agree that Lake 3 ought to be in the mix. And I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the mix in the final outcome, but I think that you have ample opportunity to bring it back at any time in the future to request it to be added to the conditional use. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Well, I don't disagree. We can bring a lot back in the future if we desire to. I mean, you know, perhaps cloning might be a possibility there, and we're going to be having nine Mark Strains and, trust me, one's enough. But with that, the -- we're going to ask Gary Siebein to come back up and -- because we want him to explain that further, because the application that was applied to the western boundary or any part of the mine applies regardless of where it's applied across the site. So I'd like to have him come back up just one more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, this isn't -- we closed the public hearing. So I want to make sure that he's coming up at the request of this panel. So does any of these -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I -- there was a question there, Mark, because he did show the thing coming down the western boundary. He did not really show that it would make a turn and go east and then make a turn and go west, especially the 60 -foot pile with the crusher behind it. So, obviously, there's a pattern here for overburden. If we made a condition then that changes, also, the patterns of the 60 -foot -- or the 25- and 60- foot -high mounds, that would always put the crusher behind the 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they've already made the condition that the 60 -foot mounds would be there, because they've agreed to the language in the other paragraphs of the first several pages that originally only applied to Lake 1, that they would move those -- that stipulation into Lakes 2 and 3. So that part I understood, but I was still more concerned with the lack of acoustic, addressing that specifically. That's where my -- that's kind of what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think that mound system should be almost U shapen in that location. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Mark, to your point, I believe on the visualization that was depicted of what you talked about, as far as when we come south and then we turn and go east. I believe that was depicted on the visualization. And that's certainly the intent. I believe in regards to the Condition No. 6, that that supports what you're asking for as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is no -- it would never be a case where the crusher is not behind the 60 -foot mound -- Page 64 of 87 z 16 1 �archlk,412 �-4 MR. SCHROTENBOER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- from residential neighborhoods? MR. SCHROTENBOER: Absolutely, that is correct. That is our commitment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, it's encapsulated behind that mound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand. Now, did anybody -- did we want to hear from -- more from the acoustic guy? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MR. SCHROTENBOER: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. I've exhausted all my discussion. I don't know if the rest of you have as we've gone through this whole thing. And we're into our fourth day, so I'm looking to where you want to go next. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, you want to make a motion; go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion that we deny CU- PL2009 -1412. Several reasons. There are so many conditions on this particular thing. I appreciate that they have come back and tried to do a lot of good, but it still, to me, is incompatible. It goes against our GMP Goal No. 3, which is to protect our waters, and that's our aquifer right across the street. At one -- when I was out there, they were also going to close off the creek, which is a culvert under the ground which actually creates -- it's a beautiful little creek, and they were going to close that off, and that goes right towards Lake Trafford. And I'm just looking at -- there are several reasons but, really, a lot of homes that are out there are very, very old, and to be honest with you, I'm about two- and -a -half miles, three miles from Heritage Bay. When we moved in in 2002, the vibration and -- the vibration and the sound alone is -- and I'm a lot further away than the 1,500 feet. Fifteen hundred feet is not very far. Just for a development that just went on behind us, we felt everything. And living through it for 30 years is asking a lot. And I just -- to deny it for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you made a motion to deny, and you stated your reasons. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll just say that I believe --I have to go with the residents over commerce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a discussion? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Is this mike working? I guess it is. I think that the Alico Company has been a good steward of the land for many years. The orange grove is in excellent condition. They provide a lot of good jobs for people in Immokalee and in the county, and they give to charity. In particular, I know that when we asked for something for our farmworker charity, a medical charity, they were one of the few growers who pitched in, so I really do believe that they are a good company. And I don't think that this development will do anything bad to the hydrology. I think that the water supply to the neighboring properties will be, if anything, increased, not decreased. But I have a problem, again, with the compatibility with the neighborhood. I think it was interesting, the sound study. When they were talking about -- let's see. In Appendix E3 where they were talking about where you have an ambient decibel level of 32 to 42, a passing car was measured at between 42 and 63. So when you're in a quiet area, there's that much of a difference that happens when you have noise added on. And I know probably a lot of you have walked through the Corkscrew Sanctuary in the cypress dome area, and you can hear people who are talking half a mile away because sound carries very easily through areas that have low understory. And this CREW sanctuary will be similar to that; the sound will carry a lot. There's going to be 700 trucks leaving and entering per day. That comes to about one truck every 75 seconds. That's going to be a lot of noise and dust. I don't think it's compatible with this rural neighborhood. The increased buffers to 500 feet and the 12 -foot berm will lessen the impact, but I think there'll still be a Page 65 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 significant change to the neighborhood. Alico has offered to give up the access to Corkscrew Road so that the only entrance and exit will be off 82; however, 846 is a public road. No one can tell trucks that they can't go that way. Just go out to 82 and turn right down 846, because that's the shortest route to the coast, and it's also by distance and traffic intensity, and I think that's where a lot of the traffic will go. As an Immokalee resident, it's farther for us to go to Naples than it is to go to Fort Myers or Estero. Estero's about 30 miles; Fort Myers, 35 miles; and Naples 45. So when we go shopping we tend to use that Corkscrew Road a lot, or 82. And especially 82, it's already a dangerous road. And if there's going to be a lot of increased traffic, that's going to be worse on us who are using it to commute to go to work or to go shopping. A major reason for me opposing this project is its incompatibility with the CREW Trust recreation area, which is across the street. I've driven past other mines, and it seems pretty clear that a mine is just not appropriate for this particular place. Our family enjoys nature a lot. We've spent a lot of time out in the CREW Trust. And I want to make sure that everybody understands that it's unique. It's different from other nature parks in Southwest Florida. For -- the first thing is, it's free. That's not like most state parks or private ones like the Corkscrew Sanctuary where you have to pay to get in. It's very accessible to Lee and Collier Counties but especially close to Immokalee and Felda. And the inland communities, just from Immokalee, it's only 10 miles away. And unlike most parks, it doesn't have one or two boardwalks or hiking trails; it has many miles of hiking trails, and -- so that's another area that it's unique. And, finally, it's available any time. Some of our best family memories are walking out there in the moonlight. The reason why the CREW is incompatible with Lost Grove is that most of the trails are laid out near County Road 846. And the area that's bordering this limerock rine is mostly pine flatwoods. That means they're tall pine trees with an understory of palmettos and other low bushes. And this type of ecosystem is not common. It used to be. But since its very ideal for development in terms of the soil is well drained and it's easy to develop, physically, and from a regulatory standpoint, because it's not wetlands, there's becoming less and less common large stretches of pine flatwoods that are available as parks for hiking. When the CREW Trust land was bought or donated from Alico, it had been logged over and didn't have a lot of large pines. It had a lot of small trees with a thick layer of bushy underbrush. In its natural state, a pine flatwoods forest burns about every three years. And because the pine trees themselves don't burn, you have -- after a few decades you have some big, tall pine trees with a low understory, mostly of palmetto. During the past 15 years since CREW has been managing this place, it has been burned about every three years. And if you drive past now, you can see that most of the trunks of the pine trees are blackened, and you can see quite a ways into the park because the understory is kept low. So the pine trees are getting taller, and you're going to have an ecosystem that's rare and that's very valuable, because there's few large expanses of pine flatwoods in Southwest Florida that are managed intensively as parks. So you have a problem that if the mine is put in, the sound is going to carry a long distance because you have not very much in the understory. People who are coming to CREW Trust now have a special experience. They get to see and hear something they don't see somewhere else, and you really feel like you're getting back to nature. The silence there is just remarkable. If the Lost Grove Mine goes through, the experience will be different. I appreciate the setbacks and the berms and the noise dampening equipment, but I think that the sound of this industrial operation will still carry into the CREW's Trust hiking trails that are used by the public, and we can't move the trails farther away from the road because beyond half a mile or so you get into the corkscrew marsh, which is the headwaters of the Corkscrew slough, and it's too wet to really hike in. As long as this mine would be running, which would be for 30 or 35 years, there would be a change into the CREW Trust ambiance. And after that, it might turn into a town or a village, an RLSA village, and this would also make the change to CREW permanent. I think as we look towards the future, unique, extensive natural areas that are near population centers such as we have now with the CREW Trust are going to become very important to our quality of life. This mine in this Page 66 of 87 Im R 161 A4 arch 15 2012 location will cause serious harm to the neighbors, motorists leaving and entering Immokalee to the west and the CREW Trust, and I don't think that the harm can be avoided or totally mitigated for. There hasn't been a single member of the public that has spoken out in favor of this project, and in my 10 years on this board, I can't remember where there hasn't been at least one member that says, well, you know, this project isn't that bad, you know, we can tolerate it. I agree, Alico has a right to a reasonable use of their property, but the present residents here also have rights, and what comes in should be compatible with what's already there. So the testimony has shown that there will be disturbances to the neighborhood, increased volume and intensity of traffic, the road becoming more hazardous, increased noise, dust, and nighttime lights. But the thing that we have to decide as a board, what's the threshold where something is incompatible or not incompatible. And I think for the purpose of our decision, staff has told us that to be incompatible the mine doesn't have to break noise ordinance, it doesn't have to damage homes from blasting, it doesn't need to make the roads fail. I think it's clear that incompatibility can be accumulative effect of smaller impacts. So my reasons for voting to reject this petition are: Incompatibility with the neighborhood because of traffic, noise, light, dust, and blasting. If we approve this mine, we're going to be sacrificing one thing for the sake of something else. And the neighborhood belongs to those who live there. The CREW Trust belongs to all of us, and I think the word "trust" here is appropriate. I think we're being called on to make the right decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, I thought you said all that from memory, but I noticed you've got -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm not that good. And usually -- I wanted to preface, you know, usually I'm a man of few words, but sometimes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you broke the record on that one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I did, for consecutive words at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other discussion? Any other comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I really vacillated, quick frankly, on this proposal for and against as we went from hearing to hearing, testimony to testimony, thought process to thought process and so forth. But I did make some notes with my one good hand, and I'd like to read through them. The bottom line is that I am going to vote in favor of the motion, which is to deny, but I'd like to state my reasons for that. County staff has concluded that the setbacks offered by the petitioner -- and initially of 300 feet from all boundaries and now increased tremendously by 6 times the required county setbacks adequately addressed the issues regarding compatibility. Staff further states that while there are residential uses on the adjacent tracts, the lands are zoned with an agricultural designation; therefore, the proposed setbacks are in compliance with the Collier County regulations. My opinion is, after visiting the site, that the proposed projects, even considering a 500- to 1,200 -foot setback, is going to have a significant adverse effect on the surrounding properties, including the CREW lands, as well as the residential properties adjacent in Collier and Lee County. Mining operations will disturb both the human and wildlife population of the surrounding properties. Certain testimony was heard that a setback of 1,000 to 1,400 feet would still not insulate from that disturbance. While, admittedly, the residential units are within agricultural zoning, they are still residences and people live there, and a mining operation is not compatible, in my opinion. With respect to the CREW lands, there is no way to predict the disruption to the wildlife within these lands nor to the thousands of visitors to those areas seeking the peace and quiet of nature. My opinion is that the mine is not compatible with the surrounding properties and it will directly or indirectly impact those properties and the uses that -- they're currently being put to. And also why I asked the opinion on compatibility, it's my opinion that compatibility is not an objective measure, but it's a subjective measurement that each person must decide for themselves based upon as much input as we can get. County staff has also determined that there's no significant or adverse impact demonstrated on Corkscrew Page 67 of 87 �r 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 Road or State Road 82. Notwithstanding discouraging the trucks from going on Corkscrew Road, there's no way you can really control it, and the drivers are independent operators. They're going to take the shortest route they can get to I -75 southbound. So that is going to have an impact. The truck traffic, to some extent, is still going to exist on that roadway no matter what we do, unless we block the road off. And, therefore, based upon those considerations and my opinions, I am voting with the motion to deny the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the vote. I need you both to say aye and raise your hand. If you're in favor of the vote, please signify by doing so. If you're in favor of the motion to deny, please raise your hand and say aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those against the motion, same sign. Aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion carries 5 -4. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 6? The motion to deny carries 5 -4. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the applicant is denied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You voted those in favor of the motion first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the motion is for denial. COMMISSIONER EBERT: For denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Five people wanted denial. Raise your hand again if you want denial. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. What was the problem? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when you asked for the second vote, those against the motion, I raised my hand, and so was Diane, and I know she wasn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. I was the one who -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've got it straight. It's five against, four in favor -- I mean, five to support the motion, four against the motion. I saw a solution. I'm sorry that it didn't get there, but I still see a solution somehow. With that we'll adjourn for 10 minutes, resume -- or nine. We'll come back at 3:30 and finish up. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please take their seats, we have two more cases to hear. These next two items have been continued from the March 1 st meeting. They're both for the same property, so we will discuss them at the same time, but we'll vote on them separately. ** *The first one is VA- PL2011 -1410. It's called the Wahl variance at 8 Pelican Street West, Isles of Capri. The second one is BDE- PL2011- 0001409, and that's the Wahl boat dock extension. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're Page 68 of 87 1i : 161 2 A March 15, 2012 going to speak on this, you have to rise. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Any? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I talked to staff, and I visited the property and talked to Mrs. Evans at No. 6, which is next -door neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on this side? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I got an email from Josh asking me if I had any issues, and I didn't get back to him because I really didn't have any at this point. So -- okay. Whoever's going to make the presentation, Josh, if it's you. MR. MAXWELL: Good afternoon, Josh Maxwell with Turrell, Hall & Associates for the record. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Pull that closer. MR. MAXWELL: Oh, sorry. Is that better? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes. MR. MAXWELL: Okay. Better? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It works. MR. MAXWELL: The boat dock we're bringing before you today is the exact same boat dock that has been in place since prior to 1985. The reason we're here today is we would like to put in two boat lifts, one on the side, which requires a variance, and one on the end, which requires the BDE. The dock itself was built prior to BDEs being required so, therefore, it's a grandfather structure, but the boat lifts are not. And we discussed with the state about the placement of the dock. And due to aquatic reserve rules, the dock has to be built exactly where it is, or the dock has to be a marginal dock, which a marginal dock in the Marco River would not be favorable because the neighboring structures would impair ingress and egress. And so that leaves us with this option, rebuilding the exact same dock and adding the two boat lifts. We dove the site. There were no submerged resources present. We went through the ERP process and achieved an exemption from the State of Florida, an SGBP from the Army Corps of Engineers. The main reason we would like to put the lifts in, one, for the safety; when the boats are being moored in the swift current of the Marco River, they'd be moored out of the water, which will also help with water quality. Keeping the boats out of the water will prevent them from having to use bottom paint. So this exhibit here -- this exhibit here shows the Wahls, proposed dock, and the docks around it. As you can see, our protrusion distance is similar to those around and even less than some further down the river. There's one dock down the way that still protrudes approximately 100 feet out into the river. The river itself is approximately 800 feet wide so, therefore, we do not interfere with any of the navigation within the Big Marco River. How do I get this to zoom out a bit? Perfect. This exhibit shows previously there was a T dock here for approximately 17 years. The T dock, the extense of it and its mooring piles, was outlined by the red boundary, and that hatched area is the reduced preempted area that we will no longer be impounding with the new structure with the boat lifts and the new dock. And so, in essence, the proposed plan is less impactive than what was there for the last 17 years, and it is going back to the dock configuration that was built prior to 1985. So if there's any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. Can you put that back up, please. MR. MAXWELL: The second one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah. I just want to understand. What is there today? Is that what is outlined in white? MR. MAXWELL: The white is what was taken last year when they flew the aerials. Presently, it is the L -dock configuration. When the Wahls wished to install a new seawall this past year, they went back -- the DEP Page 69 of 87 161 2 AA March 15, 2012 required them to go back to the grandfathered structure prior to the aquatic preserve, so that's why we're back to the L -dock configuration. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm still not there, I'm sorry. If I look at the overhead in the petition or the aerial in the petition, it shows a T dock. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. MR. MAXWELL: Unfortunately, we don't have the latest aerials that, hopefully, were flown last month. But here's a line drawing of the existing conditions, which is just the L dock presently. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You're confusing me now between the L dock and T dock. If I look at the aerial photo -- MR. MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: -- in the petition, is that the existing dock? MR. MAXWELL: That was the existing dock up until last year when they removed the portion of the sea -- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: This is not current? MR. MAXWELL: Right. So the new aerials, helpfully, will be released here in the next few months. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And so that dock protruded out how far? MR. MAXWELL: The existing dock protrudes out 58.6 feet to the mooring piles, a total of 41.5 feet to the end of the terminal platform. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Why was the section of the T dock removed? MR. MAXWELL: The T dock was added after the aquatic preserve rules were put into effect, at least that was the determination by the State of Florida. So that portion of the T dock was removed to come into compliance with the aquatic preserve rules so that the Wahls could install their new seawall. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. So it was illegal, basically? MR. MAXWELL: I'm not sure exactly what date it was installed, so I'm not sure if it was truly built before or after the adoption of the aquatic preserve or before or after the adoption of the BDEs. But, unfortunately, the aerials aren't of the clearest quality for back then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The depth shown here, they're feet; is that correct? MR. MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Why do you need to come out anyway? I mean, I know you historically were out there. But normally when we do these extensions, we do it to give people water depth. You certainly don't need it. MR. MAXWELL: We don't need the water depths but, unfortunately, if the Wahls would like to moor two vessels, they will require at least some fonn of a finger pier. A marginal wharf would be the only other option as far as the DEP is concerned because of the aquatic preserve rule; they only allow you to go out to negative four feet, which is at the base of their riprap. And so if we were to go with any other allowable dock configuration, they would only be restricted to one vessel, and it would also be difficult to moor the vessel due to the configuration of the neighboring structures and the swift current of the Marco River. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is because of grandfathering, you can keep the shape? MR. MAXWELL: Exactly, just as almost every dock on the Marco River. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any adjustments to this shape will cause you to go back to the basic configuration, which would be much less than that. What's the reason you don't put the lift on the other side of the dock? MR. MAXWELL: Just the access to it. The backside of the dock is just not large enough for, you know, the majority of the boats that are on the water today. I believe it's, you know, 15 feet, which typically you would like to leave the back 4 to 5 feet of any vessel open for loading and unloading. And so, therefore, you know, we're restricted to approximately a 15 -foot vessel, which is fairly small Page 70 of 87 16 LIZ 15,2A24 compared to everything else on the waterway in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is that there's no place on the other side you could put a lift that would allow you to access it from your dock? MR. MAXWELL: Not that would be easily accessible as far as normal ingress and egress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But from my experience when I go on people's boats, they usually go in one zone towards the rear. So why couldn't that zone be what's up against the dock there? MR. MAXWELL: You would then be forcing them to moor the boat backwards and have -- make them reverse over a boat lift structure, which is typically not a common structure. There's people that do do it in the county, but that's usually when that's the only choice they have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I was thinking the back would be at where your dock is where they would go in head first. But you have great water depth here. MR. MAXWELL: Hmm? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You really have great water depth here. MR. MAXWELL: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which we rarely ever see. So you really could pull these boats in closer to shore. MR. MAXWELL: We could pull the bow of the one to the eastern side in closer, but we also don't want to be getting them too close to the riprap revetment. That's at the base of their seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Would the neighboring houses have the same issues if they were looking to do something with their dock? MR. MAXWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So by you coming closer to their property, you're not going to impede them in the future if they wanted to make changes; they're under the same compliance? MR. MAXWELL: Correct, because they have similar water depths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. COMMISSIONER VONIER: The property on the -- to the left of the -- looking from seaward, looks like that property encroaches on the riparian rights of the Wahls; is that correct? MR. MAXWELL: It's within the setbacks. If it was a new dock, it would not be compliant. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. So that basically is the reason that they can't use -- bring a boat in from that area, because that's so close? MR. MAXWELL: Well, it's that, and there's no practical place to install a boat lift that would allow easy mooring. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. Another question. There are two apparent markers or tall piles off of the dock. What are those? MR. MAXWELL: Those are the existing mooring piles, what were there for the previous dock. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Josh, you said something. You said when the seawall was repaired they had to change the T dock. What does the seawall repair have to do with the change in the sea dock. MR. MAXWELL: The State of Florida, when they applied for the seawall permit, they looked at the aerials available on Collier appraiser's site and realized that the dock that was there -- and their grandfather date was not the dock that was currently there. So in order to issue that permit, they made the Wahls modify the dock to the L dock that is there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only thing that was grandfathered was the L dock, T apparently may have been added on and just wasn't done through anybody that -- maybe DEP or whatever? MR. MAXWELL: Right, either not through a permit or not provable easily with aerials. Page 71 of 87 1.61 A4 March 15, 2012 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said that if they -- they can't modify this dock without -- because it's grandfathered in, basically? MR. MAXWELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if they wanted to lengthen the dock, they couldn't? MR. MAXWELL: They couldn't lengthen the dock and they can't shift it any further west, unfortunately. We did bring that up with DEP, and they said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they shorten it? MR. MAXWELL: No, we could not shorten. We actually can't even make the tenninal platform smaller because then we're not in compliance with the state's criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is? MR. MAXWELL: That it has to be the exact same footprint because I asked about possibly modifying the footprint to allow a boat lift on the left side and just shorten up the terminal platform, and they told me that would not be compliant then with the state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can't do a less restrictive boat dock without violating state rules? MR. MAXWELL: Because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that is goofy. MR. MAXWELL: Welcome to our world. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. You're sure of this? MR. MAXWELL: Yes, because I asked the same question, because I had the same thoughts you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow, because that does -- yeah, that does change things. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 think what that says is the state does not want that dock there. It's in the wrong place. So what they're saying, if you touch it in any way, it goes away; you've got to rebuild it according to the code. MR. MAXWELL: To the current aquatic preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the grandfathering aspect of this isn't to lessen the grandfathering. You can't -- you've only got the grandfather, or if you have the grandson, you've got to build it from scratch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But if they try to put it where it would be more compatible from the code perspective, then the guy next door, who's in violation of his riparian rights, ends up -- this guy can't do anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So he's kind of like in a catch -22. The guy next door is really the one pushing you to where you've got to be. MR. MAXWELL: Theoretically, we also -- if we could, if we didn't have the aquatic preserve, if this was anywhere else in the county, we would be able to shift this dock to the left and not require the variance. But, unfortunately, with Isles of Capri being in the aquatic preserve, that's not an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we were talking before, you said you wanted to get the second boat and everything, but you have too much boat length anyway. You have a 75 -foot lot. You're really only allowed half of that. So, you know, what you said to me is we need to get the other boat lift so we can get a bigger boat and violate the length requirements. MR. MAXWELL: The Wahls would like to have, you know, the two vessels just like anybody else in Isles of Capri has. Just because we are over the -- I mean, we're allowed to, I believe, meet four of the five primary, and in this case four of the five secondary, which we still do with this dock. So I can see that being a concern, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't get us started on the scorecard again. This board's wasted a lot of time on that. MR. MAXWELL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you read that carefully it says, before we could give approval, you have to -- so, you know, that just sets us a threshold from which we could go forward and give you an extension. It's not the, "you hit the score, you win." But -- anyway. Page 72 of 87 N 16I 2warcIA412 How big are the boats you're going to put in there? MR. MAXWELL: We would like to be able to do, you know, 30 to 35 and then something around 25 so they could have, like, an offshore style vessel and possibly a bay boat or a pontoon boat and a bay boat. Right now they don't necessarily have the boats ready to go because they want to find out what kind of dock they can have first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, essentially, you've got 75 foot of property line, you want 60 feet of boat in the back of it. MR. MAXWELL: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. a COMMISSIONER VONIER: Let me ask a question. Looking at the property to the right where they have no boats -- MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: -- and you said everybody has two boats. Well, let's look at that part. Forget who -- that they don't have a boat. Let's say I bought that property tomorrow. There's no way I could put two boats in there. MR. MAXWELL: You could do a similar configuration to what we're proposing. COMMISSIONER VONIER: If I came in here and -- because of going to the right I couldn't get in there with a boat dock. I'd have to put one on the end and, actually, they have -- would have a right to a boat dock on the long section of their dock. MR. MAXWELL: You mean a boat lift? COMMISSIONER VONIER: A boat lift. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: And there's room there for them to have one legally. MR. MAXWELL: Right. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Okay. But it would be -- MR. MAXWELL: They would have to come before you for a BDE, though. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes, but it would become restrictive -- more restrictive for them if we put a boat lift on the Wahl side on that -- not on the end of the pier, but on the side, one that would encroach on their riparian rights. MR. MAXWELL: Yes, it encroaches on the riparian line and, yes, it is closer to the neighbors' riparian rights, but it does not affect their ingress and egress whatsoever, because you would be having a boat lift that is perpendicular to the shoreline to which you'd be pulling straight in and straight out of, so you'd be backing into the Big Marco River. So you wouldn't be inferring with the Wahls' boat lift, and the Wahls would not be inferring with any potential future lift on the neighboring property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Josh. Now, is there a staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Land Development Services, and I am here to speak on behalf of the variance. Staff is recommending approval of a 9.3 -foot variance, and that's from the eastern riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you just said the variance. You're not here for the boat dock? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not here for the boat dock. Mike Sawyer's here for the boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've done plenty of boat dock extensions. How come we have two people doing the same thing? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I wanted Nancy to do the variance because she's more experienced with that, and Mike is learning the ropes on the variances, so he's working with her on that. But Mike's Page 73 of 87 t 1,2 A4 ch 15, 2012 done a lot of boat docks, so he's handling that aspect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have no problem. I was just wondering why two different people are doing the same thing. MR. BELLOWS: It's kind of a cross - training. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Okay, Mike. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, senior planner -- I'm sorry, project manager, now, for planning services. You've got the staff report that was originally dated February 17th and was revised on the 22nd. We are recommending approval of the boat dock extension. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of either staff personnel on the variance or the boat dock extension? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mike, to me this is the classic place, which is -- the legacy dock in Collier, I think, is a 4 -foot or so dock, 5 -foot, maybe, along the seawall where boats are attached to it, which they can do because they have the water. Rarely do we ever get a chance to do that. So why are we supporting this extension? Because, essentially, the extension is only needed to meet what the state has grandfathered in. MR. SAWYER: Right. Basically, when we have docks that have been in place before a lot of our regulations, the general rule is you are able to repair and replace board for board, and that includes any -- anything as far as the dock fixture itself or even boathouses. In this case we looked at what they were proposing to do with the boat dock extension. It really isn't affecting the dock itself. It's actually the extension that includes the boat lift and the vessels themselves. So that's really why they're here for the extension. We looked at it as an existing condition with the existing dock, and the request was actually more for just the lift and the vessel, primarily just at the very end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they did have piers out there, which then would be allowed -- MR. SAWYER: Correct, which are out further than the current lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they were grandfathered in. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if this whole dock is grandfathered in, then why are we dealing with it? I mean, obviously, the one on the side's in question. But don't you agree that the dock is grandfathered in by the state and us? You're saying that the lift itself outside that is why we're here? MR. SAWYER: I think -- correct. I think to a very large degree, I think you're exactly correct. What we're really doing is being more specific on the facility that they're going to have now which, as you say, actually encroaches more than the mooring poles out on the very end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they had the right to the mooring poles; is that right? MR. SAWYER: Correct. Those are actually going to be going away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you comfortable with the length of the boats? I mean, why are we going out of our way to provide all these, you know, excess boat length based on the site, which is what would block the neighbors' view, though, multiple boats. MR. SAWYER: But, yeah. That's one of the criteria, and they're able to miss one of the criteria, according to the LDC. I'm just saying what --how staff reviews. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Asa scorecard. MR. SAWYER: Staff has to stay by the scoreboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've lived there before. Okay. Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, you want to call for the public speakers? Please come up and use either Page 74 of 87 161 A4 arch 15, 2012 microphone. And we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. Wail until you're called. Ray's going to call you out. MR. BELLOWS: Joshua Maxwell? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joshua Maxwell. You already did -- you put a speaker slip in? You're the prime speaker. MR. MAXWELL: Just want to be prepared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's next? MR. BELLOWS: I don't see any others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the three of you that did rise to be sworn in, I know you then want to speak, you figure out the order. Whoever wants to go first, come on up and use the -- you already did that. Just come on up and use the speaker. MS. EVANS: Good afternoon. My name is Joan A. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull this little thing closer to you. There you go. Get your voice in. Thank you. MS. EVANS: My name is Jane A. Evans. I live at 6 West Pelican Street, Isles of Capri. I am in -- the east neighbor, side neighbor of the Wahls. I've been a Florida resident since 1959, and I've lived at this property for 19 years. I received a letter which -- the first letter from the consultants for the Wahls -- I'm just going to begin about what happened -- and it told me about what they wanted to do. I really wasn't so sure, and the maps I didn't understand that well. But, anyway, shortly after, a knock at the door, and the Wahls came to say hello. They had came into town. So how are you? I'm fine. Well -- but I said, I'm not that fine because I just received notice of what you want to do, and I'll tell you right now I'm going to say no. Oh, Joan, Joan. Come in, look at this letter. It says you want two boat lifts. You want to encroach on my property. No, no, Joan. That is a mistake. We only want one boat lift. I said, well, read the letter. It says two boat lifts. No, no. Let's go outside, Joan, like Hansel and Gretel, you know. We don't want anything different. We want to replace everything just the way it is. Okay. And anyway, that ended. Well, this whole situation has brought up something that has been in question with me for a long time. I have grandchildren and I have great grandchildren. And for a long while -- they've always been saying, Nana, if you'd put in a boat lift, we'd come to see you more often. Well, at this time in my life, the sunset of my years, I have decided that I want to put a boat lift in and have already had different bids, and I will be applying for an application. Now, getting back to what the Wahls want to do. I have no animosity towards them. I like them. I'm happy they're building this beautiful home. I've had 18 different homes from here to outside of Tallahassee, everywhere. And this is my first time -- in fact, my daughter laughed. She said, Mother, you're going to be an activist after all these years. And I said, well, I think it's wrong with what they want to do. And I want to tell you that I feel that the encroachment and the pilings, the existing mooring pilings out there, they're intertwined. When I put my boat lift in, those pilings that are existing -- and I don't really -- I'll tell you another story after that -- believe they're legal. That's going to impede coming in, because the Marco River really is treacherous. I've even seen the charter boats. I mean, the current's unbelievable. And they're out -- if you stand at the end of my dock, the boundary survey, and you look out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the mike, Miss. Turn around and use the mike. I'm sorry. Do the best you can by using the mike. MS. EVANS: If you look out -- if you stand at the edge of my -- the west end of my boundary and you look out, it almost looks as though those existing mooring pilings are right in line; however, I realize -- I've been studying the map and learning more about it -- that the map says they're six feet away from my survey line. It's hard to tell. And they -- the mooring pilings, the existing mooring pilings, extend beyond my dock, so that when you're coming from the gulf and want to come back in, I've seen boats that are out there trying to fish in front of my property, charter boat, they have a hell of a time getting in. Page 75 of 87 R, A� lch 15, 2012 And with the Wahls -- and I also wanted to say, because it's the truth, he has a boatyard, and he build Alaskan trawlers. Who's to say whether he's going to put an Alaskan trawler out there? Anyway, I feel that the variance for both things -- I'm asking you to deny it. And I also want to say the survey of the boat traffic hasn't been done, and it definitely is heavy, heavy boat traffic. And as far as the mooring pilings and the dock that was removed, I knew the man -- Ed Lemka was his name -- who owned the house that was built, then demolished, because I bought his property at 18 East Pelican in the mid '80s. And I remember him coming over and talking about putting the dock in and also the pilings in, because he couldn't wait to bring his big boat over from Goodland. And I also know that the man who owned my house -- there's only one owner before me. We were living in Key Largo at the time, and my husband, of course, knew Chris Middlebrook, the broker, and he referred to him as Old Man Davis, Earl Davis was owner of Marco Marine years ago. At the time he was 90. And I think he watched everything like a hawk. And that's why as long as I lived at 18 East Pelican there was never a boat out at those existing mooring pilings and boat dock. Now, after that -- we moved after a year, so I don't know what happened in between. But I can tell you as long as I've lived there, there's never been a boat docked there. Maybe a boat came with a bunch of little kids picking them up or taking them off, but the owner or -- I forgot what his name is -- Madeiras -- Mr. Madeiras never had a boat there. There's never been a boat there. And whatever they want to do I feel is detrimental to what I have. I hope that I can leave property that's entirely mine and legal. And I'd like to read -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, you're getting to the end of -- MS. EVANS: Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm right here. MS. EVANS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've used up more than all your time, so I've got to ask you -- MS. EVANS: Oh, I have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to come to a conclusion. MS. EVANS: Well, I just want you to put yourselves in my position and think of it as your house and what they want to do and what I want to do, and I definitely want to put a boat lift in now, and I guess make me happy to see the kids come over to see me more often, and everything is legal. I just -- and I don't have money like the Wahls have to be appealing or anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think we've heard enough. Thank you very much. We'll see you again when you put your boat lift in. Come on up, sir. MR. SPIEGEL: Good afternoon. My name is Art Spiegel, and I am at 4 Pelican Street West. I stand before you simply to respectfully ask that the board follow the guidelines that were established or the laws that were established and not allow a variance for a project that is not, in fact, a hardship for the applicants but is more a convenience for the applicants. A variance would definitely have a negative effect on the neighbors of the established -- and the established laws that are put into effect would be a detriment, or excuse me, the existing laws should be there to protect us, not be a detriment to us. Why should we be standing here trying to argue on behalf of the county? We have to remember that the applicant was asked to remove an illegal section of dock that their advisers or consultants seem to not want to have come out of their mouth. It was an illegal section of dock, and they did take it out; although, now they want to put a boat lift in the exact spot where that was, where that illegal section was. And it will take up substantially more square footage than, in fact, they took out by placing a boat there. Additionally, they're proposing to put a boat lift on the outside of the end of the dock where, in fact, originally there was a boat on the inside of the dock which is, in fact, where most of the boat lifts are on Isles of Capri. And I take exception to the consultant saying where most of the boat owners on Capri have two boats, a big boat and a small boat. Well, maybe they have lots that are 150 feet and not 75 feet. And to put two boats on one dock the way they've situated them is going to create a situation where neighbors are going to lose view, they're going to Page 76 of 87 ry 161 A4 arch 15, 2012 lose their rights for navigation. For instance, Mrs. Evans, who would like to put a boat in, will then have to apply for a variance for her property. And if she applies for a variance, that will then affect my property because I won't be able to get my boat in without a variance if she moves hers over, and this will create a chain reaction. I know that there are criteria that they have to meet four or five of, et cetera. And I'm sure if you go down through the criteria, you will find that in both the substantial criteria and additional criteria, four out of five are not met, and I certainly hope that the county or you, as representatives of the county, will take that into consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. RENALDI: Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Renaldi. I live at 10 West Pelican Street. I have no animosities towards the Wahls. I could only speak on behalf of me living in that property and owning that property for 27 years. In the 27 years I've been there, there's never been one boat at 8 West Pelican Street, not one. So 27 years that I've been there. Prior to that, I have no idea. The boat dock on the side that was -- that Mr. Spiegel said was illegal, it was illegal and was falling down, to be honest with you, because it was very unsafe from my recollections. And I knew the owner, the previous owner -- the last two owners. Which Mr. Lempka built that house. I bought my house in'85, and I believe he built his in'83. So he was my neighbor. He never, never had a boat in any of the docks there. The pierings -- the pillings -- pilings -- I'm sorry. The pilings that he put in, I don't even think they were legal, because he was having a tough time, as Joan Evans said, taking his boat from Goodland. So he just gave up on it. And he had a boat in Fort Lauderdale and he had another up in Brea, California, so he was a pretty wealthy man. Whatever his problem was, I have no idea, with the boat -- I didn't get into all the particulars -- but he would loved to have his boat there. And he'd always tell me, Tony, I have a 35 -foot boat, you know, it's over in Fort Lauderdale, and blah, blah, blah, and I can't get it over here, and I had a little 19 -foot boat at the time, a Rabello, and now I have a 23 -foot, and he says, Tony, you don't have to go any bigger. That's big enough for your boat. The waters are tough. I have to come into -- from the river driving in. An ideal situation, naturally, would be coming in from the side because the current therein the Marco River is just unbelievable. I mean, you can throw a refrigerator in the water, and it's out in the Gulf of Mexico. So I ask your pleasure to deny this because I just think it's not fair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any comments from the applicant at this point? MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates. I work with Josh as well. And I think I wanted to try to clarify something, that the boat dock extension and the variance that we're coming in for right now are for the lifts. The boats can moor there now as it is. The structure's exempt and the mooring associated with that structure is also exempt from the requirements. The reason we're here before you is to add the lifts, which is really a -- one of the gentlemen said a convenience factor. Absolutely, it is more convenient to have the boats on the lift, but it's also safer. They've documented as well as we have the conditions on the Marco River can get relatively rough. And having the boat on a lift out of the water is a safer condition for that than if it has to remain in the water and banging up against the dock back and forth, you know, all the time. But I wanted you guys to understand that because the structure's exempt, the mooring associated with it is also exempt. What we're here asking for is the ability to put in the lifts to support those vessels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you mean the boat's exempt? In other words, you're allowed now to have a boat in that setback? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From -- how would you get there? MR. HALL: Because the structure is exempt, if I moor a boat along that structure, then that mooring is also Page 77 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 exempt. It comes with the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The structure's exempt, but we have a requirement and the requirement includes the boat, that you can't put it in that setback. So when you dock it, you're violating the side setback. MR. HALL: No. It would be the same as if I parked my lawn mower beside my house in the side yard setback. I'm not required to -- if I put a shed over the lawn mower, I'm required to get the variance. I'm not required to get the variance to park the lawn mower there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be okay to do if our code said that when you measure the setback of a house you include the width of your lawn mower. MR. HALL: The variance only talks about structure. It doesn't include the vessel, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you get the definition of dock facility up, Ray, while they're talking? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. The dock facility is grandfathered in and vested, and the dock -- the mooring of the boat on a dock that's preexisting contemplated that, and it was prior to the setback requirement. So it's not -- it's a preexisting, nonconforming dock that has rights to continue. Now, they want to expand upon that by adding the boat lifts, which now requires, under a current code, to come in for a boat dock extension and a variance. But if they don't -- if they chose not to apply for the boat dock -- or for the boat lift, they could still moor the boats there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and I agree with you that the -- let's say the wood structure of the dock is a nonconforming, but it's grandfathered in. No question there. MR. BELLOWS: And mooring the boat there would be part of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why do you have to moor the boat there? They have such deep water, they can come around the other side. They can do a lot of things. You know, the width of the boat is part of our boat dock facilities. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. But if it's a preexisting dock, I don't see how we can prohibit that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- MR. HALL: And I don't understand. You keep saying coming around to the other side. Do you mean coming around behind the L? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look at the depth of the water there. I mean, you can -- MR. HALL: Well, I understand the depth of the water, but how would you maneuver the boat to get to the backside? The L is in the way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know, come around the backside. I mean, I'm not a boat guy, obviously, and you are. COMMISSIONER AHERN: That would be difficult; would be very difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're not a boat guy -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We'll give you a boat, and you try and put it in. We'll see how it works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway. MR. HALL: I mean, you want to bring your boat in and out of the open side of the dock. Trying to get it through that 29 -foot area, turn it around, and bringing it into a lift or something on the other side of that L would be very difficult. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it looks like it has about 30 feet there, but anyway. And maybe the boat's too big. Maybe the boat I have in my non - boating mind is small enough to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Melissa asked -- Melissa and then Diane. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ray, the property, I guess, to the west, that's also encroaching in the side setback; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: You're referring to that structure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: It appears to be, yes. COMMISSIONER A14ERN: And so currently they are under the same -- MR. BELLOWS: Preexisting non -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- preexisting criteria. So the same criteria is allowing them to -- Page 78 of 87 16 A24 Marcia I S 201 MR. BELLOWS: Applies to many of those docks. I'm looking at the aerial on Google Earth, and it looks like a lot of docks that may be in the same situation. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. Well, that's kind of where I was going. I wanted to make sure that I was -- okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Tim, are you saying that the docking facility there now cannot be changed; they cannot take that L portion off? MR. HALL: Right. The way the aquatic rules read is that if you make any change to that dock itself, then the whole thing has to come out, and it goes to -- only a marginal wharf would be allowed. They're not allowed to make any changes to it without -- without eliminating the whole thing. I agree with you that it's not -- it's not a rule that makes a lot of sense, but that is the way that it reads. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I see the depth is there, so that's not a problem. But you're right, state rules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the marginal dock that you could build there? MR. HALL: It would just basically be a 4- foot -wide walkway along -- marginal to the seawall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would allow you to dock boats alongside that and essentially maintain the 20 foot -- MR. HALL: You'd have to come in parallel to them, and then -- so you would actually be maneuvering your boats within the two docks on the outside. So it would make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That looks hairy, I agree with that. MR. HALL: It would make getting in and out harder. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, when did -- the setbacks for docks, when was that established, before or after these docks with the boathouse next to it were built? MR. BELLOWS: This dock was built prior to that, those standards being adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when everybody was out there building, there was no setback requirement from the -- MR. BELLOWS: There was no boat dock extension process in place, and we didn't have those kind of setback requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, if -- let's pretend there was no dock there at all. This was a barren piece of property, these homeowners came in to build a house, and they went to the DEP to get a dock. What would be allowed there? MR. HALL: The marginal wharf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the marginal wharf? MR. HALL: Just the marginal wharf along the seawall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they couldn't even put a finger dock there or anything else? MR. HALL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? MR. HALL: They could put a boat lift -- they could put a marginal wharf and a boat lift. But in terns of the structure, the marginal wharf would be -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it would be the 75 -foot length in here? You're saying that's four foot or -- MR. HALL: They could come out with a dock 4 feet from the seawall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And then they would have the 75 feet to park their boat? In other words, with the two boats this way up against it? MR. HALL: Yeah. They'd be parallel to that dock. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. HALL: But if you look at the way that the docks are on both sides of it, than they're maneuvering in an envelope between other existing structures. And it just is -- it makes it harder to get a boat in and out. Page 79 of 87 161 A4 arch 15, 2012 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't they let them build a perpendicular dock? I mean, why would this lot be unique? MR. HALL: When they established the aquatic preserve rules, there is a provision in there that you can't go out further than minus 4 feet with any dock. And the way they interpret it, it actually means that your boat as well is supposed to fit within that same envelope. In this case, that's simply not possible because the depths are four feet right next to the riprap at the seawall. So they allow them the minimum, which is the marginal wharf, and then the boat outside of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then all the other sites we've seen on the island and stuff are not in that same zone? MR. HALL: No. Actually, all of them -- it depends upon the water depth. All of the docks along this river, if they go into DEP and ask for revisions to their docks, they're going to be brought under the same criteria. They either have to leave them as they are right now or go to a marginal wharf. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, thank you. I have one question of whoever did the variance. You guys have got me confused now, not that you look alike. Nancy, thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: I did the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you determine that the desire to have a boat lift on the east side of this L dock was a hardship? I mean, I've read your criteria, but I can't figure it out. Because they don't need to have two boat lifts. They could have one boat lift. And if they wanted one boat lift for a big enough boat to go offshore and inland, they could do that. So where's the hardship related to the need for the variance for a boat lift on the east side? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. So you're saying they shouldn't have the second boat lift in that location? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying -- I'm asking to understand the analysis of how -- a variance is required if there's a proven hardship. What is the hardship that is considered on the second boat lift? And I could see if they had a dock and they needed to have a variance for a boat lift, but how is a hardship for a second -- how do you say there's a hardship because now they want two? I mean, I know it's different than the other people, but the other people aren't changing their docks. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Are you saying, like, having that second proposed boat lift on the east side of the dock -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. GUNDLACH: --how is that a hardship as opposed to just mooring the boat there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since that's the one that's subject to the variance, yes. So how is that a hardship? I mean, I just don't -- if it was the only one they could possibly have and that's the only place they could dock a boat, if they wanted a lift for that, I would say, yeah, it's potentially a hardship. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. And I've read the criteria and discussed it with Nancy. It was my understanding that the hardship is the fact that can't shift the dock over and, you know, then can concurrently moor a boat there. So if you can currently moor a boat there, then the only purpose of this petition is to put a boat lift in. And they can't shift the dock over. That was the reason I didn't object. It's not that -- you know, they can still have two boats there; we can't prohibit that. The boat can be moored there. It's just whether it's on a lift or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But under your criteria then, you're saying that they are entitled to two boats? Do we have a -- I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: They still can do it; if you deny this petition, they could still have two boats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But the issue is the boat lift. I think everybody's made that real clear. The issue is the boat lift. And our variance requirements are you've got to prove hardship, and I'm not sure -- Page 80 of 87 161.. 2 AA March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Well, our hardship was they couldn't move the boat dock over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they couldn't -- yeah, but: the hardship is they want two boats. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And they could do it if they could have shifted the dock over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is the desire to have two boats on. lifts considered a hardship when you have one that doesn't need the variance? MR. BELLOWS: I don't think staff looked at it that way. When I looked at it, it was that they couldn't shift it over to meet the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just, again, trying to figure out -- if I owned a home and I could have one boat and the place I could put it was in a setback, yeah, I think that would be a hardship. But if I had one boat that was free and clear of any setback concern or conflict but I wanted to have a second one, is that really a hardship for me because I can't have two but I want two? MR. BELLOWS: I understand what you're saying, but we didn't look at it that way. We looked at it that they couldn't shift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm having a hard time getting there is what I'm saying. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I understand what you're saying, but we were thinking more that the dock is locked in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's another way to look at it. I don't doubt it a bit. Anybody have -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more thought. And, Heidi, this might be a conversation with you is when you have a nonconforming use, you're not allowed to enhance it in any way, correct, or expand it, enhance it? Certainly, nonconforming means we're not allowed to, in any way, increase the nonconforming use. Adding these lifts to the nonconforming dock, could that be a problem? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, generally, yes, you can't increase your nonconformity. Now, they're talking about some state rules regarding docks, which I'm not familiar with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're also talking about our rules. These are grandfathered docks. In other words, these docks would not be in compliance. So -- and I don't see why, you know, him saying that if you touch the dock and change it -- I guess if you add a lift to it, an improvement like that doesn't trigger anybody's concern, but -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, as far as the riparian line, they're currently built within the riparian line, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not once you put a boat alongside. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You know, the protrusion -- the existing protrusion would be a nonconformity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the water depth might bring into a concern over the original deed for nonconforming. We wouldn't -- if this dock came in now based on water depth, I think we'd have a hard time understanding why they would need it. That may be where the nonconformity also falls into play, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other problem I have is that you're adding a pile into the setback. I mean, if -- I don't necessarily agree with Ray, but let's pretend I do. You could come in and dock a boat now. No one's going to chase you off, but lifting it in the air is a completely different thing, especially to the neighbors and putting structures out there to do that. That's not the same as you can put a boat there now. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Tim. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ray wanted to say something first, then we'll get to you. MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to respond to Brad's comment. I understand the concept that they're making a change by asking for this boat lift, but I think, talking to staff, the single - family lots are allowed two boat docks or two slips, and if they didn't ask for the lift, they could have the two boats moored there on the dock without coming to this Planning Commission or to staff. Now, is the installation of a lift safer than mooring the boats on this river with the heavy stream flow? In our opinion, it was a safer condition. And did the boat lift on this east side of the dock represent a hazard to navigation pulling in or not? And -- or would it impede the property owner to the east of the developing one? And it didn't appear to be so from our standpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, Ray, I don't think we can save the community from water currents by boat lifts. I mean, that's not our job. In other words, I think adding a boat lift within the setback is a problem. If the boat can dock there, let's just say the boat can dock there. Page 81 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they can boat there -- or dock there without this petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that doesn't mean we have to structurally, you know, enhance this nonconforming use by adding other structural components to lift it in the air. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. I'm just telling you our staffs standpoint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? Diane, did you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Tim, at the end of the dock, I see you have a boat lift there. Could they take the bigger boat that they want to put there and put it at the end of that L? Can they -- you put the boat lift there and they have the big boat at the end? MR. HALL: The issue runs in with -- looking at the size of the boats coming in perpendicular to the seawall, again, is preferrable. It gets it closer to the seawall. So from a visual standpoint and sticking out into the waterway, it's less being on the side than it is out at the end. The other thing is the length of the L at the end kind of limits the accessibility to the boat if you have -- I think it's -- I'm sorry. Do you know what the width of that L is? Is it 20 feet? We have that here. It's just a matter of them being able to access the front and the back of the boat. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But if you're bringing a boat in, there is -- I mean, we don't have to worry about water depth at all. But if you put a boat lift out at the end, between the two red lines, you can get a pretty big boat in there. MR. HALL: Well, if you went between the two red lines, yes, ma'am, but, again, you'd have this tiny little access into the boat, and that just is not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Twenty feet? You told me that this is -- MR. HALL: If you put -- you just said you could put a boat between the two red lines. I mean, that would be a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no, no. So rather than parallel to the boat, you put it this way. MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Between the required setback and the riparian lines, how many feet is that? MR. HALL: Between the riparian line and the setback is 15 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they could get -- on that -- and how wide is a boat lift? MR. HALL: I mean, if you had -- you've got 15 feet of setback on both sides of the lot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. HALL: So I would guess then you would have about 42 or 45 feet between the two of them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you can get a big boat at the end of that dock? MR. HALL: You can -- yes, ma'am. I'm not arguing that. You can put whatever size boat, really, you want out there. I'm just saying that in terms of trying to, then, maintain the boat, if you don't have access along the side of the boat, then when it comes to washing it down and keeping it clean and getting materials on and off become more difficult if you're restricted to only smaller sections of the boat. If you have a 35 -foot boat, the best place for it here is alongside the dock, not parallel like you're explaining. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. But we had a 42 -foot boat, so I do understand, so -- and we had many of them that put their boat up against the dock just the way I'm saying, which was perfect, because with the rivers -- waters and everything, it's probably even a little bit easier than to try and back out into something that's trying to move you the other way. And so that's what I was asking, if you could -- for the bigger boat, if they put it out there and just -- I don't know for the second boat -- to go -- they really wouldn't need to be going into the setback. MR. HALL: With the lift? COMMISSIONER EBERT: With a lift or even -- if on the end. If you park the boat there in a lift, to me there's plenty of room. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Tim? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do I understand that L is 22 foot and change long or -- MR. HALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. If you parked a 35 -foot boat against it, okay, you've got 13 foot of Page 82 of 87 Z6 I A4 M 15, 2012 boat hanging out one end or the other, correct? MR. HALL: Correct, right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And that was your point about servicing the boat. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's not a big deal. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark had to step out for a minute. Is there any other questions from any of the Planning Commission members? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask. Ray, the requirement that the boats not exceed half of the property line, is that a -- you know, what's the strength of that? And don't tell me just one item on a checklist. I mean, isn't the intent that this board, we give approval of things in these boat docks extensions, that these are some conditions that have to be met? Is there -- essentially, they're stating that they don't want boats more than 50 percent across the back of a house, correct? And I think they're -- probably a legacy of that is your wharf docks, you know. MR. HALL: 1, actually, have asked the same question. I don't know if it has to do with the amount of shoreline that the vessels take up or how far out they go. If you have a -- we're trying to figure out what the old intent of that criteria was. And in this case, if it was associated with view, I could see where they wouldn't want a long boat perpendicular to the shoreline because, again, it sticks out further. Leaving it to half the length of the shoreline then, essentially, gives you a 45- degree view angle if the boat is in the center of the property. So I don't know if when those were established if it was for keeping the shoreline open or for actually limiting the protrusion. We never have been able to really figure that out. MR. BELLOWS: And I'd just like to add we're working on an LDC amendment for boat docks. And we were discussing this particular criterion, and we're thinking about eliminating it because, as Tim indicated, there's -- I think have been a misapplication of that. We've been using it as length of the boat not to exceed 50 percent of the width, but I think a better case could be made that you're trying to regulate how much lot frontage is being taken up. But we are working on that language. Right now, I think the way staff has been applying it -- and in this case I'm reading the staff report. But we're saying it doesn't meet that criteria anyways -- criterion anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you. We will close the public hearing and entertain motions. Let's start with the variance. Is there a motion on the variance? COMMISSIONER VONIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? COMMISSIONER VONIER: I move that we deny the variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made for denial and seconded. You need to state reasons because this will go -- the variance goes to the Board of County Commissioners, I believe, for a final -- or the boat dock. COMMISSIONER VONIER: 1 think, basically, we're compounded a felony. If the state demanded that that section of the dock be removed because it was encroaching, for us to agree to put a permanent structure back in the same place, I think, is wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My reason is that there was never a hardship develop. The hardship is you can't lift your boat out of water, so I don't think that's a good enough reason for a variance. And also, when you do apply for a variance, the person I think of is the person that actually honors the code and builds his stuff without variances, and I don't think it would be respectful to those people if we allowed them to put structures in the side setback just so they can lift a boat out of the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be supporting the motion for hard -- I don't see the hardship in this particular Page 83 of 87 161 2 A4 March 15, 2012 case. That doesn't mean I'm not going to support the boat dock extension. But in this case the variance just -- I can't see the justification for it, so -- anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 7 -1, make note that Mr. Midney had left earlier, so he wasn't here for this particular application. Now for the boat dock extension. Does anybody -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'll make a motion to approve BDE- PL2011 -- 1409 (sic). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I see no problem with them adding a boat lift on the outside of the deck. Obviously based on the last motion, they can't put it on the inside. So that has to be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, you wanted to jump in with something? MR. HALL: I'm sorry. If that is the direction that the board wants to go -- and I don't know if we're able to do this or not, but if we have to contemplate putting the larger boat on the outside, then the extension that we've requested may be two feet too short. Can we add two feet to the extension? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, good point. I'd rather see you not have to come back through a process for two additional feet, because you'd still be inside the outside mooring pilings that are still there. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a less intensive use than the maximum. Does staff see any problems with that if it's considered? MR. BELLOWS: If the request for an extension is greater than what was advertised, we'd have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's a good point. It's lesser than what's there, but it may be greater than what was advertised. MR. HALL: And that was my question is I don't know if we can do that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MR. HALL: I mean, if -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it's been advertised for 34.6 feet. If the petitioner is okay with amending it here and increasing it to 36.6, then I'm okay with it going to the Board of County Commissioners with the 36.6 if it's acceptable -- MR. HALL: Except a BDE doesn't go to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this one stops here. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh, it stops here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The variance goes to the board, but the boat dock extension doesn't. Now, since they're going there with a variance anyway, they could appeal our decision on the boat dock extension to request the two feet in front of the board. MR. HALL: I'd rather just -- if it is an issue, I'd rather take what I can get right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask -- Ray? While they're side - barring -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Since this is the -- I wasn't thinking. And since this is the final determination here, if you want to add the two feet, I'd suggest that we readvertise and hear it again. It's late. Sorry, I wasn't thinking Page 84 of 87 about the final -- finality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1612 AA March 15, 2012 A Ray, since we're considering the dock, now all of this stuff is grandfathered in, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Currently it's grandfathered in under its current L shape. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The piles are part of that grandfather. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, essentially, the state said that this dock system, this dock facility is allowed to go out to those existing piles, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Without a lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't -- well, why don't we say, based on that they don't need a boat dock extension because we could deem it that they could build a lift within the geometry of those existing piles? MR. HALL: Because your code says that the boat lift is a new structure, and because there's no BDE currently in place, we have to get the BDE now. If there was a BDE in place that went out to those pilings, that would be possible. But there is no BDE in place right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If what you said is true, then all that stuff you fed us before is crap about the boat --dock being okay. I mean, the piles are just as much of this boat dock facility as the dock. MR. HALL: 1 agree. But if I wanted to --if I wanted to go out and move one of those piles, I would still have to come in for a BDE because there's not one existing. I'm changing the -- I'm changing the grandfather footprint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we couldn't determine that if he stays within the -- in other words, he's essentially grandfathered in the extension as far as these piles already, and if he works within those, he doesn't need a boat dock extension? MR. BELLOWS: By adding the boat lift is adding a new structure. And under a current code, he would need to get the boat dock extension. Unfortunately, you didn't advertise for that situation, and if he wanted, he'll have to readvertise and come back to you. MR. HALL: I would rather -- I would rather go ahead and put forth the extension as we've asked for it. And if it becomes necessary based on the boat that we have to extend, then we'll just have to look at it then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something, Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: No. I was going to say, you don't want us just to continue it and get the next two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'd have to readvertise it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you can continue something that's been advertised. MR. HALL: We'll go with what we have now. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Then my motion stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a motion's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to approve boat dock extension as submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but, obviously, not allowing the one boat in the side setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not part of the extension. Okay, good. It is more than 20 feet out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, did you guys -- I mean, just give me a minute to pull it up, I guess. Did you, under your boat dock extension, consider that side -- oh, yeah, it's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think we can just clarify the boat dock extension -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Without a variance you can't have it. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. But we can clarify that for consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion then would need to be specific. The motion is made to approve the boat dock extension for the waterward -most lift as shown on this plan and not the lift that is within the easement area. Page 85 of 87 1612 A4 March 15, 2012 MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm good with that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask a question. That goes out beyond 20 feet then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does? COMMISSIONER EBERT: This whole thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- the extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It would be out to 54.6 feet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's already -- the dock itself was already out to 40.8. So they're just simply adding a lift. And the only lift that we're recommending for approval is that lift at the end of the dock. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And you'll get a revised site plan that will remove that list for the consent agenda, correct? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and clarified. The discussion, I hope, is over. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 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. Thank you all. We got through another one. Old business, I don't see any. New business? Public comment? Well, you have a right to public comment. Heidi, does this have to be new subject, or can they still comment on stuff we already heard? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Under public comment? Yeah, they can comment on whatever they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, go right ahead. Please identify yourself MS. EVANS: Joan Evans again with a comment. The one thing I wanted to say was when I spoke with the man called Earl Davis, Old Man Davis, that was the original owner of my house, he watched both sides like a hawk. And I know for a fact -- it was in the mid'80s -- there was a dock put up where Art lives now that didn't have a permit, and they made him tear it down completely. And the reason that there was never a boat put out where the pilings are was because Old Man Davis said to Lempka, don't you dare put a boat there. Everything's illegal. If you do, you won't (sic) regret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like it. So with that, motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER AHERN: So moved. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by everybody. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VONIER: Aye. Page 86 of 87 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. 1612A4 March 15, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:38 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on A " S ✓ ft' , 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 87 of 87 161 g A15 ruar o 12 RECEIVED y.� MAR 2 2 2012 1S - ;c,a` of C:nunly Commissioners MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING Februa 16 12 Naples, Florida 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 Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala J Hiller ✓ Henning N- Coyle Coletta G ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: Lee Horn Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Michael D. Gentzle, Esq., and James F. Morey, Esq., Attorneys for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Mist Cares: Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer I �1e:�6 ZZl l 2 Nem t l U=. 21? S Copies to: 16 12 A5 Februaryf2012 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 Lee 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. All members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: (None) III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 18, 2012: Corrections: • Page 20, the Contractors' Licensing Board meeting ended at 11:15 AM • James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, noted Mr. Boyd abstained from voting during the January meeting. He requested to include Form 8 -B, entitled "Memorandum of Voting Conflict," in the Minutes and to reference it as Exhibit "A" on Page 18. Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2012 meeting as amended. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: Attorney Morey requested that Michael Boyd read the "Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" portion of Form 8 -B, "Memorandum of Voting Conflict," into the record as follows: "The Respondent who was the subject of the Complaint in question holds the same license and provides the same services as I do. The Respondent did not attend the Public Hearing and did not provide testimony. While I am not aware of any direct special benefits I would receive by the possible disciplining of the Respondent, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or subsequent argument by the Respondent that I may have voted in such a way to take advantage of a business opportunity and, thus, obtain a special benefit, I disclosed my concerns orally at the meeting on January 18, 2012 prior to participating in any of the discussions. Moreover, I decided that abstaining from voting on the measure was proper under the circumstances." Mr. Boyd signed the Memorandum on January 31, 2012. 2 161 2 A5 February-,," 2012 6 � VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section, and Section VIII, "Public Hearings," the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Mary Ann Mulligan — Request for Waiver of Examination/License Re- instatement Michael Ossorio, Supervisor — Contractors' Licensing Office, provided background information: • Ms. Mulligan's license lapsed in Collier County in 2001 She has maintained a license in Lee and Charlotte Counties and in the City of Cape Coral She requested a Waiver of the requirement to take the Business Procedures test Chairman Horn noted Ms. Mulligan's Business credit report lacked any documentation. Mary Ann Mulligan replied she paid cash for tools. She stated she installs cabinets and doesn't purchase very much equipment or materials. She deposits payments into her business account and writes checks from the account as needed. Patrick White noted Mulligan's Cabinet Installation, Inc. was incorporated on January 1, 2004. Vice Chairman Richard Joslin asked if Ms. Mulligan's personal credit report should be reviewed since there was no business report to review. Michael Ossorio explained that a Business credit report had been submitted — it simply had nothing on it. He also noted there were no complaints or liens against the company. He further stated the County recommended reinstatement of her license. Thomas Lykos asked if the Ordinance requires payment of no more than three years of back fees. Mr. Ossorio concurred. Mr. Lykos stated the only reason why Ms. Mulligan appeared before the Licensing Board was to request a waiver of the requirement for testing. Mr. Ossorio reiterated it was his job to review the application and if the criteria was met, he would issue the appropriate license. The question before the Board was whether or not to waive the requirement for testing since Ms. Mulligan's license was in "expired/cancelled" status. In order for her license to be reinstated, she submitted an application and a credit report as required. He continued since Ms. Mulligan was still in business and had been working in other counties, it would be superfluous to require her to take a test. Ms. Mulligan clarified that she took a "finished carpentry" exam, as required by Charlotte County, approximately four years ago. Kyle Lantz moved to approve the request for a Waiver of Examination. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. 16 12 A5 February k6'2012 6 B. Robert J. Spano — Contesting Citations(s) Citations: 46740 ( "Unlicensed Tree Trimming ") Date: January 27, 2012 Fine: $300.00 Description of Violation: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of, or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. Robert Spano: • Received a Citation on January 27th for unlicensed contracting • Was contacted by Ian Jackson and met at the Contractors' Licensing Office on January 27th • Had not realized that his license was not renewed in Collier County • Due to a clerical error, the business tax receipt was paid but the license was not renewed • Paid the fees to renew his license which is in "active" status • Requested leniency requiring the fine • Has been in business since 2009 Michael Ossorio provided a brief overview of the licensing renewal process and noted Mr. Spano's license was in "suspended" status at the time the Citation was issued. He stated Mr. Spano acted quickly to submit an application to reinstate his license and to pay the required fees. He further stated the County would not object if the Board decided to waive imposing the fine. Vice Chairman Joslin reminded the Board that exceptions have been made in the past, i.e., if a violation was abated prior to the date of the Hearing, the Board waived the Citation. Patrick White asked Mr. Spano what he would to do in September 2012 that was different from his actions in September 2011. Mr. Spano replied the renewal rested on his shoulders. He knew the County sent a renewal notice in September — his only explanation was the document was misplaced but the renewal date has been noted on his company's business calendar. He did not foresee another problem. Mr. White asked if Mr. Spano's business practice had been modified as the result of receiving the Citation. Mr. Spano concurred. Terry Jerulle asked if Mr. Spano could be found guilty of the violation but not required to pay the fine. Michael D. Gentzle, Esq., Attorney for the Board, referenced Section 487.127 of Florida Statutes. He noted the Licensing Board could find in violation and order a violator to pay a fine or it could dismiss the Citation. 4 k eru012 7 Terry Jerulle noted if the Citation was dismissed entirely, there would be no history to reference if Mr. Spano ever appeared before the Board again for the same violation. Patrick White stated the violation would remain on the record even if the Citation was dismissed. Jon Walker asked Mr. Spano if he was contesting the violation. Robert Spano replied he was not contesting the violation — only asking for leniency concerning the fine. Chairman Horn asked Mr. Ossorio if his Office's records would still note that there had been a violation. Michael Ossorio stated if the Citation was dismissed, a Non - Compliance Order would be issued. He further stated "City View" [the County's computer program] would note that a Citation had been issued but was dismissed. Mr. White asked if a "Non- Compliance Order" was the equivalent of a minor violation and Mr. Ossorio concurred. Kyle Lantz moved to approve dismissing Citation #6740. Second by Robert Meister. Jon Walker suggested amending the motion to approve upholding the Citation while dismissing the fine. Kyle Lantz agreed to amend his Motion. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. B. Case #2011 -11: Motion for Re-Hearing.— Duane O. Thomas, d/b /a Duane Thomas Marine Construction, LLC John F. Hooley, Esq., of Garber, Hooley & Holloway, LLP, appeared on behalf of the Respondent, Duane O. Thomas, who was present. Chairman Horn asked why a re- hearing had been requested. Attorney Hooley stated the purpose was to revisit the sanctions that were imposed and requested the Board review the Sanctions. Chairman Horn asked if there was new evidence or a reason that the Board had not been made aware of at the time of the initial Hearing. Attorney Hooley stated the Board was to impose Sanctions after reviewing the following: 0 Gravity of the violation, 16 12 A5 February 11012 • Impact of the violation on the public's health, welfare and safety, • Actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, • Previous violations committed by the violator, and • Any other relevant evidence presented by the parties at the Hearing. Attorney Hooley stated Mr. Thomas did not represent himself very well — "he did somewhat of a bad job." Patrick White noted the standard for a re- hearing identified the grounds for the re- hearing, as follows: • A fundamental error had occurred which resulted in a failure of due process, • The decision was contrary to the evidence, or • The Hearing involved an error on a ruling of law and/or fact which was fundamental to the decision of the Contractors' Licensing Board. He asked which of the grounds was the basis of Mr. Hooley's Motion. Attorney Hooley replied a fundamental requirement of law, noted in 4.3.1 (b), was defined as a "minor violation." He stated in reviewing the ruling of the Board, the mitigating circumstances relating to the work were not addressed. He continued, Mr. Thomas admitted he was working without having received a permit which does require action. However, the Board's punishment should have been ameliorated by the factors surrounding the work. He further stated the Order failed to make "Findings," as required by Section 4.3.5.3. Patrick White asked if the ground was that a fundamental error occurred which resulted in a failure of due process. "Yes or no ?" Attorney Hooley replied it was not a fundamental error. Patrick White: "Notice and opportunity to be heard ?" Attorney Hooley: "He had a notice and opportunity to be heard." Patrick White: "I will take that as a `no'." Attorney Hooley: "Yes." Patrick White: "The second is `the decision was contrary to the evidence.' Is it your position that it is or it isn't ?" Attorney Hooley: "It is my position that the decision wasn't but that the penalty was." Patrick White: "We made a decision. The third is that the Hearing involved an error on a ruling of law and/or fact that was fundamental to the decision of the Contractors' Licensing Board. If you don't get in under the second one as to what a decision is, I don't think you can get in under the third, either." He continued, "What I'm trying to help you articulate for the record and for this Board to understand, is — what you are asking for — is it the third ground as well ?" Attorney Hooley: "Yes, because I felt the Board did make a decision but I don't believe it considered the ameliorating factors as required by the Ordinance in accordance with the set forth specifications." Patrick White: "And that there weren't written Findings ?" 0 16 12 A5 February,, 2012 15 Attorney Hooley: "Correct." Patrick White: "It seemed essential to me that we understand which grounds the Motion was based upon." Terry Jerulle: "I guess I'm still not clear." Chairman Horn requested clarification from the Board's attorneys. Attorney Morey noted Mr. White cited Section 22.204 of the Code of Laws Ordinance. He stated Mr. Hooley must claim that a fundamental error occurred in the process. He continued, noting the Order of the Board recited, "... that after due consideration of all factors required under the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances 22- 203(c) and based upon the evidence and testimony presented ... " He stated there was a recitation in the Order that all the factors were considered. The Order did not have specific binding "Facts" which enumerated a listing in detail exactly which factors were considered. The Order stated the Board did consider all relevant factors, which were the required factors. The Board has the ability — if it determines that the Findings were inadequate and not specific enough — to grant the Motion for a Re- Hearing and hold a Hearing on a specific issue or as requested, simply hear the penalty phase. A Public Hearing would be held, the charge to the Board would be given, deliberation would take place considering all the factors, and the Board could decide to change its initial decision, or uphold the penalty, or change the penalty. The Board must feel comfortable with and believe that there was a fundamental error in the Findings. Chairman Horn asked if the Board could reopen just the penalty phase as long as the Respondent agreed he was guilty of a violation. Attorney Morey: "That is correct." He explained that during a re- hearing, the Board could limit the issues to a specific issue, including going directly to the penalty phase. Chairman Horn asked if additional notice was required or if the Board could proceed. Attorney Morey stated since there had been proper notice and the Respondent was present, along with his attorney, the Board could proceed because the Motion for a Re- Hearing was filed within the required time frame. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if a motion to approve was necessary from the Board before a re- hearing could be held. Attorney Morey explained the Board could grant the Motion for a Re- Hearing or deny it. If the Board granted the Motion, the Public Hearing would go forward, evidence would be heard, and the penalty phase would be opened and the penalty would be discussed. He reminded the Board that the violation had been established. Patrick White noted the Board could set the Re- Hearing for the next Board meeting. Attorney Morey concurred that Mr. White's suggestion was also an option. Patrick White stated if the Re- Hearing was set for a later date, according to the Ordinance, the time period to file an appeal would also be "stayed." 7 I_ 16[2A5 February,6, 2012 \5 Attorney Morey: "That is correct." Patrick White: "There's nothing that says that a Notice of Appeal cannot be filed prior to the Re- Hearing being decided. Or, is it essentially an attempt to restate what I otherwise would expect -- the jurisdictional limits of the Board for entertaining what is a quasi-judicial matter on appeal — which I believe is very strict. I'm trying to dance on the head of this pin in a way that doesn't prejudice the County but also puts this Board in a position to understand that if we choose to hear it and move that to [one] month from now, that it puts the Respondent in a position where he has to make decisions to act or not. He further stated he was one of the two dissenting votes. "It might be quite surprising to hear me analyze and come to the conclusion that I think we fully vetted every one of those factors, whether they were ameliorating or mitigating or aggravating. I don't think they were stated that way in the Ordinance. The Ordinance states each Board member is to weigh the factors in accordance with the evidence presented and the testimony heard. I weighed the factors and came to a different conclusion that seven of my colleagues and I respect that." He continued, "The point is — as to the scope of the Re- Hearing — and the grounds upon which the decision is being challenged as to the penalty imposed, my position is that we fully considered every one of those factors in detail and there is no requirement, in my understanding of the Law, that in this type of a matter — that the factors are to be stated with specificity. There are plenty of cases in quasi-judicial matters where written orders are required, in particular Code Enforcement cases, where a similar kind of standard exists, and I think we did our jobs and I believe that the Order as a matter of precedence ought to be respected to the degree that it says, as our Board's counsel indicted, after due consideration of all factors required and that is what we did." He further stated, "I think that is the standard that a Court is likely to look at and come to the conclusion that it's a tough three- pronged test of a quasi-judicial matter and because I was one of the people on the negative side of the motion, and also looking at and trying to find help for this Board when there have been few re- hearings, and based on the two grounds that are the basis of this motion, I would not be comfortable voting in favor of granting the Motion for Re- Hearing." He concluded that "because of the lack of clarity about the timing and of having a re- hearing or not, it makes more sense to me to dispose of this today and give the Respondent an opportunity to go to Court if he thinks that this Board needs to have written, specific Findings to put into the Order. If a Court thinks that's the case, we will have a re- hearing. I would prefer to have the Court tell us to do that than to do it on our own — to start out on a greater path than is in the Ordinance. We have over the years done an ever - increasing, more precise job of working within the framework of the rules that the Board of County Commissioners established and I don't want to tread onto some new ground where I don't think the Courts have gone without a Judge telling us." Finally, he urged the Board members to ask questions before making a determination. 8 16 12 A5 February S 2012 Chairman Horn stated it did not make sense to go above the Ordinance especially since the video recording was available and could be used as evidence in a third - party hearing. He noted a Court Reporter could produce a certified transcript if required. He further stated in every case that has come before the Board, the Board's attorneys reviewed the factors to be considered and the penalties, especially when the Respondent was a State - certified Contractor since the penalties are different. "We hear it during every single case and it is repeated into the record." Attorney Hooley stated he agreed with Mr. White but he did not perceive the Motion for a Re- Hearing as precedent- setting move by the Board or that the Board would be required to do it each and every time. He did not see the need for changes to the Statutory or adjudicatory scheme. He further stated Mr. Thomas was asking the Board to reconsider the factors at least with regard to one of the prior Citations. The Board didn't note that he mobilized prior to receiving the permit. Mr. Thomas applied for the permit, was cited on one day, and the permit was issued the following day. He concurred there was a violation, "but it was just on the cusp of a violation." He obtained documents from the City of Marco Island verifying that the type of work done was allowed at the time — that it was the ultimate factor for the Board to consider. He pointed out granting a Motion for a Re- Hearing would not re -write the Ordinance and going through the factors would not be a divergence from what the Board normally does. Patrick White countered it was the statement in the Respondent's Motion requiring written, specific Findings that concerned him as a precedent- setting. He stated if that aspect of the re- hearing request was withdrawn, he would be less concerned. The process comes down to a vote — individual votes by the Board members — and after considering the factors, the penalties made sense. Thomas Lykos noted that he stated at the previous Hearing, the Respondent could have made a phone call to the Building Department before he started the job. If he had put the effort in at the beginning, the Respondent would not have been cited for a violation. He further stated "we vetted this case — we vetted the issue of whether or not past violations were documented properly." He stated he was offended that the Board was asked to invest more time in the case and that the thoroughness of the vetting process was in question. Attorney Morey suggested, if there was no further discussion, a Motion to grant or deny the Re- Hearing could be made. Jon Walker moved to deny the Motion for a Re Hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Discussion: W 16 12 A'S February iq 2012 Patrick White: • Questioned what constituted the nature and scope of a "Cease and Desist" Order and whether or not the two prior incidents had been considered as violations. • He stated at the initial Hearing he questioned whether the two prior incidents (screen -shot identified) involving the City of Marco Island constituted violations. • He noted the Hearing Minutes were changed during the January meeting: o On Page 12, 2nd paragraph, 4th line — the word "refusal" was changed to "failing" • The sentence was corrected as follows: "The issue was his [the Respondent's] inability to obtain a permit before starting work and the Respondent's failin to follow the County's regulations. " • He stated the case was heard and did not think re- hearing the case would alter the outcome or assist a Court in anyway to be able to dispose of the matter. Vice Chairman Joslin: • Stated when he made the motion during the initial Hearing, he felt the penalty was correct for the gravity of the violation. • It would have been very simple for the Respondent to contact the County prior to beginning the job if it was an emergency situation. He chose not to make the call. • We knew the violation did occur due to sworn testimony given by the County. • To hear the case again could result in a more severe penalty phase. Attorney Hooley: • Mr. Thomas appreciates the power of the Board and is concerned about blemishes on his license, being placed on probation for a year, and the financial punishment. His reputation. in the marine construction field is important to him. • He is not here to "get off Scott- free." • He has requested the Board's indulgence to take another look at the case and he recognizes the fact that even more severe penalties could be imposed. • Mr. Thomas has not taken an Appeal to the Circuit Court or any other place. • Mr. Thomas is asking for reconsideration of some of the terms of the Board's Order. Thomas Lykos: • Choosing to be a General Contractor means we live under the rules and regulations of the industry. We follow the laws of the industry that we are in — as set forth for our industry. 10 1612 A5 February f2012 Attorney Hooley explained Mr. Thomas was not calling into question the Board's ability to look at the facts — he was asking the Board to re- examine the factors. He admitted he was guilty as charged and was asking only about the penalty phase. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if there was any new evidence to be presented by the County. Michael Ossorio responded that the County's position was that it had no position. The case was presented and the Licensing Board made its decision. Chairman Horn called for a vote on the Motion made by Mr. Walker: To deny the Respondent's Request or Motion for a Re-Hearing. 1IOC Patrick V4Hmf asked if the Motion should state why the Request for a Re- Hearing was denied. He suggested adding the Request for a Re- Hearing failed to proffer facts that met either the 2nd or the 3`d ground as cited in Section 22 -204. Jon Walker amended his Motion as follows: To deny the Request for a Re- Hearing based on that the fact there was no probable cause that the first case was not properly vetted. Attorney Morey suggested the following language: "To deny the Motion for a Re- Hearing based on the fact that no fundamental error occurred in the first Hearing." Mr. Walker amended his Motion and Mr. Lykos offered his second in support of the amended motion. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. BREAK. 10: 00 AM. RECONVENED: 10:15 AM VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Case #2012 -02: Raymond V. Trotta, (d /b /a: Naples Tile, Marble, Carpet & Wood, Inc.) Chairman Horn noted the Respondent, Raymond V. Trotta, was not present. Terry Jerulle stated he would abstain from voting due to a possible conflict of interest because he employed Mr. Trotta's company several years. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated the Notice of Hearing had been hand- delivered to Mr. Trotta on January 23, 2012. Chairman Horn outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: 11 161 Y2 A5 February 116 , 2012 � • 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. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. 12 1 A5 bru 2012 • 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 was guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. • If the Respondent was 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. 2012 -02, Collier County License #33805, Board of County Commissioners vs. Raymond V. Trotta, d/b /a Naples Tile, Marble, Carpet & Wood, Inc., into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit 4 A. ff Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • The County will show through documented facts and sworn testimony that Raymond V. Trotta failed to secure compensation for his employees in violation of Florida Statute 440.10 (1)(a). • Mr. Trotta violated Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, Section 22 -201 (6). • The Notice of Hearing was hand - delivered to Mr. Trotta on January 23, 2012. Mr. Jackson stated he spoke with Mr. Trotta and, although he was aware of the Hearing time and location, the Respondent was unable to attend due to health reasons. Mr. Trotta provided a statement for the Board's review. (A copy of the statement was distributed to the Board.) Patrick White moved to accept the statement and admit it into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "A." Second by Thomas Lykos. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " /0 — "No " /1— "Abstention." Terry Jerulle abstained from voting Mr. Jackson read the statement into the record. 13 16 1 *2 A5 February 12012 (A copy of the statement is attached as Page 23 of the Minutes.) It was noted the date of the violation, "10/04/3011," was incorrect — the year should be 2011. Chairman Horn asked if the Respondent's license was active. Mr. Jackson responded affirmatively. Case in Chief Jack Gumph, State of Florida Workers' Compensation Investigator, appeared as the County's witness. Ian Jackson asked Mr. Gumph to verify that: • He was at a construction site located at 14403 Marsala Way on or about October 4, 2011 • He encountered three employees of Naples Tile, Marble, Carpet & Wood, to wit: Cheryl Sheldon, Sara Newman, Glenn Snyder, who were performing construction while under contract to Mr. Trotta • Mr. Trotta was operating with Workers' Compensation provided through an employee leasing program • At the time, the three employees were not listed on the leasing program • The action constituted a violation of Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(a). Jack Gumph confirmed the Statute had been violated. Mr. Jackson noted the violation of Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(a) also constituted a violation of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 201(6). Vice Chairman Joslin asked if there were other employees in addition to the three mentioned and the response was "no." Patrick White asked if any of the individuals mentioned were officers of the corporation and the response was "no." Mr. Gumph explained that a PEO Leasing Company is used by Contractors to provide payroll and Worker's Compensation insurance. The employees are technically employed by a PEO Leasing Company. The name of the leasing company was Progressive. When he called to verify the roster of employees for that day, he was told that Mr. Trotta had not run payroll for two or three weeks and had no employees on the roster. It was not the first day of the job. Vice Chairman Joslin asked what duties the employees were performing at the job site. Jack Gumph noted a gentleman in the garage was cutting tile. The Job Foreman, a young lady, was laying tile in the breezeway and the other young lady was sweeping UP. Ian Jackson asked Mr. Gumph to provide his background information for the record. 14 16 12 A5 February � 2012 Mr. Gumph noted he is employed by the State of Florida Department of Financial Services — Division of Workers' Compensation as a Compliance Investigator. His duties included performing inspections (construction sites and non - construction locations) to verify compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law, i.e., Chapter 440 of Florida Statutes. He has been employed in the position for approximately 2 %2 years. He stated: • He spoke to the individuals at the job site. The job foreman identified the employer as Ray Trotta. • He spoke with Mr. Trotta to ask how the employees were insured. • Mr. Trotta indicated he used a PEO Leasing Company. • He contacted the leasing company and was told Mr. Trotta's employees were not on the roster for that day. • Two of the three employees had been on leasing program • One worker was a friend who did not work for the company but was there as a "helper." (Mr. Trotta was not aware the individual was on the job site.) • The employees indicated they worked for Mr. Trotta "off and on" — while they had not been paid, he had promised to pay them. Chairman Horn asked who would have been liable if an employee had been injured on the job. Mr. Gumph stated the General Contractor, Coastal Breeze Homes, LLC, would have been responsible. He stated he verified the General Contractor was insured. Thomas Lycos asked if the home under construction had been a custom home built for a specific owner, and if the GC did not have insurance coverage, could an injured employee file suit against the homeowner and the response was "yes." Mr. Gumph noted even though Mr. Trotta used his employees on an infrequent basis, because he had not run them through the leasing company for a period of at least three weeks, it was the policy of the leasing company to consider them as (automatically) terminated. Mr. Trotta was required to contact the leasing company to reinstate the employees for them to be covered under the leasing company's Workers' Compensation policy and to be paid. He further stated when he spoke with the Respondent, Mr. Trotta acknowledged that he knew his employees were not on the leasing company's list. Patrick White noted the time line was not known, but the Respondent's acknowledgement indicated the degree of disregard on his part. Michael Boyd noted the Respondent was not State - certified or registered and asked what actions were taken by the State. Jack Gumph replied that a "Stop Work" Order was issued, and State auditors levied a penalty against him and his company for the violation. He stated the job was completed by another tile contractor hired by the General Contractor. Ian Jackson concluded the County's presentation, stating the County proved the Respondent violated Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 15 16 12 A5 February 2012 201(6), i.e., "Disregards or violates, in the practice of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation laws of the State or Ordinances of the County. " Terry Jerulle inquired about the State's fine. Jack Gumph stated the Respondent was fined $13,632.08 on October 19, 2011 and the fine had not been paid. It was a punitive fine. The company had a window of 20- business days to pay the fine or enter into a payment agreement. Chairman Horn asked if the Respondent's permit pulling privileges had been suspended by the County. Michael Ossorio noted a General Contractor pulls permits for a job site. When the State issues a "Stop Work" Order, a copy is placed in the Permit file and the GC cannot pull additional building permits. He stated the Respondent's company was active in the County's system, i.e., his Certificate remains active until September. When the State issues a "Stop Work' Order, it applies throughout the State. Jack Gumph concurred, stating the Respondent is not allowed to not work anywhere in the State until the requirement was satisfied. Thomas Lykos moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Patrick White. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " 10 — "No " /1— "Abstention." Terry Jerulle abstained from voting. Chairman Horn stated the Public Hearing was closed. Attorney Morey 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 do 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, in and of 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. 16 "16 1 2 A 5 February 16' 2012 • 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 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. Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent "guilty" as set forth in the Administrative Complaint and in violation of the Code, Section 22- 201(6) pertaining to violation of the Workers' Compensation Law, Section 440.10(1)(a) and that fundamental due process was afforded the Respondent and, based upon all relevant evidence and testimony, to a clear and convincing degree, the Respondent did so violate as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. Second by Kyle Lantz. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " 10 — "No " /1— "Abstention." Terry Jerulle abstained from voting. Attorney Gentzle stated since the Board found there was misconduct by the Contractor under Section 22- 203(b) (1), the Board may impose any of the following Disciplinary Sanctions individually, or in combination: (1) Revocation of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of the Collier County (or City) 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 CLB may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed to consider said purpose. (5) Restitution; (6) A fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000); (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. 17 Februaryf, 2012 Attorney Gentzle advised the Board that when imposing disciplinary sanctions on a State - certified Contractor or person who was found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The evidence presented at the Hearing; (2) The gravity of the violation; (3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (4) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; (5) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and (6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation or the violator. He continued, stating in addition to any action that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board may take against the individual or business, and any fines that may be imposed, the Board shall issue a recommended penalty to the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The penalty may include: a. A recommendation of "no further action"; b. A recommendation of suspension, or revocation, or restriction of the registration; c. A fine to be levied by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. d. Any combination of the above. Chairman Horn asked the County for its recommendations. Ian Jackson introduced a three -page document and requested to enter it into evidence as County's Exhibit `B" for consideration during the penalty phase. (A copy of the report was distributed to the members and attached as Pages 24 through 26 of the Minutes.) Patrick White moved to accept the document and enter it into evidence as County's Exhibit `B." Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " 10 — "No " /1— "Abstention." Terry Jerulle abstained from voting. Michael Ossorio stated the County would not request any investigative costs. Mr. Jackson described the contents of County's Exhibit `B ": • The first page was a copy of the Comment Listing Report which outlined the past history of the Contractor. He noted the Contractor had been cited in 2005 for a similar incident — "no Workers' Comp. Insurance." The second page was a copy of the 2005 Investigative Report, The third page was a copy of Citation #2408, issued on January 12, 2005. Chairman Horn questioned the second entry on Page One of the Report, asking if it was an actual violation or a note in the system. Michael Ossorio confirmed the entry was not a violation. 18 16 I A5 February \� 2012 Patrick White noted it was not the Respondent's first Workers' Compensation violation and there was one prior violation, i.e., January 12, 2005. Michael Ossorio concurred. Chairman Horn asked the County for its recommendation. Michael Ossorio stated the County did not have a recommendation. Kyle Lantz noted the financial punishment levied by the State was adequate. He recommended probation. Patrick White noted a tile contractor would probably not pull a Building Permit. He asked for clarification between a "revocation" and a "suspension" of the Contractor's certificate. Michael Ossorio explained a "revocation" is a finite removal of the Certificate while a "suspension" could indicate a limited period of time until the Respondent appeared before the Contractors' Licensing Board or submitted an application. If a license was revoked, the Contractor could petition the Board for a Hearing at a specified date and time. He confirmed that once a license has been revoked, it was "finished." Chairman Horn noted the State levied a fine in the amount of $13,000 which the Respondent might or might not pay. Patrick White stated of the options presented, given the prior violation, he recommended a revocation of the Respondent's license along with a public reprimand. Chairman Horn asked if the Respondent intended to stay in business. Investigator Jackson concurred with the Chairman's assessment. Thomas Lykos summarized: • The Respondent must pay the State levy of $13,000+ before he will be allowed to return to work • Mr. White recommended that the Board revoke the Respondent's license • If the Respondent wished to re- instate his license, he would be required to apply to the Board. He stated he agreed with Mr. White's reconunendation. It was noted the Respondent did nothing to mitigate the situation, i.e., he did not reimburse his employees for unpaid wages or bring the Workers' Compensation policy into compliance. Jack Gumph outlined the State's repayment option: The Respondent was required to make a down payment of ten percent of the fine ($1,300) and would have sixty months — interest free — to pay off the fine. Kyle Lantz suggested that revocation was too severe and noted the Respondent will pay a hefty fine and will not be allowed to return to work until all conditions have been satisfied. He recommended suspension of the Respondent's license. Vice Chairman Joslin agreed with Mr. Lantz. Thomas Lykos and Patrick White reiterated their support for revocation. 19 i 161 2 A5 February Jle012 Jack Gumph stated he met with the Respondent after the fine was levied and explained to Mr. Trotta that he had twenty business days to enter into a payment plan. Mr. Trotta indicated, based on his financial situation and poor health, that he could not do so. Mr. Gump noted the State of Florida does not want Contractors to shut down or completely stop working. He stated Mr. Trotta can call him at any time to set up a payment plan. He further stated the Respondent had the right to file an Appeal prior to the twenty - day deadline (after service of the penalty). The Respondent could have produced evidence to reduce the State's penalty. After the deadline expired, the State would not consider any reduction of the penalty. He continued the State could collect the penalty via placing a lien against the Respondent, enlisting the services of a collection bureau. He noted there is the ultimate possibility of instituting criminal charges against the Respondent. He stated the business owner could remedy the situation by entering into a payment agreement at any time during the process. Patrick White requested that the Respondent provide proof that his employees had been compensated before the revocation could be lifted. Chairman Horn asked if the Board could require continuing education. Attorney Morey explained that under probation, certain conditions could be imposed by the Board including a re- education component. He stated the Ordinance does not specifically state that the Board could impose a requirement to compensate other people since it is not related to the license. Mr. White noted there was no prohibition and compensation was allowed as a lesser penalty for probation and he thought it could be imposed Vice Chairman Joslin reminded the Board that the State took the position of trying to help Contractors in trouble, as evidenced by the availability of a payment plan, and stated the Board should not impose penalties that were more severe than the State. Kyle Lantz noted the Board had never revoked a Contractor's license in the past for a Workers' Compensation violation. The Respondent has been punished by a $13,000 fine. He recommended suspension. Michael Boyd moved to approve revoking the Respondent's License. Second by Patrick White. Motion carried, 5— "Yes " 13— "No " /1— "Abstention." Terry Jerulle abstained from voting. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on February 16, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint ui Case #2012 -02 filed against Raymond V. Trotta, d/b /a "Naples Tile, Marble, Carpet & Wood, Inc.," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #33805. 20 t 161 2A5 February j� 2012 • 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 issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • Raymond V. Trotta, d/b /a "Naples Tile, Marble, & Wood, Inc.," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #33805. • 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. • Respondent, Raymond V. Trotta, was not present at the Public Hearing held on February 16, 2012, and was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing. • 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 22- 201(6), "Disregards or violates, in the practice of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation laws of the State, or Ordinance of this County, " 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: "The Respondent violated Section 22- 201(6) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes 440- 10(1)(a) 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. Order 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 8 in favor, none in opposition, and one abstention, 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 5 in favor, 3 in opposition, and one abstention, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanction and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #33805, to wit: revocation of the Respondent's license. 21 161 2 A5 February 91 2012 Chairman Horn noted the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: • Patrick White requested an upstate of the Budget information that was to have been supplied by Ken Kovensky. • Thomas Lykos stated he met with Mr. Kovensky and Jamie French. He agreed with the methodology presented and the allocation of expenses contained in the budget and was satisfied that the numbers were reasonable. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 21, 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 11:45 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Lee The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on "as submitted" U OR "as amended" 22 2011, 16 12 A6 3 a n MAP > Productivity Committee's c Subcommittee Public Utilities Capital Projects Review �Y= ° ° ° ° ° °•-° November 9, 2011 1:30pm 1. Call to Order -Janet Vasey Subcommittee members: Janet Vasey Mad Ryziw Jim Gibson Gina Downs Doug Fee 2. Review /Discuss Draft Report 3. Next Steps in the Process 4. Public Comment S. Adjourn Fiala _ Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta IC, Misc. Corres: Date: S 1 2 Item #: U-M: 2 *:4 (.0 Copies to: I. Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room November 16, 2011 2:00 P.M. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda 16 12 A6 BY: ....................... C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 10/19/11 D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcomrr}ittee meeting minutes from 10/19/11 Fiala f)r0 Hiller �✓ Henning}{ II. Old Business Coyle �l Coletta ?G A. Report from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee -Janet Vasey B. Impact Fee Indexing (Government Buildings, Correctional Facilities, Transportation, Law Enforcement, Parks, Library, Dependent Fire Districts, and Emergency Medical Services) III. New Business A. Presentation on the County's Asset Management System -Dr. George Yilmaz, Interim Administrator- Public Utilities Division B. Update regarding the Housing, Human and Veterans Services Department -Marla Ramsey, Administrator- Public Services Division Misc. Comes: IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments lae: k22A 1'2- Item 0: \ U--y- 2. Yl C', V. Public Comment Ccpies to: VI. Adiourn -The next meeting is currently scheduled for December 21, 2011 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda County Manager's Conference Room January 18, 2012 2:00 P.M. 1. Introduction 16 12 A'6 BY: ....................... A. Welcome /Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 11/16/11. D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/9/11. E. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /Insourcing SLO99mmift"eting minutes from 11/29/11. Hiller Henning_ Coyle II. Old Business Coletta G A. Brief Update from the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee -Gina Downs III. New Business A. FY 2013 Budget Policy Preview -Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services. B. Recommendations (to the BCC) for Appointment/Reappointment of Members to the Productivity Committee. IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments A. Next meeting (2/15/92)- Selection of Productivity Committee ChairNice Chair, 2). Review /Comment on Budget Policy for FY 2013. V. Public Comment VI. Adjourn -The next meeting is currently scheduled for FebrlAAM. d%s:2012 at 2pm in the County Manager's Office Conference room. Date: � 12.z.� I'Z Item #: l l..a'7T -2, n ko Copies to: J 1612 46 Productivity Committee's Subcommittee Public Utilities Capital Projects Review November 9, 2011 Productivity Subcommittee Members Vlad Ryziw Jim Gibson Gina Downs (Absent) Janet Vasey Doug Fee County Public Utilities Division Staff Derek Johnssen, Manager, Clerk of Court's Finance Department Tom Wides, Director, Operations Support Tom Chmelik, Director, Planning & Project Management Dan Rodriguez, Director, Solid Waste Management Kris Van Lengen, Manager, Environmental Compliance, Solid Waste Department Laura Zautcke, Senior Management and Budget Analyst, Operations Support Department Sheree Mediavilla, Administrative Assistant, Operations Support Department 1. Janet Vasey called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The Productivity Committee spent four months and six subcommittee meetings evaluating the FY12 Capital Equipment program of the Public Utilities Division (PUD). Janet Vasey stated we are here today to go over the draft report to the BCC highlighting our findings and will present this to the full Productivity Committee next Wednesday, November 16, 2011. In addition, the Committee reviewed the overall financial condition of the organization, including user fee revenue, the impact fee revenue shortfall, and reserve funding levels for both prudent management and maintenance of our AA+ bond rating. Discussion of Subcommittee Members Doug Fee: His concern in the report is the words "warranted, justified, and reasonable" in the summary conclusions section on page two of the report. He stated the information provided was very good, but he could not state it is warranted, justified, and reasonable. He only looked at the numbers. It would take an engineer to review these projects and this is beyond his scope. It is his request that the words not be used. Jim Gibson: 11Page 1612 A6 The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) did not charge us with an engineering review. Vlad Ryziw: As an engineer, I looked at the whole program and how the funding decisions were made. The BCC directed us to take a look at the capital expenditures and this is what we have been doing. On page one; I would suggest we change the title "Capital Project Review" to "Expenditure Project Review. We have been provided a wealth of information and also had field visits. Mr. Ryziw did not find any projects that should not be funded, but has concerns with the (Solid Waste) Hammerhead $4 million dollar expenditures. This expense should be shared with multi- agencies that benefit from the turnaround and reinforcement of driveways in the estates. Janet Vasev: The BCC wants to know if our review produced the opinion that the program is valid. Doug Fee: The program is well organized, well presented, and reasonable. I have concerns that on page five in the Wastewater section it clearly states well justified. Also, on page 10, a loan of $12.5 million from the State Revolving Fund was put into the water impact fee account in FY09 and FY10. If we say warranted, justified, and reasonable, then are we stating that it was managed right when we have loans from growth creating this debt level? Jim Gibson: Impact Fees are not a primary pledge in the bond covenants. We have not defaulted from any SRF loan and user fees repaid them. This decision is good management that you are not defaulting on outstanding debt. Tom Wides: We used user fees to fund the impact fee debt service of $5.5 million in FY10 and $5.5 million in FY11. No use of user fees is projected for FY12. As growth diminished, we never went out for previously planned second, nor third external funding. Derek Johnssen: What is happening is the user fees have to fill in the for the diminished impact fees to pay the debt. Tom Wides: The county deferred $38 million dollars in projects. We have external engineers that looked at FY10 and FY11 and attested to the deferment of these projects places us in a higher risk bracket for failure. Jim Gibson: Refer to the spreadsheet that shows in detail year by year the shortfall of impact fees and the program coming upside down and the sub - committee was tasked to look at. find the FY12 capital expenditures to be reasonable and appropriate on our review. 2 1 P a g e 16 12 A6 Janet Vasey asked if there were any changes to the following pages of the report: Page 2 — No change. Page 3 — No change. Page 4 — No change. Page 5 Vlad Ryziw: Refers to Level Two of the Regulatory Compliance Risk Management Matrix. Do we have to manage all the projects at one level? Tom Chmelik: No, this shows the criticality of an asset management system. We are trying to do our best at that without a formal system. Page 8 Solid Waste Vlad Ryziw: He would like the Productivity Committee to recommend to the BCC that the funding for the $4 million hammerhead program be shared multi- agency. Janet Vasey will include this recommendation in the report. Dan Rodriguez: Explained the Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinance adopted in 2005 and the success rate of the program. The City of Marco Island and the City of Naples have also adopted this program. This has had a positive impact in the reduction of waste to the Landfill. The success of the recycling program was also discussed at length. Landfill closure issues: Jim Gibson: The review of this fund indicates that funding may not be sufficient to cover post closure liabilities, compliance, and long -term monitoring. Janet Vasey: The four actions stated on page nine will be included in our report: • Verify the county liability for all inactive /closed landfill sites; • Decide the funding level required in the landfill closure account; • Determine whether to collect funds to continue to reclaim closed cells; • Consider whether the policy to loan funds from the account should be continued. Dan Rodriguez: Discussed the FEMA leachate collection system grant and this is a first time grant for the landfill. Dan also stated we are looking for grants to reclaim Eustis and Immokalee. Vlad Ryziw would like to see this mentioned in the report. Janet Vasey will have all revisions to the Subcommittee members by Friday, November 11, 2011. The meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m. 3 1 P a g e 15 2 A6 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE November 16, 2011 2:00 p.m. Members Present: Steve Harrison, Jim Gibson, Janet Vasey, Vlad Ryziw, Doug Fee, Gina Downs, Cheryl Pavlick, Leslie Prizant, Rich Federman and Joe Wall. Members Absent: Joe Swaja was excused. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Jim Coletta was absent. Staff Present: Kelly Jones, Clerk of Courts; Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office; Amy Patterson, Manager Impact Fees & EDC; Marla Ramsey, Administrator Administrative Services; Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Manager Growth Management; Kris Van Lengen, Manager Environmental Compliance; Dan Rodriquez, Director Solid Waste; Joe Bellone, Manager Utility Billing & Customer Service; Travis Gossard, Supt. Roads & Bridges; Lisa Hendrickson, Operations Analyst Transportation; Amia Curry, Manager Operations Support PUD; Jamie French, Manager Growth Management; Tom Chmelik, Director Public Utilities Engineering; 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 2:00 p.m. Approval of the Agenda for November 16, 2011: The members voted to change the order of the meeting in order to save staff time. Vlad Ryziw motioned to approve the agenda, Gina Downs seconded and the group unanimously approved. Approval of the October 19, 2011 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes: Gina Downs motioned to approve the minutes as amended, Steve Harrison seconded and the group unanimously approved. Acceptance of the October 19, 2011 Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee meeting minutes: Janet Vasey motioned to accept the minutes, Jim Gibson seconded and the group unanimously accepted. 1612 'A6 OLD BUSINESS: Impact Fee Indexing: Amy Patterson gave an overview of the impact fee indexing cycle for the benefit of the new members. She handed out some reports regarding calculating indices and impact fee reductions. Amy said last year all of the fees stayed positive, but this year is a different story. Nick Casalanguida said that staff initiated the cost and credit update because constructions costs are actually going up, but indexing is shown going down. A full study will be performed in 2012 to get back to what it should be. Amy asked the group to recommend the implementation of the study using local data as soon as possible. This is going to the BCC on December 13th and goes into effect 7 days later. Gina Downs motioned to approve and said they should move quickly with the road study. Janet Vasey seconded. Rich Federman said that he cannot support it because changes in cost structures are not accurate. The vote was 8 to 2 (Steve Harrison and Rich Federman opposing). Report from the Public Utilities Capital Projects Review Subcommittee: Janet Vasey reviewed the report that she compiled along with the members of the subcommittee. Steve Harrison commended her for the excellent report and Vlad Ryziw said that she took the lead and he was glad she did. Janet said that the FY12 Capital Projects and reserve levels were reviewed. The subcommittee did a lot of research including taking video tours and reviewing any project over $1M that has requested funding. With the aging infrastructure it is imperative to provide uninterrupted service. She discussed an example of a one page document published by Sarasota that gives multi -year projects and suggested that Collier does something similar. The reserve level was discussed and it was strongly suggested that it not be depleted. Janet thanked the Public Utilities Department and commended them for their cooperation. She also said that they eagerly gave the subcommittee everything they asked for. The group gave suggestions for changes and Gina Downs motioned to approve the report with the changes. Jim Gibson seconded and the vote was 9 to 1 (Doug Fee opposed because he said he would have liked to see the minutes from the last subcommittee minutes first.) NEW BUSINESS: Update regarding the Housing, Human and Veterans Services Department: Marla Ramsey addressed the group regarding the discontinuation of rehabilitation of single family homes. The Affordable Housing Subcommittees report will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on December 13, 2011. Marla was asked for the subcommittee recommendations to be sent to Mike Sheffield and he will in turn distribute them to the members of the committee. 2 1612 A6 Asset Management Program: Tom Chmelik gave the group an update of the Asset Management System. The goal is to put all utilities assets into GIS tc create better communication between departments. He noted that the department is taking the project in small steps in order to keep the costs down. Phase three of the program will be to integrate into the SAP financial system. Membership: Mike Sheffield told the group to follow the instructions from Ian Mitchell on how to reapply for membership. He also said that he will invite the new prospects to the next Productivity Committee. Public Comments: None. Adjournment: Steve Harrison motioned to adjourn the meeting, Leslie Prizant seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on January 18, 2012. 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 p ib 12 A6 PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE IN- SOURCING /OUT- SOURCING SUBCOMMITT MEETING MINUTES MORRVIR November 29, 2011 AT 10:00 A.M. MAR ,3 1.011 Members in Attendance: Gina Downs, Rich Federman and Joe Wall. Staff Present: Marla Ramsey, Administrator— Public Services; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Budget and Management; Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office. Fiala Others Present: None. Hiller Henning The meeting was called to order by Gina Downs at 10:00 A.M. Coyle Coletta Marla Ramsey addressed the group by giving a general overview of the departments in her division. She stated that as far as out - sourcing is concerned, if it makes sense to out - source something — then they do it and if not — they keep it in- house. Marla explained that their decisions are based on more than just financial parameters. Sometimes skill sets or frequency of work are important factors. Concessions at the beach are all out - sourced. The concessioners are in this to make a profit as a business proposition. Some jobs are performed in a combination of in and out - sourcing. An example is complex cleaning services. The majority is out - sourced, but is supplemented with our staff. She gave an example of a situation that did not work by being out - sourced. When the Skate Park was under the control of an outside company, they did not complete routine maintenance so that when they walked away from the complex there was around $100,000 of work that needed to be done. Marla also gave example of outsourced fertilization contract that failed and was brought back in house in order to have immediate response times. The group suggested that the contract has to be stronger if we intend on making the proposition work. They also said that they didn't want to miss opportunities for out - sourcing in the future because things have not worked in the past. Marla continues to be concerned with the proper level of maintenance provided by an outside firm and is aware of the potential for degradation in the quality of a facility — sometimes quickly — when outside firm does not maintain and operate at the highest standard. Also needs to keep level of service high with her facilities as they are `face to the public'. Needs to respond to complaints and problems VERY quickly to keep public satisfied. Another example was contracting bus service for Snowfest. Public complained about religious music being piped instead of Christmas music. Mist Corres: Date: 5 _Z21 Items: i LLT, 2—AU Copies to: 16 12 A6 The group had discussion regarding performance measures and asked Marla if she had them for her departments. Marla gave examples of DAS. She said that there was a lot of counting being done such as number of dogs adopted, number returned to their owner, number euthanized, etc. Another example of measuring performance was summer camp standards and follow -up for satisfaction and quality of the experience. These are tracked year to year. Library tracks numbers: door count, # of hours computers used, Dvd loans, all are compared to national numbers. The group discussed how important it was to cross train especially in Marla's Division. The same people, who are working at the water park could be cross trained to relocate quickly and relatively seamlessly into another department when waterpark is closed. It was suggested that cross training would bring job security to workers and provide better more productivity for the county. It was also suggested that county employees at Emergency Operations Center could assist throughout the county as well. Winona Stone was asked to come into the meeting to discuss performance measures of key functions and to determine what is measurable and important and what is not. She gave the group an overview of the Step -Up Committee and explained the reporting system. She said she will send some of her performance measure information to Mike and he can distribute to the group. She also explained a little about the citizen survey that ended in December. She stated that there were 500 performance measures aligned with our strategic plan — 170 of these are published in the budget book along with 40 key indicators. There will be another meeting of the subcommittee on January 18th at 11:00 a.m. Mike Sheffield will invite John Torre from Communications, Jack Wert from Tourism and Dan Summers from Emergency Management for discussion. Gina Downs adjourned the meeting at 11:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted by Barbetta Hutchinson & Gina Downs. e 1612 A6 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida January 18, 2012 Let it be remembered, the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, net on this date at 2:00 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building' F" of the Government Complex, the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: James Gibson, Jr. Gina Downs Rich Federman Douglas Fee Cheryl Pavlick Leslie Prizant Janet Vasey Joe Swaja Vlad Ryziw Joe Wall (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Business Operations Manager— CMO Jim Coletta, Commissioner, BCC Liaison Harold Hall Joyce Fletcher, League of Women Voters I. Introduction A. Call to Order —Steve Harrison, Chairman Mr. Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. Also present Andrea Marsh, Sheriff's Office, Mark lsockson, Director Corporate Financial & Management Services, Susan Usher, Senior Budget Analyst OMB; Tom Wides, Director Operations Support Public Utilities B. Approval of today's meeting agenda. There were some changes to the Agenda. Mr. Swaja motioned to accept the agenda with the changes. Second by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. 1612 A6 C. Approval of the Productivity Committee meeting minutes from 11/16/11. Mr. Ryziw motioned to approve the minutes of the Productivity Committee dated 11/16/11. Second by Mr. Ryziw. Carried unanimously 10 -0. D. Acceptance of the Public Utilities Capital Projects review Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/9/11. Ms. Vasey motioned to approve the subcommittee meeting minutes. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 10 -0. E. Acceptance of the Outsourcing /Insourcing Subcommittee meeting minutes from 11/29/11. Ms. Downs asked that this item be moved to the next meeting because her changes to the minutes did not get done. Ms. Vasey motioned to move the item to the next meeting. Ms. Downs seconded. Carried unanimously 10 -0. II. Old Business A. Outsourcing/Insourcing Subcommittee review. Ms. Downs reported that the subcommittee has almost completed their research. She said that she is pleased with the attempts that the county has made in their outsourcing and that much more outsourcing is being done than she had originally thought. The subcommittee will meet with Len Price to discuss Fleet maintenance. Mr. Ryziw asked if there were any written procedures or processes to determine whether outsourcing was appropriate. Mr. Wides stated that Public Utilities had some guidelines regarding outsourcing. III. New Business A. FY2013 Budget Policy Review — Mark Isackson, Director Corporate Financial & Management Services. Mr. Isackson spoke to the group about the FY13 budget policy and why mid -year cuts for this year are necessary to position us for the beginning for FY13. He stated that ad valorem revenue is dropping and will not be righted until 2015. A 5% decrease in taxable value is also being estimated for next year. He told the group that we need to look for alternative revenues to provide maintenance of our current infrastructure and to continue to prioritize safety issues. He informed the group that producing the budget for FY13 will be the most challenging budgeting process in many years. B. Recommendations (to the BCC) for Appointment /Reappointment of Members to the Productivity Committee. Mr. Sheffield asked the applicants present to introduce themselves to the group. (All applications were given to the members in their information packet.) He passed out the ballot and gave instructions to the group (each member had 5 votes —1 for each opening). The ballots were collected and tallied. Results are as follows: lb 12 A5 Jim Gibson 10 Steve Harrison 10 Tom Lykos 5 John Mitchell 5 Vlad Ryziw 10 Joe Swaja 9 Janet Vasey 10 Jacob Winge 0 Ms. Vasey motioned to submit the top 5 names along with the 2 tied names to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for the Board to decide the tie. Seconded by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments There were no comments from members or staff. V. Public Comment There was no public comment. VI. Adjourn There being no further business for the good of the County, Mr. Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Federman. Carried unanimously 10 -0. The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:39 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Productivity Committee Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15, 2012. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2 "d floor at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202. Approved by: '�k� �A� PJ Steve Harrison, Chairman A7 ` 1612 February 1, 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING D February 1, 2012 MAR I '< <.� `i t 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. Cones: De: J 12211'2. Item $: I l.e.—r- 2 Ya —% Copies to: (Vacancy) Excused: David Dunnavant, Vice Chairman Blair Foley George Hermanson 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 Robert Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Jack McKenna, Sr. Engineer — Engineering & Environmental Services Chairman: William Varian ,� Ray Allain Fiala Hiller James Boughton Henning — Clay Brooker Coyle Laura Spurgeon De John Coletta _ ,��, Dalas Disney Marco Espinar David Hurst Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Ronald Waldrop ALSO PRESENT: Misc. Cones: De: J 12211'2. Item $: I l.e.—r- 2 Ya —% Copies to: (Vacancy) Excused: David Dunnavant, Vice Chairman Blair Foley George Hermanson 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 Robert Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager — Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Jack McKenna, Sr. Engineer — Engineering & Environmental Services A7 6 12 February 1, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:06 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting. A quorum was established. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 49 2012: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes of the December 7, 2011 Meeting as submitted. Second by James Boughton. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. (Note: Ray Allain and David Hurst could not vote because they did not attend the January meeting.) IV. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, advised the members to use care when adjusting the microphones to avoid feedback — the bases will be replaced in the near future. V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Nathan Beals, Project Manager • Utilities Standards Discussion Group met on January 17th o Next meeting: February 21, 2012 • Update: Gravity Sewers — Maximum Depth • Proposed 15 feet for maximum depth (from finished grade) ■ Originally proposed 10 feet • Counter: 18 feet • Discussion continues — an official policy has not been determined • Process allows review by deviation — specify reasons • Concern: costs, maintenance issues, disturbance to customers • Requested that DSAC's Utilities Subcommittee not meet until March B. Fire Review: Robert Salvaggio, Assistant Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report was submitted for December, 2011 o Plan Reviews conducted — 731 (November total — 641) ■ Mixture of renovations and multi - family reviews o There have been no issues with transfers ■ Scheduled trips: 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM, with additional trips as need 2 .. A i 1612 &17 ruary 1, 2012 C. Transportation Engineering: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director • Collier County Bridges: • 109 in the County — over half are 50 years or older — bridges are aging • Bridges are inspected bi- annually by the Florida Department of Transportation • Received notification from the FDOT — advised to post weight limits on five bridges within 30 days • Four are located on State Road #846 (Immokalee), east of SR #29 • One is in Chokoloskee (Chokoloskee Bay) • Weight limits: 28 tons (4) and 29 tons (1) • Will present findings to the Board of County Commissioners at next meeting • Bridge program is marginally funded by gas tax funds • Golden Gate Blvd. Bridges: • Locations: Miller Canal and Golden Gate Canal • Contract for Design/Build was approved by the BCC • Weight restricted to 29 tons • Chokoloskee Bridge: • BCC awarded a contract for Design/Build • Was repaired approximately 3 years ago (cost: $500,000) • Weight restriction not lifted — was 35 tons • White Blvd. and 23rd Street Bridges: • Still discussing funding (for 23rd St. Bridge) — options under review • Impact fees were allocated but less than $5M is available • Concern for future projects (Collier Blvd. /Wilson/Golden Gate) • Other projects: • Davis /Collier — 17% completed (Duration: 2%2 years) • Oil Well Road — western portion will be substantially completed by April and the eastern portion by June D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. • Activity Report: o 1,700 Permit applications received 82 — single - family ' 4 or 5 — multi - family ' 2 —commercial projects (new construction) ' Remainder: Shutters, A/C, individual Trade Permits o Inspections: 3 6,400 in January 19 — Pre -Apps 60 — Zoning certificates 1612 � Febr�ta7y 1, 2012 ■ 50 — Temporary Use Permits ■ 1 — SDP, 6 — SDP -A, 1 — SDP -I ■ Land Use side is still down ■ Pulte, GL Homes, and Lennar are calling office — may begin new construction projects • Florida Building Code — becomes effective on March 15th • At next BCC Meeting — will request outsourcing for Inspections o Budget: $ l OOK (hire independent contractors through an agency) • "CityView" • Portal is available • C/D -Plus permit applications are being phased out Chairman Varian inquired about inspections — how many per day were conducted. Jamie French: 2009 — 24 per day ISO limitation — 16 per day o in order to comply, Staff would need to be doubled o County's EGS (Enforcement Grading System) rating is 4 o City of Naples EGS rating is 3 o EGS rating affects insurance rates Dalas Disney pointed out the ISO Rating apply to Property Hazard Insurance. He asked what was the cost difference to an individual on their insurance policy. He suggested the figure was not significant. He stated the important factor was to keep the number of inspections performed by each inspector as low as possible to improve the ISO Rating and hiring inspectors on a contract basis would help reduce the number. Ray Allain suggested incentivizing the Custom Builders to use providers of 3`d party Inspectors. He stated a study of private providers could be conducted to ascertain level of service. Jamie French stated he was open to investigating but did not think a private provider would always meet Collier County standards. He stated he can request another inspection by the ISO Certifiers but preferred to wait until there was a full year of service under "CityView." Mr. Allain stated a high -end residential builder could afford to utilize a private provider. He further stated if the difficult inspections were performed by a 3`d party provider, it would reduce expenses and eliminate the need to hire independent contractors. Re: "CityView" Dalas Disney noted Reviewers' comments are returned in PDF format. He could not edit the document and was forced to retype his original document rather than being able to cut and paste the comments into it. He suggested returning documents utilizing standard Word format. 4 71 A e 161 Z A7 February 1, 2012 Jamie French will research the issue with the vendor and Staff. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. LDC Amendments — Recommendations from LDR Subcommittee: Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator, and Clay Brooker Clay Brooker inquired about the comments from the Environmental Advisory Council. Caroline Cilek stated the EAC reviews only Amendments with an environmental component. Several Amendments were returned by the EAC for additional justification. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 2.03.07 (G) — Immokalee CRA Overlay District (Withdrawn) 2. Section 9.04.08 — Administrative Adiustments Author: Growth Management Division Purpose: To create an administrative adjustment process for non -use issues, for residential and commercial structures Comment: Under review by the County Attorney's Office and will be returned to DSAC at the next meeting. Updates will be applied to all zoning districts including PUDs and more specifics will be provided for deviations. 3. 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. Comment: Has been sent "back to the drawing board" — working with the CBIA. Goal is to apply consistent /compatible language throughout the Land Development Code. Will be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office before bringing to DSAC. 4. Section 10.02.03 (B)(3) — Submittal Requirements for SDPs (Insubstantial Changes) Author: Growth Management Division Purpose: To adjust the language and allow for a speedier review process for insubstantial changes. Comment: Was completely re- written to provide more flexibility utilizing DSAC's recommendations to guide how to view insubstantial changes. Member comments: • Laura DeJohn objected to the use of the word "guidelines" and suggested substituting the word "considerations." * 5 1612 A9 February 1, 2012 Dalas Disney asked what triggered which requirement for full compliance with the existing Florida Building Code. He had previously suggested examining the existing Building Code — his concern was with existing developed sites and how they are required to comply. He asked if the site is not in compliance, what triggers full compliance. Example, an addition of one square foot triggered full compliance. He stated the Code contains different levels of renovation — Level I is relatively minor, Level II is anything under 50 %, and Level III requires full compliance if 50% or more is renovated. He suggested utilizing the trigger points for site compliance. Bob Where suggested differentiating between what triggers compliance and what is an insubstantial change. He stated the issue was determining which process to follow. Nick Casalanguida stated once a hard and fast rule is inserted into the Code, it must be observed. Jack McKenna stated he will be participating in a round -table discussion with the District concerning use of percentage versus square footage — it is difficult to find a "one size fits all" conclusion. Discussion continued concerning thresholds for a "Letter of Modification" versus a "Letter of No Objection" and possible separation from the District's requirements. Mr. Casalanguida stated it must be clear that a proposed SDP -I actually qualifies for consideration as a true SDP -I and not something else, such as an SDP -A or an SIP — the contractor must understand the difference. The focus should be on the original SDP. Dalas Disney asked how parcels that pre -date the SDP process will be handled. Jack McKenna stated the goal was to prevent any misinterpretation of the Code either by Staff or the public. Mr. Casalanguida noted the Planning Commission will want definitions and specific language. Mr. McKenna concurred that flexibility can be a double -edged sword. Mr. Casalanguida requested the Members to review the information sheet which had been refined by Claudine Auclair and suggest additional changes. He stated the explanation of the project was important for Staff. He suggested holding a weekly Review sessions with 2 or 3 members of DSAC and 2 or 3 Staff members. Dalas Disney suggested bringing issues to DSAC for review. Robert Mulhere moved to approve and accept the revised Amendment as discussed (i.e., elimination of the word "guidelines." Second by Mario Valle. Ray Allain suggested including a sunset to compel revision and discussion on a regular basis, especially if there was enough flexibility that could (potentially) be misused. Chairman Varian noted under the DSAC Ordinance, any member could bring an LDC Amendment forward. Bob Where stated if there was a statutory requirement to review the LDC on a regular basis (every 3 or 4 years), it might be more effective than a sunset. 16 12 A7 February 1, 2012 Motion carried, 9 — "Yes " /1— "No." David Hurst was opposed and Mario Valle was not present for the vote. Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Growth Management Division, stated: • Primary task is to go through Administrative Code process • the County is trying to remove the procedures and application content from the LDC and place into the Administrative Code • Procedural issues are found primarily in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code but are also interspersed throughout the LDC • The Administrative Code will site back to specific development criteria in the LDC • Will function like a user's handbook • The Administrative Code will closely follow the LDC • No substantive changes • No procedural /regulatory changes • Still working with the Consultant — White and Smith • Will be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office • Cycle II will amend the LDC • The Code of Laws will be reviewed next • Time Line: • February/March — review by Environmental Advisory Council • April /May — review by the Planning Commission • June, July, and September — presentation to the Board of County Commissioners Updates — Approved Amendments: (Caroline Cilek) • Boat Dock Extension — under review by the County Attorney's Office — similar to what was approved — will be more objective and number oriented • Personal Storage Containers — will be moved to different section of the Code (Chapter 5) • Extensions to SDPs and SIPs — placing a two - extension limit (2 -years per extension) — upon expiration, must apply for SDP - I or SDP -A — must comply with the Code after 7 years • Conditional Use Application — CBIA proposed allowing one extension (2 -years per extension) following the 3 -year time limit o The Board directed extending the time limit from 3 to 5 years VII. NEw BUSINESS: (None) VIII. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: 7 16 1 A? - Februa n' ] , 2012 • Chairman Varian stated he could not find the DSAC Amendment and requested a copy. o He stated there were reports that DSAC was required to submit — under Joe and Gary — very specific — he remembered fee changes — requested research to determine what is still valid NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • March 7, 2012 • April 4, 2012 • May 2, 2012 • June 6, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:40 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE cam= William Varian, Chairman The Minutes we a pj roved by the Board /Committee Chair on l 2 , 2012 as submitted" �'"� OR "as amended" �] 8 b 2 A7 16 ' March 7 2012 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMff&Tft g W 3 MEETING D APR 3 / ii March 7, 2012 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 V Chairman: William Varian Vice Chair: David Dunnavant James Boughton Laura Spurgeon De John Dalas Disney Marco Espinar Blair Foley George Hermanson David Hurst Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Ronald Waldrop (Vacancy) Excused: Clay Brooker Absent: Ray Allain ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office Aaron Comer, Principal Project blihmQWW*6 Public Utilities Caroline Cilek, M.C.R.P., Senior a a: �ZC Coordinator Chris Scott, Senior Planner Item #: t Copies to: 1612 A7 'March 7, 2012 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. Eleven members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 11— 0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 19 2012: James Boughton moved to approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2011 Meeting as submitted. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (Note: David Dunnavant, Blair Foley, and George Hermanson could not vote because they did not attend the February meeting.) IV. DSAC POSITION VACANCY: REVIEW AND VOTE Chairman Varian stated the vacant position (formerly held by Reed Jarvi) had been advertised. Only one individual applied, to wit: Christopher R. Mitchell of Mitchell Engineering Group, LLC, who is a land development consulting Civil Engineer. Robert Mulhere moved to approve the application of Christopher R. Mitchell and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to appoint Mr. Mitchell to the Development Services Advisory Committee. Second by David Hurst. Mvpliccinrl • It was noted five DSAC members are Engineers. • A suggestion was made to target future advertising to the areas of expertise needed to complete the Committee. • Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, will contact Ian Mitchell, BCC Office, to request advertising which lists specific categories. Chairman Varian called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, 11— 0. V. PUBLIC SPEAKERS: (None) (Dalas Disney arrived at 3 :10 PM.) VI. STAFF ANNOUNCE_ MENTS/UPDATES: A. Public Utilities: Aaron Kromer Update: Gravit}. Sewers —Maximum Depth o Evaluation continues — cost has not been determined 2 16 1 L A7 March 7, 2012 B. Fire Review: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office • Monthly Activity Report was submitted for January 2012 • Plan Reviews conducted — 686 (December 2011 — 73 1) • Review turn- around times have been meeting objectives • Expedited Reviews: 5 were conducted ■ Overtime hours (11) are reimbursed by the contractor(s) who requested an expedited review C. Transportation Engineering: Reed Jarvi, Manager — Transportation Planning • Public Information Meeting will be held on March 8th in Golden Gate • Topic: White Blvd. (replacement) Bridge and 23`d Street (temporary) Bridge • Due to downturn in economy and slow population growth, it was decided a full replacement will not be needed as quickly as originally thought • A temporary bridge will be constructed while the White Blvd. bridge is replaced • DOT determined the White Blvd. Bridge is functionally deficient and will be completely replaced (including sidewalks and bike lanes) • A temporary traffic light will be installed at Golden Gate • I -75 /Everglades Blvd. IJR ( "Interchange Justification Report") is moving forward o The CEEE ( "Cumulative Environmental Effects Evaluation ") Dispute Resolution Team held a meeting approximately two weeks ago • Determination: locating an interchange at 1 -75 and Everglades Blvd. will result in minimal environmental changes • The IJR should be completed during the summer Q. Davis /Collier Blvd. Project There were two left turning lanes from Collier Blvd. onto Davis Blvd. (north to west) which have been reduced to a single turning lane due to construction and the signal time has been shortened. During "season," it is an impossible situation. Mr. Jarvi will forward the information to the proper party. Mr. Jarvi noted the final Technical Memorandum from the Dispute Resolution Team is due on February 15th. A Public Hearing had been held on March 1St D. Planning & Regulation: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Mgmt. • Florida Building Code will become effective on March 15th o In 2009, the Board of County Commissioners approved exempting certain permitting requirements for single- family homes under Ordinance #2009 -59. The State has declared the Ordinance will be null and void as of March 15th. 161 March 7, 2012 • A new Ordinance will be presented to the BCC which will be identical to #2009 -59 except for changes in the language to reference the 2010 Building Code. • After the Board has adopted the new Ordinance, it will be recorded with the State and become effective 60 days thereafter. • Activity Report o Most permits are for single - family homes o Very little commercial or multi - family o Land Development — remains steady at 1 to 2 SDPs ( "Site Development Plan ") per month o Insubstantial Changes Amendments have been submitted for pre- approved building lots (many of which have been pre -sold) or for developments • Fee Revenue o Has been steady — right at Budget levels 0 14 "job bankers" are in training — 3 are Inspection positions for individual trades — anticipating a "rush" to obtain permits and C /Os due to new Florida Building Code • Commercial Zoning Certificate and Temporary Use Permits o Showing strong trends — the current inventory is being utilized o Most for build -outs ... very little activity for new buildings Q. Will the office close early on March 15th when the new Florida Building Code is issued? A. Will accept permits up to 4:00 PM — Staff may be staggered — many are being cross - trained to issue permits. A possibility may be to shut off at 3:00 PM but accept applications up to 5:00 PM. Dalas Disney again asked about the possibility of issuing Reviewers' Letters in "Word" format rather than as a PDF document; Mr. French stated he would bring the issue to the "CityView" representatives. A suggestion was offered regarding "Web Portal" to establish a "sounding board" to obtain issues to present to "CityView" at one time rather than piece -meal and analyze what changes are the most cost effective to make. Jamie French asked the members to send their issues /questions /suggestions to Judy Puig who will forward to him — will be reviewed /discussed at the next DSAC meeting. Fee Schedule — Reporting Items Jamie French noted: o The language stated that the County would provide DSAC with activity levels on an annual basis 4 1612 7 March 7, 2012 o The Fee Schedule identified the amount of "cash on hand" — i.e., funds not committed to a specific purpose o The Board of County Commissioners adopted the cash on hand figure as "reserves" — if the amount exceeded the total budget by 50% or more, a review of the Fee Schedule was triggered He asked if the Committee wished to see the figures on a quarterly or annual basis. Consensus: An annual presentation of the Budget preparation will be sufficient. V11. OLD BUSINESS: A. Update — LDC Amendments: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 — CYCLE 1 1. Section 9.04.08 — Administrative Adiustments Caroline Cilek stated: • The County Attorney's Office made a few minor changes. • The adjustments that can be made are still under review — "work in progress." • Setback reductions were limited to 25 percent, but no greater than five feet. • Nick Casalanguida, author, proposed changes to buffers between "like uses" such as a shopping center (i.e., buffers between two C -2 retail businesses) to either: share, reduce, or eliminate the buffer if parking facilities are shared. The issue will be addressed in a separate (new) LDC Amendment. • The EAC ( "Environmental Advisory Council ") has reviewed the Amendment. • The Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission for review in April. Approved Revisions: Page 3: • B (1) (a) and (b): "diminution" was changed to "reduction" • C (3): "mitigation" was changed to "adequate mitigation" • D (1): "registered professional engineer" was changed to "appropriate design professional" (to be consistent with procedures for SDP and SIP) Page 4: • D (5): the word "his" was deleted, i.e., "County Manager or designee ..." (as referenced throughout the document) George Hermanson moved to accept and approve the Amendment with the discussed revisions. Second by Robert Mulhere. 5 � 161 2 A7 March 7, 2012 Motion carried, 9 — "Yes "13 — "No. " Blair Foley, David Dunnavant, and Dalas Disney were opposed. Caroline Cilek encouraged DSAC members to attend the Planning Commission meeting to defend the changes. 2. Update: Administrative Code — Chris Scott • Moving forward — procedural aspects are being removed from the LDC into a separate (stand- alone) document: o Will enable future changes to procedures (such as application contents, which Staff member is to review /approve insubstantial changes, designation of time lines, etc.) to be more easily amended o The procedure will be simplified — less lengthy Drafts of the Administrative Code and of a Text Amendment to remove the procedures from the LDC and create criteria to authorize the County Manager to create the Administrative Code have been written Anticipating presentation to the Board of County Commissioners within one month after the LDC Amendment Cycle has concluded The drafts are not yet available online for review — still in progress Caroline Cilek noted: • The Collier County Planning Commission ( "CCPC ") will review the Amendments during a special session to be held on April 13th • Review of the Administrative Code is anticipated to be scheduled for review by the CCPC during May. • Next step — the documents will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners, beginning in June and ending in September. • DSAC members were again encouraged to attend the Planning Commission meeting 3. LDR Subcommittee • Will meet on March 19th to review new Amendments 4. Section 4.02.01 D — Exemptions and Exclusions from Design Standards Purpose: To allow air conditioning (A/C) units that must be elevated in order to meet flood elevation requirements to encroach into any yard provided that minimum building separations are maintained, consistent with Staff Clarification SC 07 -01. "The LDC also allows setback/yard encroachments for window or wall- mounted A/C units for up to two feet (D.6.). In the special flood hazard areas, primarily the coastal VE zones, the A/C units are required to be elevated to the same level as the first habitable floor (above the Base Flood Elevation), and cannot be constructed as slab on grade. " s 161 2 A7 March 7, 2012 Jamie French provided background information: • A complaint was made concerning many of the homes built within the flood plains ( "VE" zone — North Naples) regarding the requirement to raise A/C units (pad) up to the base flood elevation. • A Staff interpretation, made in 2007, stated encroachment into the side yard was allowed on pad - mounted A/C units which were elevated only to meet FEMA requirements (cantilevered). The elevated units were treated the same as pad- mounted units. • The LDC does not contain language to support the interpretation — it only states "pad mounted." • The basis for the objection was the type of encroachment — suggestion was to reduce the size of the home or recess the A/C units. • Nick Casalanguida requested that the Amendment is reviewed during the LDC Cycle. Chris Scott: • The LDC currently permits some encroachment for pad - mounted A/C units — it was not codified. "D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards. 9. Fences, walls and hedges, subject to section 5.03.02, ground (slab on grade) mounted air conditioners, unenclosed pool equipment and well pumps, are permitted in required yards, subject to the provisions of section 4.06.00. For the purpose of this section, ground mounted air conditioners include units that are required to be elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures, provided the minimum separation of structures is maintained." (Note: Inserted language was underlined.) • There is an exception for generators. • Cannot cantilever over the property line. • The Amendment will codify the language to clarify that it pertains to A/C units and their support structures which are required to be elevated to meet flood zone requirements • Applies to single - family homes Suggestion: Camouflage the unit by using a louvered screen which could provide some sound dampening and be aesthetically pleasing while not hindering air flow or servicing of the unit. Dalas Disney pointed out some A/C manufacturers (such as "Trane ") offer an acoustical "shroud" or blanket for newer units which is mounted inside and around the compressor motor to provide some noise abatement. ' 161 Z A-7 March 7, 2012 George Hermanson suggested revising the inserted language: • First sentence: Remove "ground (slab on grade) mounted" • Second sentence: Remove "For the purpose of this section" • Second sentence: "This includes air conditioners that are ground mounted units or units that are required to be elevated ..." 5. "Florida Specialties" Amendment Caroline Cilek noted a new LDC Amendment will allow creation of a permit which will authorize early construction. Jamie French provided background information: A company may want to expand its operations but the deadlines do not necessarily coincide with the County's deadlines. o Business would like to simultaneously submit permit applications at the beginning versus going through the Land Use and/or Zoning aspect of the approval process. o A building permit would be submitted with the initial SDP. o The Board of County Commissioners approved the "Florida Specialties" but directed the County to develop a process for review by the BCC. A draft of the document will be reviewed by the Building Department, Land Use Planning, and Fire Code Office prior to presentation to DSAC. Robert Where pointed out projects will be limited because the first threshold will be to determine whether a jurisdictional permitting process is required. If it is, the project will not qualify. Jamie French stated it is recognized to be an "at risk" situation, i.e., to run vertical construction before a final approval is obtained. He further stated the Florida Building Code does allow early work authorization. The goal is to modify the LDC to allow the County to take a more pro- business approach. Caroline Cilek noted Amendments previously initiated and authored by the CBIA will go forward as "Staff sponsored" and "Staff sponsored" — some of the changes have been removed. The CBIA was advised of the changes made by Staff. The Amendments will be reviewed by DSAC. Jamie French stated the sponsorship change was made to prevent the CBIA from incurring a cost to submit the Amendments. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: • Chairman Varian stated copies of emails between Ed Riley and Nick Casalanguida were provided to DSAC members. He further stated DSAC is available to assist both Mr. Riley and Mr. Casalanguida in any way possible. 6 ImZ A7 7, 2012 IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS: • David Hurst announced his resignation from DSAC due to a conflict of interest. He has accepted a position with the SW Florida Water Management District, effective April 2012, and will be the Supervisor of water use permitting. • Judy Puig will contact Ian Mitchell at the BCC's office to advertise the vacancy. NEXT MEETING DATES: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless otherwise notified) • April 4, 2012 • May 2, 2012 • June 6, 2012 • July 11, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:26 PM. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were ap OR by the Board /Committee Chair on G� , 2012 "as submitted" [ �R "as amended" E I i 16 I A7 arch 19, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida P March 19, 2012 BY:....D. , ........... 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 "C," at the Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation Office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala �V, Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta- STAFF PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Clay C. Brooker David Dunnavant Marco Espinar George Hermanson Robert Mulhere Misc. Cones: Date: 31-2-2— 11 2 Item $- 1 k-A Z '2 ►g-1 Copies to: Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management Caroline Cilek, M.S., Senior Planner — LDC Coordinator Chris Scott, Senior Planner — Land Development Services Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes \LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19-2012.docx 16 1'2 A7 March 19, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Clay Brooker called the meeting to order at 1:07 PM. A quorum was established; three members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (Not discussed.) III. NEW BUSINESS: REVIEW OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS a. Section 4.02.14 — Design Standards for Development in the ST & ACSC -ST Districts and Section 9.04.02 — Types of Variances Authorized Stephen Lenberger provided background information: • The Special Treatment section of the Code is the procedures section • The State has imposed strict development criteria on the Big Cypress area which the County has adopted and referenced in the GMP and LDC; • Special Treatment overlays in the urban area are usually lifted in the PUD reviews — were inserted during the 1970s; • Other SP overlays — located along the undeveloped coastal barrier islands • A recent variance was applied for a lot on Plantation Island • Plantation Island has an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs dated April 26, 2004 • The agreement allows owners of single - family lots in the unrecorded subdivision on Plantation Island to alter mangroves and any other type of vegetation by the minimum amount permitted • The variance application was to be reviewed and approved by Staff at the time the building permits were reviewed • Residents of Plantation Island and Copeland were not required to go through the standard process, i.e., file a petition for site alteration permit or site development plan approval • The language was not specific — met with Mark Strain of the Planning - Commission who suggested clarifying the language • The agreement itself is the variance • County Staff questioned why another variance application was required when the intent of the BCC was to make the process easier for the residents • The County Attorney's Office was consulted and determined review and approval could be accomplished by an administrative review • The submittal requirements were outdated — Paragraph "G" was revised (subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3) to limit submittals to applicable information only Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Amendment as submitted. Second by Marco Espinar. LTDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes \LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials\LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19- 2012.docx .,Q 1 1612 - A 7 March 19, 2012 Suggested Revisions: • Page 7, Line 201 — was re- worded to clarify that Public Hearings are still required to be held, but are not required to be advertised • Page 12, Line 417 — The first sentence will end at the word "approved." The remainder will be deleted. Robert Mulhere amended his motion to approve the Amendment and the revisions as discussed. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously, 3 — 0. (George Hermanson arrived at 1:21 PM.) b. Section 4.02.091 D — A/C Encroachment Chris Scott provided background information: • The purpose of the Amendment is to codify a Staff Clarification (SC 07 -01) dated June 18, 2007 • There are setback requirements for structures and provisions that allow certain exemptions • The Amendment was revised and the term "pad mounted" was replaced with "ground (slab -on- grade) mounted" During the March 7th DSAC meeting, the Amendment was reviewed. The following excerpt is from the Minutes: "George Hermanson suggested revising the inserted language: • First sentence: Remove "ground (slab on grade) mounted" • Second sentence: Remove "For the purpose of this section" • Second sentence: "This includes air conditioners that are ground mounted units or units that are required to be elevated ..." Suggested Revisions: • Page 2, Line 8, First Sentence — remove the phrase "ground (slab on grade) mounted" • Page 2, Line 11, Second Sentence — shall read as follows: "This includes air conditioners that are ground mounted and those required to be elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures, provided the minimum separation of structures is maintained." (David Dunnavant arrived at 1:31 PM.) Robert Where moved to approve recommending forwarding the Amendment to DSAC for review. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously, S — 0. c. Section 4.06.02 — Buffer Requirements Suggested Revisions: • Page 5, Line 141 I TDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes \LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19-2012.docx 3 16 1 ?arc A7 h 19, 2012 • Insert a comma following the word "center" • Delete the word "or" • Insert a comma following the word "Park" • Insert the phrase "or similar commercial development," following the word "Park," Page 5, Line 142 — Change dimensions from 15 feet to 10 feet Page 5, Line 143 — Change dimensions from 7.5 fee to 5 feet Discussion ensued concerning the history of the requirements and potential options, i.e., to completely eliminate the buffer. Issues: cost and visibility — shopping center /strip malls obscured by trees Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Amendment and the revisions as discussed. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously S — 0. d. Section 5.05.04 D — Group Housing FAR ( "Floor Area Ratio ") Chanite Caroline Cilek provided background information: • A "FAR" establishes the relationship (i.e., "ratio ") between a property and the amount of development permitted for that property. • Due to the number of requests for greater FAR for Assisted Living Facilities, Staff recommended an increase in the ratio from 0.45 to 0.60. Bob Where suggested a language change to one -acre parcel and defining the buildable area on a 2 -story and 3 -story building. George Hermanson noted Assisted Living Facilities (especially upscale facilities) are providing more onsite services, i.e., medical, social, personal services, pharmacy, recreational and entertainment. There was a discussion of why "0.60" was chosen. It was noted 0.60 has been the greatest FAR requested in a PUD (Planned Unit Development) and appears to work well. Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Amendment and the revisions as discussed. Second by George Hermanson. Carried unanimously S — 0. e. Section 10.01.02 — Development Orders Required — Early Construction Permit Jamie French provided background information: • Florida Specialties requested to build a building to accommodate equipment and refrigeration necessary for a client's needs, • A Land Use application was needed, • An Early Construction Authorization Permit ( "EAC ") allows vertical construction to begin prior to the issuance of an SDP and must meet the criteria similar to the former Fast -Track Program, • The BCC approved issuing an EAC Permit to Florida Specialties, Inc. with L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes\LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19- 2012.docx 1612 17 March 19, 2012 the stipulation that the County return and present an alternative approach for commercial building expansion projects. • Suggestion: Add language which states the builder /developer accepts responsibility for errors /fatal flaws — if the building is wrong, it must be torn down — the builder /developer acknowledges the risk Bob Mulhere stated: • Applications are reviewed on a case -by -case basis, • If there are any jurisdictional issues, the property will not qualify for an EAC, • A Letter MOD ( "Letter of Modification ") must be obtained from South Florida Water Management District ( "SFWMD "), and • Staff should have the ability to require a performance bond or any surety accepted by the County. Marco Espinar stated HB 503 has been approved; i.e., a County or municipality cannot condition permit review upon first obtaining State approval or Federal permits first. Suggested Revisions: • Page 4, Line 61 — the sentence will read as follows: "Proposed vegetation removal must comply with the requirements of Section 3.05.05 (0)." • Fine tuning was suggested o Add applicable portions of Section 3.05.05. • Add: Language to the effect if a developer abandons the project, the land must be restored to its original condition • Add: Temporary Use Permits may be issued for larger projects • Add: Pursuant to the Temporary Use Permit, the duration may be extended based on need during the construction process • Jamie French will present the suggested revisions to the County Attorney's Office for review Consensus: Return to DSAC for review and approval. E Administrative Code Draft Chris Scott stated a draft of the Administrative Code has been sent to the County Attorney's Office for review. He gave a brief outline: Three types of Amendments — removal of procedures /applications and contents from obscure places in the LDC to the Administrative Code — incorporation of Section 10 from the LDC Two amendments authorize creation of the Administrative Code • Permits the County Manager to prepare the Administrative Code • Allows the LDC to incorporate the Administrative Code by reference (recommended by the consultant) • The Administrative Code will be broken out by chapters L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes\LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19-2012.docx � ?A 1612 17 March 19, 2012 the stipulation that the County return and present an alternative approach for commercial building expansion projects. • Suggestion: Add language which states the builder /developer accepts responsibility for errors /fatal flaws — if the building is wrong, it must be torn down — the builder /developer acknowledges the risk Bob Mulhere stated: • Applications are reviewed on a case -by -case basis, • If there are any jurisdictional issues, the property will not qualify for an EAC, • A Letter MOD ( "Letter of Modification ") must be obtained from South Florida Water Management District ( "SFWMD "), and • Staff should have the ability to require a performance bond or any surety accepted by the County. Marco Espinar stated HB 503 has been approved; i.e., a County or municipality cannot condition permit review upon first obtaining State approval or Federal permits first. Suggested Revisions: • Page 4, Line 61 — the sentence will read as follows: "Proposed vegetation removal must comply with the requirements of Section 3.05.05 (0)." • Fine tuning was suggested o Add applicable portions of Section 3.05.05. • Add: Language to the effect if a developer abandons the project, the land must be restored to its original condition • Add: Temporary Use Permits may be issued for larger projects • Add: Pursuant to the Temporary Use Permit, the duration may be extended based on need during the construction process • Jamie French will present the suggested revisions to the County Attorney's Office for review Consensus: Return to DSAC for review and approval. E Administrative Code Draft Chris Scott stated a draft of the Administrative Code has been sent to the County Attorney's Office for review. He gave a brief outline: Three types of Amendments — removal of procedures /applications and contents from obscure places in the LDC to the Administrative Code — incorporation of Section 10 from the LDC Two amendments authorize creation of the Administrative Code • Permits the County Manager to prepare the Administrative Code • Allows the LDC to incorporate the Administrative Code by reference (recommended by the consultant) • The Administrative Code will be broken out by chapters L\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1 \DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes\LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19-2012.docx 1612 417 . March 19, 2012 The draft has been posted on the County's website. IV. ADDED AMENDMENTS: a. Section 2.01.03 — Essential Services Caroline Cilek explained it was primarily a bookkeeping Amendment. • Paragraph "f." on Page 3 was added. • All parties to the Agreement have been identified. George Hermanson moved to approve the Amendment as submitted. Second by Marco Espinar. Carried unanimously S — 0. b. Section 1.08.02 — Definitions — "Usable Open Space" Caroline Cilek stated she met with Mark Strain, Collier County Planning Commission, who noted the BCC direction from 2007 to amend the definition of Usable Open Space ( "Rural Fringe District "). The proposed change will be applied to the entire County. Suggested Revision: • Page 2, Line 17 — Add the phrase "(whether public or privately owned)" following the word "areas" George Hermanson moved to approve the Amendment and revision as discussed. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously S — 0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 2:41 PM. DSAC — LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE Clay Broo r, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee on "as presented" [_] OR "as amended" U. 2012 L•\LDC Amendment 2012 Cycle 1\DSAC Subcommittee agenda and notes\LDR Subcomm. 031912 Meeting Materials \LDR Minutes - (R2) - 03- 19-2012.docx 31 a 161 A8 ebruar Y 1 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER mma IIym� ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCI 7 zo�z Naples, Florida, February 1, 2012 BY.- 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: Fi 0VI d, ..� Co, y ., CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN; Dr. Judith Hushon Andrew Dickman Michael Sorrell David Bishof Gina Downs ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmental Specialist Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Ray Smith, Pollution Control Director Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist Misc. Cares: Daps: S 12-2..112. item #:) L -r 2 Inj S copies to: 1 r 161 Fe ruary 1, 2012 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 Ms. Downs moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously S — 0. IV. Approval of the December 7, 2011 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2011 meeting subject to the following changes: • Page 3, paragraph 4, line 1 -from "....County seeking to reduction of off..." to "...County seeking reduction of off..." • Page 5, paragraph 1, line 1 — from "Discussion occurred on, given the major..." to "Discussion occurred on the concept that given the major..." Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Dickman reported he may not be present for the April meeting. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592)- Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East The presenters were sworn in Jean Jourdan, Project Manager, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA provided an overview of the project highlighting: • The project consist of Tracts A — G and is a total of 17.89 acres in size • It is surrounded by commercial and residential uses with Sudgen Park lying easterly of the site. • The applicant proposes 40 residential units, 48,575 sq. ft of commercial space and a 350 seat art theatre on site. Paul Owen, W. Dexter Bender and Assoc., Inc. provided an overview of the environmental aspects of the application highlighting: • The site was previously used as a borrow area, with the borrow pits remaining as ponds. • There are approximately 2.6 acres of wetlands on site with 0.16 acres being impacted. • Nearly all native vegetation on site will be preserved with exotics being removed as necessary.. • A boardwalk is proposed to connect the site with Sudgen Park. • Listed species surveys identified several species of wading birds and nesting sites.. • Based on comments from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission a "Wading Bird Management Plan" was developed. 2 1612 8 February 1, 2012 • The Plan is for the birds to voluntary relocate their nesting areas easterly, away from the proposed developed areas by enhancing habitat in various areas on site. Council discussion occurred on: The most optimal means to implement the Management Plan including phasing it to minimize the impact on any birds who may utilize the area (especially on the easterly portion of Tract A). Given the project is in the watershed of "impaired waters" (Naples Bay, etc.), the benefits of utilizing Low Impact Development standards for the development of the project. The benefits of enhancing areas on the westerly side of Sudgen Park to improve bird /wildlife habitat adjacent to the project. Mr. Owen stated the concept for development of the site is to: Acquire the rezone permit from the County; implement the Wading Bird Management Plan encouraging the birds to voluntary cease usage of the existing areas slated for development and gravitate easterly to the newly enhanced areas and submit a Site Development Plan Application where a new set of site controls will be established. If birds are nesting in areas to be developed at the time of construction, additional protection measures will be required at that time The Council determined the conditions of recommended approval individually. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition lighting be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to encouraging the applicant to incorporate Low Impact Development standards into the design of the project where appropriate. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition: With respect to the easterly buffer proposed for Tract A, the exotics be treated for removal, with the dead species remaining in place until the time when the final landscaping plantings are placed on site. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition the applicant contact the Parks and Recreation Department or other appropriate County Agency to provide an overview of the proposed project and propose the concept of the County planting the necessary plants to improve the littoral zones of Sudgen Lake on its westerly side to improve nesting habitat for birds. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously S — 0. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition that on site 16 2 A -8 ),bruary 1, 2012 herbicide applications occur only during the dry months. Second by Mr. Sorrell.. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition that all required monitoring reports be submitted for a period of 5 years following the completion of construction. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Break: 10:42 am Reconvened.- 10:55 am VII. Old Business A. Watershed Management Plan Update — Mac Hatcher Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist provided a memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council dated January 24, 2012 - Subject: "Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy" for information purposes. He presented the Slideshow "EAC Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy 21112012" outlining the schedule for implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. The Council recommended Staff develops a strategy to notify Homeowner /Condominium Associations and firms who prepare Reserve Funding Studies for said Associations on the importance of maintaining their stormwater retention ponds and to plan for the costs which may be associated with these activities B. Update members on projects Summer Araque reported the Gordon River Greenway Special Treatment Zone Application was recommended for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). The Lost Groves Mine Excavation Permit Application will be heard on February 16, 2012 by the CCPC. The regular EAC meeting for the month of July will be held on Tuesday, the 3rd of July. VIII. New Business A. LDC Amendments — Review by EAC Caroline Cilek, and Fred Reischl, Sr. Planners presented the "2012 Cycle 1 Environmental Advisory Council Review LDC Amendment Drafts 1/1712012" for consideration. 4.05.04 - Parking Space Requirements grass parking Tony Ruberto, Parks and Recreation Department presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements CHANGE: Exempt Public Parks of the requirement of a maximum of 15% grass parking Ms. Downs moved to recommend the following change to the proposed Amendment and that it be returned to the EAC for final review: L, 1b 2 48 Fe ruary 1, 2012 • Section 4.05.04.D.2 line 2 —from "...a maximum of fifty percent (50 %) of the required..." to "...a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the required..." Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Mr. Sorrell moved to recommend the following change to the proposed Amendment: • Section 4.05.04.D.1 to read —"Developers providing parking lots in excess of 200 parking spaces may surface up to forty (40 %) percent of the required off street parking spaces in grass. Said grass parking spaces shall be located in a suitable on site location. " Second by Chairman Hushon. Carried unanimously S -0. The Council requested Staff to define "similar community uses " as identified in Section 4.05.04. D. 3 Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. 4.07.02 - Design Standards for PUD usable open space LDC SECTION(S): 4.07.02 Design Standards for Planned Unit Developments 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning Districts CHANGE: Currently, the LDC requires that a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Base zoning districts contain a minimum of 60 percent usable open space. Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. 3.05.07.H.1.e - Preservation Standards Archeolojical Site coverage Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: Allow archaeological or historical sites to be counted towards the minimum native vegetation retention requirement for the County. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously S -0. 3.05.07.H. 1. g - Preservation Standards removal of exotic Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: Allow removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD). 5 161 2 A8 February 1, 2012 The Council discussed the merits of the proposal expressing concern the applicant receives a density bonus under current regulations for removing the exotics and allowing them to utilize the practice for mitigation as well may constitute a "double dipping" of benefits. Speakers Jeremy French, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern on the proposal and agreed the concept promotes "double dipping" of benefits. The issue has not been thoroughly investigated to determine any net losses in County wetlands and recommends it be returned in a different Amendment Cycle after further review. Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society expressed concern the overall concept as studies indicate exotic invaded wetland values are under estimated and the value of clearing of exotics in wetlands is over estimated. He will forward these studies to County Staff. Exotic removal should be considered a land management tool as opposed to a mitigation tool. He recommends the proposed Amendment not be adopted. Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. 3.05.02.E & 3.05.05 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Mangrove Permit Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation CHANGE: Revised exemption and permitting requirements for mangroves, for consistency with State law. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. 3.05.02.G - Exemptions from Requirements create an exemption removal permits Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation CHANGE: Create an exemption from having to obtain vegetation removal permits for environmental restoration projects on publically owned land. Staff is considering adding language on making the requirement subject to areas subject to "approved management plans." Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. Co 16 11w A8 Y Februar 2 3.05.05 - Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 4 06 04 Trees Vegetation Protection - 10 0102 Development Orders Requirements Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 G Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection 10.01.02 Development Orders Required CHANGE: Restructuring of 4.06.04 for clarification Changes to re- vegetation requirements Allow Site Improvement Plans (SIPS) to qualify for Early Clearing, and Vegetation Removal and Site Filling. Remove 50 acre per application restriction on lot preparation. Eliminate requirements for removal of stockpiles after 18 months. Change bond amounts for Early Work Authorizations (EWA) Allow more time to obtain approval of an SDP, SIP or PPL, once the EWA is issued. Also allow applicants to request another EWA if more time is needed. Corrections /revisions to LDC citations and scrivener's errors Amend related sections as needed Add exclusion for Golden Gate Estates subdivision Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. Staff is reviewing the definition of "stockpiles" and the "standards required for re- vegetation. " 10.2.06.E - Submittal Requirements for Permits Enforcement and Penalties Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits CHANGE: Update and identify minimum requirements for replacement of vegetation which has been cleared illegally. Cross reference applicable sections of LDC for minimum standards to apply. Add requirement for a time zero monitoring report. Give respondents the option of submitting first and second year follow -up monitoring reports to document condition and survivability of mitigation plantings. The LDC currently requires a minimum of two follow -up monitoring reports, submitted at one -year intervals. Grammatical and other corrections Ms. Downs expressed concern on creating a potential burden for existing homeowners as there is no "grandfathering clause" for circumstances where the actions were not environmentally 7 1612 A8 February 1, 2012 detrimental and the result of the actions taken by a previous owner(s) or the result of storm damage unbeknownst to the existing owner. Steve Lenberger reported storm damage is not considered a violation. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Bishof. Motion carried 4 `yes" — I "no. " Ms. Downs voted "no. " 3.05.02.D - Exemptions from Requirements Native Vegetation Exception scriveners error Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements of Vegetation Protection and Preservation CHANGE: Correct scriveners' error in 3.05.02 D. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5— 0. 10.02.06.D - Submittal Requirements for Permits Agricultural Clearing Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment: LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits CHANGE: Correct scriveners' error in 10. 02.06 D.1 Remove incorrect citations Grammatical and other corrections Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 9.04.08 - Administrative Adjustment new process DSAC Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. LDC SECTION(S): 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment CHANGE: The LDC provides several forms of relief and flexibility for dimensional, technical and land related hardships. Variances, defined in Section 9.04.03, provide relief for a non self - imposed land related hardships. Administrative variances, Section 9.04.04, are limited to "minor after - the -fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory structures." Both residential and non - residential structure encroachments may be approved. ~. A lbrulry2,2012 8 Speaker Jeremy French, Conservancy of Southwest Florida reported they have been provided input to Staff on the proposed Amendment. Break: 1: 24 pm Reconvened: 2:03 pm Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department presented the proposed Amendments The Amendments presented by Mr. Smith were all recommended for approval in one motion at the end of the presentation however, have been listed individually for clarification purposes. 3.06.06.A - Regulated Wellfields City of Naples East Golden Gate LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 A. with the proposed update of the City of Naples East Golden Gate Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.06.13 - Regulated Wellfields City of Naples Coastal Ridize LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 B. with the proposed update of the City of Naples Coastal Ridge Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.06.0 - Regulated Wellfields Collier Co Utilities Golden Gate LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 C. with the proposed update of the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.06. D - Regulated Wellfields Everglades City LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields E 161 2 February 1 0 CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 D. with the proposed update of the Everglade City Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. 3.06.06.E - Regulated Wellfields FGUA Golden Gate City LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 E. with the proposed update of the FGUA Golden Gate City Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5— 0. 3.06.06.F - Regulated Wellfields Orange Tree LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 F. with the proposed update of the Orange Tree Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.06.G - Regulated Wellfields Immokalee LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 G. with the proposed update of the Immokalee Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. 3.06.06.H - Regulated Wellfields Ave Maria Utility Company LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Replace the existing Illustration 3.06.06 H. with the proposed update of the Ave Maria Utility Company Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously S — 0. 10 16 12 1 8 February 1, 2 3.06.06.I - Regulated Wellfields add Port of the Islands LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Add Port of the Islands Wellfield Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.06.I - Regulated Wellfields Port of the Islands LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.06 Regulated Wellfields CHANGE: Add the proposed Port for the Islands Well Field Illustration 3.06.06 I. with the proposed update of the City of Naples East Golden Gate Well Field Illustration. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.07 - Unregulated Wellfields remove LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.07 Unregulated Wellfields CHANGE: To remove the reference that states "Wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones, as defined in section 3.06.03 and the criteria specified in 3.06.12 shall not be applied to Port of the Islands Wellfield. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3.06.12 - Regulated Development Scrivener error LDC SECTION(S): 3.06.12 Regulated Development CHANGE: Removal of a comma that is a Scrivener's error. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrel. Carried unanimously S — 0. 1.08.02 - Definition of Hazardous Product Waste LDC SECTION(S): Section 1.08.02 Definitions CHANGE: To add regulatory consistency to the definition of a "Hazardous Product or Waste." 11 A 8 February 1, 2012 Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Amendment as proposed. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 9 04 08 Administrative Adjustment new process DSAC LDC SECTION(S): 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment CHANGE: The LDC provides several forms of relief and flexibility for dimensional, technical and land related hardships. Variances, defined in Section 9.04.03, provide relief for a non self - imposed land related hardships. Administrative variances, Section 9.04.04, are limited to "minor after - the -fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory structures." Both residential and non - residential structure encroachments may be approved. Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. 5.03.06 - Dock Facilities new administrative process LDC SECTION(S): 5.03.06 Dock Facilities CHANGE: Currently, all boat dock extensions are reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission. To approve the boat dock extension, the Planning Commission must find that 4 of 5 primary criteria (Sec. 5.03.06 H) are met and that 4 of 6 secondary criteria are met. The LDC does not state whether the Planning Commission may examine criteria beyond the state Caroline Cilek reported the proposed Amendment will be returned for review at a future date. IX. Council Member Comments None X. Staff Comments None XI. 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 3:05 PM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL 12 16 12 A8 February 1, 2012 ---- h rman, Dr. Ju ith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board /Chairman on ---L I2, , as presented �% , or as amended 13 161 2 A8 March 7, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCI p 3 0 3 R tVJ ]3 Naples, Florida, March 7, 2012 APR 0 �1 /01) BY: ..................... .T 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 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr. Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Fiala ;. Michael V. Sorrell Hiller David Bishof Henning Coyle ✓ Gina Downs Goletta JCi Gary McNally (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Mac Hatcher, Sr. Environmental Specialist Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Environmental Planning Manager Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Misc. Corm: ice: j 2`Zj 12 1 Copies to: 1612 A8 March 7, 2012 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. Dickman moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of the February 1, 2012 meeting minutes Ms. Downs moved to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2012 meeting as submitted. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 4 - 0. Mr. Bishof arrived at 9:02 am V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences Mr. Dickman will be absent in April Mr. Sorrell may be absent in July. VI. Land Use Petitions None VII. New Business A. Surface Water Management Business Plan — Jerry Kurtz The following documents were submitted for information purposes: • Memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) from Jerry Kurtz — dated February 22, 2012 — Subject: "Surface Water Management Business Plan Needs Analysis - Project Listing and Categorization." • "Project Management Plan (PMP) for: Surface Water Management Business Plan — Collier County Project No. 51144" dated November 14, 2011 Jerry Kurtz provided an overview of the status of the development of the Business Plan which will be utilized to implement the Watershed Management Plan. VIII. Old Business A. Watershed Management Plan Update — Mac Hatcher The following documents were submitted for information purposes: • Memorandum to the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) from Mac Hatcher — dated February 15, 2012 —Subject: "Watershed Management Plan Implementation Strategy. "" • Executive Summary "Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to accept the Watershed Management Plan (WMP) and direct the County Manager or designee to implement the WMP Initiatives utilizing existing Staff and Budget." �... 2 n 16 I A8 March 7, 20 Mac Hatcher provided an update on the status of the Plan including an overview of the "Watershed Management Plan Task Schedule." B. LDC Amendments — Review by EAC Caroline Cilek, Sr. Planner presented the "2012 Cycle 1 LDC Amendment Drafts for Environmental Advisory Council Review on 317112" for consideration. The Council considered the following proposed amendments: 3.05.07.H. 1. e - Preservation Standards removal of exotic Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment noting the concept was developed by the Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA) and is proposed by Staff. He reported the proposed Amendment would require the County to develop a "wetlands program" to implement the Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.07 Preservation Standards CHANGE: Allow removal of exotic vegetation to count towards mitigation for impacts jurisdictional wetlands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD). Andy Woodruff of Passarella Associates, Robert Mulhere of Mulhere and Associates (volunteers) represented the CBIA and noted: • Exotics removal is not currently counted as wetland mitigation in the RFMUD and they expressed concern these areas are treated different than the Urban Area or Rural Land Stewardship Area where the removal of the exotics is counted as mitigation if it is in conformance with any jurisdictional agencies requirements. • This policy creates an unequal burden for property owners in the RFMUD and encourages urban sprawl as developers may seek alternative lands to develop. • On the concern of "double dipping of benefits" at the time of development of the RFMUD policies the Program was intended to be incentivized in numerous ways to assist in protecting the highest value environmental lands in the District. • There is benefit in removing the exotics on high value environmental lands and the County intended to, and should continue to promote any incentives to protect these lands by adopting the proposed policy. Speakers Brad Cornell, Collier County Audubon Society addressed the Council stating they are not in support of the proposed amendment as recent research indicates policies for clearing of exotics as mitigation strategies for wetland enhancement are out of date. The RFMUD policy developed in 2002 — 2003 o Mingexotic removal to count as mitigation was based on best available science Z64A y. Based on scientific grounds, he requested the Council to recommend the proposed amendment not be adopted. The Society would be available to assist the County in developing a wetlands program, if necessary. Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida agreed with Mr. Cornell and stated there are already incentives in place for landowners in the RFMUD. He expressed concern the policy would promote degradation of the environmental quality of the lands in question. 16 12 A8 March 7, 2012 The original policy when developed, did not allow for exotics removal to count as mitigation and the policy should remain in place. Council discussion occurred noting the Program as exists, is incentive based, however the proposed policy may have a negative impact on the overall County goal of improving the quality of wetlands by allowing credit for mitigation in areas where further mitigation is currently required for wetlands located on and/or off the proposed site. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the proposed Amendment. Second by Chairman Hushon. Motion failed 2 "yes" — 3 "no." Mr. Dickman, Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Bishof voted "no." Mr. Dickman moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the proposed Amendment and Staff return the proposal in the next Land Development Code Amendment Cycle with a provision for utilizing criteria to analyze a projects required mitigation on a "case by case" basis. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Motion carried 4 "yes" — I "no." Mr. Bishof voted "no." Mr. Bishof expressed concern the proposed policy may create fdisincentives for parties interested in developing in these areas, thereby not improving the existing quality of the environmental lands associated with a project. Although there are existing incentives built into the Program, interested parties may seek to develop other lands in the County where large ameWifof exotics are not present on the lands in question. &rl U-4 akU X d 4.07.02 - Design Standards for PUD usable oven space Caroline Cilek presented the proposed Amendment noting the concept was developed by the Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA) and is proposed by Staff. It is proposed as an "Interim Amendment." LDC SECTION(S): 4.07.02 Design Standards for Planned Unit Developments 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principle Uses in Base Zoning Districts CHANGE: Currently, the LDC requires that a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Base zoning districts contain a minimum of 60 percent usable open space. Tim Hancock, Davidson Engineering (volunteer) represented the CBIA noting: • The existing policy is not functional and promotes an unproportional amount of open space in some types of developments thereby creating unnecessary pressure on other lands to be developed. • The definition of "open space" needs to be revised as tennis courts, community swimming pools and other types of improvements may be counted in open space calculations, however, house yards and private swimming pools are not counted as open space. 11 ,.µ 16 12 A8 March 7, 2012 Council discussion occurred noting the current policy is functional for large communities with amenities such as golf courses and other recreational improvements. It may be advisable to place an acreage limit on the proposed amendment. Speaker Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida noted they are not opposed to redefining the open space criteria, however consideration should be given to an acreage limit or tiered approach for the proposed policy. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the language of 4.07.02. G.1 be amended to read "Within PUD districts less than 20 acres in size, composed entirely of residential dwelling units..." Second by Ms. Downs. Ms. Downs moved to amend the motion to include the original motion and recommend the proposed Amendment be adopted as an "Interim Amendment. " Second by Chairman Hushon. Motion carried unanimously 4 "yes " — I "no." Mr. Sorrell voted "no." Mr. Sorrell indicated his "no" vote is due to concerns the proposed amendment in its current state is "too onerous" and does not include a provision to include house yards as usable open space. 4.05.02 Design Requirements and 4.05.04 - Parking Space Requirements grass parking Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation Department presented the proposed Amendment reporting it was reviewed previously by the Council and returned for final review. LDC SECTION(S): 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements CHANGE: Exempt Public Parks of the requirement of a maximum of 15% grass parking Council discussion occurred noting the proposed amendment does not promote the use of grass parking in private developments. Staff noted private developments and other applicable uses will be addressed in development of the Low Impact Development standards. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation reported the amendment is proposed by the Parks and Recreation Department for use at their facilities. The issue arose at the development of the Gordon River Greenway site plan where the design was restricted by the current policies. Mr. Sorrell moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners not adopt the proposed Amendments as currently written. Second by Mr. Dickman. 5 l6 I Z March 7, 2012 Mr. Sorrell withdrew the motion. %10100 Council discussion occurred noting if the intent is for the requirement to be applicable to facilities developed by the Parks and Recreation Department, it may be easier to reword the proposed amendment to allow for those uses. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners amend existing Section 4.05.02.B.I.a, to read - "Up to seventy (70%) percent of the parking spaces for public parks, houses of worship and schools..." with Section 4.05.04 — Parking Space requirements to as currently exists. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioner allow Section 4.05.04.D — Parking Space Requirement to remain "as is. " Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. Break: 12:13pm Reconvened: 12: 45pm Mr. McNally replaced Mr. Dickman on the Council 5.03.06 - Dock Facilities new administrative process Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 5.03.06 Dock Facilities CHANGE: Currently, all boat dock extensions are reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission. To approve the boat dock extension, the Planning Commission must find that 4 of 5 primary criteria (Sec. 5.03.06 H) are met and that 4 of 6 secondary criteria are met. The proposed amendment would provide an administrative approval process for single family residential boat dock extensions, similar to the commercial boat dock extension process. Council discussion occurred on the standards proposed including the width and/or length standards for docks including the ramifications of cases where there are docks on both sides of the waterway may potentially restrict navigation. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment subject to the following changes: 1. 5.03.06.H.3.a.iii —line I —to read "The proposed boat dock facility and boat shall not... " 2. 5.03.06H.3.b.i — line 4 - to read "...maintenance. Reasonable deck width shall be considered up to 5 feet. " C: 4 1612 A8 March 7, 2012 3. Addition of language from previously proposed in Section 5.03.06H.3. b. ii "For single family dock facilities, the dock facility shall not exceed 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. " 4. Incorporate the recommended language regarding "boat dock facility and boat" in other areas of the Amendment where necessary. Second by Mr. McNally. Carried unanimously S — 0. 3.05.02.G.8 - Exemptions from Requirements create an exemption removal permits Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation CHANGE: Create an exemption from having to obtain vegetation removal permits for environmental restoration projects on publically owned land. Staff is considering adding language on making the requirement subject to areas subject to "approved management plans." Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment. Second by Mr. Sorrelb Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 3,05.02.G 1 -7 Exemption from Requirements for Vegetative Protection; Preservation 3.05.05 - Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 4 06 04 Trees Vegetation Protection - 10 0102 Development Orders Requirements Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment noting it had been recommended for approval by the EAC at the February 1, 2012 meeting, but Staff had made further revisions to the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 3.05.02 G Exemptions from Requirements for Vegetation Protection and Preservation 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 4.06.04 Trees and Vegetation Protection 10.01.02 Development Orders Required CHANGE: Restructuring of 4.06.04 for clarification Changes to re- vegetation requirements Allow Site Improvement Plans (SIPS) to qualify for Early Clearing, and Vegetation Removal and Site Filling. Remove 50 acre per application restriction on lot preparation. Eliminate requirements for removal of stockpiles after 18 months. Change bond amounts for Early Work Authorizations (EWA) Allow more time to obtain approval of an SDP, SIP or PPL, once the EWA is issued. Also allow applicants to request another EWA if more time is needed. 7 161 2 A8 March 7, 2012 Corrections /revisions to LDC citations and scrivener's errors Amend related sections as needed Add exclusion for Golden Gate Estates subdivision Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment as revised by Staff subject to renumbering Section 4.06.04A.3 to 4.06.04.A.4. Second by Mr. Bishof. Carried unanimously S — 0. 10.2.06.E - Submittal Requirements for Permits Enforcement and Penalties Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment LDC SECTION(S): 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits CHANGE: Update and identify minimum requirements for replacement of vegetation which has been cleared illegally. Cross reference applicable sections of LDC for minimum standards to apply. Add requirement for a time zero monitoring report. Give respondents the option of submitting first and second year follow -up monitoring reports to document condition and survivability of mitigation plantings. The LDC currently requires a minimum of two follow -up monitoring reports, submitted at one -year intervals. Grammatical and other corrections Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment as revised. Second by Mr. McNally. Carried unanimously 5 — 0. 9.04.08 - Administrative Adiustment new process DSAC Stephen Lenberger presented the proposed Amendment. LDC SECTION(S): 9.04.08 Administrative Adjustment CHANGE: The LDC provides several forms of relief and flexibility for dimensional, technical and land related hardships. Variances, defined in Section 9.04.03, provide relief for a non self- imposed land related hardships. Administrative variances, Section 9.04.04, are limited to "minor after - the -fact yard encroachments for structures, including principal and accessory structures." Both residential and non - residential structure encroachments may be approved. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed Amendment. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Speaker M 2 A8 arch 7, 2012 Jeremy Frantz, Conservancy of Southwest Florida expressed concern on reducing the setbacks required in these cases as the quality of preserves may be negatively impacted due to encroachment of the accessory uses. In addition, the mitigation and criteria for approval proposed in the Amendment are not specific enough and should be clarified. Council discussion occurred noting there are no criteria proposed to limit the size of the use subject to the reduced setback dimensions (i.e. less than 50 percent of the use /structure may be subject to the dimensional reduction, etc.) Ms. Downs withdrew the motion. Caroline Cilek stated the proposed Amendment will be returned for consideration at a future date. C. Update members on projects Summer Araque reported the application for the Gordon River Greenway Special Treatment Application was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. IX. Council Member Comments Mr. Sorrell reported the Hamilton Harbor Manatee Signage is a good example for required signage required by the County in these types of applications. The Council recommended Staff move forward and begin to prepare Land Development Code Amendments for grass parking standards in private developments or other areas as applicable. The Council requested Staff to forward any information to members Staff has garnered on the subject on the payment of Gopher Tortoise relocation fees and the subsequent expenditures of those funds. X. Staff Comments Jerry Kurtz reported Mac Hatcher is retiring at the end of March, 2012. The Council authorized the Chairman to send a letter to Mn Hatcher expressing their appreciation for his work with the EAC and recognize his service to the citizens of Collier County. Staff reported LIDAR maps will be included with any application when necessary. XI. 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 2:01 PM. 9 16 12 48 March 7, 2012 COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL t4 Crirman, Dr. Judith Hushon These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on `{ , as presented , or as amended 10 FOREST LAKES I. Call to Order II. Attendance MA BY:. ............... ,...,. ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE 1M SA'.V. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 February 8, 2012 Agenda Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coyle Coletta �— ' - --_-- III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — January 11, 2012 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 Misc. Corres: oate: sl z z 1 % 2 Item #-I low" 2Y4 c1 Copies to: Next meeting is March 14, 2012 at 0f Management Growth D : Maintenance Horseshoe Drive South Naples, 34104 fl a ► I. Call to Order 16 2 A9 APR k yyj}//"� ``yy i ,g �f A t�") �� ` By ......................... ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 March 14, 2012 Agenda II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 8, 2012 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio VII. Old Business Fiala Hiller �` ---- Henning _� VIII. New Business Coy; � -„ C.Oiet-iu � ------------ IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment meeting Next is April 1 12 at 10:0 Growth •- •n — Constructio 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, I a. Date: 5127 -1► 2 Item #: l-Ar -2- HT Copies to: 16 12 'qg FOREST R0 <DNN`AN' raND DRA1N C1'F' M.SA'.t:f. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 January 11, 2012 Minutes I. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kenneth Bloom, Kevin McKyton County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Other: Scott Windham — Windham Studio, Jerry Schroer - Public, Karen Stemples- Public, Charles Stemples - Public, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Remove: Vll. A. Sidewalk Project (F58 -60) Cul-de-sac Project Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — December 14, 2011 Change: H. Other should read: "George" Wildey- Public George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of December 14, 2011 as amended. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Uncollected Ad Valorem Tax $28,740.16 • Available Total Budget $2,519,379.03 B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard reported on the Forest Lakes Sidewalks Project: • Demolition at the Front Entrance was initiated by 3RS Equipment • An Information packet was distributed to the Community • A graphic by Windham Studio was displayed at the Club House 1612 A9 10 :13 a.m. Kevin McKyton arrived. George Fogg reported (3) large Ficus Trees on Woodshire (east side) are defoliating. Additionally thousands of white flies are on the Tree(s) (samples of the white flies were presented.) Darryl Richard noted: • Based on the Windham Studio Drawing (2) Ficus Trees are tagged o Perceived (1) of the tagged Trees possibly may be removed as it appears to be located in the ROW • The Golf Club is amiable to removing the Ficus Trees Pam Lulich recommended treating the white flies with insecticide (Merit.) George Fogg stated: • The condition of the Trees is severe • Deemed the situation is compounded by the Hedge that is encroaching on the MSTU ROW (by the Publix Shopping Center) • Questioned who is responsible to treat the Ficus Trees Darryl Richard responded historically the Shopping Center treated the Trees located on their property and the Golf Course treated the large Ficus Trees for the previous white fly infestation. Discussion ensued on the Ficus Trees and it was stated: o (1) Tree will be impacted by the ROW work (MSTU responsibility) o (1) center Tree is located in the MSTU ROW o The responsibility for treatment or removal of the (1) remaining Tree (southern location) was unknown Staff expressed concern of potential sidewalk damage by Tree roots. The recommendation was made (by Staff) to obtain a Contractor quote to inoculate the infested Trees and evaluate the roots to determine if the Trees are salvageable. After much discussion the Committee concluded: • To obtain a quote (within 3 days) to inoculate the Trees • If the quote exceed $5,000.00 the Trees it will be removed Kenneth Bloom moved to direct Staff to have a Contactor evaluate the Tree and if the cost to inoculate exceeds $5,000.00 Staff is authorized to remove the Tree. Second by George Fogg. Staff stated: o (3) Trees are effected however during this Project (1) Tree will be evaluated for treatment or removal o The cost of a new Tree is approximately $500.00 per Tree 2 0. 1612 A9 The cost variances to purchase healthy Trees and the Annual inoculation cost were discussed. The Committee agreed to amend the motion to modify the not to exceed amount for the Tree inoculation. The motion was amended to read. "not to exceed $2,000.00 (annually.)" Discussion continued on the Annual Tree inoculation cost. It was suggested to amend the motion to include: if the inoculation cost exceeds $2,000.00 the Trees will be removed immediately through the existing Maintenance Contract (as the presence of white fly will affect the other Trees in the Community) The motion was amended to read. not to exceed $2, 000.00 (annually) "and if the Treatment cost exceeds $2,000.00 the (3) Trees will be removed immediately. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. VI. Landscape Architect Report - Windham Studio Scott Windham gave the following Status Reports: Phase I o Additional Utility locates were required o The first Construction meeting is scheduled for tomorrow (1- 12 -12) Darryl Richard requested photographs of the planned Landscape Materials (from the Contractor.) George Fop volunteered to attend the Construction meeting at 8:30 a.m. on January 12t . Phase 11 Parking Lot Layout (See attached) Darryl Richard noted the MSTU did not incur additional cost increase for the Final Design with the exception of the previously discussed Ficus Trees. • North end - Parallel parking was increased to (4) spaces • Pool area - (6) Parking spaces were incorporated into the Design - One space is designated as Handicap The Committee was satisfied with the Parking Lot Layout. Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the Plans from Windham Studio for Phase 11 Planting Plan 111 as provided by Scott Windham. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Staff perceived the Phase II Planting Plan III Project will be under Construction within 3-4 months of acquirinR the remaining Easements. Noted the Plans will be presented at the January 23 HOA meeting. 3 1612 A,9 VII. Old Business Staff announced: • The BCC approved the Easement for the Gordon River cleanout • Permits may be required by the City of Naples as a portion of the Project resides within the City's jurisdiction VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comment Chuck Stemples questioned if lighting and sidewalks will be installed on Quail Forest Blvd. as the area is extremely dark and dangerous. George Fogg replied that installing lighting was a possibility. Staff stated that installing sidewalks was not probable based on the following: • Easements are required to install sidewalks as the area is under ownership of Belvedere • A Public usage area is not designated in the Condominium section • Proper drainage is also an issue After discussion the Committee concluded that installing Lighting on Quail Forest Blvd., Forest Lakes Dr., and the adjoining Streets (South) will provide safety and consistency within the Forest Lakes Development. George Fogg moved to explore the feasibility and cost of installing lights on Quail Forest Blvd. and Forest Lakes Dr. Second by Dick Bary. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Chuck Stemples reported (5) large Trees by the pond (Quail Forest Blvd.) that are dying due to woodpecker holes in the Trees from the base to the top. There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:21 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Ch an These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented C or amended Next meeting is February 8, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 w N O O Ol V T H A W N+ O (O Oo V O� [Nl� A W N O b po V O� b V m N A W N 9 W W W W W W N N N N N N N�+ � Wx � W m 1� o -i— pp aopTprm rACn— minor —mD(nm -1 - izoo�� ,�— p?t o aim Do o DD D-u D� m= p?IMx 0— =cnA�mm2Z�m W �� D�A,ZD7DD <mm� -Tj A A� aim m as a y TO D� TmI T D- ��z��mom��mT �a��;i7ZZ mom D= D << T� T� -i r o <1 m DZ ZT�D.Z1T'�0oKD <m .no «T� Zm�o� D a T A O O p p z m c c W z n m m � C) m p T O D z m m A m p p A A m m D D A OZ Z N(u'D �Z mD W -uo Mme 5 --0- -i jT m D�O� O o-� X _i Z m -{T1 Z(nD z 4^TJ�1 :I] AX -00 o zcn cn co c D mco -v - mm O � cn Do�zmm C 0mDDOOC Zm� 'U p �� D O Z < mZ w� �z m mm �op:UO�cn cmi�0<oo,� c��m�z z C O m -o Z cn 00 D Ky 0CZ m -4 00j signaturetreecare.com R RO POSA ecologiclandcare.c Signature -1--ree are.. ,;,;„ Clerk's Finance Dept Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 700 Naples, FL 34112 FEB c, 210,;2' Job Site: 8 County Woodshire Villas Phonel . Naples, FL 34105 Phone2 Item# Quantity Description of Services Units 1612 A9 Page 1 Proposal #: 4635 F N G L A Proposal Date: 02/05/2012 Customer #: 1491 SalesRep: Ian Route# Map SubDiv. UnitPrice Tax 1 2 Ficus each 200.00 No Take down and remove all debris and wood sections. Cut stump as close to soil grade as possible. 2 2 Stump each 100.00 No Grinding stump below grade, leave chips. 3 1 Ficus No Take down and remove all debris and wood sections. Cut stump as close to soil grade as possible. 4 Stump No Grinding stump below grade, leave chips. 5 3 Chips each 30.00 No Option One Removal of stump grinding chips and grade to level. 6 3 Chips each 70.00 No Option Two Removal of stump grinding chips and installation of quality soil. Item Amount 400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 (—J90.00) Flo S-CL D - 210.00 Location: pool area Note. Choose line item 5 or 6, options. All methods accomplished thru ANSI Z133.1 Specs. in compliance with Collier County code and industry standards. Not responsible for underground sprinkler lines. Estimate is Valid for 15 Days- S signaturetreecare.com PROPOSAL ecologiciandcare.c Signature I r Cary ,,-.,-(. 'M A FEB r. F, 16 12 A9 Page 2 Proposal #: 4635 FNGLA VOMMEW ....... ..... Terms: payment is due upon completion unless other arrangements have been made. Proposal SubTotal: Should you have any questions, or if you wish to make any changes to this Proposal, Required Deposit: 0.00 please do not hesitate to call us- Please sign and return as soon as possible. Signed: Date: Estimate is Valid for 15 Days. State Taxes. 0.00 Proposal Total: $1,600.00 1.0 O. 01 T+e-cff#S J)4i 0. ��) 4 DA�I►EY Y �,�� Collier County Growth Management Division Attn: Darryl T Richard, RLA Cell # 239 - 253:9083 Email DarrviRichard(&colliergov.net 2/6/12 1612 5515 Yahl Street Naples/Florida134109 Office: (239)403 -9665 Fax: (239) 403 -9662 www.davey.com Direct inquiries to: Dan Powell C/A PD 0329A 239 - 349:5002 (mobile) Dan.Powell @davey.com As requested, 1 have developed the following proposal for your consideration. "Plant Health Care recommendations" Woodshire Lane Pool Area ➢ Safely dismantle and remove the three Ficus trees located near the pool off Woodhsire Lane. ➢ Grind out the stumps; remove excessive stump debris and backfill with soil to grade. Costs -$2550 Experience the" Davey" Difference. Your trees are our Passion. Your satisfaction is our Promise. GUARANTEED Acceptance of Proposal The above prices and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Please sign on the line below and return it to us. Upon receipt, our office will contact you for scheduling. Signature: (Please sign and return) Date: 17 16 12 A9 signaturetreecare.com PROPOSAL Page 1 $gnature ecol ogiclandcare.c Trey r x,.i c Proposal #: 4632 F G to t Mira Vista in Quail Run Proposal Date: 02/05/2012 441 Quail Forest Blvd Customer #: 2025 Unit 110 SalesRep: Ian Naples, FL 34105 2 Item# Quantity Description of Services Units UnitPrice Tax Item Amount 1 5 Black Olive each 75.00 No 375.00 Removal of dead branches two inches or greater in diameter. 2 5 Black Olive Root pruning to remove visible girdling roots. total No 50.00 3 5 Black Olive total No 285.00 One time application of a compost top dressing. This part of a soil building program that will over time help to increase rooting depth, nutrient retention, and drought tolerance while improving disease and pest resistance. Improving your soil over time provides your plants a healthy environment for development which will decrease inputs and expense with positive results. Recommendation is for 2 times in the first year. 4 5 Black Olive each 35.00 No 175.00 Application of an quality, slow release, eco- friendly customized fertilizer blend that meets the requirements of a plants nutritional needs. Low in Nitrogen. Up to ten feet from base of tree as needed. Program recommended to be performed on a quarterly basis to keep your plants/ landscape in peak form. All methods accomplished thru ANSI 2133.1 Specs in compliance with Collier County code and industry standards. Not responsible for underground sprinkler lines. Terms: payment is due upon completion unless other arrangements have been made Should you have any questions, or if you wish to make any changes to this Proposal, please do not hesitate to call us. Please sign and return as soon as possible. Signed: Bate: Proposal SubTotat Required Deposit: 0.00 State Taxes 0.00 Proposal Total: $885.00 itlO►Estimate is Valid for 15 Days. 1612 A9 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: February 7, 2012 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Repot 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 locates were completed and 3R's surveyed each light pole location and field located distances off of back of sidewalk on a pole -by -pole basis together with WSI. WSI has inserted the field data into cad and is revising the plans to reflect the final light locations as well as tree species and layout adjustments due to underground utilities and related space constraints. • Entry medians and directory sign areas have been graded and cap rock boulders will be set around the sign this week. • The sidewalk section along the Quail Run parking lot will be laid out and constructed as the first section of walk. • Directional bores, Irrigation mainline, irrigation laterals in the medians and at the entry sign will start soon. PHASE 2: • Darryl, Scott, Pam and Michelle gave a brief informational presentation on Phase II to the Quail Run Golf Club Board and concerned residents on 1/17. • Darryl and Scott walked the Turtle Lakes section of the Phase II sidewalk with Lee Dixon and a few Turtle Lakes board members on 1/20. • Darryl and Scott also attended a resident information meeting at Turtle Lakes on 1/23. • Phase II construction drawings are finished with the exception of a few last minor adjustments and pending sod vs ground cover substitution decision. • George Fogg recommends the elimination of St. Augustine sod and replacement with shade tolerant ground cover plantings such as Asian Jasmine, Wart Fern and Bromeliads due to shade conditions along Woodshire Lane. Please see the attached fee estimate and budget estimate to revise the plans accordingly. 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 • WSI recommends St Augustine sod along Woodshire east ROW f Rqe o to Woodshire Villas pool area and west ROW to Forest Lakes Bou �§inj and A 7 would like to discuss. 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.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windl-iamstudio.com 1612 A9 MEMORANDUM To: Forest Lakes MSTU Committee cc: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: February 7, 2012 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements - Phase 11, Woodshire Ground Cover Budget Estimate Committee and team: The following is a rough outline for costs associated with revising the plans to eliminate sod along Woodshire Lane and replace with ground covers. Also included is a cost to install St.Augustine sod along the Woodshire Lane ROW from Pine Ridge Rd to Forest Lakes Boulevard and the Woodshire Villas Pool: FOREST LAKES SIDEWALK PROJECT: F -58 and F -60 CULDESAC PROJECT: Design Services Change Order: WSI: Revise Planting and Irrigation Plans to remove St. Augustine sod and add ground covers along Woodshire Lane. $3,000 These design revisions will extend the project time line by approximately 3 -4 weeks. Total Design Services Cost increase: $3,000 St.Auqustine Sod vs Ground Cover: TOTAL SF under consideration 33,875 SF St. Augustine Sod: 33,875 SF x.34 / SF = $11,517.50 Ground Covers: 33,875 SF estimate = $85,000 Total Landscape Construction Cost Increase: $73,482.50 Remove Existing Bahia and add St.Aunustine Sod along Woodshire north: East ROW: 11,560 SF Bahia sod removal at .08 / SF = $924.80 East ROW: 11,560 SF x .34 / SF = $3,930.40 East ROW Total to add new St. Augustine sod = $4,855.20 West ROW: 4,932 SF Bahia sod removal at .08 / SF = $351.36 West ROW: 4,932 SF x.34 / SF = $1,677 West ROW Total to add new St. Augustine sod = $$2,028.36 Total Woodshire Lane north ROW St. Augustine Sod (East and West): $6,883.56 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@wlndliamstudio.com www. win dhams tudio. com Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA 000 -1516 I. 1612 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 1 0 1612 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 Directory 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: $1,182,657.29 rJec ZOO Oft 40 1612 Ag FOREST ROAD WAY AND DRAINAGE; 1N1.S.1'.li. LAKES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE SOUTH NAPLES, FL 34104 February 8, 2012 Minutes A. Call to order Meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Robert Jones. A quorum was established. B. Attendance Members: Robert Jones, George Fogg, Dick Barry, Kenneth Bloom, Kevin McKyton County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Michelle Arnold -ATM Director, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Other: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, John Hahnam - Public, Antje Sackman- Public, Chuck Stemples - Public, Karen Stem ples- Public, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. VII. A. Intersection Improvements - Forest Lakes Blvd. at Pine Ridge Road V. C. Arborist Services George Fogg moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Dick Barry. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 11, 2012 George Fogg moved to approve the minutes of January 11, 2012 as submitted. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Transportation Services A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $130,976.82 • Available Operating Expense $148,508.73 B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard — Discussed under V. C. 1612 A9 C. Arborist Services Darryl Richard reviewed Arborist(s) Quotes to remove (3) Ficus Trees: • Publix Property Manager advised Staff - Ficus Trees were sprayed for white flies along Woodshire - Follow up treatment is planned (by Publix) • County Arborist recommended to remove the (3) Ficus Trees • Signature Tree Care Quote - $1,410.00 (See attached) • Davey Quote - $2550.00 (See attached) Kenneth Bloom moved to approve the Signature Tree Care Bid for the removal of (3) Ficus Trees, stump grinding and total removal of the Trees for $1,410.00 as proposed. Second by Kevin McKyton. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Darryl Richard presented a Signature Tree Care Quote to address (5) Black Olive Trees behind Mira Vista in Quail Run (solicited by Chuck Stemples): (See attached) • The Lake Stabilization Project may have negatively impacted the Trees • County Arborist recommended the following - Fertilization (slow release) - Root pruning and cut girdling roots - Remove dead Branches • Noted Branches are showing signs of damage as they were cut to allow (Equipment) access to the Lake area Discussion ensued on the Quote. Staff suggested the MSTU obtain a separate Proposal for the repair work. George Fogg posed that the MSTU is partially responsible for damage that resulted from the Lake Shoreline Protection Project. George Fogg moved for the MSTU to address and to solve the Tree problems (Lake 12 and Mira Vista), the Black Olive Trees should be addressed due to damage incurred during the MSTU Drainage work. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Various Items on the Proposal were discussed. After discussion the Committee concurred with the following by the MSTU and Mira Vista: Mira Vista • Item No. 2 - Girdling roots is not applicable to the MSTU • Item No. 3 - Application of compost top dressing MSTU • Item No. 1 - Removal of dead branches • Item No. 4 - Application of slow release Fertilizer Discussion took place on Item No. 3. Application of compost to top dressing. 2 161'2 A'9 Staff was uncertain if the soil was compacted by Equipment during the Project. Chuck Stemples requested the MSTU help restore the Trees back to the original condition (as practical) prior to the Lake Construction. After much discussion the Committee agreed the MSTU will obtain Quotes from Signature Tree Care and Davey for (4) Items with the stipulation that the MSTU will pay for (1) Application of compost top dressing (in the first year) and Mira Vista will be responsible for the second application. George Fogg amended the Motion to include: that the work is not to exceed $1,000.00 and to cover all (4) Items. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. It was clarified that (1) Application of compost top dressing will be specified in the Quotes. VI. Landscape Architect Report — Windham Studio Scott Windham gave the following Status Reports: (See attached) Phase I o Locates are complete o Trees - Large species will be changed to smaller Tress due to the close proximity to underground Utilities (along the Cul -de- sac's) George Fogg expressed dissatisfaction with a change in Tree species and noted historically in the Forest Lakes Development that a conflict with underground utilities and the location of the existing Trees has ever been an issue. Scott Windham replied that as the Consultant it his responsibility to: • Advise the Committee of the findings • Propose changes (to avoid a potential future conflict) • Maintain the original Design intent • Be sensible in respect to underground Utilities Staff noted a variance will be required from the Utility Department if the larger Trees are installed. Discussion continued on the potential conflict with installing Trees and the underground utilities. 11:03 a.m. Kevin McKyton left. After much discussion the Committee concluded: • To use the original Landscape Plan • Make adjustments based on input from the Utility Companies as needed 16 12 A9 Kenneth Bloom moved to proceed with the original Landscape Plan, if the Utility Companies reject the Plan to apply for a variance, and if necessary (Scott Windham and George Fogg) will make adjustments to the Landscape Plan. Second by George Fogg. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Scott Windham continued with the Status Report: • Hannula completed the final grade in the Medians • Work to be completed following the weekly on -site meeting on 2 -9 -12 (Club Parking Lot at 8:30 a.m.) - Plant Boulders around the Directory Sign - Finalize the layout position for the section of sidewalk along the Club Parking Lot Phase 11 • Scott Windham and Staff gave a Presentation at the Quail Run Club to update the Board Members and Residents on the proposed Woodshire Pool Parking • Darryl Richard and Scott Windham conducted a walkthrough with Turtle Lakes (Board Members) - Subsequently a Presentation was given to the Turtle Lakes Residents - A few minor changes will be made to the Plans based on input by the Board and Residents • Based on a recommendation by George Fogg an Estimate was submitted outlining cost options to remove and replace St. Augustine Sod with Ground Cover (along Woodshire Lane) (See attached) Discussion ensued on the removal of the St. Augustine sod. After discussion the following was concluded: • St. Augustine Sod is shade tolerant • Cost increase to install Ground cover material in lieu of St. Augustine Sod is $70,000.00 - $75,000.00 • St. Augustine Sod specifications will remain and Ground cover (adjacent to the trees) will be utilized • Installing Ground Cover requires a modification to the Planting Plans George Fogg moved to approve Windham Studio Total Design Cost be increased not to exceed $3,000.00. Second by Kenneth Bloom. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VII. Old Business A. Intersection Improvements - Forest Lakes Blvd. at Pine Ridge Road Staff conferred with Traffic Operations on installing an additional turn lane (East side) and the following was noted: • The MSTU can install an additional turn lane (East side) • Traffic Operations will incur cost to adjust the traffic light(s) 4 16 I'2 A9 o The MSTU will need to hire a Consultant to design the additional turn lane - Review process is required to add a tum lane (by Traffic Operations) - Coordination with the Golf Club is needed (removal of Australian Pines may be needed) Kenneth Bloom moved to direct Staff to proceed with a Feasibility Study to install a third lane right hand turn at the entrance to Forest Lakes. Second by George Fogg. Staff requested Windham Studio provide a Proposal with a Scope of Services at the March meeting to include work by subcontractor ABB. Kenneth Bloom amended the motion to include: To ask Staff to move forward with a Feasibility Study and do not bring back a Proposed Price. Staff noted it was advisable for the Committee to review the Proposal by Windham Studio. Without a second the amendment to the motion was withdrawn. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. New Business - None IX. Public Comment Chuck Stemples questioned the timeframe for the Lighting Feasibility Study and deemed that Lighting was a safety issue and should have taken priority to Beautification. George Fogg perceived that the additional turn lane is a major safety issue and takes precedence over the installation of Street Lights. 1612 A9 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Vice Chairman at 11:42 a.m. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Jones, Chakrhan These minutes approved by the Committee on 3 - I LJr as presented or amended _Z Next meeting is March 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 2 N + O d b V 01 N A u N+ O P d V ONi N A W N -I A:ll -4 cu co -4 --1 OTtpry rA(n—mv 0 �c C�� D v�Omm�mA my O D mm uZ G) m yai vDZi TO m,�m O�n�m�? mm mI m� oG)G) Z, )m_ �y0 ;0M D y0 OC om Om W �ODnmw ��MmZi 0 m :0 OZ Z (D r <Z RID � _ ;:l Z ZL7 < ,A {� n X _I fh i O �� D O z m�mz m3 �'Zm m 0 cn z O A O 0 m Z O 3 r r M O 0 D m m Awlw 1«.Iw w140160 wlw IwwI40lAwww69 wwwwwwww N 0 N O O U19 "AI i w E 8 IO A m 0 O IO D d N X. "on a� < a o CD M N N X C N N W O O W D C0J N(NO OD vO OD N m O P. 0) rs m T W � O N � N A-6-1 O P P V d P A Z n and I- � m °��<m inn > <m O >,�DO'IZ(mn A2(nZmm 05;00 n( cZgm D D m m m r m to A9 N O b V P P A Y N + A�AzC)O� D0��zz<m <� 11 c z(„��zzmAmD= m(�A- «n v� zm � = D mOn^� mm << 1y�y�p0 O po z]D D:(7 ;U AX �O A O <ooKKOOmKz ZI 0G)p�> M mzx �u7mm(n m 0 D Fa Z m m O c� O to wwwwwww wlwwwwwlwlww w wr V 9O N d r _3 O 3 n W N W WW W J _ N w OD 1. J O(�J (0 OD _ _ W W JAAO OOAA 0 00 0 cn OOf N O N W O O A N O ut (Q O O O O O 0 A + N 0 J J m O D NW coo 4 0 0 0 �O 000 W 0 0 O 0 0 0 NOD W OD O N O O O O T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O pp O A O O O O 0 0 (T O O O 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O A O A O O O 9 w w V3 E9 w w w w di w w w w w w w w w w /A 69 K w w w bi w w w w w 69 w V 9O N d r _3 O 3 n W N W W OD N O O Vt W N W V1 A O(�J (0 OD O W W JAAO OOAA 0 00 0 cn OOf N O O O A (0J1 ' CN11 4 1 O O W (n O) (D O O O O N 0 0 0 0 p N 0 0 0 0 0 V1 NON W p 0 W 0 0 0 coo 0 O O O O W 0080 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 W A O? O W" 0 0 o J O 0 0 (T O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O A O 1 0 ( 0 0 0 A w w w w ww www 'A 'A EA to 'A 164 69 w 69 w 69w w 44 'A w ww 6 J�l O— A O (D N (D (0 W W N N O J V V V A W N Ut O O (O P O W N O N O O O 8 ' O O O + + (O N O A w w w w w EA w w w w w w w w w EA w w EAI wIwIw w w EA w1691w w w EA + N W W W O Vt Ul W A N J N N W O w N V -4 J N N N O W W JAAO OOAA 0 00 0 cn Oa U10JJ o r jN (p r + (r V O O ONO O 0 0 01 0 01 O O W (n O) (D O O O O N 0 0 0 0 p N 0 0 0 0 0 V1 NON W p O O M O � N J O A 9 A 0 O O O O W 0080 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 W A O? O . 0 � 0 0 0 0 o J O 0 0 (T O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O A O 1 0 ( 0 0 0 m W O N N N S o m D D coo W Ol tOn 3 C G (o (Oi 9. 0 P N �: o ^1 N fD fD O. v d. QO � m Qo � D � Sao x' (n0 C', --I 3¢ G) G) f v m m O W T E ET f° m m n m CD ID m� r r (n a g O (D (D W D g m. v o m W W p CL CL 1D m c r CL CL 3 W (D (D (D N � j' C) m N N N > y N N N W A O O (D O + N O A w A w °—' V N O (D V O O O O O A A No A A A A A A N A A A A A A A A A A U1 O Vt V1 V1 V1 V1 U1 O U1 U1 Ul U V N U (T V1 (.II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0° O O W 02000000 0 N V W W W W N N N N o W N W (D (D W W O W W W W W A 01 0 W A A V O) tD A n O O^ O O O O O W O m V W m 01 J cn V c^ W "' A w J 0 N N w W w (A (D W (D w 01 N 0 W W V O 0 0 W 0 CO y. O (T W (D (D A 0 (0 O N O) to V W co A (D 3 lv_�)OCA-1 {Dmmm rm (n 0 mtnm0 Cn3�w W. Gi O m c a O O f0 O (f Di v1 O m v (p W i 01, m. Tt F m o m tnm tn° dk N A m y c N— C N t0 P N W (n p N O. (n O N N N f0 (OD N 0 C a n N N P (n -U O P n D N ? O O D < A c T CT ^ O w w 69 w w w 69 w w w E 9 w w 16 E 9 69w w w- w w win +(D N-+ OD O) N W W P. w w W wt 00 co 0§10"10 �A v V O pp O 01 pp O N Q) O O N (O O p X08888 89 8 w 00. 908 8 w w 69 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N w w w w (NT ANN O+ O A J 0p W p(Jj1 P. p c o 0 - 8 8 2 m 888888 m O �m W (n O C Q �m j � N N N C n m O. O N O 01 0 m W tr 01 j 0 0D w W O N O O O 01 00 A W O � m o r jN (p r N W (00 < D Tim 'n m O J O O N 27 T 21 W O N N N coo N N' O W 1D X Q Q O y W (D (D (D N N+ W 00 N N N O 10 N N d W A O O (D O m w O to N (O O O O 01 O N 0 N Oo (D O (D C fD O A w A w °—' V N O (D V O O O O O A A No A A A A A A N A A A A A A A A A A U1 O Vt V1 V1 V1 V1 U1 O U1 U1 Ul U V N U (T V1 (.II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0° O O W 02000000 0 N V W W W W N N N N o W N W (D (D W W O W W W W W A 01 0 W A A V O) tD A n O O^ O O O O O W O m V W m 01 J cn V c^ W "' A w J 0 N N w W w (A (D W (D w 01 N 0 W W V O 0 0 W 0 CO y. O (T W (D (D A 0 (0 O N O) to V W co A (D 3 lv_�)OCA-1 {Dmmm rm (n 0 mtnm0 Cn3�w W. Gi O m c a O O f0 O (f Di v1 O m v (p W i 01, m. Tt F m o m tnm tn° dk N A m y c N— C N t0 P N W (n p N O. (n O N N N f0 (OD N 0 C a n N N P (n -U O P n D N ? O O D < A c T CT ^ O w w 69 w w w 69 w w w E 9 w w 16 E 9 69w w w- w w win +(D N-+ OD O) N W W P. w w W wt 00 co 0§10"10 �A v V O pp O 01 pp O N Q) O O N (O O p X08888 89 8 w 00. 908 8 w w 69 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N w w w w (NT ANN O+ O A J 0p W p(Jj1 P. p c o 0 - 8 8 2 m 888888 m O �m W (n O C Q �m j � N N N C n m O. O N O 01 GATEKEEPERS BUE, Inc., an Employee Owned Company 1301 Railhead Blvd, Unit # 5; Naples, FL 34110 (239) 254 -0077 * (239) 254 -0097 Fax Services Services FDISCLAIMER CC DEPT. of ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTA 2885 HORSHOE DR. S NAPLES, FL 34104 TAR #1293 1612 A9 Estimate Date Estimate # 03/09/2012 E 1273 - - -- - • ** *FOREST LAKES MSTU FUND 159 * ** • GATEKEEPERS WILL PROVIDE AND INSTALL 1 NEW STICKS OF 13/8" BLACK TAR #1293 364.50 TOP RAIL@ THE LOCATION WHERE CAR HIT FENCE. ALSO REPLACE ONE POST AND LOOP CAP. TO REPLACE TOPRAIL THE FENCE WILL HAVE TO BE UN -TIED RPLACE POSTS REPLACE APROX 20' OF NEW 6' TALL MESH AND RE- STRETCH FENCE AND RE -TIE., 1 @ $364.50 • 2 NEW STICKS OF 13/8" BLACK TOP RAIL, WHERE DAMAGED BY TREE LIMBS, 1 NON -TAR 600.00 @ $600.00 • PRICE INCLUDES SALES TAX (IF APPLICABLE), INSTALLATION AND 0.00 MATERIALS LISTED. WARRANTY DEPENDS UPON MANUFACTURER. Price is based upon no excessive digging due to roots, rocks and etcetera. Gatekeepers is not responsible for location of fence or for damage to cables, pipes and etcetera not found by locating service or owner. Price does NOT include cost of permits, if required or incidentals related to obtain permit, i.e. architectural drawings, engineer drawings, landscape or landscape drawings. PRICE DOES NOT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INSURANCE/BONDS (IF REQUIRED), • We are now accepting all major credit cards. 0.00 I I Gatekeepers is an employee owned Company and we really appreciated the opportunity to earn your business. If you have any issues, please do not hesitate to call any one of us .... we all care. Accepted By: CC 2011 -1759 Accepted Date: visit us at www.g8keepers.com Total1 $964.50,, EC0001832 "") t HORVATH LAKE FOI NTALN'S rc www.horvathlakefountains.com Proposal Date 3/14/12 16 12 A 18781 Nalle Road N. Ft. Myers, Fl. 33917 Phone 239 -567 -3030 Fax 239 -567 -3230 Email hlfinc(&,,yahoo.com BID to Project Terms Collier County 3hp lake fountain 50% balance requested upon Growth Management Division 230 volt single phase signature of order $2,750.00 Darryl T. Richard Balance due net 30 days 239 - 253 -9083 cell $2,750.00 239 - 252 -5775 phone Our new lake fountain prices include all* of the followins: * *Submersible motor with pump. * *Nozzle * *Float assembly; float is a black two section 34 "rotocast UV- inhibited polyethylene * *All float assemblies are assembled with stainless steel angle iron, stainless steel bolts, light brackets are all stainless steel and adjustable. ** New Power panel is lockable weatherproof UL approved that includes all safety devices (GFCI), convenience equipment for the motor and lights. Time clock for motor with battery backup, photo cell equipped for lights. ** 500 watt halogen bronze alloy lights ** 200' Motor and light cable * *Installation * *2 year warranty 3hp lake fountain with 2 500 watt lights $5,500.00 Please fax/email approval back to Horvath Lake Fountains Inc. (239 - 567 -3230) HLFinc a,yahoo.com Authorized Signature. Date u NZ rill, 4 s q T S � J • f 6 t� ii. A. t r , t -`< v' *' \t jil IRA `vat. {� a tt �. :♦ I+ « *1 } ` 4 16 12 A9 RichardDarryl To: ChesneyBarbara; OchsLeo Cc: FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick; KurtzGerald; LorenzWilliam; SheffieldMichael; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; BishopMargaret; LynchDiane; AhmadJay; ArnoldMichelle; MarcellaJeanne Subject: RE: ADMIN /STW 2745 Gordon River Extension /Forest Lakes Bullet Points From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:27 AM To: OchsLeo Cc: FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick; KurtzGerald; LorenzWilliam; SheffieldMichael; VlietJohn; GossardTravis; BishopMargaret; LynchDiane; AhmadJay; RichardDarryl; ArnoldMichelle; MarcellaJeanne Subject: FW: ADMIN/STW 2745 Gordon River Extension /Forest Lakes Bullet Points Leo: Jerry Kurtz, GMD Stormwater has provided the following update: The project is out to bid. BCC bid award is currently scheduled for the 4/27/12 meeting. The County currently has a "minor activity" permit authorization from the Army Corps due to expire on March 18, and there is no extension option. Jerry just submitted for a new authorization. If we can get a new Corps "minor activity permit" (these are called Nationwide Permits) we could stay on schedule which is as follows: • Notice to proceed issued April 16, 2012 • 75 days to complete the work 0 Work completed by 6/30/12 If staff can't get a new Corp permit by April 30th work will have to be postponed until April, 2013, due to the upcoming rainy season. Let me know if you have any questions. On behalf of Jerry Kurtz GMD Stormwater Barb 10 1 16i�pg 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: March 14, 2012 RE: Forest Lakes MSTU Bond Project F -58 Sidewalk Project and F -60 Culdesac Improvements Status Repot 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: • Light pole bases are being precast and sidewalk sod removal /excavation has begun starting at Woodshire and moving around west to north. • Several site meetings with city locates staff occurred last week regarding light pole locations vs utilities and drilling /digging strategies to fine tune procedure • Lighting directional bores continue and the next step will be setting the light pole bases and running the lighting wire /conduits starting with the three lights at the directory sign area so planting and irrigation can be completed. • Irrigation being completed this week in entry medians and at directory sign • Trees /Palms in entry medians and directory sign on Tues, 3/20 PHASE 2: • WSI waiting on change order to be processed and PO issued to complete the final plan revisions related to the Publix berm and shade area ground covers along Woodshire Lane as per committee directive last month. Once PO is issued, the work will be completed. • WSI prepared the attached Change Order 7 to design street lighting for Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd as per committee directive last month. Also attached please find a rough opinion of cost to install the lights for discussion purposes. The change order also includes the design and permitting of a north bound to east bound turn lane at the main entrance and Pine Ridge Rd as directed in the last meeting. • In the event that these services are rewarded, if the design and construction of these elements fall within Phase II of the project, the time line will extend 60 days for the street lighting design process and 120 days for the turn lane design process. If separated as a Phase III, then Phase II can move more quickly to bid. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 3=1133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @ \vindhatnstudio.com wx- vw.windhatnstudio.com Please email or call me if you have any questions. 1612 A19 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 @ivindhamstudio.com w«,v.- vindhams tudio.com 12, J.,6 12 •A9 March 13, 2012 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Forest Lakes Sidewalk, PO 4500113538 Change Order Request 7, Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd Street Lighting, Main Entry East Exit Turn Lane Darryl: Pursuant to staff and committee request during the Forest Lakes MSTU Committee meeting on 2/8/12, below please find a scope increase proposal to design Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd street lighting and a main entry east exit turn lane. Task 1200. Forest Lakes Dr and Quail Forest Blvd Street Lighting and Main Entry Turn Lane (New Task - Add): Includes the following services: 1.) WSI- Subconsultant coordination and Construction Services as follows: 1. Subconsultant plan review / coordination, site review, meetings, status reports 2. Attend pre- construction meetings and construction related site meetings and site visits for street lighting and turn lane. 2.) ABB- Topographic Survey: 1. Provide survey mapping and field services to establish a base map of existing conditions along Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd as follows: a. Topographic survey within the limits of above referenced project b. Obtain ground elevations throughout property and locate all visible improvements c. Set at least two benchmarks in the immediate vicinity of project site 3.) ABB -Turn Lane: 1. Provide services for the survey, design, bidding and limited engineering services during construction necessary to add a north bound to east bound right turn lane at the Forest Lakes Blvd and Pine Ridge Road intersection to include the roadway, signing and marking, MOT plans and traffic /data modeling and signal modifications as follows: a. Topographic survey within the limits of above referenced project b. 30% Plans: Prepare 30% Plans and distribute to utilities, Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, MSTU Committee Review Meeting, Public meeting and prepare related exhibits 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@w11ndhamstudio.com vawvw.windhamstudio.com 1 13 16 12 A9 c. 90% Plans: 90% Signalization plans and distribute to utilities, Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost, ROW acquisitions coordination for Quail Run Golf Club easement, Submit Plans to Traffic Operations and MSTU Review, ROW permit application, SWFMD Permit Letter Modification, MSTU Committee Review Meeting, Public meeting if necessary d. 100% Plans: Finalize plans and distribute to utilities, complete county and SWFMD permits, contract docs and bid forms, 100% Opinion of Probable Cost, MSTU Committee Review Meeting e. Project Construction Assistance: Pre -bid meeting and related addenda, plan revisions during construction phase, shop drawings review, contract docs interpretation, assist with field changes as requested, site observation visits of construction site, weekly progress meetings, substantial completion walkthrough, final walkthrough 4.) TRT- Street Lighting: 1. Provide streetlight design along Forest Lakes Drive and Quail Run Blvd including the following: a. Site Analysis b. Photometric layout c. Service calculations d. Full construction plans and specifications e. Services During Construction Time Extension Request: The requested design scope expansion will delay the completion of the Phase II construction drawings. As a result, we request a 160 day time extension to the project design schedule. (40 days for the Street light surveying and 120 days for the street light design and turn lane design processes) Please email or call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Scott D. Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -1516 \C'indhain Studio, Iac., I andscape _Architecture, I.(' 26000363 P.O. Iiox t239, Bonita Spring,,_ Horida 34133 Phonc: ;2391 390 -t936 1�as: 1239`1 390 1937 F ail: rceSlF�Ci�e�i�ldl�<a�7ist�adica.e -osi7 v- vXk.windl la In, [ tic io_c()l11 2 1 4. N N C O OI C d m E c N O O' O m i+ E E O U 7 f N m CL N c m E 0 x 0 H d d m � m W m p E ¢ 'o O W rn Z� c Q t S U � X uOOi ` N �L LL .O ++ d m 'p c 41 a r LL c Nm _ a 3 mo m 'a J ` N ML W N1 F Q- W Owe boa O co c 0 N E r a Z3 Q J 7 fA O U C 2 A N gocn�in 0 cmmcc A Q Q � Q F 16 12 p'9 57� EU- LL LL LL LL «< § = _3 uuuwww E 88887E $SS �e0LoN0000 F§k Imo 5m*=Ro ofm 0S% g \Q¢ /I\ Cl) e N Cl) # _e______ --_ o0LO oLO 000 I §o \ / / \ / § \\ m 0w0 0�� s wS mk §off\ R -- - ® ® --- 2§ <�X� \ �\ Q �S \ \\ b «RS � _ U" CN $ �\ EU- LL LL LL LL «< § = _3 uuuwww 1612 9 I t> 0 CL 3 I zw m < § / C,4 U ? [ §off\ R / <�X� \ �\ \ IX ƒ §�§ z \/ zE$§A/ $ �\ b §k] \ w D \\�} i §N eo «w =7 ;_O § E gE §0a \ w\ / ƒ § i L { j � g w =m o�d -_-1 0z LUzoo= Rw 0,&aa= e 2n an« $ _ =co rg o� ƒ \ddn2§ƒ \zz \$\m z22_R -j- <<<<So2/ <eee2 >_� =mme = » <� ezzz00e& %44Q \ §A§ ®$$(1)w0 wzzzc0=I U 0555DW20 z R \a±b -�§LU � � <e 00/E / 06 L �ƒ geeeezx0 e ¥ F- 50M §cco == =® z <� 0000\ ƒ 2 §a§ _ 2 �U \ -\ § /&k -- L? ■E G$�GwGwawa w §G LlLO ® \ r- 1612 9 I t> S I"ERLINLi � I � 1 Up Light Brass up light SLO1 This is our signature fixture. It is a true workhorse weighing in at over 2.5 pounds of cast brass. It is a work of art that elegantly blends into the landscape. This fixture is designed to last, constructed from solid cast brass with an antiqued bronze finish. The LED has an average lifespan of 30,000 hours and uses 85% less energy than its halogen counterpart, while producing a warm wash of light that is indistinguishable from halogen. Our ground braking technological advancements allow our exclusive LEDs to preform beautifully and consistently year after year. This fixture is truly revolutionary in its beauty, durability, and its amazing eco- friendly light technology. LAMP 30,000 Hour, 7 Watt LED MATERIAL Antiqued Cast Brass MOUNT 9" Heavy duty Dura -stake 1 -7, 16 12 I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — October 13, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Vlll. Old Business A. Trash Cans at Tropicana IX. New Business X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment :°fit s ,0 olden Gate onim .'OY Cne ate,', • Naples mss.,.. 11 A10 R X ,�/� ', .. r��i��/� ,f F6Y i� y 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 i M,. 13, a , AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes —October 11, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado VIII. Old Business A. Trash Cans at Tropicana IX. New Business A. Advisory Committee Applicant(s) Selection X. Public Comments XI. Adjournment Q 1 IF 1 RECEIVE' MAR 2 2 2012 �r.�rd o+ £Ar�s�rxty �.ar�s[�n+ssiraner� aw s.� .` l � ., Gf /.. 2 716 � „ /�H�. � it rte, �9 ,,,�� a ..... ,....: /�,, �s 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES v iala Henning Coyle ✓ ..... a �— - — I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:12 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy County: Michelle Arnold — ATM Director, Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Carlos Herrera — Hannula, Richard Tindell — JRL Design, Sue Flynn — Juristaff All documentation was submitted to Staff prior to meeting and was provided to the Advisory Committee and other attendees with an overhead projection screen to help provide a perless environment via MSTU's request. III. Approval of Agenda Remove: V. A. VI. VII. VIII. Add: IX. Trash Cans on Tropicana Richard Sims moved to approve the October 11, 2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. Misc. Corres: Michael McElroy term expired October 6, 2011 and not eligible to vote. Date: 'S I 2:2 I IZ Item S. I L-Q-I:: 2- 1 t O 1 Copies to: 1612 A10 IV. Approval of Minutes — August 9, 2011 Pat Spencer moved to approve the August 9, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report — None. The Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated October 11, 2011 was distributed. (See Attached) B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported the Hunter /Coronado Project curbing installation by Bonness is near completion. Hannula Landscape & Irrigation is on schedule to complete their work by November 15, 2011. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report — None. VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL - None. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates - None. IX. Old Business — None. X. New Business A. Selection of Landscape Architect Richard Sims asked Mike McGee, McGee & Associates and Richard Tindell, JRL Design their preferences during the Advisory Committee's interview process. They agreed to be interviewed individually, leave the room when the other interviewed and when the Advisory Committee discussed selection. Mike McGee gave a presentation and distributed McGee & Associates: (See attached) ➢ Maintenance Consulting Goals & Objectives for the GG MSTU ➢ Background Information ➢ Experience with MSTUs ➢ Examples of reports he plans to distribute at meetings: - Recommended Operating Schedule and Water Use - Observation and Recommendations Many questions were posed by the Advisory Committee. Richard Tindell spoke of his enthusiasm for horticulture throughout the years, education and army background, higher education landscape teaching experience, MSTU and commercial experience. He gave a brief description on what he could do in design and maintenance possibilities for the MSTU. Many questions were posed by the Advisory Committee. 2 1612 Much discussion was made during the selection of a Landscape Architect on their job performance and strengths. Richard Sims moved to give the Landscape Maintenance Contract to McGee & Associates for I year. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -1. Peggy Harris opposed. B. Trash Cans on Tropicana Pat Spencer suggested Hannula oversee and empty trash cans at the bus stop. Peggy Harris expressed disapproval and stated it is Code Enforcements' job not the MSTU. She suggested the issue be evaluated. XI. Public Comments Barbara Segura noted she may not be at the November meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:42 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee 2&- Ci(I Richard Sims, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on as presented( or amended "o —13 —) I The next meeting is scheduled for November 8, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 3 A10 1612 AIC J,RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 October 5, 2011 COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® _MSTU Committee PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU - PO# 4500126569 REPORT NUMBER: 20 CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping — Manuel Gonzales JRL COMM No: 11003 Date: 9112, 9/24, 9/27 Weather: Clear to partly Estimate % Complete: N/A & 10/4/2011 cloudy Time: varies Temp Range: 91 Schedule Conformance: As scheduled PRESENT: Sept 13 & 24 Pam Lulich, & Richard Tindell Sept 27 & Oct 4 : Richard Tindell, landscape architect WORK IN PROGRESS: Contractor crew not present most visits OBSERVATIONS: Site shows positive changes from last month, Most of the special projects have been completed. Little trash observed. Routine maintenance work has been performed including mowing median on Santa Barbara & Green. Tropicana median site lines on over hanging branches still need to be addressed. Dead Pine remains on Golden Gate, crown -of -thorn vehicle damage on Golden Gate has been repaired. REVIEWS: County and FDOT Standards. Maintenance agreement, previous suggestions, designs and work orders. REPORT: Reviewed last reports, over all conditions and status of work orders and direction from County with Matty, A detailed observation with Staff and Contractor was performed. The beach sunflower on Collier is very sparse weeds seem to be under control. This has been as issue for 12 months. Crown -of- thorns have been reworked. Plumbago still needs to have dead wood removed There is a dying pine tree near 45th Street on Golden Gate - reported at July MSTU meeting. All planting areas continue to need to be trimmed to meet County and FDOT standards, especially within site triangles. Ornamental Grasses still over hanging the roadway and a few low hanging tree branches require immediate attention. The required clear view zone is between 24" and 72 ", FDOT also requires 14'6" clear over traffic areas and 10 clear over sidewalks. 1612 A10 Continued meetings with the Project Manager and Hannula is needed to address these issues. New calibration of irrigation volume metering has been requested. Reports analyzed final report waiting on some additional data and expect to issue to Staff next week. Current rain events have greatly improved the situation. Golden Gate is, for the most part, a mature landscape. Some older plantings have reached their life span, trees have grown - crowing traffic, root space and sight lines. Citizens taking it for granted must be guarded against, replacement cost will continue and pruning costs will increase. Labor crews have little investment in the work and the Community has to depend on the vendors supervisors and quality control systems. It has been a pleasure working with you all. ACTION REQUIRED: Review with county setback requirements for mountable curb as along Golden Gate. Meet with staff and landscape contractor. Review schedules and contractors reports. Review outstanding work orders, designs and proposals previously requested or issued to Hannula. Request more direction from County and MSTU Board. Reported by: Richard Tindell, asla, registered landscape architect LA767 A A A A W N A O W W CD OD W W W W W W V CA ch A W N -i 10 10 -i O m m-T W C W -'i C: ;0 � C7 0-1 p m x D m n m m Z ° ° z Z _ r m mA . O GGT > OO .D�D�2 C N m X m a 1 p Z m fA 69 69 CA 69 69 0% 69 VA 69 69 69 69 69 fn 69 V3 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 <x � m Co m �O 2 Z� �z"0 1 C) z cn Cl) c Dccn -gym �m Z n 'DO M Z 2 0 ;0 m z m co cf) O W O O? W O W O o A p O O — O O N A W O W O r 3 m m (3) O O) -0 I W Cn I O ) O O � E9I6 I. � (A W D7 O O OD O O > O O (A 69 CO O cn O O O O O O O O to fn CO V i 69 V) 69 fA O O O O OD W NNNNNNN O V A A W N N O J tCD t� b O O V .16 N 1 L �oOrCvr��cnZmvp Zmrnl�zc�c» -i �ZZTcn o m 2 0 m Z 2 z � m m x z D D G m m c�rnDmz, :zj _)Z 10 n- ImpxmrnZ D Z�„zz mx�=yD cn p m D m z n m o D Q m m m m m rn rn m m m� 2 << �nmmzDm N m�HmQOZ m c�i�- NI��X� 4D,z,p� r- MX�WZ3 -Q m M�zcn=Gizsx�� >< Off° Fn r- �z cDn- immmnGx> >X�� nn,_zmm �mC) > �� mcom�NtnZ OG) comXz�3 O zzD �9 DZ� _A mmDm xcmmm�t�c m pmv' D CI)> °° zzn m -+�m m o r0 m cn 69 69 to 69 69 (n fn 69 69 fA EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 to H 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 (A 69 fA (A (A 07 D N -+ O Cn fA N Cn A _ A C CD Ui O Cn W V N v A O O) N N O? A W fl' 7 N O UI O O (n cn OD CO O (n N O V N CT OD A O A p G O O O O O O O O O O O O O D W O W O O O C D O O O , . O O O O O O . O O O CO O D W W O W O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O V C* G 2 O O D O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7) 3 0-19 O O O 69 69 69 69 69 69 (A fA EA to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 fA fA 69 69 69 69 (A fA 69 69 W O d) W o O �� w 1. D Z O 3 H N O O A O -40 W O O . O I (r . . O OD O � > OO to w m a ' fA 69 69 CA 69 69 0% 69 VA 69 69 69 69 69 fn 69 V3 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 <x � m O OO Lnn 0 69 69 (A fA 69 69 69 to X N (T N V A R A N fA N N c�0 A r. A W 3 NNOCn o0tn co N) L" r) -4 O) -W N W f11 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O W O O? W O W O o A p O O — O O N A W O W O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O N O O O O D 0 0 0 A S. O O D O (3) O O) 0000 O COO 00 0000 OD ov O V O v m v a a ��cn�Z�� W W 7 7 222T7 Timm W 0 (D N 0 w 3 LI ppm� imp CD CD CD fD y N N y N j n ((oX�� p ♦� �Ap IJ J f0 a 3 N. m m CT O W NNNNNNN O V A A W N N O J tCD t� b O O V .16 N 1 L �oOrCvr��cnZmvp Zmrnl�zc�c» -i �ZZTcn o m 2 0 m Z 2 z � m m x z D D G m m c�rnDmz, :zj _)Z 10 n- ImpxmrnZ D Z�„zz mx�=yD cn p m D m z n m o D Q m m m m m rn rn m m m� 2 << �nmmzDm N m�HmQOZ m c�i�- NI��X� 4D,z,p� r- MX�WZ3 -Q m M�zcn=Gizsx�� >< Off° Fn r- �z cDn- immmnGx> >X�� nn,_zmm �mC) > �� mcom�NtnZ OG) comXz�3 O zzD �9 DZ� _A mmDm xcmmm�t�c m pmv' D CI)> °° zzn m -+�m m o r0 m cn 69 69 to 69 69 (n fn 69 69 fA EA 69 69 69 69 69 69 to H 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 (A 69 fA (A (A 07 D N -+ O Cn fA N Cn A _ A C CD Ui O Cn W V N v A O O) N N O? A W fl' 7 N O UI O O (n cn OD CO O (n N O V N CT OD A O A p G O O O O O O O O O O O O O D W O W O O O C D O O O , . O O O O O O . O O O CO O D W W O W O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O O V C* G 2 O O D O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7) 3 0-19 O O O 69 69 69 69 69 69 (A fA EA to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA 69 fA fA 69 69 69 69 (A fA 69 69 W O d) W W W W v N O O A O -40 W O O . O I (r . . O OD O � W OO to 1 ' fA 69 69 CA 69 69 0% 69 VA 69 69 69 69 69 fn 69 V3 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 O O OO Lnn 69 C9,69 w fA 69 69 fA 69 69 69 (A fA 69 69 69 to AEA <-A fA 69 9 E9 69 E9 (n m < CD J'e o � W A O OOi N A T T � T T � me. N mm o y - m m m d �f. - m rn m o a o' N 7I A O T N m 3 3 S� O CD A A N UI (n UI (T CT Cr Cr O V CT 0 O } O O O O O O o 0 0 o o O W O O O o 0 0 C) z z o 0 0 0 O W W CD N N W N D D O W iN 0 W W O 1I 0 I) 0 0» O O O m O V 0 0 0 V W A AA W 0 N N-I -tA N A-4 (.OW N (Ln CD A V O O 01 n n -i m O Q T r O r cn g j O r c O m K m (n O 0 CD S+ O v a_ r a 3 c c=—i �' p CD — N N _ N O CD S N N v o0) -~i. O N 7r 7 m (n � N D- o 0) O o a -,. m (� = l C CD o3) O CD O N a (h 0 CL O O o Cn ;2. m ?. � 3 x cl. go a ai s y o CD O �D �. a O 2 (i %• 3 7 (c) d N CZ-j' C t0 7 CL y r O QO m 0° N N C O N C O O tl D A Q 3 fA 69 69 69 Vi 69 fA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 (A 69 A W A N O CO O W W W V CO U W O) CO O o D to NO OCT c) : UI?O AA —7 3 rn OO AOO CT -4 CD W V UI + N O O O V O CO W O O .(APO W W 00 I O V OO OD -DL 00 BCD IV O O O O Cn O O O O W O� N f0 W 6H 69 69 69 46 9169 JA 69 69 69 69 69 69 W 69 W 69 69 W A10 C) O r v m z G) O > m rr mcm �ZD °c O W � D O z N c ro a 7 n a� c i W w W to W W W fA 69 69 CA 69 69 0% 69 VA 69 69 69 69 69 fn 69 V3 69 69 69 69 fA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 fA (A a y N (T N V A R A N fA N N c�0 A r. A W y NNOCn o0tn co N) L" r) -4 O) -W N W f11 O O —fT O O O O O O O O O W O O? W O W O o A p O O — O O N A W O W O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O D 0 0 0 A S. O O D O (3) O O) 0000 O COO 00 0000 OD ov O V O v ��cn�Z�� W W 7 7 222T7 Timm W 0 (D N 0 Cy t.7 - uj r c 3 >> r CD O CD CD CD fD y N N y N j n < a 3 N. m m H 3 O - CL N N n N CO I ' CD m CD Z5' zo o c o � CD N N = cZ) cn m cn A m < CD J'e o � W A O OOi N A T T � T T � me. N mm o y - m m m d �f. - m rn m o a o' N 7I A O T N m 3 3 S� O CD A A N UI (n UI (T CT Cr Cr O V CT 0 O } O O O O O O o 0 0 o o O W O O O o 0 0 C) z z o 0 0 0 O W W CD N N W N D D O W iN 0 W W O 1I 0 I) 0 0» O O O m O V 0 0 0 V W A AA W 0 N N-I -tA N A-4 (.OW N (Ln CD A V O O 01 n n -i m O Q T r O r cn g j O r c O m K m (n O 0 CD S+ O v a_ r a 3 c c=—i �' p CD — N N _ N O CD S N N v o0) -~i. O N 7r 7 m (n � N D- o 0) O o a -,. m (� = l C CD o3) O CD O N a (h 0 CL O O o Cn ;2. m ?. � 3 x cl. go a ai s y o CD O �D �. a O 2 (i %• 3 7 (c) d N CZ-j' C t0 7 CL y r O QO m 0° N N C O N C O O tl D A Q 3 fA 69 69 69 Vi 69 fA 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 (A 69 A W A N O CO O W W W V CO U W O) CO O o D to NO OCT c) : UI?O AA —7 3 rn OO AOO CT -4 CD W V UI + N O O O V O CO W O O .(APO W W 00 I O V OO OD -DL 00 BCD IV O O O O Cn O O O O W O� N f0 W 6H 69 69 69 46 9169 JA 69 69 69 69 69 69 W 69 W 69 69 W A10 C) O r v m z G) O > m rr mcm �ZD °c O W � D O z N c 16 12 Landscape Architecture LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION DESIGN ` CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CONSULTING ARBORIST MAINTENANCE CONSULTING COMMITTED TO CLIENT'S GOALS & OBJECTIVES / PRIVATE SECTOR & GOVERNMENTAL EXPERIENCE 28 YEARS SERVING LOCAL CLIENTS 1 r ,� 0° A PICTURE'S WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS °L t r 1 Landscape Architecture 1612 A10 Maintenance Consulting doals & Objectives for the Golden Gate Beautification M.S.T.U. #1 - Reduce Current and Long Range Maintenance Costs ❖ Through Site Specific Maintenance Specifications ❖ Evaluation of Past and Present Plant Performance ❖ Utilizing 20+ Yrs. Maintenance Consulting Experience With Multiple Beautification MSTU'S ❖ Utilizing 8 Yrs. Certified Consulting Arborist Experience ❖ Utilizing Best Management Practices ❖ On -site Observations with Pictorial and Whitten Maintenance Reports(see example) ❖ Open Communications with the Maintenance Contractor and County Staff # 2 - Reduce Overall Water Use ❖ Through Site Specific Irrigation Systems Evaluations Development of System Operating Schedules Coordinated to Motorola Operating System and System Performance (see example) Utilizing In -house Irrigation Management and Design :• Provide Recommendations for Upgrading Sprinkler Component such as TORO's "Precision" Series Spray Nozzles allowing for 30% less water usage ❖ Open Communications with the Maintenance Contractor and County Staff Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassoc(cDaol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A Landscape Architecture 1612°1A10 McGee & Associates has helped the MSTU Advisory Committees over the past 15 years to develop and update the Golden Gate Community's Roadways Beautification Master Plan. The MSTU Committee since 1986 has continuously entrusted us with the development and oversight of its beautification projects. It would be our pleasure and commitment to continue with the MSTU's beautification program in order to help fulfill the Community's Master Plan's goals and objectives. Michael A. McGee, r.l.a., i.s.a. president and principle project Landscape Architect representing the firm as a team member on all projects. ✓ State of Florida Registered Landscape Architect (since 1982) ✓ International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist (since 2002) ✓ Florida Department of Transportation Qualified Landscape Architect (since 2003) McGee & Associates is a Naples Florida based firm established in 1983. Our project portfolio contains designs for streetscape beautifications, transportation facilities, municipal parks, municipal facilities, residential homes, commercial facilities, beach accesses, boardwalks, arboriculture and maintenance consulting. Over the past 28 years the firm has been heavily involved in municipal streetscape beautification projects. We have consulted to multiple Collier County Municipal Services Taxing Units and other municipalities by assisting them in the Master planning, design and maintenance consulting of their Community beautification projects. Our Understanding of M.S.T.U.s and Urban Streetscapes ❖ Experience with the M.S.T.U. process is vital in performing services for Landscape Development and Maintenance Consulting to an M.S.T.U. ❖ The Advisory Committee members have a wealth of knowledge to contribute. ❖ Every roadway beautification project has its own set of micro - environmental conditions that will need to be addressed. ❖ Multiple on -site observations and open lines of communications with all parties are critical in addressing landscape and irrigation issues that need to be resolved with a minimal time delay. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 - 0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassocAaol.com ,LC 098 ' FL 1023A 1612 Aio z a uWri Z K ¢ K K N W W W W ¢ Y Y y y K r W W W W a a d a W W I V 1 z 0 0 z z z � 0 0 s yr a Q Q Q Q W ° o a a 3° m rn n r z M u D z 3 t o z QO O tb o w II II II r0 O X z Y W Y a 0 w w z o z w 3 3 3 n n h � z 0 3 m m m N V X X X a w W i O O � ..f• a Q Q �= O 3 + U 0 (7 m o z Uz a0 l0 �D O = °' 2 = V M N 00 O V \ 2 z z d � o = o z O r N O O a la7 ZO N r0 r Z a z z a a a j O O u K 2 N V ? 3 z z J z z z z o Q 3 z Y a a a 3 w= 3 0 0 a u u u O a p I> F m m m ti z :; a �; a d z z 0 r o 6 6 a r p l7 z z z z z W 0 �, z g w W w O o, a r Z Z° < W 50000 L- z �,T 3 G z z z 0 0 0 Z O N n n r O C Q r � n N� t0 01 n tD 00 � W Y N .y .� H .� rl - ti - .-I .-I .. Q O N N O o z a > Z? M N M Q N N Q O N N fQlf 3 W z Z Z a a Q a O O O n Q r J Q O a a a a a a a a a a a z a o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q Q o O Z r } Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 7! o 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 Y LLJ r j 0 0 W z Z z Q 3 � � 1612 Aio z a uWri Z K ¢ K K N W W W W ¢ Y Y y y K r W W W W a a d a W W I V 1 z 0 0 z z z � 0 0 s yr a Q Q Q Q W ° o a a 3° m rn n r z M u D z 3 t o z QO O tb o w II II II r0 O X z Y W Y a 0 w w z o z w 3 3 3 n n h � z 0 3 m m m N V X X X a w W i O O � ..f• a Q Q �= O 3 + U 0 (7 m o z Uz a0 l0 �D O = °' 2 = V M N 00 O V \ 2 z z d � o = o z O r N O O a la7 ZO N r0 r Z a z z a a a j O O u K 2 N V ? 3 z z J z z z z o Q 3 z Y a a a 3 w= 3 0 0 a u u u O a p I> F m m m ti z :; a �; a d z z 0 r o 6 6 a r p l7 z z z z z W 0 �, z g w W w O o, a r Z Z° < W 50000 L- z �,T 3 G z z z 0 0 0 Z N N n n Q r � n N� t0 01 n tD 00 � � � a N N n O Y Q 3 M M M M M M M M M M M M M Z Z O ¢ n Q a O Z Z Q z Q g c a a < < f < N _ r O a a a o n n n a a a a a a a a a m a w W x .. .N4 ti ti N N N N N M M v e Q ,n p W N O N N H .y O O N N N H N 7! r r a r O z z N N lA 2 2 2 a a a a a a a a a a a a v, W r � o O n n In O N N Q 41 O n N n Q M Q m Q S ma r v °O a Z� 0 r r 3 3 _ z � 2 x 2 2 x x c Q O R z S° 2 2 O 0 1, D O = D O J W a S 1Y- vi 3 3 3 3 3 3 x 6 3 3 3 3 W r i i a a O M a N N Q tD O Q, M a Q O1 VM1 Q m 00 Ot O JN InW Z .�-1 o o tOVt o Q o 0 W W W a r = V1 2 vi -1 W 0 M Q N z Q H > z a >'> Y Y o a o a a a > Y Y Y a a a a Y Y> a a a z a O L W ON � r 6 O O N N° ° N N° ° N° W LL J z N 0 Q a > w m � W OC W O Z J a Z Q u0i N N Q a uNf N N b i0 3 F z r 0 U W W z Z 2 U D z O `n W 3 W W W 3 W W 3 3 3 a W W F z r LA z o a 3 3 3 3 3 3 m 3 3 3 3 d a y 3 3 3 a a a 0 F- W 0. a O V d v a a v a a v v c c c c c c a v a c c c c a o v c c c z O CC o a a a a a a a a a a a a a a. W O u a v, Q J Z W > z z a m N N N N N N N M °° N N 0 = O ° w 3 °z _ o O v z < a> Z 1612 Aio z a uWri Z K ¢ K K N W W W W ¢ Y Y y y K r W W W W a a d a W W I V 1 z 0 0 z z z � 0 0 s yr a Q Q Q Q W ° o a a 3° m rn n r z M u D z 3 t o z QO O tb o w II II II r0 O X z Y W Y a 0 w w z o z w 3 3 3 n n h � z 0 3 m m m N V X X X a w W i O O � ..f• a Q Q �= O 3 + U 0 (7 m o z Uz a0 l0 �D O = °' 2 = V M N 00 O V \ 2 z z d � o = o z O r N O O a la7 ZO N r0 r Z a z z a a a j O O u K 2 N V ? 3 z z J z z z z o Q 3 z Y a a a 3 w= 3 0 0 a u u u O a p I> F m m m ti z :; a �; a d z z 0 r o 6 6 a r p l7 z z z z z W 0 �, z g w W w O o, a r Z Z° < W 50000 L- z �,T 3 G z z z 0 0 0 cn 0 V Co d O � 3 CD w T) to m (j A (mil O � o by „ O O r V N M W n) TI x D x o W N �Z �D O In CO O n m W A o1 v o, as m 0 v (D 3 m 3 O 3 O fll >f N 7 7 >F >S O N 16 12' zmc) (1000 o o rm o m o D o o ,• 7 'O 7 7 o 0 o m a) �. on (D O o (7 a O D3Fn' CD 7 N CD m to -0 m C n (D * (D C (n 0 OZ3 m o F). CL CD 0) �0 U) m o C-) °0 sy o3 �- m mo Cn m'Dw -j -n :� �0- Qom ao F p0) ° n� 0 3 a a- �D m CD CD in 0 0) m °' pm v �'m � Dcn CL o CD n o on o � o c��m CD �v 7-1 > D 'O .x-. -0 0) (D in -j On)) 3 (n �p I TI D Z3 (S O CD D o � a v Cn" v O CL cfl c ? N � 7" '0 CD 0 W c ° cn m � m _� c h (D O O Q <, '0 N ( 7 0 ct c n O G CD z - m v M CL Ca n r m (� O o v Ln. (f] O =3 (n n N C (n M _ U) _ m Q (n X x Q CD 0 (D m U) p -O -0 m N C m (n N (D 3 m (D •-• 7 :3 Z) p' O N O 3 x m m _0 0 CL 3 m v m M n c z D CD v G < m (n G) CD m SD v O N w. O n N � CD 0- 3 } •F ! 1�� 4 '� Y 144, b 'aio 3 m aCL o) S 3 m of 7 #_ 7 O y m ,N.' Co fl, 3 m c.nnno ni 7 3 m ci 3 ((O 3 m v' 7 00 y 3 m m' 7 co 3 m ni 7 v 3 m o- m 5 T 3 m nc of 7 0 3 m ci 7 A m n ci 7 W m a of 3 Ili 3 m nD al = y m CL Cn co < a (D c Cam_C m d' �D cY n CD m W < a 90 C En A r n O Z O A D m D ° m m c c (D c m -_� �. m ° 7 m D n 6) DXo n XA��m0 N 0 N m (D (D N X0 X N C) O N= p 7 c 7_ O< (D n 3 n n W 3 Q N 0 pp) 3 N 3 7 3 0 0 N N 7 w.'p m _= m O < m m = m m m _ m 0 m C 7 O' 0 p m< (U (D o_ �2 tU m O p a O_ p O m m O(D m O N< m O, , n d O O 0 0 O 0 C m m m ! p ! m N N - [ll ! 0 N(0 D) N m m o�mm O m (D a N n :1 03 C 0- m p! O C Cy 0- o (D 0 wm= 7 C p *(Dmmmo m "O C mom O' - n m N mn)v� N n 0 (n . (mn a (mn o m S �� m p o p? n m o �� (D n� (v Cll N O �o ° 3 N 3 m m N r �0 3_ O 0 .— 3 m CD O 7 m (n n< O (p O 3 `< Lia O O� O O `< .. CD (ll N ] N p m n N O n O O N Q n. O j N (D C.) �. � (n 7 -0 n - p N— a A N Vf CS 0 0 O ° 0 m(D N. !n_ 7^ m m = m CD W n CD Op 0 n O to a CD Cp n °7 m U S?o O O O � p) 7 (O (D .O-. '—� O 0- 'n m ... c O- a. o o m ° (3D 0 °- ° m h o � ( co o o m� 07 N Co D (� 0 7 m p 3 m n v C_ Zr o m v cD a) 3 � 3 cn 5�: n (D m n�, S °G n Cl n m m S O 0 41 (D N (D C O Cy (D N Z CD F i � � (n 3 ° 0_ c D x 0 0 Q x 0 3 X X. m °) ° v o m CD n w r° CD m ° r° m 20 ° = n (n)) c =01' 3= v 0 3 c �' 0 o o cN (D ° CD 0 m i m ma n °-'- 3° n O ° � oa o °�� °v°�o ° °-0(n n 0 o ° ��°Nm � La - '� �(mnv 0 T). s ° < m o s °5mQm� (no n � 0 Cam m Z c om� c CD XP D n cn m �o o O m 3 °<' °o ° 3 CCD (D <' O UD (0 i 0 0 D °< O CL , N N(n (3D O CD (° (n � n � m 5" (mn (D 5,0 N n 0 v O m O N C N w m 0 mw0 �m°- C) CD (n m 0° o0 a m 0 m .O O Z m O C7 O 3 m Z ICA 16 12' zmc) (1000 o o rm o m o D o o ,• 7 'O 7 7 o 0 o m a) �. on (D O o (7 a O D3Fn' CD 7 N CD m to -0 m C n (D * (D C (n 0 OZ3 m o F). CL CD 0) �0 U) m o C-) °0 sy o3 �- m mo Cn m'Dw -j -n :� �0- Qom ao F p0) ° n� 0 3 a a- �D m CD CD in 0 0) m °' pm v �'m � Dcn CL o CD n o on o � o c��m CD �v 7-1 > D 'O .x-. -0 0) (D in -j On)) 3 (n �p I TI D Z3 (S O CD D o � a v Cn" v O CL cfl c ? N � 7" '0 CD 0 W c ° cn m � m _� c h (D O O Q <, '0 N ( 7 0 ct c n O G CD z - m v M CL Ca n r m (� O o v Ln. (f] O =3 (n n N C (n M _ U) _ m Q (n X x Q CD 0 (D m U) p -O -0 m N C m (n N (D 3 m (D •-• 7 :3 Z) p' O N O 3 x m m _0 0 CL 3 m v m M n c z D CD v G < m (n G) CD m SD v O N w. O n N � CD 0- 3 } •F ! 1�� 4 '� Y 144, b 'aio xEDENED MAR 2 2 2W Board of County Cc ssioner$ 1612 GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY �?' M ' F 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ., r° E e MINUTES 4 A10 =iala V Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ :oletta SG I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Peggy Harris, Michael McElroy, Barbara Segura (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Manny Gonzalez - Hannula, Sue Flynn — Juristaff All documentation was submitted to Staff prior to meeting and was provided to the Advisory Committee and other attendees with an overhead projection screen to help provide a paperless environment via MSTU's request. III. Approval of Agenda Move: IX. New Business before V. Pat Spencer moved to approve the December 13, 2011 Agenda as amended with New Business moved to after Approval of Minutes. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Michael McElroy term expired October 6, 2011 and not eligible to vote. IV. Approval of Minutes — October 11, 2011 Misc. Cares: Pat Spencer moved to approve the October 11, 2011 Minutes as distributed. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Dale: 5 L21 1 2 1 Codes to: 16I2r 'A10 IX. New Business A. Advisory Committee Applicant(s) Selection Darryl Richard reported Mike McElroy submitted his application to be considered for vacant position on Advisory Committee. (See Attached) Richard Sims moved to accept his (Mike McElroy's) application (to serve on the Advisory Committee) and move forward (submit Committee's recommendation to BCCfor approval.) Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 3 -0. V. Transportation Operations Report A. Monthly Budget Report Gloria Herrera previously distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated December 13, 2011. (See Attached) Darryl Richard reviewed the report: • Current Ad Valorem Tax Collected • Operating Expenses Available • Capital Outlay Available • Reserves Available • Total Budget Available • Purchase Order FYI $165,033.23 $202,700.68 $524,007.98 $ 2,700.00 $761,680.24 $119,629.20 Discussion was made on the 11.6% drop in property values. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard provided a copy of the Grant Application for the Coronado Parkway Sidewalk Development Project, a proposal of Landscape Architectural Design Services for sidewalk modifications and a Project Man Hour and Fee Support Calculations Chart. (See Attached) He reported FDOT likes the project: ■ FDOT anticipated commitment would be for construction dollars only. ■ Estimated original construction costs were at $148,261.30. ■ FDOT has confirmed that funding is programmed FY 13/14. ■ 60% Design Plans are due by October 1, 2012. ■ The MSTU will be responsible for the design and overage. ■ A proposal from McGee & Associates for Landscape Architectural Design Services for sidewalk modifications totaled $27,300. ■ FDOT funds require a CEI Consultant on job site 8 hours a day to overlook the project until complete. ■ CEI Consultant is required to complete all FDOT Compliance Forms. Mike McGee reported the proposal included some responsibilities the CEI Consultant that would be removed from the proposal if the Advisory Committee decided to accept FDOT funds. 2 1612 IA10 Discussion was ensued over the pros and cons on the sidewalk project in today's economy when an asphalt pathway already exists. FDOT require higher overhead costs although benefits are difficult to argue. Mike McGee will provide a quote minus CEI Consultants responsibilities. Staff will request a quote from CEI. It was noted Stormwater has scheduled storm drain improvements on Hunter and Coronado for re- installation of culverts beneath the roadways and start construction in 4 -5 months. Darryl Richard recommended the project be tabled temporarily. Richard Sims expressed concerns on accepting Grant and FDOT funds. He stated the Committee should decide how serious they are about going forward on the sidewalk project and or where they want to use the funds. He suggested the Committee not apply for Grants if they do not intend to use it. It is a waste people's invested time working on research and Grant applications. He stated all Grant and Government Funds have requirements to recon with. The MSTU Committee initiated the Grant Application and is the owner of the sidewalk project. He noted the uncertainty of possible future projects that may derive from the CR 951 Project. He recommended a Committee Member serve on the Ad Hawk Committee. Darryl Richard requested a time change for future GG MSTU meetings due to a schedule conflict. The Committee formed a consensus to move the standard "start time" for all future meetings to 3 pm in the afternoon. Meetings will still occur on a regular basis each 2nd Tuesday of each month at 3:00 pm at the Golden Gate Community Center. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula Manny Gonzalez reported meeting with Staff and Mike McGee regarding maintenance reports. Staff reported the landscape maintenance for only Hunter & Coronado was bid out and Commercial Land was awarded a 3 -year contract. The weekly scheduled service date has not been provided at this time. Staff will provide a report on bids received and a copy of the contract. Peggy Harris requested Staff have a representative from Commercial Land attend future GG MSTU meetings. She expressed disappointment in the MSTU paying for services not preformed and concerns on rubbish being left behind. VII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado 3 1612 A10 Mike McGee provided a link to monthly and quarterly reports to enable the contractor to identify and address maintenance contract related issues quickly. • Perform observations and prepare reports. • Develop Monthly and Quarterly Addressed Issue Reports. • Unimproved medians and right -of -way areas will be addressed during joint site observations for mowing and trash removal. • Currently collecting and verifying data to work on irrigation schedules for all the roadways. He reported issues with dead Tabonvillea trees. Plans are to remove and replace trees. Plants are under warranty. The plant contractor reported a shortage of Tabonvillea trees and will continue to look for a source. Peggy Harris and Mike McElroy voiced concerns on the design plan stating the medians looked very sparse with wide areas of mulch. It was noted installation was according to Master Plan. Staff responded the design has a different look and urged the Committee to give the plants time to grow out. IX. Old Business A. Trash Cans on Tropicana Graffiti on bus shelters had been reported. IX. New Business A. Advisory Committee Applicants(s) Selection — Addressed previously. X. Public Comments Pat Spencer will not be available to attend the January 10th meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee Richard Sims, Chairman E 1612 A10 These minutes approved by the Committee/Board on as presented or amended >e- The next meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2012 3:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL i 1612 X410 From: Office Manager [ mailto :officemanager @mcgeeassoc.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 11:30 AM To: RichardDarryl Cc: Office Manager Subject: FW: File Delivered: GG MSTU Maintenance Consulting Reports t• Here are the reports. There is a link to the download site. Cordially, Michael A. McGee Michael A. McGee, rla, isa President McGee & Associates Landscape Architecture 5079 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL. 34113 (239) 417 -0707 Office, (239) 417 -0708 Fax, E -mail mcgeeassoc @aol.com From: YouSendIt [mailto:delivery@yousendit.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:14 PM To: Office Manager Subject: File Delivered: GG MSTU Maintenance Consulting Reports To: pamelalulich @colliergov.net darrylrichard @colliergov.net mgonzalez @hannulalandscaping.com mcgeeassoc @aol.com Subject: GG MSTU Maintenance Consulting Reports Message: Pam, Darryl Please find attached our initial maintenance reports for the Golden Gate MSTU roadways. We had a meeting with Manual Gonzalez of Hannula Landscaping to discuss his concerns with past reports, The result of our meeting was to create reports that separate immediate issues from more time demanding issues. The first sections of the report are titled "Monthly Addressed" and the second is titled "Quarterly Addressed ". The reason for the two sections is so the contractor will be able to identify weekly and/or 161 2 A10 monthly maintenance contract related issues so that they can be addressed quickly and removed from the reports on a monthly basis. The "Quarterly Addressed" section relates to maintenance issues that require a longer time frame to address such as issues related to a proposal request for work above the contract or work requiring a subcontractor to be involved. It is my recommendation to perform the maintenance consulting services in the following manner. First we will perform our observations and prepare our reports for the contractors and submittal to the County two weeks prior to the monthly scheduled ride around. Also at this same time we will schedule a ride around with the Contractors which we believe will take at least two hours for Hannula Landscaping and one hour for Commercial Land Maintenance to review the reports and get the contractors input or comments. The Thursday or three (3) days prior to the MSTU meeting we would like to have the contractors return an electronic version of the reports with their comments, responses and /or listed issues that have been addressed to our office for our records and discussion at the MSTU meeting. During our next monthly report period we will review and remove the items from the next month's report that have been addressed. We still would like to perform the one hour ride around prior to the meeting so that we can review the status of the report items prior to the meeting. We will keep you informed as to the time of the monthly site observation meetings with the contractors in case you wish to join us. We have scheduled a ride around with Hannula Landscaping on Friday 12/2/11 at 9:00 AM. We have developed and attached initial reports for the following roadways: Tropicana Blvd., Sunshine Blvd., Collier Blvd. Part A & B and Green Blvd. Median #1 combined; Golden Gate Pkwy. The unimproved medians and right -of -way areas of Santa Barbara Blvd. and Green Blvd. will be addressed during our joint site observations for mowing and /or trash removal. We see no need at this point to create separate reports for these unimproved roadways. The attached reports are in word and PDF format for distribution, review and comment purposes. We are also continuing to work on the irrigation schedules for all the roadways, but this will require some more time to collect and verify the data. Cordially, Michael A. McGee McGee & Associates Files: CollierBlvd- GreenBlvdObervReport 1 11- 29- 11.pdf - 688.46 KB CollierBlvd- GreenBlvd0bervReport#1 11- 29- 11.docx - 3.52 MB GoidenGatePkwyObery Rep ortl 11 -29 -11 pdf - 918.12 KB GoldenGatePkwyObervReport#1 11- 29- 11.docx - 9.27 MB SunshineObervReportl 11- 29- 11.pdf - 518.63 KB Sunshine0bervReport#1 11 -29 -11 (Autosaved .docx - 2.14 MB Tro icanaObervRe ort 1 11- 29 -11. pdf - 581.08 KB Tro icanaObervRe rt#1 11 -29 -11 Autosaved .docx - 2.67 MB 1612 Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee, 'A10 See attached for link (via yousendit) that McGee & Associates has provided for the 'maintenance of various roadways' within Golden Gate MSTU /MSTD. This information is provided for your review - an update on maintenance will be provided at tomorrow's 4 pm meeting. If you have any questions please contact me at 253 -9483. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA MSTU Project Manager Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 telephone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239- 252 -6627 Cell: 239- 253 -9083 1612 'A10 Darryl, Please find attached our proposal for the sidewalk improvements along Coronado Parkway. If you review our proposal you will see a difference in the lengths of the proposed sidewalks versus the grant proposal. Our plan takeoff which are in the proposal we believe to be the true lengths that exist on the ground. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide this proposal. We look forward to working with the Committee and County staff on the project. We will dropping off the original signed copy at your office today. Cordially, Michael A. McGee Michael A. McGee, rla, isa President 1612 A10 Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee, In preparation for tomorrow's 4 pm Golden Gate MSTU meeting please see attached proposal from McGee & Associates for the design services as relates to the attached "Grant Application" for Coronado Parkway sidewalk. The anticipated commitment would be for construction dollars only (no design cost) based on the estimate of $148 261.30 total construction cost (estimated in original application — see attached application). At this point in time FDOT has confirmed that funding is programmed for FY 13/14 and 60% design plans are due by October 1, 2012. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA 1-61 ?Ain " OC -0 C 0 Cl Cl A A W W W W W$4 N D p m N _. -n (n A w N .. - - - A W N'- (j) C Z w O N m W N O N co r Z x m-4 m 0 c ° > < A T m z °— p O C.. C m a o p o m Pe a a o m O a c a m Z cn < a? n A f7 -� w n �. y !`� n Z m O 3 cn �% = fi r Z z m O = J a ;a C D n W m n N o O C N N O N Z Q Z d 3 m n< a < n1 0" 3 o m< w o n N n o< m o m ^' < ;u tR z y y d p� Z d n ry W d y O 0 N d O y 00 go n W G C o N A s 3 z od �, D O .. .ZI C 7 N -O (D N ci r c po a Q o a o m i 3 Z m N c o a O o- z w n ^. m z 3n _ m VJ 0 W n OD F m m 0 Q o C Z O G D A y 0zz C) -TTi 0_O D N C1 0DD Y Q Z YyZ, v RN 'vd' N N OJ mm TI Q iii Q w w v+ F» cn cn E» ca cn ca En sv F» m o D Z M X O G " 1 m m 0 m w m A A A m � m '"'� (D T D F 111 O O O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL- 0 0 5e' 0 o C;. 0 0 0 0 p! o o o o O Cl) ' pr z p C x y m O O Z m G CD M Q m O O T1 N m N /w J .rte m o m m 3 —17 �; m z :. O O. O N D a N A A N N N N D °o °o 00 00 00 °o °0 o 0- °o °o -$', °o o °o °o /rte " = C O N rn rn m A. o 0 0 0 o o o o " °z C o -00r > ;a 0 D z ?m „ D c .< tm o vw + tw o U, m o m n O m Q 0 0 0 0 0 Ut o to fn O O o o o o D Z ' 0 o 0 0 . o o s 1 N .. i O m m ;c a CA 60 N ` % '• D N 1D .9 A Om m N m m M to x ' y O 2. I cri t» t» to m0 N O O 0 0 0 0 0 V V - O O ,OY. A A N ': O O) O D7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W m M 1�M' fA fA EA fA fA - fA Hi fA iA fA}! fA f» M fA fA fA 69 m C N 0 Ci MM r m y c 3v co o ' °o 0 o ca o 3 a 0 4; ;, ; o ' _: CD o o o -i 'n (D 1D Q w to �, t» + ::. -: to to :. �, w V �+ m m C O V m - O A �AA H N N A N t � N 07 A N :' 0 O 0 O A A Ut O +Gf O G 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 - W O m T "- O O O O i O „ 0 0 0 "O 0 0 ;Qo . "L�';. O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 16 f 2 A10 Landscape Architecture December 12, 2011 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager, Transportation Services Division Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Proposal of Landscape Architectural Design Services for sidewalk modifications along the south right -of -way of Coronado Parkway from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Golden Gate Parkway. (2011- 022P), Contract No.: 08 -5060 Project Name: Coronado Parkway Sidewalk Development LAP FM No.: 430880 -1, Contract No.: 08 -5060 Dear Mr. Richard: As requested McGee & Associates is providing 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 planning, final design and contract administration services for the proposed sidewalk and bridge modifications project listed above. The project area will be generally defined as the south right -of- way along Coronado Parkway from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Golden Gate Parkway. The project area contains 2,978 L.F. of existing asphalt sidewalks, 120 L.F. of bridge sidewalk and 1,089 L.F. of concrete sidewalk. The existing concrete sidewalk on the south right -of -way of Coronado Parkway from approximately the east right -of -way line of 50th Terr. S.W. to the north right -of -way line of Golden Gate Parkway (approx. 1,219 L.F. + / -) will only require indication in the plans for replacement of damaged sections and is not included in the topographic survey. The intent of the construction plans is to upgrade the existing asphalt sidewalk to concrete, repair existing concrete sidewalk and, to the extent feasible, make the project compliant with Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Scope of Services Task 1.1 Planning Review existing roadway construction record drawings, existing utilities and contact utility agencies, and existing site conditions; along with any future proposed roadway improvements and adjacent property improvements. 1.1.1 Base Map Development: Develop electronic computer cad files to create a set of base maps derived from existing on -site conditions observations, survey information, and County aerial photos. Review record drawing information provided by Collier County, and /or other utility agencies with utilities within the project area. 1.1.2 Field Observations: Review and map on -site existing conditions. Design * Environmental Management * Planning ' Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassoc0aol.com FL LCC 098 * FL 1023A i Page 2, 12/10/11 1612 A Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P 1.1.3 Research & Review: Review applicable Collier County, F.D.O.T. and Collier County development, grant and funding documents, ordinances, codes, standards, guidelines, indexes and regulations related to the project. 1.1.4 Meetings and Correspondence; attend two on -site and local meetings for project planning and development prior to starting services. Collier County is responsible for providing and making access to existing roadway as- built/record drawings and /or electronic cad files to McGee & Associates. Task 1.1 Planning Total: Task 1.1 Planning Sub - Consultant: $ 1,966.00 $ 1,500.00 (LS) 2.1 Surveying 2.1.1 Provide limited surveying for final design purposes. a. Provide a topographic survey of the sidewalk (2,900 I.f. +/- of existing asphalt sidewalk ) along the south RAN of Coronado Parkway sufficient to establish cross sections at 100' stations and the grade breaks to help identify sidewalk cross slopes that would establish existing drainage patterns. We will also locate multiple side street and driveway crossings to provide design criteria for ADA requirements with some detailed topo on the south side of the bridge at station 8 +50 + / -. The limit of this topo will be from the south edge of pavement of Coronado Parkway to the south right -of -way line. Previous survey baseline and stationing information will be used. Median improvements and elevations will be based on NGVD 29 vertical datum. b. The collected survey data will be submitted in an AutoCAD Digital Exchange (DXF) format on a CD and electronically drawn in the Florida State Plane East (US Feet) Coordinate System (NAD 83/90). The drawing will reference established Permanent Reference Monuments (RPM's) derived from the RTK (Real -Time Kinematic) GPS Network as provided by Collier County. Information layers shall have common naming conventions (i.e. right -of- way -ROW, centerlines -CL, edge -of- pavement-EOP, etc.), and adhere to industry CAD specifications. C. Existing concrete portion of sidewalk project is not included in topo survey. Task 2.1 Survey Total: Task 2.1 Survey Sub - Consultant: $ 614.00 $ 2,400.00 (LS) 3.1 Final Design Prepared construction plans and details per F.D.O.T. " Plans Preparation Manual" Volume I & II criteria, "Design Standards" Indexes, "Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook ", M.U.T.C.D. manual for streets and highways processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance 93 -64 current editions. 3.1.1 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. 3.1.2 Develop sidewalk design to determine location relative to available right -of -way area, drainage, existing utilities, existing site conditions and providing for a safe facility. To minimally include items or services as follows: a. Roadway striping and sign relocation. Page 3, 12/10/11 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P 1612 'p10 b. Develop plan details, notes and quantities from referencing FDOT Indexes and Specifications for sidewalk, curbing and bridge railing construction improvements. Applicable signing and markings will be provided. C. Provide cross - sections as needed to convey design and grading intent for construction and presentation purposes. d. Reference and /or amend specifications from FDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" 2004. e. Prepare final quantities bid tabulation sheet. f. Reference Maintenance of Traffic requirements from FDOT "Design Standards" Indexes 600 series as applicable. 3.1.3 Prepare FDOT & County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.4 References and /or amend FDOT "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" current editions for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.1.5 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final construction plans. 3.1.6 Excluded Services: The services to be provided are limited to those described within the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following: a. Environmental Services, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Structural Engineering Services, Hydro geological Services, Site & Street Lighting, Field Traffic Counts, and Intersection Analysis. b. Roadway asphalt pavement overlay or design. C. Survey information /data relative to the existing concrete sidewalk portion of the project area. d. Verification of down stream existing storm water flow or piping conditions directly or indirectly connected to proposed storm water and drainage improvements related to the sidewalk installation. e. Structural analysis of the existing bridge structure. Task 3.1 Final Design Total: Task 3.1 Final Design Sub - Consultant: $ 3,991.00 $ 3,000.00 (LS) 4.1 Permitting 4.1.1 Assist Collier County by supplying permit drawings for FDOT & Collier County permit approvals. Any other permitting services will require additional services proposal. 4.1.2 Provide required written correspondence for the project permitting. Task 4.1 Permitting Total: $ 439.00 5.1 Contract Administration 5.1.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and contract purposes. 5.1.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation of award of construction contract. Page 4, 12/10/11 1612 A 10 Darryl Richard, r.l.a., Project Manager Coronado Pkwy. Sidewalk Modification Proposal- 2011 -022P 5.1.3 Provide limited on -site observations and attend weekly on -site progress meetings during construction to determine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications and record drawings. Task 5.1 Contract Administration Total: $ 8,148.00 Task 5.1 Contract Administration Sub - Consultant: $ 4,500.00 (LS) 6.1 Reimbursable Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08 -5060 Task 6.1 Allowance FEE SUMMARY $ 750.00 Task 1.1 Planning $ 3,466.00 Task 2.1 Surveying $ 3,014.00 Task 3.1 Final Design $ 6,991.00 Task 4.1 Permitting $ 439.00 Subtotal $13,910.00 Task 5.1 Contract Administration $12,648.00 Task 6.1 Reimbursable 750.00 Total $27,308.00 Note: Please see Project Man Hour & Fee Support Calculations Schedule for details. 7.1 Suggested Design Services Schedule and Budgeting 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. Plan submittals shall be base upon the following schedule to be determined. Task Description 1.1 through 4.1 Notice to Proceed: _/_/11 60% Plans Submittal: 45 days 90% Plans Submittal: 30 days Final Plan Submittal: 15 days Task Description 5.1 Services During Construction: Estimated 90 days to final completion 7.1.2 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. %?C d 4 xd�& 12/12/11 Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. Date: President, McGee & Associates. LC 098 Z Ci v'. �4 O in o 00000400 0�00� 1612 Z< w z mozz z - ti, w '8 10�, 0 4 0�-Oz . 0 9 0 W§Zwwwucr-u�u 0. <C,>tn:) o a .t o" z M: <0 z oz 0 z JWEW<y , ;- ca W w UW � 0 p - LJ , X ? Mw z xx( 4?�Wow�o LL w -, z L,�> < w zz (�-c 1PH iga!6g4- < < z 0. on 0 L) LU ji a LU CL x J C5 L" Z PA Z av .n oz Lo ., z < 0 o , - .UOWM a:;= x , U. a�zmoau" > � ox�w-.t�u, Lu m g I z z 0 0 2 w w A wan 00 ogtr vs +- 0- < W uj 00,20 Im w x R ff S 0 .22 0 C� M z E 0 i/5 5-S ---- - ----- cli - - — - - - - - - - 6 08. 08. 0.- OR 10-1 .8 Z< w z mozz z - ti, w '8 10�, 0 4 0�-Oz . 0 9 0 W§Zwwwucr-u�u 0. <C,>tn:) o a .t o" z M: <0 z oz 0 z JWEW<y , ;- ca W w UW � 0 p - LJ , X ? Mw z xx( 4?�Wow�o LL w -, z L,�> < w zz (�-c 1PH iga!6g4- < < z 0. on 0 L) LU ji a LU CL x J C5 L" Z PA Z av .n oz Lo ., z < 0 o , - .UOWM a:;= x , U. a�zmoau" > � ox�w-.t�u, Lu m g I z z 0 0 2 w w A wan 00 ogtr vs +- 0- < W uj 00,20 Im w x R ff MEMORANDUM DATE: November 8, 2011 TO: Darryl Richard FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee 1612 p10 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 application received for your review as follows: Mr. Mike McElroy 1811 51 sc Terrace, S.W. Naples, Florida 34116 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 applicants 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 1612 A10 Board of County Commissioners; 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -SD97 Fax: (239) 252 -6405 �. ;—%',4'ppIieation for Advisory Committees/Boards ' Hoagie Address: Hoene Phone: ,�J�3 - -fyt'd Zip cone: !/ Fax Iri Business Phone: ff r �e-� it address: , Gilp]�. (Gfi� *Y. CA^ Puce of LIMPlOyoeNt: M C H *di"( ?1*2, +4 Board or Committee Applied for: &ll'hh►16 C Xs M . Category (if applicable): Ptt Ad e- Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived. in Collier County: Years: L Months: Are you a.registered voter is Coder County: Yes t✓ / No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No %Z If so, what is that office? 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 If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with wkWk you are affiliated beaeik from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes No If yes, please list the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board asembers mast update their profile and notify the Board of County Cotuniissioaers in the event that their r ladouship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit theca in the outcome of advisory board recon:mes datious or they eater into contracts with the County!. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes V No If yea, please List the cowasitteealboards � S �� 1612 A10 Everyone, Per this week's Dec. 13t1, Golden (Tate MSTU meeting — the advisory committee by consensus has moved the standard `start time' for all future meetings to 3 pm in the afternoon. Meetings will still occur on a regular basis each 2nd "1 uesday of Each :Month at 3:00 pm at Golden Gate Community Center; 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Please make a note of this on your calendars. Our upcoming Golden Gate MSTU meeting schedule: Golden Gate MSTU: REGULAR MEETING TIMES & LOCATION: The Golden Gate MSTU meets each 2-d Tuesday of Each Month at 3:00 12M at Golden Gate Community Center: 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. Naples, Florida 34116 • 12 Al PUBLIC COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road — Naples, Florida 34109 -- Phone (239) 252 -4000 — Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: colliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA p (7X9CJ)3 January 3, 2012 PEAR _ 4 /012 I. Call to Order II. Attendance — Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — November 7, 2011 V. Public Comments VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson B. Playground Update —Vickie Wilson C. Facebook Update — Kaydee Tuff D. SSA of BMX E. Shading for Playground F. MSTU 60140 Split G. Wheels Funding Fiala P �/ Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta� VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget — Annie Alvarez B. Advisory Board Resolution C. GG Advisory Board Appointments D. Introduction to New Staff — Vickie Wilson Evie Vidaurri, Program Leader & Zack Hendry, Rec Assistant E. 5 -Year Plan — Annie Alvarez Misc. Corres: VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment Date: 5 -WL412 item # I UZ'2 A I 1 Copies to: The next meeting February 6, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida 4.v it F 1 Y k� tF N l4 i Y I. II. III. IV. V. • L COUNTY COLLIER . I�Et Parks and Recreation Department 15000 Livingston Road — Naples, Florida 34109 — Phone (239) 252 -4000 — Fax (239) 514 -8657 Website: colliergov.net GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA i February 6, 2012 '_ PEAR 1 4 Call to Order Attendance — Establish a Quorum Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes — January 3, 2012 Public Comments VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights — Vickie Wilson B. Playground Update — Vickie Wilson C. Media Update — Kaydee Tuff D. SSA of BMX E. Shading for Playground F. Future Topics 1. MSTU 60/40 Split 2. Wheels Funding Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle r- Coletta Misc. Corres: 17O. 5122111 Item $. 1 U27-2.9 x VII. New Business Copies to: A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date — Annie Alvarez B. Advisory Board Resolution C. 5 -Year Plan — Annie Alvarez D. Roof Maintenance VIII. Member Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting March 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida Y [ t[ GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY DENTED ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA 0 C March 5, 2012 MAk i Meeting will be held in " ROOM D" I. Call to Order BY :.......' .............. III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes — February 5, 2012 Fiala Hiller V. Public Comments Henning ._._ ��--- Coyle ✓ VI. Old Business CoIatta t! -- A. SSA of BMX B.. Recreation Highlights —Vickie Wilson C. Playground Update —Vickie Wilson D. Media Update — Kaydee Tuff E. Shading for Playground F. Vacant Position: Program Leader VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date — Annie Alvarez B. 5 -Year Plan — Annie Alvarez C. Carry Forward Misc. Comes: C.. Roof Maintenance I2ZI 12 Dais: �_ ._._._ Vlll. Member Comments Item I CST 2 I IX. Adjournment Copies to: The next meeting April 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida 16 A11 January 3, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, January 3, 2012 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: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: James Klug III Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Evie Vidaurri, Program Leader Zack Hendry, Recreation Assistant 1 1612 A I I January 3, 2012 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 Bill Arthur moved to approve the January 3, 2012 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of, 2011 Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the October 3, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 4 -0. V. Public Comments None VI. Old Business A. Playground Update Vickie Wilson reported on programs and events held in December and January scheduled events. • Walk of Trees was held December 5 -16. Civic organizations decorated trees and then donated them to families. • Breakfast with Santa was held December 9 and co- sponsored with the Kiwanis Club and GGHS Key Club. 200 breakfasts were served. • Holiday Camp was held December 27 -30 with 20 children enrolled. • BMX State Qualifier has been scheduled starting January 13 through January 15. She noted regular scheduled programs resume January 4 and a Program "Open House" will be held on January 21. B. Shading for Playground Vickie Wilson reported Staff will request Bob Parker — GPSI provide a quote for the shade structure for review at the next meeting. Jim King suggested a surplus of approximately $11,000 funds found in the GGCCAB Budget be considered to purchase the shade structure. C. Facebook Update None. D. SSA of BMX — Previously discussed VI. A. E. Shading of Playground — Previously discussed VI. A. 2 111 F. MSTU 60/40 Split None. G. Wheels Funding None. Kaydee Tuff arrived at 6:13 pm The Advisory Board formed a consensus to create an agenda item "Future Topics" to address open items of interest to insure they are not forgotten. VII. New Business A. Monthly Budget Vickie Wilson reported Annie Alvarez was ill and would not able to attend the meeting. Staff will request the 130 Monthly Budget Report be emailed to the Advisory Board. B. Advisory Board Resolution Jim Klug reported receiving notifications from Ian Mitchell regarding the following appointments to the Advisory Board for 3 -year terms. ➢ Bill Arthur ➢ Darrin Brooks ➢ Peggy Harris He expressed concern the 3 terms expired at the same time when the Advisory Board had previously made an amendment to the Bi -Laws or the Ordinance to correct this issue. Discussion was made on how to correct the terms to stagger them to "2- terms, 2 -terms and 1- term" as intended by the Advisory Board when they made the amendment to the Bi -Laws to insure there could always be a quorum. Kaydee Tuff moved to approve the appointments of Bill Arthur, Darrin Brooks and Peggy Harris for additional terms to serve on the GGCCAB by the Commissioners; however to correct the terms to stagger from 3 -2 -0 to 2- 2-1 as intend by the Advisory Board; Bill Arthur will voluntarily resign after two years of his term in order to stagger the terms as intended by the Advisory Board Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Jim Klug volunteered to follow up with Ian Mitchell regarding the terms and whether the Bi -Laws' revision as requested by the Advisory Board was made and approved by BCC. 161 2 Al I January 3, 2012 C. GG Advisory Board Appointments Previously addressed. Jim King stated nominations were open to nominate a GGCCAB Chairman and Vice - Chairman FY2012. Jim Klug moved to nominate Kaydee Tuff to serve as Chairman FY2012. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Bill Arthur moved to nominate Jim Klug to serve as Vice - Chairman FY2012. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. D. Introduction to New Staff Vickie Wilson gave a brief introduction of new staff members: Evie Vidaurri, Program Leader and Zack Hendry, Recreation Assistant. (Zack Hendry had to leave before introduction) Evie Vidaurri was welcomed by the GGCCAB and extended an open invitation to attend the meetings. E. 5 -Year Plan Vickie Wilson suggested the 5 -Year Plan be addressed at the next meeting. She indicated the Center was having a leaking problem with the flat roof due to rain water not able to drain off. She suggested the Advisory Board consider this issue when adding to the 5 -Year Plan. VIII. Member Comments Discussion was made on whether to discontinue the Walk of Trees Event. The event needs more involvement and the planning of the event may need to start sooner. Vickie Wilson suggested the event be turned over to the new Program Leader. Vickie Wilson notified the GGCCAB that she will not be able to attend the February meeting. The next meeting is February 6, 2012. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:53 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY i1l'71� 1612Januafi, 1 Jame4 K1401, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on -,:act �- as presented Y or as amended m m m rn m u, Ul .p F� N W N SO Cp F P (D O O CO nO W z 0 �o Ln m n (n T Ln D (� �0) z -� W 0 0 01 LM z N m D (D :;v r O m LM Ln D CO r v m 1612 A ' 1 1 O Q O ou m ;a m x .a m Ul U Z Ul N N m � N O O Cn T C O v O v p r m V) t!> t/) t/)- th t/} th t/} V)- V)- t/> t/)- i/> t/> th t%r trr VI- th t/� V/ - tR th N N CD N 00 W 4�, W M W CO Ln 1-- �0) W 01 lO N O (D IV O A LM w CO O v O Un p 90 90 O p O O O O O O p O W tD W (71 O W N� V M t,0 N -P O w O O m CO Ln ` O []l p U1 (.D O W O N CPI O O Ln O O (.n O 00 O D rn m C) C D Z D z D O> D z n< D v m O z rn r- z rri p 7J D� m m to S z cmi� r to to _� >00 C7 D D D D D z W p—=>O > O C7 r r p D C Z p m -� *moo r -� 00 -G m to D r C D D Z„ to D =� m Ln '- p -n � Di ` m N = m O n m D -ZI m z m to m G� D O rn D to � = N� rn D (� to O m m D D m C r v S2o 0 (,� = �-V D C D Z p W D D Dzm m U) p D m m G p R'tn z � z m G) -I Z V' m Ln Cl m 1612 -n -{ D m m D m D G7 < v n D m D r O Q �• < n O < N v 41 Ln O r r F N �p L r n. D= y Ln D _S In In O D W D 77 �..� jn � m M D > > N Ni V O 9 m O 70 70 p O Ln m to D � r N D m ;u z 2! D < O D r- 00 O N (.f7 O 00 p 01 61 m W W N Lq N N lD O i s 1� CD •A F-+ 1- li V N W O O O V (77 C!7 Ol CD N V O p p 0 0 cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p O O O O O O O O O O X111 o v z °' o � � v Q �• n O v 41 Ln S N r F N �p L n. y Ln _S In In W �..� jn W CD W -1�, Ln Ui O N O V O Ln O V O p O m ret r W M r _ o ' X (DD 0) N rt o rD U rD Ln S � tn- N u to � rn � O O O O rn rn m cn .A• .p N M Ol .A N O O O O m K C Q 7� N C C7 -c D rnQ m z ::o z m m D m m Ln z L/) > D D r m 16 12' m m LM p Lo rrT N W cD �p O CD c z C O z D r -vs tr. _V. ;i. O o rn N -1 N O rn N CD Cn cD O 0 IV N o D D w n m < n < D z D m =� � m m m = z z r m L/) m N m D _{ UUl U, O cD o m D E n D r cn U, m rn o N i 16 12' m m LM p Lo rrT N W cD �p O CD c z C O z D r -vs tr. _V. ;i. to N z z D O w N Ullt .CAD Ln UUl U, F, cD o m D E cn cn U, w o N W O [n D N N ,l O ,j n O O C/I D o Ul �I t� W O o D C) rn f D C n Z n D m _ > ?� rn m z m mp m O z D O-- D p D r I D G7 -� D p D G)_ v D= C 7J 0 D c D r7 n r n m = D D O o m D O mm m Dm D O D D m D z _ m z G) D Z m N C —mj r m � m z D m rn N --I z n N D m z D All z O G m m rn x a m z I) m N D C7 m z LnD r �h W v Cf7 W 00 V 1612 A11 D p o p7 D m O D C A C< n< m m 'n O C7 �. M* Z D n W cn I == D D m y S D m o rn m D>> V) �q D m m -0 O0 lni� � C) m m ° 3 Dro r L+ D Q 3. Z [D 3 V V (D O N cr} (n to trn t/)- tn- in to v). to tn- in Ni W m CD W W LM W N N OZ� cn I-- O F Cl V m O0 O lD Cn O to O O (n O O p p0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1612 All DECEMBER EXPENSES 652990 INSTRUCTIONAL $44.94 SUNSHINE ACE $664.40 HOME DEPOT /WHEELS $9.94 WALMART/ HOLIDAY CAMP $62.47 TITAN TOOL/ AIR HOSE WHEELS 652140 PERSONAL SAFETY $239.74 VIC -S BOOTS 652210 FOOD $35.29 SWEETBAY /PRESCHOOL $53.59 WALMART /HOLIDAY CAMP 652510 HOUSEHOLD $624.56 PYRAMID II 634999 INSTRUCTIONAL $370.50 FRANK TUYA /PEE WEE SOCCER $761.60 CINDY GILES /CHEERLEADING $109.70 MARCIA GALLE /TAP &BALLET $585.00 FLORIDA KARATE $95.55 MARIA BAUM /TAI CHI $161.20 DINA RADCLIFFE /YOGA $373.75 VANESSA LEEDOM /ZUMBA $150 ENTERTAINMENT SOURCE /HOLIDAY CAMP $350.00 ENTERTAINMENT SOURCE/ 5TH GR. DANCE ZUMBA $112.00 Tai -Chi $117.00 YOGA $312.00 ADV. CHEER $350.00 BEG. CHEER BREAKFAST W/ SANTA $192.50 TAP /BALLET $168.75 5TH GRADE DANCE $1,200.00 ADV. KARATE $118.12 BEG. KARATE $157.60 HOLIDAY CAMP $1,279.20 ZUMBA /PASSES $400.00 VPK $7,532.47 ASA $2,122.08 FACILITY RENTALS $2,270.24 1612 A11 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER December 2010 Review /Outlook Walk of Trees was held Dec. 5th — 16tH, 6 trees were decorated from civic organizations and then donated to families. Breakfast with Santa was held Saturday, Dec. 9th and co- sponsored with the Kiwanis Club and GGHS Key Club we served 200 breakfasts that had 2 pancakes, bacon and juice. Holiday Camp was held with 20 children having a lot of fun Dec. 27n — Dec. 30th. Upcoming January Events Programs start back week of Jan. 4tH BMX State Qualifier Jan. 13, 14, 15th Program Open House Jan. 21St t, ^A 1612 All JANUARY HAPPENINGS SSA State Qualifier was held Jan. 13, 14, 15 with 525 riders and over 3000 folks in attendance for the long weekend. More information will follow in the March meeting. Was a huge success. OPEN HOUSE was held Jan. 2152 with 10 different groups attending the event to show off their classes. Demos were given by the Rockets Cheer Squad, Zumba, Florida Karate Center, Marcia Galle Dance. FEBRUARY HAPPENINGS Senior Expo is Feb. 82h, 10a.m. -1p.m. Currently we have 28 booths and looking for more. Community Yard Sale is Sat. Feb. 112h, 8a.m.- 12p.m. We're selling sp ts. "Perfect Game" Movie night, Sat. Feb. 11th, 5:30p.m. This is a free movie event offered to the community where we will be selling Popcorn, Sodas, and Sno Crones. Fun will start at 5:30p.m. with a little fun Softball game to get into the spirit of the movie. Come join us. 161,21 February 6, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, February 6, 2012 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, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James Klug III (Excused) VICE CHAIR: Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III 1 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. 16 12--" February 6, 2012 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM by William Arthur. Attendance — Establish a Quorum Roll Call was taken and a quorum was established. Approval of Agenda Darrin Brooks moved to approve the February 6, 2012 Agenda as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Approval of January 3, 2011 Minutes Darrin Brooks moved to approve the January 3, 2012 Minutes as submitted. Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried 3 -0. Public Comments None Old Business A. Playground Update Annie Alvarez distributed a report on January and February Happenings prepared by Vickie Wilson. She reviewed the BMX 3 -Day and the Open House Events held in January. (See attached) • The BMX event was held on January 13, 14 and 15. • There were 525 riders with over 3,000 in attendance. • Staff will provide a PowerPoint Presentation on the BMX State Qualifier at the next GGCCAB meeting scheduled on March 7. Kaydee Tuff arrived at 6:05 PM Annie Alvarez reported Alex Hutchinson wrote a letter to the BCC and County Manager regarding his track safety concerns during the BMX State Qualifier. Staff responded to Mr. Hutchinson; via a certified letter and thanked him for sharing his concerns and asked if he would call Annie Alvarez for further discussion. Staff will keep the Advisory Board informed on the issue. A BMX State Qualifier Revenue Report will be provided in March. Staff is currently working on getting reports in. Annie Alvarez reported Evie Vidaurri had resigned from the Program Leader position prior to completing her probation period. Due to the hiring freeze, Staff is working with Human Resources and hopes the County makes an exception to allow PAR to choose one of the other applicants. 2 All 1612 '11 February 6 2012 B. Shading for Playground None. C. Facebook Update Kaydee Tuff will schedule a meeting with the Rafeala Zapata; who will become the Website Administrator once the home page is setup. D. SSA of BMX None. E. Shading of Playground None. F. Future Topics None. VII. New Business A. Month to Date Budget/ Year to Date Annie Alvarez distributed monthly expense reports on October — December 2011 provided by Vickie Wilson. She distributed the 130 Monthly Report dated February 6, 2012 and reported the Projection, Revenues and Expenses were on track. (See attached) Staff has been going through an audit and will be going through additional training due to a zero tolerance for errors. Some changes in Staff procedures have also been made. Annie Alvarez distributed a "Mid Year Reductions 2011/12" report for informational purposes. She stated the reduction in 130 Fund did not affect the department. (See attached) B. Advisory Board Resolution None. C. 5 -Year Plan Annie Alvarez distributed the PAR 5 -Year Plan and reviewed the following GGCC Projects. (See attached) • Pavers at Wheels and Trees • Wheel Chair Van • Playground • Parking Lot Repaving • Signage It was noted the wheel chair van was needed to meet ADA compliance and it would allow more programming to assist participants to become more independent, senior programs and other community programs. Van would be 3 161 2 All February 6, 20 driven by a Staff member and Risk Management would handle liability coverage. Staff will provide an After School Business Plan at the next meeting. D. Roof Maintenance None. VIII. Member Comments Public Speaker Bill McDaniel suggested Staff be more concise and work more on providing information pertaining to GGCC and not other park locations to make it easier for the Advisory Board to make decisions. Bill Arthur noted GGCC was the only Park with MSTU funding and the Advisory Board reviews Financials relative to the Center. Staff reported the Budget Instructions were not available at this time. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY X11']1 A "6 r" - e a ee uff, Chairman These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on as presented or as amended X Cl 16 12 Ll 11 10 x rnrnrnrnrnrnrnMMMMMMMMMMMM °tn(ncncnL" cncTIMM n Ln 0 MI- OOWWWWWwwwwwwwWwwL-1< .P.P.P Wwww w LTj N N N N N N H H H H H H 7O Cr7010S 61.P.P.P.P.P.P .P .P .P.P H H CC .P.PWWWHHH H H 0 0 0 kD 10.i�P.P0. .PwWNNHt .1- wNNNV]ztOtDO1JJJJJJJJJHHHC-1 O)H.PWHt0 t0 lOJN.PWNl0 l0 tONNN�rHHWrrHHHOJrnrOU]JWtO l0 lO t0 lD t0 .PNNN.PNHzC oJ000cncnoowHoorntD - IOMM0000000oozn000to P0000toJw Pooat OOOOOHOOOOOOOCntooHo JH000000000000> 00000wtnw0000mootj :Di L OOMMHO� OH •{OHHOHmol-lw�b filo�looH�'�dtnCS�'Jdoz� H� roC'�H-3m lw 0t t=il=iy t'OOC=JC1tJ0�7 HOHZzHF'+7HC�70HL� [�CC jy�� [�[� [� zzH�L=JCnCntFtFt+Hyt'C)xC7 '=J�!t-'F3C)rAt 1=1 d O'W" w1zlnC) X% t-4 b� F3 H-3 mw ) AHmtlIT!0 LJ'x,Cm w U CJ OHHC�J)dC']r P CO x HHH H(](i��11ti O C7C `.bxH> ro�rox�>m� HC)p��3 H�; x1H;t1 U7 Hrf ',d ,b t+ m HNNH'X U, �H nO x x t+O; Otq mcnHx �C'L�'�w�J 'C HCh7WnHL=iHz�F31-1 0 �yO IO�CyyJ HL'i Oz zOro [iHC)C)tF ��z yHy [=1 CJ HD H HC� L�1O'�0�1 x7iH'YiL"i��Ci�'2ibd7LTJN �ro m ia'dHH�CiZHC�lO0�1rd��r�Cz ro H 0 H tFo WHC)OHti O U]rHnO N HO O C) zro �CNCG� mm � xmm �1NH o 00 C�x1 cn rooyzy z m z 0�10�y1 zo::> HtMAtr=1C)1�t7�tm' n 0 > mn m HM hiW �(znt-FHtO�J W,3 >O d> G H F- 61 WWCnmOD (n U1 O CD CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 1-` .P H N (Tn O H N Cn cn (n (n .pH N 00 O NNH J OoNJ .PN N N JWWWw Cn N NFL 1pWU7HF -'tDW N 0000 .p F -Ja00 Cn 61J.A Ili N.P t.D a w CD ca F-�H CO --I U1.p.A 0 U70 F- O F- N(DNJCD OJW J OJ610 OO)NOOOCn OD.PW 000 co NN 00000o00000000J6) ODW61 O 06100 0000000000 00000 000000000000006100 JJ00 O or, OO 0000000000 00000 0000000000000000 000 0 0000 0000000000 00000 0000000000000000 OOO O o0oo O00000000O I I I I I I I I I I 0000O I I I H N Cn Ul U) (n H H m .tal0 N J O NNH J CC) N6l .PN N N JWWNN WWU76100 Cn N NH IOJCn F- 'F�.AW I--� 0000 .P HJNOD CP 6I J.ANN.p (p000 t9000J (p (p (n(noCnNN O J Cn.p.p O Cn 0610 F-, Mr, N JtD OJW J OJ6)H 06)NOoOCn OD.PW OOOOOWW OoOOOO 0000000000000OJOl o0W61 O 0610) o0o0000000 000JJ 000000 000000000000006100 --J CO O O.POCD 00000OOOOo 00ot00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;:;:;D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 aD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W O o 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O o 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)01 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 F- H H r .P N H .A .P .P F'• W OD W tD 00 N J OD O N Q0 lfl to (p 00 J W W lfl CO Cn ,A ,p ,p 0 6l J .a O 61 o N I•t .P �D .P W Ol 61 (D N N N OD rn (n J J H aD F-+ N W N W W 0 Ul Cn N F-` H O CD .P p Ft 000 Cn OH ONUtOD HN OIDW .PJN WODH F-' NHF - NN G J OD(nW .p F-' H 000 W.PWmwtOtDWW ODlp.P000000 .AJJ00CD001OHN6)J N.P.PWW N U7 NJON HHO N (n0 OCn I-' (D OD OD 00 tDJ 6) H00(n NtOOD W F-+ O H OD 61(0 OtD W 061 Ili tO IO tO%0 O NHFl OIO)OD .p (DO 00(n000.POHW O1. AO0( n .pCD.pJCnIfl00 NOO)00 .Dl wODHNWNNJJ H 0(00) 00 WO OO.p 000 W lD tD O1.pWOO)Cn CO 110 W O.pJ F-+ O.P.P NO.p(n OD .A H F- j�J J .PLOW HOON N tD0 OOHOOONNW NJNONO)WW (D J. -.P O)OJWOOtD(3)JNNNF,r I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 N W Cn F-' N N W W 10) .P H O (n UI w.pJ OH H 0) W W.7,A P- JWN F•' H N N NODU"IU"II-- �UtF -� ON.POO NN O)ODtD .PF- �tDHHNO)OD(OO) OJJNN QFQ11' JUt WON JN .PCn(n.P.P OD(n1O 00000 W 00 6) W(D tD O) W W 00(p Ut(DJw .P NO W HHO W(n JCn JWWOO (i (Y) C) (D W C> C) H OD W CD <D C) J (DA- CD CD CD Cn W CD OD 00 00 w (3) 0) 0') 00 OD Cn (A) o -C, LO F- 1,0 M I -- W H Wai-It.OWNH(nOOWW F- W(D OWO06)0)I-- `000(n(D 0000 OHO OD. P(D UtWODO)C n000JUtCn .pJNOHJOWHCnF- h' ChJJJ�I (p WOO( n006)WOD000HO000006)OOOWO000)Ut lODLJ JIOWO(nNODOCn(nOD0Ut ( nm(.nODODIOID i C n0 oMo( D--` CnC00000D000 000HO00NODJONWNO00sg 0W00N06 )M.POWJO0FlM�J -� 000OODI -F+ i 1 1 I I i l l l l l l l l � oq .P co W10 -_j F-1 Fl tDCn NNLP(n(nCn NN N .PWW.P HwNJ.PWJH N J(nCnWw 0 N ll�- I'D J 0A Cn N .P O Ui CIF O) O O O 0) t0 w Ut H .A (n .P O W H .P N .P W w H 00 O) 0-) Ut Cn \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 00 MID0,12f, %- �• W I--` H N C (n W o J O O H J N F- (t �O O w w �a m It SOOG)CA m OOrt c rral m at7(t mMN• G zzm (D rt G) 0 P. a ��n G F3H01 O•MMF•' I.TIC)nH x 000 '(OD a � z�a (D H7-.rt i-3 F3 0 G � 07 C) I C=i Hz ct t=i W 0 00 O 0 0 r d t� z H C'7 C] C7 z H O 0 r d �i z H CJ C] O C) z H piaa"a m ct Io `t to M 0 n n %- �• W I--` H N C (n W o J O O H J N F- (t �O O w w �a m It SOOG)CA m OOrt c rral m at7(t mMN• G zzm (D rt G) 0 P. a ��n G F3H01 O•MMF•' I.TIC)nH x 000 '(OD a � z�a (D H7-.rt i-3 F3 0 G � 07 C) I C=i Hz ct t=i W 0 00 O 0 0 r d t� z H C'7 C] C7 z H O 0 r d �i z H CJ C] O C) z H ��rnrnrnrnmrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn .nrnrnrn' m Ili MLnLncnM Ln tnMtntntnc nLnLncntncncncncn�dt� .4.0.X, 9. J�-da0. .0. X�0. a0. lar,IaXa aa0a�4�-P. anA.� WHiP.P.PNNNNNNNNNNNNN)N)Hi- HtD(D(D(OIOODCDJ 01010) 0) 010101010101010101010101(nlni9, Ni- 3 LA) NHtomt0totD (OJCn.PWNHHHtONH(O(000OHHH(Ot -jLTI iP.PWWWWW LA) WHHNH01 0> 01HHt0toto( O.PH NHtOHH. PWHHHHtOWWH0JmHJ HHHCn.PWNHHHHHHWH00" OL' OoOtON HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUl000000000 N000t m-.JOm1U1H00000 o.TL�70HL"7h']'�I."�L zu r_ l'C�]'�d0'wooz.h7h7.'�.'C']�Cir MH.WF3NQPC� M Mt-4 .N.Xi OHHOW> Urt= JCn7" rzC] C] C =1C�OHtnt+HCJfnHHO�CH[iC7G�t1t1 [� ZM[ DOH=F<W[�i`v'M OOZtiHt�t�,0 to 0-C'd U)H1 -31" d ;UC)C+9 Oxx�1HC]x1Hl1zU� ,i1H;V HH6,3,3 n xHHt1 CJC1C1 t1 'C xOZH H ZM H M H H tVMzzW nH Z H H H� H 10 ZHHO O mro ZZOG] t1HH Zt1;V t10 x1 G�UtlH zzH t1 � rdH7� G��yiG��r1 LnH(yy�ZM zt7G]OOC1 roH t,(iC10a,-<C�O H z 4t. t- 1 C: t-I �U, 1 HOto C) 7dfn G]�n Ht1(O ZZ`� � C%� HRH W 5 n rot1 t1 VWHO HH H H( 0(n Zero in H 5ron�nH HrozUJxHMZwt�tI h] x (nrot �z zx FC mt1 z �ro0�H7dHtFtR C ZWz -3 OHt�h9H H gUHXWOVHi -30 HAM�WHOCzi Cn Cn HHH F- '1--`H F- �NNHOOF��A CnN� N W(JtJW H C nUl-- jMj�.0( n(n�IOOCnOaPOF- '(n�PN(nMM(DCnNN O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O CO Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6101 HHH (n CnH HNNHOOH.p Cn N.n N WCnJW H HHJ6I.AOCn(nJ00(nO-POi-- CnaAN ( n01NOCnNN J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (o (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O OD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O H N O COW HNNW.pCnd>NW.AHCn(JtHU'iN ONNOWCnCnOODH00000J000mA. D. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H N O aD HNNW.ACnM"W.pHCnCnHCnN ONNOODCnCnawH00000JO00N.A.A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 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 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 N N F 0101 W N N H O W W H 0101 .A .A H .A OD U7 01 J .P tD J O O J N Ul H (ptD W N (O N N 61 H W Cn.A O O Cn O Cn H H O O 110 H CD a.. . (O . .A H OD . . . O . O . N . O 61 . . . . NN . O . . WJ . J . .PN W OJO O O H (D Cn MO) O J Cn Cn O O 61 O OD O O O N O Cn N N .p�H HNNW.p lO .A .PNN H HHU7N OOOH .pOCnCn.pOODCn06lOOD .l�61Cn1OJNlONW OO CnOl0000JOtnOOlOOODNO.POOOOCnOJ ODODOOOOOOWOJOOCnOWCnO00000WOCn . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . *(D .P.P000OOOONO0001OOJO000000J00 H .pW F- 'NF- �N.t�(n61NWJHCnCnON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NCPCDwwCnOlOW00000NO0010W.p O O O O O O O O N O O O O O J O O O O W F- 0 C) <D C) CO C) C) 0') ON C) 0 0 C) CD Cn (D (D C> C> ---I OD O O O O w O O w 00000000000 U70 0 0 0 0 m O O J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H N Ol(3)WH J01 M H NO N .AO1NH Ol O .P Ol U) N) Cn HHNO OOH OI W tD LP Cn -4 —1 U7 Cn O O U7 H Fl Ul .A Cn Cn co 061N 61 M Ul M .A .A H .A J .P .P H J J J Cn OD Cn W J .P (O O co J J Cn W O O .A J O w ON .P 0) Jp Cn.P N Cn (O J J O m N 101000 OlO NOO .P Cn0 O OIODN d> (n 61 W.A Cn ON(n OD OD 00 Cn N.PN O 61J .P ONOCn O co 00 O O(n.P 0) 0100 JU't0(n H Cn t\) .P ONOW O .P WO O 0 OU1 N N .p�H HNNW.p lO .A .PNN H HHU7N OOOH .pOCnCn.pOODCn06lOOD .l�61Cn1OJNlONW OO CnOl0000JOtnOOlOOODNO.POOOOCnOJ ODODOOOOOOWOJOOCnOWCnO00000WOCn . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . *(D .P.P000OOOONO0001OOJO000000J00 H .pW F- 'NF- �N.t�(n61NWJHCnCnON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NCPCDwwCnOlOW00000NO0010W.p O O O O O O O O N O O O O O J O O O O W F- 0 C) <D C) CO C) C) 0') ON C) 0 0 C) CD Cn (D (D C> C> ---I OD O O O O w O O w 00000000000 U70 0 0 0 0 m O O J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H N Ol(3)WH J01 M H NO N .AO1NH Ol O .P Ol U) N) Cn HHNO OOH OI W tD LP Cn -4 —1 U7 Cn O O U7 H Fl Ul .A Cn Cn co 061N PSD Source Administration 50006827 PIO Coordinator Library 50005251 Customer Service Parks Admin 50001324 admin sec NCRP water park 50010116 Program Leader 50013156 Lifeguard Athletics 50001339 Supervisor Athletics Beach and Water 50001624 P &R Assistant 50001688 Maintenance worker NCRP Interpretive 50001681 Supervisor Other Salaries and Waees (lob bank) Adiministration NCRP Fitness Sugden Beach and Water -sea turtles Sea Turtle Capital 306 (one time) 80029 Barefoot Beach 80042 Pulling Boat Ramp 80065 Gordon River 80075 Immokalee Sports 80103 ENCP resurfacing 80104 Fencing repair 80115 Pelican 80118 Starcher Petty 80131 Boater Characterization 80160 Freedom Camera 80170 Immokalee Airport 80182 Skatepark 80197 Cocohatchee 80611 Goodland Boat Ramp 99306 Reserves Total Page 1 Mid Year Reductions 2011/12 Amount $ 52,994.00 $ 21,710.00 $ 64,000.00 $ 17,775.00 $ 25,074.00 1612 $ 16,000.00 Food Grant 1/4 $ 27,592.00 $ 14,478.00 $ 50,501.00 $ 290,124.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 19,231.00 $ 4,100.00 $ 54,331.00 $ 6,835.00 $ 700,000.00 Interlocal with city $ 1,100,000.00 $ 15,250.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 16,200.00 $ 4,745.00 $ 7,968.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 4,888.00 $ 10,180.00 $ 2,060.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 2,166,926.00 $ 2,511,381.00 pll BCC Collier County Confidential 2/6/2012 Page 1 Mid Year Reductions 2011/12 PDS Source Library East Naples Library Closed Estates Library Closed Vanderbilt Library Closed Outsource Pelican Bay Tennis POI Marina Goodland Misc Accounts Veterans - -4th of July Concert Sea Turtle Monitoring (fund only 8 months) Extension Operations reduction (salary savings FYN) Housing Operations Library Book - replacement DAS -5% Operation, van and meds change public hours /reduce 5 FTE to 30 hours Owners surrenders for Euth only Total Page 2 Alternate Option Beach Parking - -- everyone pays $8 x 415,100 No interlocal with city for beach * Amount $ 164,500.00 $ 277,972.00 $ 163,800.00 $ 606,272.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 310,000.00 1612 All $ 25,000.00 $ 120,000.00 no ad valorem only TDC $ 10,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 63,000.00 $ 38,100.00 12 -6, 7 days $ 14,000.00 $ 115,100.00 $ 1,251,372.00 Increase of: $ 3,320,800.00 $1,852,314 $ 500,000 $2,352,314 *park funding would remain Note: Sea turtle monitoring would be reduced to funding provided by TDC Target Goal Grand total Delta $ 3,762,300.00 $ 3,762,753.00 $ (453.00) BCC Collier County Confidential 2/6/2012 Page 2 Project Funding Source FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Aaron Lutz - Fencing 306 $ 14,000 Barefoot Beach - New Entrance Sin $ 30,000 Barefoot Beach - Landscaping $ 15,000 Barefoot Beach - Entrance Booth w / restroom $ 200,000 Barefoot Beach - Roofing $ 50,000 Barefoot Beach - Parking lot repaving $ 50,000 Caxambas - Signage 306 $ 10,000 Caxambas - New Fence 306 $ 20,000 Caxambas - Parking lot 306 $ 50,000 Caxambas - Parkeon Parkin Meter /Gate 306 $ 25,000 Caxambas - New Bait Tanks 306 $ 15,000 Clam Pass - Bottom Rails Of Board Walk $ 200,000 Cocohatchee - Boat Ramp / Repairs $ 50,000 Connor Park - Resod 306 $ 25,000 Dreamland Park - Playground 306 $ 50,000 Dreamland Park - avin 306 $ 50,000 Eagle Lakes - Boneyard Maintenance 306 $ 30,000 Eagle Lakes - Basketball Court Resurfacing 306 $ 50,000 Eagle Lakes - Playground 306 $ 50,000 Eagle Lakes - Parking Lot Resealing, Relining 306 $ 100,000 Eagle Lakes - Fencing - Soccer, Softball 306 $ 40,000 Eagle Lakes - Walking Paths 306 $ 50,000 Eagle Lakes - IWF CL2 Pump 306 $ 50,000 ENCP - Maintenance Bldg 306 $ 200,000 ENCP - Walking Paths 306 $ 100,000 ENCP - Irrigation 306 $ 200,000 ENCP - Front Desk Renovation - ADA compliance Facilities $ 75,000 ENCP - Racquetball Courts Resurface 306 $ 10,000 ENCP - Bike Racks 306 $ 25,000 ENCP - Dugouts 306 ENCP - Basketball Court Resurfacing 306 $ 25,000 ENCP - Windscreens 306 $ 20,000 ENCP - Tables and Chairs 306 $ 20,000 ENCP - Soccer Fields Resod 306 $ 30,000 ENCP - Shuffleboard Resurfacing 306 $ 30,000 ENCP - Tennis Courts Resurfacing 306 $ 25,000 ENCP - Parking Lot Lights 306 $ 15,000 ENCP - Cover Roller Rink 306 ENCP - Skate Park Improvements 306 $ 50,000 GGCP - Pavillion Roof 306 $ 20,000 GGCP - Walkway - Roots 306 $ 75,000 GGCP - Re- Surface Pools 306 $ 150,000 GGCP - Field Lighting 306 $ 25,000 GGCP - Racquetball Resurface 306 $ 50,000 GGCP - Re -Vamp Restrooms 306 $ 100,000 GGCP - Shuffle Board Resurface 306 $ 30,000 GGCC - Pavers at Wheels and Trees 3061130 $ 30,000 GGCC - Wheel Chair Van 306/130 $ 60,000 GGCC - Playground 306/130 $ 60,000 GGCC - Parking Lot Repaving 306/130 GGCC - Signage 3061130 $ 25,000 Gulf Coast - Irrigation 306 $ 50,000 Gulf Coast - Little League Field Regrade 306 $ 40,000 ICP - Court Sand, Soccer Lights 306 $ 200,000 ICP - Basketball Court Resurface and Re -Vamp 306 ICP - Irrigation 306 $ 100,000 Ise of Capri - Resod 306 $ 150,000 Ise of Capri - New Bocce Court $ 25,000 Isle of Capri - Irrigation Repairs 306 $ 20,000 Isle of Capri - Bocce Court Redo 306 $ 10,000 Isle of Capri - New Pavilion 306 $ 10,000 Lake Trafford Cemetary - Electric Gates 306 $ 25,000 Lake Trafford - Parking Extension = - $ 20,000 Lake Trafford - Pier 306 $ 50,000 Lake Trafford - Board Walk $ 53,000 Lake Trafford - Boat Ramp Repair Max Hasse - Field Lighting Tennis 306 1612 All Project Funding Source FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 1 FY 16 Max Hasse - Fitness Center Equipment 306 $ 25,000 Max Hasse - Basketball Court Resurface 306 $ 50,000 Max Hasse - Tennis Courts Resurface 306 $ 15,000 Max Hasse - Parking Lot Repaving 306 $ 25,000 Max Hasse - 5 Acres $ 100,000 NCRP - General Improvements Sun N Fun 306 NCRP - Sun -N -Fun Tower 306 1 $ 100,000 NCRP - Flow Rider 306 NCRP - Security Cameras 306 NCRP - Court Yard Shade Structure 306 $ 30,000 NCRP - Playground Shade Structure 306 $ 150,000 NCRP - SB & Soccer (Canvas Awnings) 306 $ 100,000 NCRP - Gym Floor 306 North Gulfshore Access - Landscapin $ 150,000 North Gulfshore Access - Si na e $ 25,000 $ 15,000 Port Of The Islands - Bait Tanks 306 $ 15,000 Port Of The Islands - Parkeon Parking Meter $ 12,000 $ 10,000 Pelican Bay - Bollard pathway lighting 306 Pelican Bay - Parking Lot Re -seal 306 $ 50,000 Pelican Bay - Outdoor Furniture 306 $ 35,000 $ 50,000 Pelican Bay - Basketball Court Resurface 306 $ 25,000 Pelican Bay - Resurface Tennis Courts 306 Pelican Bay - Resurf Bocce Cts syn to 306 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 Rangers - 14 Hand Held Radios 306 $ 10,000 $ 25,000 South Marco - Landscaping $ 25,000 $ 32,200 South Marco - Restroom $ 50,000 South Marco - New Fencing $ 25,000 South Marco - Parking lot South Marco - Boardwalk $ 50,000 Sugden - Class System 306 $ 50,000 Tony Rosborough - Parking lot 306 $ 40,000 Veterans - Bleachers 306 $ 50,000 Veterans - Park Sign 2) 306 $ 15,000 Veterans - Fiber Optics 306 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Veterans - Resurface Bocci Cts (syn turf) 306 $ 10,000 Veterans - Foul Nets (SB /BB Flds) 306 $ 35,000 Veterans - Front Desk Renovation (ADA) Facilities $ 75,000 Veterans - Fence Soccer Fld 306 $ 75,000 Veteran's - Parking Lot Repave / Reseal 306 $ 50,000 Veteran's - Volleyball Court Lights 306 $ 40,000 Vineyards - Playground 306 $ 100,000 Vineyards - Water Fountains at Softball-Piping 306 $ 40,000 Vineyards - Parking Lot Repave & Reseal 306 $ 75,000 Vineyards - Pave Grassy Area By Tennis 306 $ 40,000 Vineyards - Park Features, Garbage, Tables Vineyards - Irrigation 306 306 $ 25,000 $ 150,000 $ 75,000 Vineyards - Park entrance sign, new and moved 306 $ 30,000 Vineyards - Replace all signs 306 $ 20,000 Vineyards - Partitions in rooms replaced Vineyards - Shade Structures 306 306 $ 80,000 $ 50,000 Total $ 972,000 $ 2,719,200 1 $ 1,260,000 $ 660,000 1 $ 315,000 1612 MAP February 15, 2012 BY:....................... MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD Naples, Florida, February 15, 2012 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 in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division - Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Fiala 1-1 flier Planning - CHAIRMAN: Craig Woodward Code ✓ g VICE CHAIRMAN: William Dempsey Matthew Betz Patricia Huff Sharon Kenny (excused) Elizabeth Perdichizzi Rich Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager — Zoning Services Fred Reischl, Staff Liaison Glenda Smith, Budget Analyst Dave Wainscott, Dave Wainscott Desigris;° Dab: S112.)12 NernX1;1coT2p i2 Copies to: Al2 I. Roll Call/Attendance 1612 Al2• February 15, 2012 Vice Chairman, William Dempsey called the meeting to order at 9:16 A.M. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. II. Addenda to the Agenda Add. Under Item V. Old Business - C. Inter -local Agreement Add. Under Item VI. New Business - C. Horse Creek D. Collier Charter Booklet E. Olde Marco Inn renovations Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Addenda to the Agenda. Second by Patricia Huff. Carried unanimously, 5-0. III. Approval of the Agenda Elizabeth Perdichizzi moved to approve the Agenda, including the four Addenda Items. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously, 5 -0 IV. Approval of the Minutes: January 18, 2012 Corrections: Page 3 item VIII 2"d paragraph 1 sr bullet Page 3 item VIII 2nd paragraph 2nd bullet and Nicholas Petrucci, not Page 3 item VIII 2nd paragraph 4`h bullet Page 3 item V111 3rdparagraph I" bullet - Brian Trainor (sp) artists Connie Bransilver Jeff Ripple, will be featured February 26 not 29 - Highwaymen (sp) Patricia Huff moved to recommend approval of the Minutes of January 18, 2012, as amended. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Old Business A. Chokoloskee Island Update Patricia Huff stated the road was supposed to be paved within 45 days of the court order which would have been up February 27. However, no work had been done to the road yet. Will Dempsey mentioned Florida Grove had appealed, but he was unaware of any further confirmation of that action. Ray Bellows commented further updates will be forthcoming from Assistant County Attorney, Steve Williams, who was unable to attend the meeting. B. Revisions to the Historic Guide Patricia Huff distributed copies of the revised and updated Historic Guide. She asked the Board Members to contact her if they knew of any additional websites for any item in the Guide, not already listed. Ray Bellows commented the Guide was much improved with sharper photographs and website additions to many of the sites. He was impressed with all tlzerpld photographs the Board was able to come up with. 2 February 15, 2012 Fred Reischl was commended for providing the graphics for the map. He stated it was ready to be uploaded to the proper format for the website. Funding for the printing was still being sought. Sources previously mentioned were the United Arts Council, Tourist Development Council and John Torre, Public Information. Ray Bellows will make inquiries to see if they might find room in John Torre's budget to help with the printing. Craig Woodward arrived at 9:25 and took over the chair. C. Inter -Local Agreement Discussion — Addenda item — Craig Woodward Chairman Craig Woodward stated the new Marco Island City Planner had reviewed the file and was anxious to go forward with the Inter -local agreement to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Also, archaeological work on new sewer installations for the City of Marco, in the bidding process, will need the agreement. Craig will meet with the City Planner and the archaeologist concerned to bring them up to speed and assist them in moving the Inter -local agreement process along. VI. New Business A. Discussion of Everglades City walking tour for APA FL State Conference Fred Reischl reported the plans had been approved for mobile workshops as part of the American Planners Association State Conference to be held in Naples, September 12 -15. The walking tours Committee Chairman, Lynee' Rodriguez, requested a walking tour guide for the Immokalee to Everglades City tour. The tour will meet at the Waldorf Astoria and go by bus to both places. Patricia Huff, having led many such tours, offered to conduct the tours. She has a walking tour guide book for Everglades City; and, will contact the Chairman for details. B. Discussion on Possible Future Guest Speakers and Field Trips Ray Bellows asked for discussion and follow -up on guest speakers and site visits the HAPB had previously inquired about. The Board Members were agreeable to visit any sites relative to what will be coming before its Board. The Olde Marco Inn was mentioned due to the proposed renovations there. The Board will look to inviting speakers on historic preservation. Rich Taylor will follow up with the prior invitation for Nick Penniman to speak on the Calusa Indians. C. Horse Creek - Addenda item — (handout) Fred Reischl Fred Reischl provided a map and copies of a Resolution relating to Petition ST -99 -3 regarding the Little Palm Island Subdivision; now called Horse 1612A 12'� , February 15, 2012 Creek Estates. A portion of the proposed subdivision contains Old Tamiami Trail, a "possible archaeological site ". Instructions to the petitioner were: to provide a historic marker on site and to submit an application for historic designation prior to plat approval. Old Tamiami Trail, within Horse Creek Estates, provides access to five lots in Palm River Estates, Unit No. 2. Plat approval was currently on hold until completion of the cited conditions. Fred asked the HAPB to discuss appropriate wording for the marker. Will Dempsey suggested using the # 40 Historic Marker shown on page 24 of the Historic Guide as a template. Patricia Huff noted the site will need to be added to the Historic Guide. Ray Bellows will send out the application for historic designation to the owners of Horse Creek subdivision. The Application for Historic Designation and the Historic Marker wording will be placed on next month's agenda. D. Collier Charter Booklet — Addenda item — Elizabeth Perdichizzi Elizabeth Perdichizzi passed around a copy of a booklet titled Collier County Charter, dated 1971. A winter visitor to Marco Island gave the Marco Island Historic Society an old video tape of Jack Paar's visit to Marco Island and the copy of the Charter Booklet. Neither Ray Bellows nor Fred Reischl knew of a Collier County Charter. They will look over the booklet and check with Collier County Museum Director, Ron Jamro. It may have been a proposal at one time. Collier County had not adopted a charter, to anyone's knowledge. E. Olde Marco Inn renovation project — Dave Wainscott Dave Wainscott of Dave Wainscott Designs, addressed the HAPB regarding renovations to the Olde Marco Inn. Planned was: • renovation and re -use of the second floor level of the original structure, making it into boutique guest suite facilities in the design of the 1930- 1940's era • recreating the original entrance exterior back to its former look as depicted in older photos of the building • expanding and renovating the restaurant • completing renovations over the summer months Discussion followed on the procedures to follow due to the fact the Olde Marco Inn was a designated historical building. Also, the property was now located in the City of Marco; which pointed out the tie -in with the need for an Inter -local Agreement. Ray Bellows explained the Certificate of Appropriateness and its presentation to the HAPB, who will review the criteria to determine if the plans were in compliance. Coordination with the Building Officials of the City of Marco had been assured and they will go along with Collier County's procedures. 4 16 1 A-1.2 February 15, 2012 Chairman Craig Woodward spoke about the many old photos he had of the Inn and provided interesting information and history about the original and added on portions of the second floor, the north side entrance and the bar area. He was in favor of the proposal, citing examples of well -done area restorations - the Useppa Island Club, a Barron Collier structure and The Everglades City Bank, turned into a Bed and Breakfast. Elizabeth Perddchizzi commented she was happy to see what the owners were planning and that fire safety issues would be addressed. Patricia Huff stated the Historic Guide would need updating to reflect the changes and the current owners. Elizabeth Perdichizzi offered to provide information she had about the Olde Marco Inn and about the new owners. Ray Bellows will provide the necessary forms to Mr. Wainscott to begin the process. The HAPB will review them at the next meeting. VIII. Public Comments- None IX. Board Member Announcements Elizabeth Perdichizzi announced: February 18 at the Marco Island Museum - Frond Zoo — for the children. An artist from Goodland paints animals on palm fronds, which will be on display at the Museum. Currently they were being displayed at the Marco Library and at Tommy Barfield School. Chairman Craig Woodward reported the County had delivered several supplies to build out the Calusa Village and finish the mound. The public is able to watch the progress. The Museum had received $150,000 from The City of Marco. They were still waiting for $100,000 from the Tourist Development Council, which he will check into. February 24 he will be speaking on "Surveying Problems in the 10,000 Islands" at the Everglades City Annual Meeting, held at the Seafood Depot. It will cover early pioneer surveying problems and how they were solved. Patty Huff noted events in Everglades City: 1. The month of February, at the Museum of the Everglades, exhibits of Connie Bransilver's photography of orchids on silk panels and Nicholas Petrucci's paintings of various Floridians titled "Guardians of the Everglades" 2. February 21 -24, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Festival 3. February 25, Paddle Thru the 10,000 Islands — a benefit for The Ted Smallwood's Store to help with the legal battle over Mamie Street. 4. March 10 froml to 5 pm, the Annual Homes Tours. Old Historic signs had been passed out and were up on several buildings. 61 1 February 15, 2012 The next meeting is March 21, 2012 at 9:15 AM at Collier County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, Room 4610. There being no further business for the good of the County, Rich Taylor moved to adjourn. Second by Will Dempsey. Carried unanimously, 6 -0. The meeting was adjourned 10:12 A.M. Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board Chairman, Craig Woodward These minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented , or as amended C z a12 r- 1 1612 A 1 PeE ED FEB 2 1 2012 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE/RESCUE Board of County Commissioners ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES JAN. 199 2012 ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE STATION ATTENDEES: Joe Langkawel, Chairman Jim Hughes, Advisory Committee Member Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Barbara Shea, Minutes Preparer I. CALL TO ORDER Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. II. OLD BUSINESS A. Chiefs Report. Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle r Coletta G B. December 15, 2011 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve December 15, 2011 Minutes by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Jim Hughes. b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. C. December 22, 2011 Special Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes. 1. Copy of Minutes distributed. 2. Motion to approve December 22, 2011 Minutes by Jim Hughes. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker b. Motion carried unanimously. c. Minutes signed off by Chairman Langkawel. D. Introduction and brief talk by each ICFD staff member in attendance. E. Recent discussion of holiday pay issue with Amy Lyberg, HR Director. 1. Ms. Lyberg is reviewing holiday pay paid to firefighters — last 2 yrs. Misc. Cones: 2. Ms. Lyberg is responsible for calculating total back pay owed. Date: St 22l 12, a. Actual holiday pay paid to each firefighter was scheduled out. b. Actual holiday pay owed to each firefighter was scheduled out. Item 9 t L-e Z 2 V4 1 c. Net holiday pay owed to each firefighter will be calculated. 3. The County Attorney is researching number of years of back pay owed. Codes to: 4. Ms. Lyberg is researching the specific retirement rates to apply. 1612 A13 5. The County Manager may rewrite the CMA on holiday pay. a. The CMA may be totally rewritten. b. A new paragraph for firefighter holiday pay may be inserted. c. Any change in the CMA may result in savings for ICFD in FYI 2. F. Discussion of ICFD FY2003 Fund Statement. 1. In FY2003 ICFD expenses exceeded revenues by $53,448. 2. Collier County funded this shortfall. 3. Collier County treated the $53,448 as a transfer, not a loan. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Annual elections of ICFD Advisory Committee officers. 1. Motion to nominate Joe Langkawel as Committee Chairman by Ted Decker. a. Motion seconded by Jim Hughes. b. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Motion to nominate Jim Hughes as Vice Chairman by Joe Langkawel. a. Motion seconded by Ted Decker. b. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of ICFD Citizens Committee by Matt. Crowder. 1. The Committee met with Chief Mike Murphy of Marco Island Fire. 2. The Committee will meet with Chief Shultz of E. Naples next week. 3. The Committee will schedule a meeting with Dwight Brock's office. 4. The Committee does not believe it has a good "set of books." 5. The Committee would like a listing of ICFD assets at market value. 6. Matt has spoken to CM Leo Ochs & Chief McLaughlin on county plans. a. Distributed 08/31/11 memo written by Chief Rodriguez. 1. Discussion of ICFD, Ochopee, Goodland, Dist. 1 merger. 2. Matt believes this merger will take place in one year. b. Dan Summers has stated that there are no merger plans for ICFD. C. Ted Decker questioned the reason for a large ICFD budget increase 2006 to 2010. 1. Barbara Shea explained that 95% was caused by staff increases. 2. Lt. Perry explained the 2 man minimum per truck/ambulance per shift. D. Jim Hughes questioned the reason why ICFD has a brush truck. 1. Joe Langkawel states that the district's wildlands need protection. 2. The brush truck is not a requirement of the department. 3. The brush truck is often used for mutual aid to other fire districts. 4. When the brush truck is called out, the fire engine must go out of service. E. Jim Hughes questioned how EMS personnel at Station 90 get paid. 1. Collier County pays all EMS personnel. 2. ICFD does not pay any EMS personnel. 3. Two EMS personnel are at Station 90 each day under the "swap program." 1612 A13 a. The fire engine is staffed with one firefighter and one paramedic. b. Medic Rescue 90 is staffed with one firefighter and one paramedic. F. Status of citizen blood pressure checks at Station 90. 1. The policy of ICFD is to give free blood pressure checks to residents. 2. Under Chief Rodriguez, "A" shift was instructed not to give BP checks. 3. LT. Perry had recorded the 2011 "no BP checks" directive in the LT book. 4. EMS does not charge residents for BP checks. G. Lt. Perry discussed missing fire hydrant caps on Pelican Street on Isles of Capri. 1. The same hydrant cap on Pelican St. was reported missing twice. 2. This appears to be sabotage. 3. Collier County Sheriff's dept. has been notified. 4. This could result in a felony charge if the perpetrator is caught. 5. Lt. Perry has noticed that two street signs on Pago Pago were swapped. 6. The "Fire Station Ahead" sign was swapped with the Stop sign. IV. ADJOURNMENT A. Motion to adjourn the meeting by Ted Decker at 7:40 p.m. 1. Motion seconded by Jim Hughes. 2. Motion carried unanimously. Approved: Date: Z / 6 Z/ Z 16 12jECA4e' Isles of Capri Fire /Rescue FEB 2 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes rioardof County (-,ommissioners February 3, 2012 Isles of Capri Fire Station ATTENDEES: Joseph Langkawel, Chairman Ted Decker, Advisory Committee Member Jim Hughes, Advisory Committee Member Fiala I. CALL TO ORDER Hiller Joe Langkawel opened the meeting at 6:30 PM Henning Coyle .i Coletta II. OLD BUSINESS None Ill. NEW BUSINESS a. Matt Crowder gave a presentation from the Isles of Capri Citizens Budgetary & Operational Investigation Committee presenting their final report to the Fire Advisory Board. b. The committee's statement addressing the administrative alternatives for the Fire Department was read. 1) Maintaining the Fire Department's current administrative relationship with Collier County 2) Changing the administrative MSTU from Collier County to the East Naples Fire Department 3) Change the administrative MSTU To Marco Island c. The committee recommended the option to move the MSTU to Marco Island. d. The Goal is to retain the Isles of Capri identity and keep the MSTU funds in our district. e. Jim Hughes asked what the cost of this move would be? a. Matt Crowder: The committee did not identify a cost or a savings. b. Jim Hughes: How do we pay the county now for their services? c. Joe Langkawel: refer to your copy of the budget and sit down with Barbara Shea and you can go over it line by line. f. Matt Crowder requested that a letter of intent be sent to the county commissioners explaining that we intend to consider these options to retain the identity of the Isles of Capri fire Department and to keep our MSTU funding in the district. a. Motion to send the letter was made by Ted Decker b. Seconded by Jim Hughes c. Motion carried unanimously. IV. ADJOURNMENT a. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 made by Ted Decker. b. Motion Seconded by Jim Hughes. c. Motion carried unanimously. Misc. Ccrres: Approved: _ Date: S� 2 I'2 Date: Z i LsM 2J:� 13 n w.. i 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Isles of Capri, Florida 1 "73.February 16, 2012 BY: LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Isles of Capri Fire Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Isles of Capri Fire Station, with the following members present: Chairman : Joe Langkawel Fiala �✓, Jim Gault Hiller Henning ,� Kevin Walsh Coyle Coletta jL. Jim Hughes ALSO PRESENT: Chief Alan McLaughlin — Fire District Misc. Corres: Date: st2211 2 Item#: ► 1--s)1.' ►3 Ccpies to: Page 1 .r, 16 I'2 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, if we can call this meeting to order. It's 6:30. In attendance is myself, Joe Langkawel, Jim Gault, Kevin Walsh, Jim Hughes, Chief McLaughlin, and we have a court reporter here today. So one thing I will ask, if you're called upon to speak at any time, please identify yourself so she can get your name recorded properly and stuff. And please speak up, because I'm three quarters deaf tonight. My sinuses are really giving me problems. I can hardly hear anything. Okay. First thing that we have on the agenda is yes, we do have a quorum; there's four out of five of us here. The first thing on the agenda is the minutes from the January 19th meeting. If you can review them and -- MR. WALSH: Not having been at the meeting, it makes perfect sense to me. I move approval. MR. GAULT: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Approved by Kevin, seconded by Jim. All in favor, say aye. MR. GAULT: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And it's unanimous that those are approved as written. MR. GAULT: I just had a question. Wasn't I on the phone for this one? Wasn't this when I -- CHAIRMAN I ANGKAWEL: You were on the phone for that one. MR. GAULT!aIl''Okay. We're not going to list that as on the Page 2 is f 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 phone? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No, because I lost you halfway through the meeting. So you were on the phone for half the meeting. MR. HUGHES: You get partial credit. MR. WALSH: So you'll get partial credit for that one. MR. GAULT: Cut my salary in half? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That was the one where it went dead on us. Okay, the second is the minutes from the special meeting that we held on 3 February. It's right there. MR. HUGHES: This one? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah. MR. WALSH: These are all February 3rd? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes, February 3rd. MR. HUGHES: Okay, I'm in the wrong pew. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, the 3 February meeting was when the Isles of Capri Budgetary and Operational Investigation Committee presented their report, and that was the whole meeting. Gave it to us and we left. MR. GAULT: I make a motion we accept the minutes. MR. HUGHES: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. And Alan, you want me to give these to you? Those are the two cycles, just to get those out of the way. Okay, going down our agenda for this evening, the one thing that we need to add under new business will be discussion of the report from the Isles of Capri Budgetary and Operational Investigation Committee that we were given at the last special meeting, so just to get that on the agenda itself. So from there, let's see, we have the Chief s report done up in a whole new format. Page 3 1612' A13 February 16, 2012 CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. We have a new reporting system that's kicking it out a little differently and we're working on trying to consolidate that down, but we have a total record of 36 for the month. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, we have 36 for the month. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And they're broken down by incident type. You're just going to have to follow it through on each one. MR. GAULT: Is this going to be the new format? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes, it is. We're trying to condense it down so it's not so spaced out. We're still working on developing the report program itself. We have to actually go creative. It's still new, we're still playing with it. MR. GAULT: Now next month will show January/February or will it -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Just monthly. MR. GAULT: It won't show cumulative here? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, we can. We're working on that. I'm working on it from my board also that shows them cumulative. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, the accumulative was really helpful in the past to keep track -- MR. GAULT: Yeah, for trend analysis. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Right. MR. HUGHES: Where does it say it's in or out of district? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, if you look, the incident -- anything that's just dispatched or canceled in or out, those are all out of district. Because those will all be either calls to Marco Island or East Naples. Everything else is in district. MR. HUGHES: So if it says canceled en route, that would indicate out of district? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Otherwise you'd have another line item under it. Like if you actually had a fire in there somewhere else, it would actually show up. Page 4 fR 161 2 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. So 10 canceled en route. Those would be all out of district. Okay, we had a wildfire, was that in or out of district? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That one was in East Naples. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That was in East Naples. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That was out of district. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: So that's out of district. MR. HUGHES: Could that be added to this? Indicate en route? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Lieutenant Michaels is working on it. I had the same questions on trying to get this a little more accurate. MR. GAULT: It's a good start. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes, good start. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We've only been working with it two weeks, so we're -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah. Okay. Standbys and move -ups, only one. That's -- okay, and total of 36 for the month. That's actually pretty good for this time of year. Pretty low. Okay, so any other questions on the Chiefs report? MR. WALSH: Just clarification. Because we eliminated our mutual arrangement with Marco, but we still have some sort of backup responsibility with Marco? Because you mentioned both Marco and East Naples were included in this 10 number. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: If the other units are already on call, let's say Engine 23 is on a call and Engine 61, because Ochopee's also not responding down there for when they -- when the other units are called out and not available, the CAD keeps going down the list looking for the next available unit. Well, at some point it's going to come here and call this one when those units are so far out. It's just going to revert here to the center. So you'll see that happen from time to time, but it's not every incident now. 1612 A 13 February 16, 2012 MR. SMITH: Is that equally true with East Naples? Can we be called upon just like we can with Marco? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Please ask to be addressed to the Board first before you just start talking, and please identify yourself for the court reporter. MR. SMITH: Okay, I'm very sorry. Forget it. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. SMITH: My name is Carter Smith. I just thought it was apropos when he was talking about Marco, I thought we could also hear about East Naples. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I cannot comment on East Naples. You'd probably have to go to their district meeting, which I believe they hold on the second Tuesday. MR. SMITH: In other words, they don't call upon us to handle their fire problems, East Naples? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, you redefined your question. Yes, we do respond to them for additional help. When they get short on structure fires in certain districts, we are first call. Back side of Fiddler's Creek in the areas of where 23 is up there north of us, we respond as a third new engine. MR. GAULT: It's all part of a 9 -1 -1 protocol. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's all part of a 9 -1 -1 protocol. It's not even -- that's not even really part of the mutual aid agreement between the Chiefs Association. That's just in the 9 -1 -1 CAD. MR. SMITH: So they're the two principal communities we have is Marco Island and East Naples? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. MR. SMITH: Sorry. My apologies. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's okay. We just have a lot of people here tonight, we need to try to keep it orderly. NM 1612 A 13 February 16, 2012 We do --just as a statement, we do have mutual aid agreements with every fire department in the county. If we have a fire in one of the large highrises in North Naples, there will be equipment there from every department in the county. Same thing on Marco Island. But yes, we do respond back and forth between them. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And to answer your question, because most of the citizens don't realize this, in the 9 -1 -1 system now the system sees the fire service in Collier County as one. You don't have nine individual departments. And this was done years ago, 15, 20 years ago as part of the Chief s Association with their board saying we need to have this as a seamless integration of fire service in the community. So the CAD doesn't look at lines on a street, it just looks at who the closest units are and pulls them out. Those can be adjusted by the departments because of manpower, but generally that's how the system was set up. It looks at it as a countywide system. MR. SMITH: Can I finish up with one? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Sure. MR. SMITH: There are two fire communities, it's been my understanding for years, that are governed by Collier County, and that is Ochopee and Marco -- and the Isles of Capri. Is that a correct statement? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That is a correct statement. MR. SMITH: And the county's been threatening for years to get out of the fire business; is that a correct statement? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I do not believe that's true. I've never heard that personally. Firsthand I've never heard that. MR. SMITH: Okay. Years ago when this thing was first threatened that we were going to be absorbed by East Naples, my wife and I went around the Isles of Capri and we got about 400 signatures Page 7 r 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 that were opposed to this thing. Well, you know, when you got 400 signatures, you can talk turkey up there in Collier County. It was a very interesting thing. And it's even -- it's been back that far, and we salvaged this thing, along with other people that worked on it, Matt Crowder over there. And now we're back to the same old problem, aren't we? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, you're not. MR. SMITH: Who's going to take over the Isles of Capri? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's a discussion -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's not this discussion. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's not what we're discussing now. We're discussing our Chiefs report and where we've gone. We'll get into possible structuring a little later. Okay, any questions on the Chiefs report? MR. WALSH: Move approval. MR. GAULT: I second. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, all in favor? MR. GAULT: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, Chief s report is approved as presented. Okay, moving down under old business, we have the holiday pay study being conducted by HR. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I spoke with Amy Lyberg this afternoon and she said that they have almost finished and they will have a plan in 30 days and all the answers that we're looking for. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: A plan and what we're looking for in 30 days? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah, the final answer. . s. 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. And the final answer being? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: What needs to be owed, how it's going to be paid and what we have to pay out. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And have they determined whether or not it needs to be paid out at all or if it should stay the way it was? The last discussions with the county manager was that he can say this has been the policy for the last 16 years, this is correct and we'll let it go. Has that been determined? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I was not told that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. So that's still an issue that we have that's out there. Because we haven't even determined whether or not we're supposed to be paying this. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And we don't have a figure of how much they want us to pay. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And this has been going on since November till the end of February that they can't decide if we're paying it incorrectly, how much we should be paid or how much we should go back on. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. And we will have that answer for them within 30 days? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's what I was told. And to answer your question on the other side is I believe the hangup was what you were told and what labor law says. And that's what they're investigating. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And what labor law says and also what the county -- the chairman of the Board of Collier County Commissioners said that if a practice has been in place for a number of Page 9 1612 5. C4 r" A 13 7 .i. February 16, 2012 years becomes county policy by default. He has said that publicly. I think 16 years from the inception of this department means that it has been there and been in place for an awfully long time. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And so to just change it goes against county policy, so that will have to be discussed. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I think the problem was, Mr. Langkawel, that a county policy cannot usurp federal law. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. Well, we'll look into it and we'll see what their report is. Kevin? MS. NEUHAUS: Thank you, Joe. MR. WALSH: Is Amy the -- is she the one most knowledgeable on -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: She's the one in charge. MR. WALSH: Because I think she's the one I talked to, and after about 10 minutes I had a throbbing headache. She was frustrated, and so we agreed to meet face -to -face. But if we're 30 days away from resolution, I'd rather have her work on the problem than trying to educate me. It will be what it will be. There's nothing I can do to influence the outcome. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: So we'll look for an answer in 30 days. MR. GAULT: And will we be legally bound to that answer? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Pretty much so, yes. I mean, we can discuss it and we can bring it up. But yeah, I believe that we will be held to that answer, okay. That doesn't mean the discussions are done with it. I think that we have some input that would go into that. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, do you want comments now or later in the meeting? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? Page 10 r. 161 2 A13 February 16, 2012 MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, John Rogers. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: If it's on this particular subjgct, I'd rather cover them as we go. So go ahead, John. MR. ROGERS: I just want to clarify the record, because you said this has been going on since November. Actually, having met with Barbara, there are emails on this very issue with the county and Ms. Lyberg, who is completely confused, as early as August of last year with a promise in September to have an answer in 30 days. So with the county management, you are exactly today where you were in September. That's factual. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. I know it's been dragging on and dragging on. And it's just -- and I know that it will take a while before we resolve this. The bad part is is that the longer this continues, if there's a liability building up, it's going to be harder to make up that liability out of the payroll section of the budget as we get farther and farther into the year. Yeah, Jeri? MS. NEUHAUS: Jeri Neuhaus. I'm concerned -- first I want an apology for what you said earlier. How are you going to find out? In 30 days who's going to notify who? You've come to a meeting now and have had to ask for a status. It would seem to me that somebody from the fire advisory board should be in the loop. As painful as Amy Lyberg is, that somebody might want to be on that list where they notify you -all instead of notifying Alan to then notify the board so all the board members can know before the next meeting if something happens. How are you -all going to find out? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: The normal method, as soon as the county notifies the board or the department of anything, it would come through our Chiefs office here and then be given to the board members. And it's always been given to us as soon as it comes in. Page 11 1612 A'13 February 16, 2012 MS. NEUHAUS: So it goes to you all individually then -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah. MS. NEUHAUS: -- it doesn't just go to one of you. Because you can't communicate with the other ones. It would go to all of the board members as soon as the information is available. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's the way we've always done it in the past and it's worked very well. I don't have a problem -- MS. NEUHAUS: I'm just curious as to why you -all didn't already have the information that Alan just had. I mean, Allen said there's going to be a decision in 30 days. Why didn't you -all -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Because this is the forum for information like that where he would tell us. MS. NEUHAUS: So if there's a decision, will you wait 30 days to give it to him at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: A deci -- once we have a decision, that decision would be emailed to the board members in a blast email all at the same time as a forward to them of what the decision was. MS. NEUHAUS: And just for clarification, basically like John said, we're just back where we were in August. We've got another promise of 30 days. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, and that may be. And we have to -- we have to at some point take them -- MS. NEUHAUS: No fault of yours, I'm just -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: -- at their word that they said they'll have it in 30 days and so we will look for it in 30 days. At the end of 30 days, as Kevin has said, he's going to give her the time to complete it. If not, he had volunteered before to be the representative to go up there and sit on her desk until we get an answer. MS. NEUHAUS: You have my sympathies, Kevin. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: So we will take it from there and Page 12 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 we'll move forward on that part of it. Okay. Okay, under new business, discussion of county services provided by 44,600 indirect costs. Alan, do you know what that's -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I see the document here. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: There was -- apparently I guess the committee went up and had some questions on what does this district receive for indirect costs. This is what they were given. And it was passed along to the Board members of what was -- that's all. Basically the budgetary investigative committee met and this is what they were given of what that 44,000 in here provides. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Oh, okay. I was going to say because yeah, that number fits with what we pay and stuff. I just wondered why it was a separate line item. It's good that it breaks it out individually for a little clarification. That's good information that we can use in our follow -on budgetary issues. yet? Speaking of budgetary issues, any rumblings through the county CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We're still waiting for the first posting to come out. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Which should be the end of March. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: So we're actually for it a little sooner than that this year. Hopefully by the end of next week. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That would be nice so we can go from there. Okay, Isles of Capri brush truck. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I've discovered this week that the fleet manager had put the brush truck out for auction, and I had it removed Page 13 1612 413 February 16, 2012 from the auction list and had a discussion with him. They have a matrix that they use on age and cost and repairs of vehicles and so forth and so on that they just automatically do. They did it with my water tank in Ochopee for three years. The director of the service has that ability to pull that off, so I've had it pulled off. And we've already discussed some of those costs related to that particular vehicle, but that's for another discussion. I just wanted to let you know that they had done that. It's been removed from that auction list. It's still in service, it's not going anywhere. There's still discussion about some of the costs related to it. It currently is due for $1,000 worth of service on a muffler system because it has to be fabricated, and the shop is looking to bill us a fleet labor charge of 16,000 for FY 12. The end for that total cost for that unit, and it's a labor cost on it, it's a high thing with the parts, is an estimate. And they do an estimation. MR. WALSH: Chief, based on your experience and your knowledge of the economics of this, and assuming that the representation that it's had two runs in the, what, five years that we've had it, would it be your recommendation that we get out of the brush truck business? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I don't want to make a decision on a district that I'm only acting as a provisional chief on. However, if it was mine in my district, I would put it out to third -party auction and try to get at least a minimum of 40,000 in cost back of what I've got into it and reinvest that back into some type of a unit and use the pickup truck out there that's sitting there doing nothing at this time except shuffling people back and forth to get groceries. Personally. And I'll leave it at that. MS. NEUHAUS: Kevin, can I offer one piece of information? Jeri Neuhaus. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Jeri Neuhaus? Page 14 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 MS. NEUHAUS: Two calls in district. The call -- we have done multiple, multiple calls. We met with Wilbur from the Department of Forestry. We have done many calls out of district. Which is one of the reasons we get so much District 1 money. We're a fire department who supports other districts in brush trucks and everything else. So it's a big mistake when people say and tell people we've only done two calls. We've done two calls in district. We don't have many brush fires in the Isles of Capri. But as a result we get District 1 money for that brush truck, for the boat calls and things like that. And we can't lose sight of that. I agree with Alan, I think that the brush truck should be one that's functional and one that's effective and cost effective and all that, but I don't think that using a number of two is a fair representation of what we do and why we do it. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: May I comment? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Go ahead, Alan. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correction on that. You do not get District 1 money because of the wildland fires, you get District 1 money because of Keewaydin Island. District 1 money is -- the District 1 area that's represented is divided between East Naples, Golden Gate and Ochopee. The other piece of that, which is a smaller percentage, goes to the Capris district strictly for Keewaydin percentage that is in District 1. Which is a pretty good -sized area actually -- MS. NEUHAUS: That's not what we've been told. I'd like to see that documented. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: When you look at the percentages how it's divided up, it becomes very apparent of the area that's divided up into and how that's divided up. So anyways, that has historically always been there. Now, do they have a -- is there a brushfire responsibility in part of that? Yes. Page 15 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 And it goes both ways. But the majority of that is because pretty much the only ones going to Keewaydin are the Capri folks here. And that's by boat. Because it is matching your district. I mean, they're getting very limited response from the City of Naples. Marco's going to eventually go there. East Naples is bordering it, but they don't even have a boat to get out there. So the -- MS. NEUHAUS: Meaning the response people. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Right. So Capri's been the number -- MS. NEUHAUS: Not the people using it. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: -- one responder to Keewaydin for the last 15, 18 years. And that's evident. And that's part of that money. And your statement is true, two calls in district and then multiple calls, Corkscrew and other areas of the county. And of course I was asked by one of the residents, who's paying for the backfill and where's our truck if they're over there? Well, that is a cost to the citizens here. You are paying to send someone out to Corkscrew or to North Naples or to Golden Gate. And that's just the fact of it is. There's other things that could be done. And I agree with you, like you have a pickup truck out here that you could put a skid unit on it for $4,000 and be fully functional and still do everything you're doing with that unit. It's probably tremendous cost in parts and for labor because of the type of vehicle. Doesn't negate you still can send them somewhere. But those have been some of the issues and the questions I've been raising. They're facts, but that's -- depending what the citizens want to do. If they don't mind that, then that's up to them. You still have the unit here we have to protect, which means we have to backfill that with either job bankers or overtime. MS. NEUHAUS: We also need to make the Department of Forestry aware, because as recently as a few weeks ago when they met with the various chiefs talking about the availability of brush truck Page 16 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 response vehicles, they counted Capri among those vehicles. And they only found out a week and a half later that -- they were told by a firefighter here that you -all were getting rid of the brush truck, you -all were getting out of the brush truck business. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not a true statement. It's not a true statement. The analogy was can we take a truck that you currently own that's much newer, make it do the same thing at a whole lot less. MS. NEUHAUS: No, no, no, I'm talking about the statement that said we don't want to do brush calls outside of our district. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I haven't heard that statement. I can tell you the only analogy that was discussed was is there a cheaper way that we can have a brush vehicle for the district that the citizens aren't paying that kind of money for the repair and equipment on that vehicle and still provide a brush response. And the answer is yes, there is. MS. NEUHAUS: I'm talking about the conversation with -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I can't address the conversation. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, that all may be true. I had heard through the grapevine, and I have to put it that way, nothing to confirm it, that one of our fireman had told the Forest Service that we're getting out of the wildfire business. And my response was simply, not to my knowledge, we have no intention of doing that. But back on the issue of the brush truck that we currently have, I will make no secret of the fact that I have never liked having a Humvee as a brush truck, simply because of my past experience with humvees. They are a very good vehicle, they can do a lot of things that other vehicles can't, but their maintenance costs are extremely high. And there's no question about that. And I think that when we got into this, based on the use of them around the state, it was a very good choice of a vehicle. I can also see that by our maintenance cost, because we go through the county to do our maintenance, they're not equipped to Page 17 16 12 X13 February 16, 2012 handle it. And because of that, our costs are escalating. A muffler system should not cost us the type of funds that they're looking at. But because they don't know how to handle the vehicle and they can't properly service it, we're paying a great deal of money for what we get out of the vehicle. And I agree, I see the two in- district fires, I'm rather surprised we had two in- district with it. I think the numbers are closer to 55 or 60 that's run total throughout its life. Which it has been an asset to all of Collier County, Lee County and other areas of the state. And so we've done very good with that. But I think if we're looking at a vehicle that's going to cost us in maintenance close to an average of $10,000 a year for a brush truck, I think we do need to explore other options that are viable. We do have a four -wheel drive pickup, heavy -duty diesel, which we use as a runabout vehicle. It's a crash truck here. Could easily be converted to be a brush truck. Would serve 99 percent of the same purpose of what the Humvee does. I will say, I'm not a big fan of Humvees, but I also know there's things that they can do that a pickup can't. Because I've done it with them. I've also wrecked them, so I know what it cost to repair them. And we may wish to discuss and look seriously as to whether or not we want to convert our pickup into a brush truck and eliminate the maintenance cost of the Humvee. And that would be a discussion -- MR. WALSH: Yeah, to the extent that that is the apparent outcome of the discussion, is that our responsibility to authorize, one, the sale of the brush truck and two, the -- or is that simply an administrative decision made by the county? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That would be a good question. The fact that the name on the title says Collier County, I guess they can sell it if they want. If you look at the charter of the advisory board for financial Page 18 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 issues, if you talk about $50,000 of our budget, I certainly think that falls within the budget. Our charter also authorizes us to approve or disapprove capital expenditures, and a fire truck is what I would call a capital expenditure, even if it's a brush truck. MR. WALSH: Do you know whether the board approved the purchase of the brush truck? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes, we did. I was on the board at the time that we did. I will also tell you that I am the only board member that opposed it at the time that we purchased it, okay. But there was a good argument as to why we did. And they do, they do make a very good brush truck and they're used in certain locations. And if you had a fleet of 10 or 15 of them, the maintenance cost probably wouldn't be too bad. But having the only one in the county, I can see where it's running us up a very large bill. MR. WALSH: Well, I'm happy to defer to the experts in this matter. And I guess what I'd like to do is leave the topic with a resolution that authorizes the appropriate parties to proceed with the action, including putting up the brush truck for auction or sale or negotiated sale, whatever the appropriate method is for disposition, and then the outfitting of the pickup truck so that this board doesn't have to talk about the issue again. I mean, if the decision is essentially an obvious one, then let's make it and go on. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I will make a comment just to say the FY '12 cost that they've generated here for that labor on the current vehicle, for about two- thirds of that you can fully outfit with a brand new skid unit, pump system, everything for the pickup truck. So to me as a manager, if I owned a business, to me it would be really simple. I mean, I can get basically a brand new truck with a brand new unit, a truck that was rebuilt and modified and cost me money for almost two - thirds what the maintenance costs are going to Page 19 1612 'A13 February 16, 2012 cost me. And I'm losing a truck off of the fleet. Total cost of vehicles, that means the overall fleet cost to the district is going to drop. So we're going to save money on that side. MR. WALSH: Okay, I'd be happy to put it in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: One more question, first, Kevin? Is it possible to take the pack that's on the Humvee and put it in the pickup? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, because -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Because that pretty much just slides in the back of the Humvee. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That one on there is too wide because of the wheel wells. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Wheel wells of the Humvee is really wide. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It was designed with -- the width is beyond the -- Captain Purcell, you measured that. I believe it's like six or 10 inches bigger than the wheel well width? CAPTAIN PURCELL: Ten inches. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. The Humvee is extremely wide. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes, it is. MR. GAULT: That would determine the value of the vehicle also. I think we just get the new equipment, put it on the truck and -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. But I was just curious if we could pull the pack off and then it would just be a simple tradeover and then we'd sell the Humvee as a vehicle. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We looked into that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: But we'll sell it as a vehicle. Okay, Kevin, you wanted to make a motion? Page 20 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 MR. HUGHES: I'd like to ask a question first. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Go ahead, Jim. MR. HUGHES: Will the truck -- I guess I heard the Humvee has trouble carrying all the water. Will the truck have less water, or will there be -- is that truck heavy enough to take it? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The truck would carry a 200 - gallon tank, according to the specs that we got from the manufacturer. They build these skid units constantly. Currently the weight of the vehicle itself with the Humvee, and I'd have to -- Joe is probably more familiar, the vehicles are extremely heavy as they are. So when you add all the equipment, the pumps on them and 300 gallons, we're actually 700 pounds over the vehicle's weight. So to be legally safe on the road we have to run it with 100 less gallons in the tank, which we carry 200 gallons in it. That's exactly what we can put on the pickup truck and still have about an eight percent safety factor with all the equipment to personnel. MR. HUGHES: That's a one ton pickup? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: It's F -250 -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's a heavy -duty three - quarter. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, but it's heavy duty so I don't know how -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's got the extra springs on it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: -- they count that. It's got extra springs. CAPTAIN PURCELL: Captain Tom Purcell. It's got an extra towing package, load package, heavy -duty suspension in the rear for such a vehicle. When we had it spec'd out, we spec'd it that way. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. MR. HUGHES: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. Page 21 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 MR. WALSH: Yeah, just the motion authorizing the appropriate party, and it sounds like it's going to be somebody in the motor pool in the county that actually pulls the trigger, but authorizing the disposition of the current brush truck and the outfitting of the existing pickup truck to function as a brushfire truck. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: On a third -party auction, the BCC has to approve that. It has to go through the Clerk's Office, and then it goes to purchasing and then it's put up to third -party auction with a minimum bid. Otherwise the standard March auction, there's no minimum bid. Someone could offer $2,000 and walk away with it. And I wasn't going to allow that to happen. I mean, we need to get every dollar we can. And so my option, if that was to happen, would be only to go to a third -party bid. That way we can state a price and they have to meet that. And if it doesn't -- MR. GAULT: It's not an absolute auction. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, it's not an absolute. So we're not stuck with someone just walking off with this thing and losing 25, $30,000. MR. GAULT: It's a good strategy. Good recommendation. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. And we have a second by Jim Hughes. Any other comment? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I have none. MR. GAULT: So you'll fill out a request form to do all this? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We have to fill out an executive summary to be approved by the BCC. And that will be attached with your notes from the meeting here of your approval. Or whatever you vote for. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, all in favor of that? MR. GAULT: Aye. Page 22 161 A13 2 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Unanimous. Okay. All right, next item on the agenda for this evening is the report by the Isles of Capri Budgetary and Operational Investigative Committee. It was given to us on the February 3rd meeting. I don't think there's a copy of it in that stack that you're looking through, Kevin, if that's what you're looking for. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, there's not. It was just presented tonight. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: These are ones that we all received at that meeting, except those who were on cruise ships in the South Pacific. MR. WALSH: I'd have rather been here. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. Okay. To start this out, I was asked by Matt if he could have just a small statement he'd like to present. MR. CROWDER: What I asked -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: For the record? MR. CROWDER: Matt Crowder. What I asked actually was time for members of the committee who had done work with the committee to have time each to say something. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. And that would be fine. MR. CROWDER: But I would like to start with just an opening statement. Of course we presented our report to the board at the special meeting on February 3rd specifically so that the board would have a chance to digest the report and come back today at the regular meeting Page 23 } 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 to discuss it and take action on it. So I want to thank the board again for allowing us and supporting us in our work. Our recommendation of course is only for fact finding. I just want to put at ease the minds of those who have shown up at the meeting tonight and may not be fully aware of exactly what's in the report. At this stage we're asking only for fact finding. And we hope that the board will seek fit to take action. So with that, I'd like to invite the members of my committee who are here to speak, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's fine. MR. CROWDER: I have four of them here. MS. NEUHAUS: I have a few -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Jeri Neuhaus. MS. NEUHAUS: Jeri, me, Neuhaus. Just two years ago I stood here and objected to a suggestion by Marco Island. I owe it to you all to explain why my position has changed since then. Back then our situation was different. Collier County had not yet shown us their blatant disregard for our fire advisory board and the concerns of our residents. Collier County and EMS have financial troubles of their own and they're looking to use our fire department and our resources to help solve their problems, not ours. There's little if any question that Dan Summers is making plans to consolidate our department into a general fund department and utilizing our resources and revenue as he, not us, sees fit. The committee worked hard and researched the available options and unanimously agreed that the most reasonable and practical alternative to remaining under Collier County's inept administration is to further explore creating an MSTU under Marco Island. While it may seem like a big change, it's actually a solution that provides the least amount of change for us. This option, if through fact Page 24 , 16I 2 A'13 February 16, 2012 finding and additional research is confirmed, this would allow us to retain our identity as the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District. It would allow our ad valorem and impact fees to remain yet into our district. Our department would once again be administered by our fire chief with an excellent reputation and long history in the fire service, in this instance Mike Murphy. We would have a fire advisory board who actually has an ear of its administrator. A board whose input and hard work would actually be taken into consideration. A board with a voice. Let's be clear, at some point down the road it's very likely that all the fire departments will be consolidated in some fashion or another. It's highly unlikely that Collier County will be that coordinating force. Rather, it will be independent districts merging with one another and then ultimately, if they so choose, municipalities like the City of Marco Island and the City of Naples. Until that time, however, why should Isles of Capri be the guinea pig for Dan Summers' grand plan? We need to continue as an MSTU until and if the time comes for consolidation. By then the kinks will have been worked out by those other organizations and we'd be j oining a successfully consolidated organization, which will never happen under Dan Summers and BES. There are a couple of residents here who have said that our department is running just fine in its current incarnation. I beg to differ. We have some wonderful firefighters here, paramedics; we have some very dedicated personnel here. However, I believe documents and emails can be and should be obtained by somebody that address just a few of the situations that have arisen since Rod's termination in November. Here's just a few examples. The unsanctioned cutting of mangroves by personnel, which I'm told is still under investigation by the FWC. The unsanctioned and unofficial dredging by personnel with Page 25 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 apparently serious detrimental impact to the newly constructed dock pilings resulting in a boat having to be moved to another lift. The complete dismantling of the command equipment in the former chief vehicle. Possession of a firearm by an employee on fire department property. And statements by personnel to residents, including myself and other agency personnel, that this is their fire department and not ours. They're giving the rest of the firefighters here who work so hard here a bad rep, just a few of them. That's just samples of the things we're hearing about. And I believe they're a result of a lack of supervision. We can't look to Alan to cover both our fire department and his beautifully, especially considering the distance between them. And as he said to both me and John, you don't want to be our chief, you've got your hands full with Ochopee. So we can't expect him to do this. It's time for the Fire Advisory Board to decide whether to move forward with our recommendation and further explore the option with Marco Island. It's time for the FAB to appoint a member to either chair or be on that committee to lead that investigation, look to us for resources if you want, and keep the district residents informed throughout the entire process and get their input. It's time to demand that Collier County delay any further plans for consolidation of our district during this process, and allow us to work with their budget officers, the necessary personnel, and get the materials and information necessary to determine whether this option will in fact work -- I believe it will -- and if so, to demand that they support its implementation. Time is of the essence. If we decide to do nothing, we will simply be sitting and waiting for Collier County and Dan Summers to destroy everything that Chris, Wally, Acey, Rod and countless other people have worked so hard to create. We can sit idly by and watch as Page 26 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 they give us the proverbial finger yet again. MR. CROWDER: Can I add something to that? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Matt? MR. CROWDER: Another good example of the kinds of things that we see from the county is exactly this thing with the brush truck. Because Alan, thank you for going up there and intervening and getting that thing pulled off the auction. I'll presume since the board wasn't aware that Alan went up and pulled it off the auction, the board is also not aware that it had been put on the auction. I think that's a fine example of the kinds of things we see. You know, it's like a signature move on the part of the county to just do end runs around the fire board, even on issues that, you know, have a clear budgetary angle. So thank you for that, Jeri. And next, Debbie, you have something to say? MS. O'DEAN: I do. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Your name for the record? MS. O'DEAN: I'm Debbie O'Dean. I'm curious why you're here. We don't usually have a court reporter. THE COURT REPORTER: I was hired. MS. O'DEAN: You don't want us to know, okay. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I don't have an answer, but we don't have our normal person for taking notes. So this is what we have. MS. O'DEAN: I was just curious. We never had -- MR. ROGERS: So Collier County sent her? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. ROGERS: Unbeknownst to you? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. ROGERS: That's absurd and that's embarrassing. Page 27 y ks Y 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Please, please don't. MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, not you. John Rogers. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Let's keep this down. MR. ROGERS: But Joe, Mr. Chairman, really, how could you not call them up and find out? This is exactly what we've all been talking about. And we're just letting it happen and happen and happen. So tomorrow they can pore through it and put out rumors and put out lies, like we're going to show you when you work with us that they've been doing for months. Why do we not get to the bottom of these issues and say Collier, stop treating us this way? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We will get to the bottom of these issues. But as far as having our meeting tonight, we had a scheduled meeting. I'd like to continue it. MR. ROGERS: We didn't have a court reporter at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We've never had a court reporter. MR. ROGERS: Why don't we tell her thank you very much, it's not her fault, and let her go home. And we'll tell Collier what we want them to know about this meeting. We've done that in the past. I mean, it's up to you guys, I'm not trying to offend you all, you're the board, but they sent her for a reason. MS. O'DEAN: Yeah. That's why I asked. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: They did. MR. ROGERS: I've made my point. You do what you want. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Your point is well taken. We've given them video tapes in the past of meetings. We always give them tape recordings. MR. ROGERS: Our tapes. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Our tapes. We have provided OEM a 16 �eg A 13 ary 16, 2012 that. So nothing takes place at these meetings that I'm concerned with moving forward. MR. ROGERS: Oh, I agree with that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And if this is what they wish to do, this is fine. Debbie, if you have a statement that you'd like to make concerning the consolidation report that was -- or the recommendations report, please, we'd like to hear it. Let's move on. MS. O'DEAN: I want to mention how much we all feel that this is a unique community and how -- I don't think people of the county understand how unique we are here, what a family we are, what a close -knit situation we have. The trips to the fire station, I don't know how many neighborhoods have people that come and visit the firehouse and bring cookies and, you know, all those kinds of things that we have here. And the reason I'm bringing that up is that I think that we're going to lose a little spirit of community and feel like we've lost some connection with who we are if we don't try to keep things as close as it has been. That's my personal emotional feeling about it. And while we were on our -- in our committee, that's one of the reasons that I feel that the MSTU with Marco, it's reiterating what Jeri said, it would provide us with the least amount of change, we'd still have our name out there, we'd feel like we're still the Isles of Capri Fire Department and not have a different name out front. I feel very emotionally attached to being here in this community for a reason and liking what I have here, that's why I'm here, and I'd like to see it not change too much. So I'm just reiterating that our recommendation, which was unanimous for the MSTU at Marco Island being the first thought of process that we thought would make the most sense is a little bit more emotional coming from the standpoint that I'm presenting right now. Page 29 :1A 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, Debbie. MR. CROWDER: Acey, you got anything? MR. EDGEMON: Acey Edgemon. E- D- G- E- M -O -N. Since I've probably been here as long as anybody, I came to Capri in 1973 and we built our home in 1978, right at the beginning of the volunteer of the old guys in. Not to beleaguer what everybody said, because everybody knows why I'm here. Just change is coming, whether you like it or not. So this is our opportunity to sort of have an input in change. So either we step up and tell the county or whoever will listen what we'd like to do or sit back and county's going to take it over and do what they want to do anyway. Everybody is in a budget crunch. The county is not any exception. So everybody is looking for resources. We had long discussions with East Naples and Marco. Marco actually seemed to be in better financial shape than some of the others. City of Naples is in pretty good shape also. But change is coming. And long -time residents, I'd just like to see our little community stay as much as it can. Some things are going to change. There's not much you can do about that. But like Jeri said, at least keep it somewhat familiar. I realize the fire truck over to my house, it says Isles of Capri on the side. That could very well change. Also I have great concern for the guys that work here. And I know that they're concerned because the worst thing for somebody in the fire service or law enforcement or whatever is uncertainty what's coming down the pike. So they're all freaking out, I might as well say. So whatever we're going to do, decide, whether we decide to go to Marco or stay the same, we also have to think about the guys here and make sure that the benefits and everything are good, stay the same or better, and rightfully so. We all know that in any organization you always have two or Page 30 .. 16 I '2 A 13 February 16, 2012 three bad apples. No different here. No different from the civic association or Jeri's office as far as that goes, who knows. MR. WALSH: Two or three? MS. NEUHAUS: Not me. MR. EDGEMON: That's just human nature. But this is our chance to have a say. And county is paying attention. They are paying attention. And it's like anything else, you get big, you forget about all those little people underneath you. And that's where we are now. Back in the good 'ol days where we were a bunch of volunteers, county loved us because we didn't cause any heartburn or any trouble, we just did our own thing. But those days are long gone, and they're not going to come back. So as Forrest said, that's all I got to say about that. MS. NEUHAUS: Thank you, Acey. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, Acey. John Rogers? MR. ROGERS: John Rogers. Madam Court Reporter, I apologize, my comments were in no way directed to you personally. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I apologize. I don't normally have an outburst. Not as an excuse but by way of explanation, it's really been a tough week. Please, I didn't mean to step out of line. I wholeheartedly endorse the work and the decision of the committee that I was fortunate to serve on, and offer my services, should this board decide to proceed with a recommendation, follow the recommendation of the committee to continue to work towards the end that as I said at the last meeting and Jeri said tonight and Acey said, while this seems like a big change, it is really what effects the least Page 31 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 change, which is we want our station the way we believe it was and the way it has been for a long time. And it preserves the best interest of the firefighters, which Acey correctly alluded to. It was difficult. The committee's work was not easy. We did not sit around and sip wine and flip coins. We worked very hard, we attended a lot of meetings, we read a lot. They emailed constantly. I didn't get involved in all of those, but there were hundreds of emails that I read. It was very, very difficult. And your decision to investigate this further will be even more difficult. But I think I speak for the committee that we are ready to stand there, provide any additional information, resources, and even work that we can do to help you with this. We think our decision is in the best interest of our fire district, and we encourage you to consider it thoughtfully, carefully, and pursue the recommendation and at least do the fact finding. So I appreciate the time I spent with all the committee members and appreciate your attention today. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, John. MR. CROWDER: Just one thing in closing. You know, a lot of this is about our tax dollars -- Matt Crowder, sorry. It's important to remember that because we have an MSTU we're in a unique situation. Our tax dollars within the boundaries of this district are spent on this fire department within this district. Consolidation obviously means our tax dollars being spread across a larger area and our resources also being spread across a larger area. So that's what is so important about preserving our MSTU and preserving that unique situation, at least staving off consolidation for as long as we can. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, Matt. Okay, board members? MR. WALSH: I've got a question that has to do -- I'm kind of running to catch up, because I was at the -- I was out at the last Page 32 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 meeting when a lot of this material was distributed. I don't know whether the others that are here have had access to that same information, that is, the -- your committee's recommendation to the Collier board at the special meeting on February 3rd. Which included, for example, a pro forma, as I read it, with Barbara Shea's fingerprints on it that showed that in the contemplated amalgamation under Dan Summers, our millage rate would go from two to three and a half mills. Or there were two different models, but a significant increase in the millage rate. And I think that's important information to share. This may not be the forum to do it. As a matter of fact, it occurs to me that with the civic association meeting next week, I don't know whether this was discussed at last month's civic association, because I wasn't at that meeting either. But I think an informed citizenry is an important part of where we go from here. And I think everybody ought to have the facts as they have been shared with us by the committee. So if that hasn't been shared with the members of the Isles of Capri Civic Association, I would encourage that that be done at next week's meeting. MS. NEUHAUS: Kevin, that was -- it was all distributed and telegraphed by Ann Hall. MR. CROWDER: I don't think that what Kevin is talking -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Wait, wait, wait. Please, let's slow down. (Audience speaking amongst themselves.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not getting this on the record. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Sorry, let's -- okay, the question was has this been distributed to the community. MR. CROWDER: The answer is that via the Coconut Tele (phonetic), two pages of the consolidation related documents were distributed via the Tele. Page 33 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Not the entire -- MR. CROWDER: There was a second pack which was another five pages which was supporting documentation. For example, Barbara's consolidation work sheet that was on there, that probably did not get distributed through the Tele. But I would like to respond to what you said, Kevin, by saying this: We said it in writing in the report and I'll repeat it as often as I possibly can: Open door meetings, town hall meetings, in the bays, workshops, because people do need to know. And I'm grateful for everybody who was concerned enough to come out here tonight. But in order really to make an informed choice and like you said, to have an informed citizenry, we need I think a larger forum and more exposure and more announcements to get more people out. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Get more people. MS. NEUHAUS: As documents are created, can we put them someplace where people can access them globally? MR. CROWDER: Well, the work of this committee is done, but we -- you know, the fire board may indeed want to do some things like that. A lot of that I think will hinge on the decisions that are made. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, we may explore that, depending upon what the decision is. Alan? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The consolidation document that you're talking about that Ms. Shea did, was that the one that incorporated Goodland in the event that the contract with Marco fell through? MR. CROWDER: Yeah, I think so. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And that was assigned so that went away, that didn't happen. MR. CROWDER: Well, that didn't happen, but that contract with Marco is just a one -year contract -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, I want to make a point though. Page 34 x b � ...e. f ( 'r 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Not the entire -- MR. CROWDER: There was a second pack which was another five pages which was supporting documentation. For example, Barbara's consolidation work sheet that was on there, that probably did not get distributed through the Tele. But I would like to respond to what you said, Kevin, by saying this: We said it in writing in the report and I'll repeat it as often as I possibly can: Open door meetings, town hall meetings, in the bays, workshops, because people do need to know. And I'm grateful for everybody who was concerned enough to come out here tonight. But in order really to make an informed choice and like you said, to have an informed citizenry, we need I think a larger forum and more exposure and more announcements to get more people out. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Get more people. MS. NEUHAUS: As documents are created, can we put them someplace where people can access them globally? MR. CROWDER: Well, the work of this committee is done, but we -- you know, the fire board may indeed want to do some things like that. A lot of that I think will hinge on the decisions that are made. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, we may explore that, depending upon what the decision is. Alan? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The consolidation document that you're talking about that Ms. Shea did, was that the one that incorporated Goodland in the event that the contract with Marco fell through? MR. CROWDER: Yeah, I think so. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And that was assigned so that went away, that didn't happen. MR. CROWDER: Well, that didn't happen, but that contract with Marco is just a one -year contract -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, I want to make a point though. Page 34 r .y A13 161 �. February 16, 2012 MR. CROWDER: The contract that we already know -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The point being is that document was based on Goodland and the Marco Island /Goodland contract failing and how -- what could be done to incorporate them. MR. CROWDER: But there was more than one scenario. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: There was several scenarios to that, actually. MR. CROWDER: It was a consolidation worksheet -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Based on -- MR. CROWDER: -- is exactly what it was. Consolidation of four districts. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: -- Goodland /Marco Island contract failing. And you want facts, let me state facts. That's what that document was based on. Because Emilio Rodriguez and myself both worked on that at the same time. MR. CROWDER: Well, let me tell you another fact. We are concerned about the fact that the contract with Marco is only one year long. So the fact that it got signed does not put it -- you know, put an end to anything with respect to Barbara's document. It can all come up again in a year. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: True. Point of fact is all. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. Kevin? MR. WALSH: Yeah, the other question that occurred to me was in looking at the range of alternatives, and I think you outlined three. One was to do nothing, the second one was to seek a shotgun marriage with East Naples, and the third one protectorate under Marco. Did you look at I guess what I would consider a fourth option, I'll call it the Goodland model where they in effect turned over the responsibility for fire service to the City of Marco Island? MR. CROWDER: We did not look at that option. LIEUTENANT LARA: Lieutenant Jorge Lara, L- A -R -A. Page 35 #._ 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 I've sat on a couple of these meetings and I've been very quiet and it's been purposefully done. Jeri; you know, I think that to see this many people out here shows buy -in, shows that we have an investment in this community, they have a investment in us. And if my voice breaks a little bit, it's because I feel like a real small fish in a really big pond right now. And I've got my chief next to me and my peers. But I hope I speak clearly and that I get my message across. When you folks -- change is coming, you're right. And one of my greatest professors told me, change with change or become extent. And the change is going to come. But remember, change gives and it takes, you know. We got the light bulb, we lost the candlelight dinner. So if in your options when you choose or you suggest that we go with another department or whatever, remember that there's gentlemen here with families. And it's not just the families, it's the investment we have in what we do. You know, we love what we do. I for one have been in social services since 17 years old. Troublemaker before that, then got into social services. Go figure. And even the people that I work with, some of them who make mistakes, because we're not perfect. I can guarantee you those people that you guys are thinking about, if they respond to any of your homes, to any incident in this county, they will give 110 percent, no matter what bad decisions they make sometimes. Our firefighters are a breed of their own. And this is one of the greatest peeves that I have with the county, that this is not IBM, this is not a corporate office. We do what we do because we're passionate about it. And we're not meant for an office environment. I think one of the things that's coming right away that is concerning all of us -- and if I'm speaking out of line, tell me, guys -- is they're going to hire a new chief. It closes tomorrow. And if it counts Page 36 i A13 1612 February 16, 2012 for anything, I can tell you I've worked for this gentleman right here, Alan McLaughlin. I can direct him as Chief right now, he's Alan McLaughlin, our interim chief. And I worked in Ochopee with him. And there were a lot of problems in Ochopee. And one thing I can tell you about this gentleman, he's objective, he's fair and he's firm. And he can keep this boat in line while whatever change comes. And I know everybody's got their own opinion, and I respect it, but people, I've worked with him. I know we've suffered a loss, we're all hurting, but we need to see clearly and we need to see what's coming right away. We've got a $280,000 deficit we're facing, correct? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Possibly. LIEUTENANT LARA: Possibly. Hiring another chief is only going to put us deeper in a hole when we can split a chief who's more than capable. If you look at other departments, there's chiefs managing 100, 120 people. This man can do it with his hands behind his back, and he can do what needs to be done. And he is what we need right now. So that's something that if you're advocating, if you're out there putting -- you know, if you're going to write to Dan Summers, you need to knock on his door and say let's freeze the hiring of a chief. It's going to put us deeper in the hole. It could possibly cost one of us our job. It could get us from what we love to do when we have somebody's who's highly qualified right here, you know. And I'm not looking for a promotion or anything, trust me. And Alan knows me. It's that -- it's what's right, you know. I don't pride myself in doing what's popular, because I'm not the most popular guy in the world. I do what's right. And sometimes I'm very unpopular for that. But right now some of you made disagree with me. What's right is to freeze this whole chief thing, keep a chief that's more than competent right now, save money for the department, do whatever they Page 37 -13 16 1A A ruary 16, 2012 want to do with the brush truck. And we're still bringing the brushfire service, because we love doing that. I mean, it's a service to the community, you know. But, you know, advocate for that. While you do your other research, you know, no one's telling you to stop. You're more than welcome. This is your department. You folks pay the taxes, you guys keep the doors open. We just operate. MS. NEUHAUS: George, you're very eloquent. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay -- MR. CROWDER: Without trying to be rude, can you cut to the chase so we can move on? LIEUTENANT LARA: The chase is, is, you know, you guys are looking at these huge options of merging or not merging, when the immediacy right now is that they're going to put another chief in here. MR. CROWDER: But let me see -- LIEUTENANT LARA: At 85, $90,000 a year -- MR. CROWDER: -- if I can understand this. As residents -- LIEUTENANT LARA: Plus $50,000 advance. MR. CROWDER: As residents and taxpayers, we're concerned about something that, while I think your point is valid, is not on the level right now of whether to hire a chief or suspend hiring a chief. We came out at the beginning of this process asking for a freeze at a meeting a couple months ago. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes, we did. MR. CROWDER: But what I'm saying is that has nothing to -- I would say two things to the firefighters: One, with respect to the work of this committee on the agenda that's right now in front of the board, the agenda item that's in front of the board, we're not really focused on whether specifically a chief gets hired right now or doesn't get hired right now. We know Alan very well. I mean, Alan and I rode motorcycles, Harleys, together. He's been in my home many times. i `r 16 1 A13 February 16, 2012 The other thing I would say is we're not asking for anything that would change anybody's job here, except maybe the name that's on your check. LIEUTENANT LARA: Remember, change gives and it takes. MR. CRO"ER: I understand. But you've got to understand too, we have very large concerns here with respect to the future of our fire department. And that's what our primary focus is. And that is what I believe should take precedent over those other issues. LIEUTENANT LARA: And the survivability of some of our guys. It's going to put us in a deficit, sir. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: George, I appreciate your support and I absolutely appreciate everything you've said. And I know a lot of people in this community; I spent seven years here with most of these people and it's a great community. And my comments to Jeri and Matt were that I don't want to be here, but the reality is probably within a year I'm going to add a third to my department. And I've got two major building projects going on. Yes, it is a handful. And that's not to negate -- I think the world of this and I helped build a lot of what's here. But I think what the point is, the committee's looking at a more than just the -- they're looking at leadership beyond immediate leadership. They're looking at something that's beyond that who governs a leader, and who makes those statements, and whether it's the BCC or it's a city council, that's what the people would have to deal with. If they're not dealing with the BCC, they're going to have to deal with Marco City Council or an advisory -- excuse me, a hired fire board of an independent district. And that's the reality of what they're looking at and that's what their concerns is for the future. I don't think, and I've never felt from anyone that it was the immediate leadership of what was here, even though we've been working through a lot of things. And Ms. Neuhaus has called me on Page 39 161 2 A13 February 16, 2012 several occasions. We've tried to figure out exactly what's going on. And she makes valid points to some of the community residents that, you know, it's hard to be in two places. I mean, you've got a 19 square mile district here that covers basically two miles of inhabitable land. I've got 1,180 square miles. I'm touching four counties aside from that. That's a lot of area to cover. Thank goodness I don't have to be in it all at once. But the reality is just to get back and forth from office to office is a 45 -mile drive. And that's the realty of it. So that's a good -- I mean, I spend two hours in a car every day driving from here to there, here to there. And that does make it difficult. And unless -- there are other options in there, but they're not open for discussion right now. There are other levels of supervision and things that can take place, but that's not what this committee is looking for. They're looking for something at the big end, and they're not looking for something at the immediate end, and that's totally valid, long -term. So I appreciate that, and I know what you're saying, but I also know what they've looking for and asking and I just wanted to clear that up. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, Alan. MS. NEUHAUS: We appreciate your comments, Jorge. MR. CROWDER: We have no problem with that. Jorge, I appreciate you. I didn't mean to cut you off. We've got no problem with -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I understand completely what you're saying, and I agree with you to a certain degree. Yes, and what you're looking at is correct. But what we're looking at here, the hiring of a chief right now is a short-term problem that we have to deal with as to whether we do it now or a little later down the road. That's something that we're concerned with. And we worry about, you know, how thin Alan is spread, and different ways, and we're looking and Page 40 A13 211 1612 February 16, 2012 considering different options that are available there. But what we're looking at is the overall management and health of the fire department itself and where we will be not just this year but the next year and the year after and five years from now. And when I say the department, I don't just mean the building and the equipment sitting out here, I'm talking about all the people that work here. We're looking at the options of where your jobs and your futures will be protected as much as anything else because you are the fire department here. LIEUTENANT LARA: And that needs to be said. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And let me, you know, just clarify that, that that's exactly what we're looking for when we talk about change or consolidation. And we'll get into it probably in a little more detail. But one of the options, this place would be disbanded. And where the personnel and equipment would go would be to the four winds, okay. That's not an option that I find to be real acceptable in any way, shape or form. We're trying to find when we say a way to not change or to stay the same, what we're talking about is how do we keep the identity of the Isles of Capri Fire Department, its personnel, its equipment and its function as close to the same as we can do it. And the options range from going completely to the four winds to keeping it basically the same only with just maybe a different figurehead that's above us. And so these are the options that we're looking at. But our goal is to keep the identity, keep this -- the term I use is a neighborhood firehall. That's what we want to see. We like the fact that we know the people that work here. LIEUTENANT LARA: Keep the integrity of the department. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We want to keep the integrity of the department. And when we talk about preserving, we're talking about your job, Page 41 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 your job, every one of you. That's what we're trying to do is to make sure that we can maintain this. So please, through these discussions understand that's what we're trying to do. And if that's not what we were trying to do, I for one wouldn't be sitting here. MS. NEUHAUS: We can't do it without you. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's what we're trying to do and we're trying to find the best way to do it and we're trying to find the most cost effective way to do it. So those are the discussions that we're in. And it's just what direction we want to take. We do know that where we're at right now, we have been told quite pointedly that in the next couple of years it will not remain the same. It will change. And not necessarily with a specific plan, but it's headed that direction. MR. KISH: Hi, Russ Kish. Who's telling you that? That's what -- I'm trying to get some information here. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Discussions with the county manager, discussions with Dan Summers, the head of Emergency Services. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Fire service steering committee. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Fire service steering committee. I was at the meeting last month with them. And just between all of the fire departments within the county. Things are changing. What direction, we don't know for sure. MR. KISH: And that consolidation report that you're talking about, that's available to other residents? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: It's a public document. It certainly is. MR. KISH: Where do I get it? MR. CROWDER: I don't know if I have a copy of it with me, but Page 42 161 Fe?ruary"r'R, 12 MR. KISH: See, I'm running for commissioner, so that's -- and I want to do what's best for the area. And I got a lot more than I bargained for when I came in. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's what you usually get when you come to Capri. MR. CROWDER: I have it down the street at my house. MR. KISH: Which way? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We can get you a copy of this after the meeting. MS. NEUHAUS: Whatever the residents decide, she'll support it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: But that was just the committee's report that they put together. But we can get you a copy of that if you wish, that's no problem. Yes, Betty? MS. MOENKHOUS: Betty Moenkhous. M- O- E- N- K- H- O -U -S. I've got just a couple of questions -- things that were just mentioned that I picked up. Jeri, you said, if I understood you correctly, that if we were to join with Marco that Mike Murphy would be our chief? MS. NEUHAUS: It's not that we would be joining with Marco. They would be administering our MSTU. Mike Murphy would be the chief. MS. MOENKHOUS: And he would be our chief. Well, isn't that kind of chief splitting just like we were talking about? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No. MS. NEUHAUS: No, he would not -- MS. MOENKHOUS: I don't know, that's why I'm asking. MR. CROWDER: Mike Murphy would fill a role that's more akin to Dan Summers' role with respect to our department. He wouldn't be the chief of our department, he'd be the -- whoever was in Page 43 i #.1 161 2 A13 #� .. .., . February 16, 2012 charge of this department, he'd be their operational superior in the same way that Dan is Alan's operational superior. MS. MOENKHOUS: Okay, that makes more sense. So there would be somebody else coming, more or less. MR. CROWDER: Well, of course those are the kinds of decisions that would talked about during the fact - finding. MS. MOENKHOUS: Sure, right. MS. NEUHAUS: There'd be somebody in charge. MS. MOENKHOUS: And then the other thing I wondered about is if the county's so darned good at changing the rules as we go along or making them up as we go along, what's to prevent them from -- well, first of all, I don't understand that being with the City of Marco exempts us from any current absorption (sic), and what would prevent change taking the City of Marco in? Do you understand, John? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We're going to -- those are the things that we're going to discuss here, Betty, that we haven't gotten to. MS. MOENKHOUS: Oh, thank you. I'll sit back down and hush. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you for your comments, though. If we can get back to the document that was handed out. Three alternatives were presented to us. And the recommendation was to investigate moving the MSTU from under the county's management to the City of Marco Island's management. The other option is to just stay with the county as -is and let things flow the way they are going. And the third option was to try to move the MSTU under East Naples. Although that wasn't considered a viable option, and so the recommendation to go to Marco. Going to Marco would raise some questions that we would have to investigate; one question that I have as to whether or not it's actually 16 12 A43 February 16, 2012 legal for the City of Marco to have an MSTU that's outside of its physical boundaries. Chief Murphy apparently believes it is. But I think we need to get a legal read on that. If that was not the case, that would end the discussions immediately. MS. NEUHAUS: I spoke with Chief Murphy today, and they are having an attorney look into that as well. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MS. NEUHAUS: They said it might simply be a matter of having an MSTU that still the funds are collected by the county and then distributed to Marco Island, but that he believed preliminarily that is possible. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's correct. I -- MR. WALSH: Which is the way Goodland is done now. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MS. NEUHAUS: Because Goodland's outside of their city limits. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. And so, you know, these are things that would just have to be explored. There would be a question of ownership of equipment. Comment I made earlier tonight, the name on the title of the fire truck is Collier County. And to, you know, where that would have to be titled, that would be an issue that would come in. The role of the advisory board and the authority that they would have, the hiring and firing, at what level. There would be a lot of discussion that would have to take place before we could actually move forward with anything like that. And I think the comment that was made earlier that we need more public involvement on the Isles of Capri, I'm absolutely adamant that we have to have that. But I think before we present a great deal to them, we need to have the answers to a lot of those questions, because right now my answer to most of them is I have no idea. I don't know if we can do this or not. Page 45 Wy _ A13 1612 February 16, 2012 I think the biggest question that lies before the board tonight or that we need to look at is whether or not we want to explore our options to move the MSTU someplace. And if we do, is the recommended option from the committee's report where we want to go? And from the board members in particular I'd like some comments of what your thoughts are. Those are just my thoughts at this point. MR. GAULT: Well, in reviewing it, I think that the committee did a great job and I'd like to pursue their recommendation. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. I agree. Yeah, Kevin, I know you just got your hands on the full document now, but I know you read the synopsis of it and I think you understand part of the problems. We can't -- we could move the MSTU to East Naples, but if we do so, it still belongs to Collier County and they could pull it at any time they want. MR. WALSH: No, I think I've gotten far enough into it to satisfy myself that number one, I think the committee did a superb job in the fact - finding that they did that led to their recommendation, so I thank all of them for their efforts. But I think we're at the point now where, you know, it's kind of the pick and shovel work that has to be done with, as Jim calls it, the 101 questions that have to be answered. So in terms of where we go from here, I'm supportive of the 101 questions that have to be answered, and then we have to talk about who's going to do it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Jim? MR. HUGHES: I've been studying this since the 3rd. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. HUGHES: And it's been a -- I've put a lot of things in writing, so I'm basically going to read what my thoughts are. It's been a tough time deciding what would be best for the citizens 10-M.' A r 9 1612 A13 16, 2012 of Capri and the employees of the Capri Fire Department. The citizens that I've listened to, and I've daily talked to many and listened to many, nearly all of them stated that whatever happens, they don't want to lose the location of the fire department because they depend on the quick response. And as they get older, the more they depend on that quick response. And they do not want to lose this. That's been very firmly said. The committee has spent hours interviewing county people and reading county documents. And I applaud them also. They studied all of the information and they came to the conclusion that they feel sometime in the future Isles of Capri Fire Rescue will be consolidate with other county fire departments. They also came to the conclusion that if this happens, our department could lose some of its equipment and personnel to other locations. Three choices were created from their investigation: Have East Naples be our administrator and after a year we would be consolidated into East Naples. That years ago was tried and the citizens of Capri were very much against that. Second option: Stay with the county. The county has a lot of resources that will no longer be available to us; maintenance of the building, the grounds and vehicles, fleet buying power, the human resources department, payroll handling, a FEMA coordinator, attorneys, insurance for property /casualty of vehicles, the IT department, which is communication and computers, and a commissioner that listens to us and has provided a lot of support for us. Third option: Have Marco Island Fire Department as our administrator. Several citizens mentioned that they do not trust Marco to administrate our fire department. Our county MSTU would be dissolved and a new MSTU would be created by the City of Marco Island. The fire department personnel are concerned about their Page 47 g 1612 .;A 13 February 16, 2012 retirement fund and health insurance, since they will no longer be county employees. And I heard one statement, unofficially, but I could accept that -- I feel it's pretty close to the truth because of the person that said it -- that firefighters on Marco Island, their benefits are less than the benefits of the firefighters at the county, their retirement and health benefits. The committee feels that these and other resources that the county now provides can be replaced in the negotiations with Marco Island to be our administrator. They feel that some costs might go up, while other costs might go down. So in conclusion, there are so many unknowns and probabilities. The committee, which I would like to thank again, has provided information from their extensive investigation which indicates that if we stay with the county, our fire rescue department's response time could be in jeopardy. My conclusion is we have proven that -- we have proven we have the people power available on this island to fight any calls that comes along. And if we stay with the county, we'll probably have many fights ahead of us. In the future, if there is a fight, I feel we have a better chance to win a fight in the county with a commissioner on our side than to fight against the Marco Island City Council. And the City Council has proven to me in the past that they don't listen to their citizens, like the sewer problem. I read a statement in the paper where one councilman said something to this effect of you hired me to be a councilman, I'll decide what's best for you. So my conclusion is to stay with the county. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. Those are -- MR. WALSH: I just have one question. Because you said that we would have to dissolve the MSTU and Marco would create a new one. I don't know whether that's -- MR. CROWDER: Inaccurate. 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 MR. HUGHES: Okay. I was told that by Jeri Neuhaus. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That is one of the -- MS. NEUHAUS: Not that they would dissolve it, that they would -- what we had talked about originally was that they had suggested that they would end our MSTU with Collier County and we would create an MSTU under Marco Island. It would be at the same time. It would be a simultaneous thing. MR. CROWDER: That was also Betty's question. I mean, the answer to that is also the answer to Betty's question, which is an MSTU is created by the governing board. Our MSTU was created by the Board of County Commissioners. It can be dissolved, merged or otherwise changed only by the Board of County Commissioners. And that is by Florida statute. An MSTU is governed by the body that creates it and only that body that created it can dissolve it. So you do have a situation where an MSTU would have to be created under Marco City Council as the governing body. So it's effectively a transfer of the MSTU. But in terms of the mechanics, it does mean ending one and starting the other. And to your point, Betty, how does having an MSTU under Marco insulate us from the threat of being consolidated under the county? Because by starting an MSTU under the Marco Island City Council, now the Board of County Commissioners does not have that absolute authority to do with our MSTU what they will. While we don't think that they would do this, the Board of County Commissioners can dissolve our MSTU tomorrow. They can also raise our millage rate up to 10 mills tomorrow. And if anybody thinks that those kinds of things require a referendum vote, they don't. Not any one of them. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not in your charter. MS. MOENKHOUS: May I? 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes, Betty. MS. MOENKHOUS: Does that mean that we would be dealing within instead of with the county, instead we would be dealing with Marco City Council? MR. CROWDER: That is functionally the change that you would see. And that's mostly with respect to our fire board, because it's our fire board that deals with Marco City Council and -- I mean with the governing board and it would be the Marco City Council instead of the Board of County Commissioners. If I could just respond to something that Jim said? Just to remind you, there are a lot of people in this room who were called a mob at a Board of County Commissioners meeting and had the County Attorney invite us to sue him. So that's our experience with respect to our voice at the Board of County Commissioners meetings, okay? While they're -- you could certainly argue that Marco City Council is an unknown in this regard, but there's nothing in doubt about the way we're viewed by the Board of County Commissioners. I will also add this: Commissioner Fiala supports this fact - finding effort. And through conversations with Chief Murphy, Tom Cannon at East Naples and even Leo Ochs has already given us a lot of positive feedback with respect to the idea of even moving the MSTU to Marco Island. Because, you know, it's still in Donna's district. Even though it would not be under the Board of County Commissioners, everything about what we're doing remains in Donna's district. She's fully aware of what we've been doing. I've met with her twice. She has a copy of the report. And she has expressed nothing but support for our effort. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, thank you, Matt. MS. NEUHAUS: I have one question -- one statement to what Jim said. Jim, I think your concerns about the fire personnel are exceptionally valid. I think concerns about their retirement, their pay Page 50 .... _...... . 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 -- Acey made the same point in his statement, that's -- we're not saying let's do this, we're saying let's do the fact - finding. We're asking the fire advisory board to support the decision to let the Collier County Commission know that we want them to hold off on everything will we do this. Help us talk to budget people, do all that so that we can get the answers to that. Because I've heard things contrary to what you've heard. I've heard that there's good benefits, I've heard things -- but we need to find the truth so that people do know it. And we don't have that information. So what we're asking for is the okay for them to get those answers. As Kevin called them, the 101 questions. And that's what we're looking for support for. We're not looking for support to say let's go to Marco, we're asking for the investigation to get those 101 answers so that then an informed decision can be made. MR. CROWDER: Can I make this observation? We're only here and discussing openly the future of our fire department because of the fact that we have an MSTU and we have our own fire board and our own fire board has a voice with the Board of County Commissioners. In a consolidation scenario, you guys are gone. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's correct. MR. CROWDER: You're gone, we're all gone. There's not any of these kind of meetings where we all get to talk about what we think is best for the fire department. So that whole dynamic about having our own MSTU disappears. We become just another county department. So the only scenario whereby we do get to keep a fire advisory board that can operate in the same way that you guys have is by moving our MSTU somewhere. And of course by virtue of the report you have in front of you we found out the most logical choice is Marco Island. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you, Matt. Page 51 A �13 1612 February 16, 2012 MR. ROGERS: Just to clarify something, I'm sort of feeling like the impression is getting out there with all of these questions that we didn't ask any of them. I want you guys to know that we did. We asked about insurance, we asked about retirement, we asked about salaries, we asked about the chief. We satisfied ourselves to make a recommendation and got their commitment to go forward. We didn't think we should come forward and say they're going to pay you "X" and you "Y ", because we don't have the authority to negotiate. But we satisfied ourselves at the board by addressing -- there hasn't been one point -- and if I'm wrong somebody point it out. There hasn't been one question raised here that we didn't discuss informally with the Chief or with our board and get subsequent answers to. It was the answers we received, as well as our ultimate goal of the least amount of change possible that led us to make the recommendation. So we're not sending you blindly over to Marco should you decide to do this. I mean, they're prepared to open their books, explain stuff. In fact, we discussed the union versus non -union issue. We went into great detail on how retirement issues would work, on what personnel -- what influence you would have over personnel. So we -- I just got a feeling here a minute ago that we didn't ask any questions. We were with them for hours. And we think when you go there the groundwork is laid for you to get questions that you guys can actually have the power to negotiate. MR. KISH: I just have a question. What's the power profile that's going to be different if you're in Marco or if you're with the county? How's it any different? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: There are a lot of ways where things would be different. But -- MR. KISH: I mean, you're still the board, right, you're still the advisory board? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We're still the advisory board. Page 52 16 12 A1, 1, February 16, 2012 MR. CROWDER: That's it. But this advisory board is appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. So it's the board's board. And it would be the new -- a new fire advisory board would be appointed for Marco City Council. else. MR. KISH: So you guys might be done, it might be somebody CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That doesn't threaten us. MR. KISH: Our schedule is still the same. MS. NEUHAUS : There's one thing that somebody -- when we voted to create an MSTU, one of the things that we get to do that we didn't do in 1977 -- we learned a lot from what happened in '77 -- is we get to negotiate the creation of the MSTU. And during that negotiation we can ask for and expect and it's going to be give and take, like Jorge knows, everything is give and take, we can ask for certain expectations of a -- we can demand that our board have a voice this time, that our board actually have some power. We can actually negotiate these things in the MSTU, and in fact were offered that option by Chief Murphy. He said when you get ready, your attorneys -- you negotiate what you feel you need and then we'll talk, we'll make it -- we'll make things work. We won't get everything we want but we'll get a crap load more than we got with Collier County. Where have you been? MR. KISH: I'm just getting in the mix. I was at East Naples. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Anything else from the board? MR. WALSH: Yeah, it occurs to me that the people in this room are informed and concerned citizens -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. WALSH: -- but we never see any representation from the non -Capri portion of the Capri Fire District. Is there any way that as we go forward we could somehow -- you know, we talked before about getting somebody on the fire board that Page 53 16 12 kt3 February 16, would represent the non -Capri portion of the fire district. MS. NEUHAUS: I'm Main Sail. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I will make this comment: Historically, the six years I've been involved, we at one time had a member from Main Sail in the last six years. Very good, and he was on the board for a long time. But even when he was over at Main Sail we had a very hard time getting participation from them. The front portion of Fiddler's Creek that we have, that's pulling teeth. And we have some problems there with it's a closed community with no solicitation and they take even us coming over there trying to talk to people, we have to go through the homeowners associations. It's very difficult. But yes, as we start with an informational campaign, we will have to overcome those hurdles to get the information out to them. I have made contact with the homeowners associations over in Fiddler's Creek to get an inroad there that at least through them we can contact their people. Main Sail is a little easier in that we can canvass that area. MR. WALSH: Is there a Main Sail association? MS. NEUHAUS: You can't really canvass Hammock Bay. You can canvass -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No, not Hammock Bay, but -- MS. NEUHAUS: -- Tropic Schooner or some of Tropic Schooner and -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And I talked to the towers over there, Serrano and them, and the homeowners association there is willing to work with us. So yes. And as we move forward, before we make any actual decision to move someplace or not move someplace, we are definitely going to have to have a hard core campaign to get everyone involved with it. But I think the stage that we're at right now is to answer all of the Page 54 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 questions that you had, Jim, that you brought up. And about 25 or 30 more that I have. And I'm sure that the rest of us -- to answer those questions to see if that's a direction that we want to move. MS. NEUHAUS: But what we're asking you tonight now is just -- I think what we're asking is for you all to -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Or if we want to move at all. MS. NEUHAUS: -- decide -- yeah, is just decide whether or not you -all want to explore it. Isn't that where we're at? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's what I'm trying to say is, at this point we're just discussing whether we're going to explore further, based on the information that we have. So that's what we're trying to digest. MR. FITZGERALD: Joel Fitzgerald. Once this -- if it does make for a decision to change the MTSU (sic), who decides or is there a vote by the communities involved, all the people involved, or how is it decided? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's one of the things that we've been looking into. To dissolve the MSTU does not require a referendum. And actually to create a new one does not require a referendum. So when you're talking the legal side of that, my understanding of it at this point is that is not required. I will tell you, as the chairman of the Fire Advisory Board I would not be comfortable going to the Board of Collier County Commissioners if I didn't feel that I had a large majority of support from the community. Whether we do that through an actual referendum or a straw vote or something that we would have to pay for to have put on the ballot, or if we get good response at community meetings, you know, like was brought up earlier, if I get a petition there and I've got 800 signatures on it, I can feel fairly safe that I have a majority of the community who's in favor of it, and then I'm willing to do something. Page 55 �.. 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 If I put a petition out and I get 150 signatures in support, I'm not going to go forward with that and say that this is what the community wants. So that's just me speaking, that's my take on it before we would do anything like that. But is it required by law to have a referendum? The answer to that, as far as I know, is no, it's not. Yes? MR. SMITH: Carter Smith. Just a clarification. Fiddler's Creek is no longer owned by the original developer; is that a correct statement? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's correct. MR. SMITH: Because I see their name is removed now. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's correct. MR. SMITH: And so who's the entity we're dealing with? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We're not dealing -- I guess just Fiddler's Creek -- MS. GREEN: It's Gulf Bay Corporation. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, it's Gulf Bay Corporation who is the master homeowners association of the entire Fiddler's Creek, but really who we're dealing with is Mallard's Landing and Pepper— MS. NEUHAUS: Individual associations. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: -- Tree and the little communities, the subcommunities within Fiddler's Creek who are part of our district. MR. SMITH: Okay, we're -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And that's why it makes it a little more difficult for us to contact them, because when you contact the master homeowners association they pretty much said, well, that's just a small portion of our stuff, we can't put that out to all our people. So we have to contact the individual homeowners associations for those 161 2 A13 February 16, 2012 communities that are within our district. MR. SMITH: Well there is an entity in which we're collecting taxes from. What is it, a quarter mile in or half mile, whatever it is? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We have that. Yeah, we have that. We know exactly by address who's in our district and who isn't. There may be some discussion as to whether the house on this side of the street or that side, but we can go to the tax rolls and find out who's paying taxes to us. MR. SMITH: Years ago we were supposed to have put a substation over in Fiddler's Creek. It went back long before you, I guess. And it never seemed to happen. I used to ask the older chief, is this ever going to happen? Well, we're working on it. Where does that stand today? MS. NEUHAUS: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: As of today, it doesn't stand at all. We're not going to -- we've looked at putting a substation in Fiddler's, we've looked at putting a substation in Hammock Bay, we've looked at putting one down by the airport. We're constantly exploring the options of what can be done to provide better service. But as of right now there are no plans, no studies, nothing on the books for another substation. MR. SMITH: If we had this, would we have more clout up at the Collier County? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No. MS. NEUHAUS: No, we'd just spend more money. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No, it would -- because we're dealing with the same tax revenues, it would increase our taxes to support a second station. And as far as the county's concerned, we're still the Isles of Capri Fire Department. That doesn't change our clout one way or the other, it just gives them more assets to play with. Page 57 E 16 1 A13 e February 16, 2012 MR. SMITH: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's all that would do. John Rogers? MR. ROGERS: John Rogers. If I could just clear up one more statement, just to show you how Collier County feels about the Fire Advisory Board. You just stated there are absolutely no plans. On February the 3rd we met with Mr. Dan Summers in his office who said he has absolute plans and has greased the skids for a substation for Isles of Capri at the new airport. MS. NEUHAU S : What? MR. ROGERS: But he hasn't bothered to tell you guys about it. I just want to point out again, you're getting kicked in the teeth. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. I can only tell you what I know. MR. ROGERS: I know. Just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And so these are the issues that we're looking at. So the question before the board tonight, I think we get back to the issue is do we want to proceed and explore any of these options or do we want to just hold the status quo? MR. GAULT: Do you need a motion? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, something. we'd need a motion to do MR. CROWDER: Mr. Chairman, can I do one thing real quick, just to summarize? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. CROWDER: At the end of the report we had included some recommended steps for the board for moving forward, just based on our understanding of mechanically what would be needed to sort of get the ball rolling. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. 16 I' ?eA 3b,2012 MR. CROWDER: And if you guys can review it, one of them was to -- our recommendation would be to form a committee, a second committee, not the one that just got finished with its work but a committee chaired by a member of the Fire Advisory Board to -- if you should decide. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: If we decide to move forward, then we would have to do that. MR. CROWDER: And then second, again, if you should decide to move forward to specifically, as a part of your decision tonight, to resolve to go to the Board of County Commissioners with specifically informing them not only of your intent to go forward with an investigation, but asking them for approval and the resources that would be needed -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That is correct, we would -- MR. CROWDER: -- to access -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: -- have to do that. MR. CROWDER: -- the county personnel and budget, people and things like that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We would have to. I have sent them a letter saying that we were considering the report and to please support us in looking at the report. But yes, if we were to go farther. But first we have to make the decision as to if we are going to go forward and if we are going to go forward, what is it we're going to pursue. And that's what I'm looking for at this time. MR. GAULT: I make a motion that we pursue fact - finding to merge with Marco Island. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: With Marco Island? MR. GAULT: But it's a fact - finding, that's what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. I would take that as a motion, that it's a fact - finding committee or a fact - finding thing to Page 59 .4 .5 1612 1 February 16, 20 2 explore further options with them for the feasibility. MR. HUGHES: So the bridges won't be burned with the county. MR. GAULT: I think we're not in great shape with the county now. I mean, Jim, what are we burning here? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: At this point the discussions that have taken place with the county have all been please, go forward and look into it. MR. WALSH: I have a hunch that we're enough of a toothache to the county, they'd be delighted to see us resolve this in that direction. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Or they may know that -- and I'll throw this, they may know that there's going to be a stumbling block that will totally stop us from doing this, but they're going to let us expend the time and energy to go find it ourselves. I mean, you know, it could be taken either way. But so far, and our commissioner in particular has said that she fully supports any type of action along this line. MR. GAULT: I think there has to be a lot of questions have to be answered. You know, Kevin's right, there's 101 questions and Matt and John, it's just a fact - finding. We have to do a whole cost benefit analyst, we have to look at the legal aspect, can we even do it, as Joe said, can Marco do it. I mean, there's a -- we're just going out and looking at information. MR. WALSH: Yeah, I think in addition, asking the Board of County Commissioners for resources, I think it would be appropriate to ask Marco for some staff resources to help with -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: As well. MR. WALSH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: They have already offered that, but yes, we would request that. MR. CROWDER: They have offered it again and again. They would have come to the meeting tonight except that we thought maybe ' .1 16 1,�12 ruary 16, 20 we had some more steps to do just ourselves as a group before we included them. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, before I invited them to come or do anything, I figured we better decide whether we want them to come. MS. NEUHAUS: They have already talked to I believe it's Councilman Nagle and they've gotten some preliminary approval to help us research it, help with budget and cost analysis and things like that. Because they have to know that they can do it too. They still have questions that they have to determine. But they're willing to do the work with us to find out if this is the way to go. And Donna Fiala supports it 100 percent. MR. CROWDER: If I could just add, I would just reiterate exactly what Jeri just said. With respect to the fact - finding, Donna supports the idea 100 percent. So you have the wind at your back with respect to getting approval and the promise of more resources from the Board of County Commissioners. Remember, this is all in Donna's district. You know, it's not -- the Board of County Commissioners, I'm sure you guys realize, is they don't really operate as one mind. It's five individual minds. And I think you'll see a lot of deference to Donna's judgment on this issue because of the fact that it's all happening within her district. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Your name? MR. HALL: Eddie Hall. Most of you probably remember that in 2007,1 think it was, Jeri, that Commissioner Coyle, I believe it was, said that the county wanted to get out of the fire business. So that's something to keep in mind too. MR. CROWDER: I think he said it again on the record about two weeks ago or three weeks ago. He said again, we don't -- MS. NEUHAUS: Dan Summers is the only one that wants to stay -- Page 61 €p 2 A13 161 February 16, 2012 MR. SMITH: How about 1998 or 1990 (sic). They been trying to get out of it for years. MS. NEUHAUS: So what are you doing? MR. GAULT: I made a recommendation that we go to fact - finding. MR. WALSH: As recommended, that we proceed with fact - finding. I'm certainly supportive of that. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: So you're seconding the motion? MR. WALSH: I'm seconding the motion. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We have a motion to continue with a fact - finding mission for the administrative management of the MSTU with Marco Island. MR. WALSH: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Take a vote on it. All in favor? MR. GAULT: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: It's unanimous. Now that we have decided to move forward in looking at that -- MR. GAULT: How do we do it. MR. WALSH: Well, I would recommend that we designated Ted Decker as the representative. MR. GAULT: I second that. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Never be absent. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: All in favor of that? MR. GAULT: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Unanimous. i . 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 And I will -- I have a question that I will have to get clarified. But if we set up a committee to do this, can two board members be on the committee? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, they cannot. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, I don't know how that works. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: In violation of Sunshine. MR. CROWDER: Unless all of them are on the committee. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Unless all of you are on the committee. But the minutes you do that, you fall under the Sunshine and everything that applies on this meeting -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Applies to that. I know, whenever we get together -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I did -- because someone asked me and I got a clarification from the County Attorney, yes, one member of the board can be on that committee. But the minute you do two, you step over the -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's what I wanted to clarify. I thought that was the case, but I just wanted to clarify to make sure that that was the case. MR. CROWDER: May I say something on the floor? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. CROWDER: On behalf of the committee, you know, we've worn Ted out already. I don't know how serious you guys were about that. But he's been through meeting after meeting, step by step of the way. So while we totally respect his judgment and think he's been great on our committee, I personally would recommend another fire board member to do it, simply just if nothing else to have a different perspective on the thing. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Different perspective on it. MS. NEUHAUS: I vote for Kevin. I vote for Mr. Finance. Page 63 0 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Kevin, would you be willing to head that up? MR. WALSH: Yeah, well, recognizing that I leave on or about the 1 st of May. MS. O'DEAN: We don't have a whole lot of time. MS. NEUHAUS: Right. The fact - finding should be complete well before then. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, I don't think there would be an issue. If you head up north at that point we would replace you with another person on the committee. I don't think that's an issue. As long as we only have one on the committee at a time I guess is the -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Or they just won't let you go. MS. NEUHAUS: I think we need to keep in mind that remember, time is of the essence here. We can't go into another budget season with Collier County. I agree with Jorge, it's something you -all are going to have to address individually about whether or not there's a chief here in the meantime. But I think we need to get the fact - finding started and have our recommendations on whether to go forward with it or not and have all the fact - finding done before that. I mean -- MR. GAULT: I'd like to say, if I'm able, 60 days before the next budget cycle. MS. NEUHAUS: Absolutely. MR. ROGERS: You can have more than one committee. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I agree that we do and we may find that we have to have more than one committee to look into different areas of it. I also -- I believe that it's appropriate, I will put together a list of what I consider to be issues. Then I can email that to you. I don't think that violates anything that we have. And I think that we all need to do that, to put in a list of questions that way. Page 64 16 1 A I.." e ruary 16, 2012 MR. GAULT: Do we forward the questions to you or to Kevin? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: To Kevin. MR. WALSH: Or to keep it I guess as broad as possible, can we direct everything to the chairman of this committee? Because I've agreed to serve on the committee, not to chair the committee. So whoever the committee chairperson is. John, have you been functioning in that role? MR. CROWDER: It's been me. And I have to tell you that specifically our committee thinks it's important that a member of the fire board chair this new committee. MS. NEUHAUS: At least the main one. MR. CROWDER: Because we really need -- we that connection MS. NEUHAUS: We need your voice. MR. CROWDER: -- and that legitimacy. We need this leadership -- at this stage now that we've kind of handed it off, we need the leadership to come from this fire board. We don't want to have to push the fire board along, no disrespect intended. But we feel like we really need the board to take a lead. John, did you have something? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, I hope we've been clear too. We were told directly by Marco, if your board -- and correct me if I misstate it -- if your board votes to pursue this, to pursue it, we are prepared to bring forward budget, legal, HR, whatever, and work toward these ends. So I -- I'm not trying to say our committee did the harder part, but they're ready to come in a room, to a beautiful room with a big square table and, you know, well, we have this concern, we have this concern. If they don't have the answer, go get the answer. I mean, I really think it's going to be faster because the people who can answer the questions are going to be present. It's not going to be like us just sort of grabbing straws in the dark. But I think it's going Page 65 4 1612 A13 February 16, 2012 to move pretty quickly. MR. WALSH: Are all of your committee members willing to continue to function in some capacity? MR. CROWDER: The ones -- MS. NEUHAUS: Some of us are. MR. CROWDER: -- I've spoken to have said yes. MS. NEUHAUS: I am. MR. CROWDER: I certainly am. MS. NEUHAUS: Acey, is that a yes? MR. EDGEMON: Yes. MR. ROGERS: And a new board is welcome. MS. NEUHAUS: Yes, please. MR. CROWDER: Acey, you thought you were going to get to go back home and retire, right? MS. NEUHAUS: That wouldn't happen. I don't know if Debbie -- that's a yes? MR. WALSH: Okay. Well, if that's the desire of the board, I guess I'm willing to accept the chairmanship. And that means the questions will be directed to me. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Thank you. Yeah, we'll direct them to you. And you may want to take a look at it, Kevin, and possibly break it into stages as you do that. And at that time we could change, you know, the players if we have to to continue on. But I think that that would work out very well if we would do that. So that's good. So the next thing is I guess I need to draft a letter to the commissioners stating what we have decided to do. And I will do that. And I'm not going to promise I'm going to have it done tomorrow, because I don't know that I'm going to get out of bed tomorrow. MS. NEUHAUS: Will that letter ask them to hold off on any planned or unplanned consolidation during this process? 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I will come up with something. At this point I'm not going to -- MS . NEUHAUS : Sinus, I know. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, my head is throbbing really bad right now. My sinuses have reached the end of their -- MR. CROWDER: Just in closing, Joe, I will be petitioning to get on the agenda at the next BCC meeting, and I'll keep you informed of that process, because of course a letter's not -- you're not going to get anything from the board just with a letter. We're going to have to go up there and ask -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Go up there and ask. MR. CROWDER: -- for not only again the blessing to do it -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. CROWDER: -- but the resources that we need. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That was going to be my next statement. MR. CROWDER: And get them to sort of have that conversation on the record at a BCC meeting. And so as a sort of one of the last jobs of this old committee, or maybe one of the first jobs of the new committee, I'll be putting in that petition. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: If you would do that, and I'll work with you on it and stuff. But I should be the one probably that goes before the board. And I think that would appropriate. Just right now I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to put in there because if I'd tell you that right now, you wouldn't like, because I'm not thinking straight. MR. GAULT: Could I ask that you try to put a goal in there? Because like Jeri said, I agree, to try to report this back out at Naples before we have to get down to serious budget talks? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: All I would ask is for Kevin to Page 67 aP �e§ ri,692012 A 13 put -- as you put together a -- give us a time line as quickly as you can on it. And yeah, I think this -- MR. WALSH: Certainly we'll be in a position to give a progress report at each of the regular meetings. And hopefully avoid the need for special meetings during the fact - finding phase. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah. But to move as quickly as we can on that. And I hate to try to set a date on it, because -- MR. GAULT: I understand. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: -- without a calendar in front of me, I know we have to mesh county board meetings with -- you know, and by the time you mesh everyone's meetings, unless you actually have those calendars, it's impossible. MR. WALSH: But there's no reason we can't go ahead and begin scheduling meetings. I mean -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: You can schedule meetings immediately. Well, pretty much. You can start your work. MR. WALSH: Your presentation of the commissioners isn't asking their approval, it's really telling them what we're planning to do and asking their support with resources. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Asking their support for -- yeah. And I think that's -- MS. NEUHAUS: Going on the record publicly. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: It's going on the record with them, yes. MR. SMITH: Carter Smith. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yes. MR. SMITH: I walked into this meeting and I observed the young lady over there taking notes. I assumed that she was your secretary taking notes for this meeting. And I subsequently heard that that's not a correct statement; is that right? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That is a correct statement. 16 f A13 ebruary 16, 2012 MR. SMITH: And you are employed by -- can we ask her questions? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, she's employed by Collier County. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not employed by Collier -- CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Or you're not with the county. Okay, I don't know who you're employed by. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm a freelance court reporter. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Freelance court reporter, you're contracted by Collier County. THE COURT REPORTER: No, not me personally. I'm a subcontractor that works for a reporting agency. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: A reporting agency. Whatever. I did not contract her. She was sent here by the county to be here. Our normal administrative assistant is not here who takes our notes and was not available. And so I rather than take offense to her being here look at it simply the fact that anyone who has read the notes that I take from a meeting would probably appreciate having someone who can do it much better than I can. And so as I have always said with these meetings, there's nothing that we say here or do that we're ashamed of or that we are hiding. And if you want to do a complete transcript of it, that's wonderful. MR. WALSH: We even permit videotaping. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We videotape them and we provide actual videotapes of all of the meetings. So not only do you get the words, you get the picture and body gestures that go along with it. So we have nothing to hide with any of our meetings and that's why I just am not overly concerned with it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Transparency is good. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Transparency is good. And if the county feels they have those funds that they can spend, they can spend Page 69 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 them. But if it shows up on our bill, then we've got an issue with them. We didn't contract for it. MR. GAULT: Do we want to schedule the next meeting? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: The next meeting should be -- MR. ROGERS: Are you done? I have another piece of business. Are you adjourning? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No, not yet. MR. SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Who has a calendar in front of them? Third Thursday of March. MR. GAULT: Thursday the 15th. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's the 15th? Okay. The third Thursday is the 15th. Okay. So we'll go for the third Thursday of March 15th. MS. NEUHAUS: Kevin, thank you. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Is there any other issues from the board members? Jim, any other issues? MR. HUGHES: No. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Kevin, anything? MR. WALSH: No. MR. GAULT: Do I need to get sworn in? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Do you need to get sworn in? MR. GAULT: For my new term. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Did you swear him in at the last meeting when I wasn't here? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: No. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Then you need to swear him in. MR. HUGHES: Did you get sworn in? MR. GAULT: I got sworn at but not sworn in. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: I will be quite honest, we have never sworn in a board member in the last six years that I've been here. Page 70 16 ( ?ebru � 62012 We get the letter from the county that says you've been appointed and that's what we've always taken and that's been the end of it. So that's a procedure that no, we've never done. If they want us to swear in -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: You don't work for me but for the BCC. MR. GAULT: We serve at their pleasure. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We serve at their pleasure. If they want us to, they can -- MS. NEUHAUS: They can swear you in. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: They can swear us in. We don't have a problem with that, but we've never done it in the six years I've been here. That's why I -- MR. GAULT: I just wasn't sure what the procedure was. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Yeah, I've never seen it done. But if there is, Alan, if you find out that we're supposed to, bring the stuff and we'll all swear at the next meeting. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'm not sure what they say. Like at my board, they present them the paper. The document comes from the BCC and they just announce it through a member of the board. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, that's what we do is we give them the -- if that's what you call swearing them in., yeah, we get the letters from them and it's like okay, you're a member of the board. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That's all we've done. But we haven't done any, you know, raise your hand and do all that stuff. Okay, nothing from you, nothing from you, nothing from you. Okay, anything else from -- John, you said you had one more issue? MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it's old or new business, I don't know what you want to call it. On December the 15th, Mr. Chairman, I sent you a memo and to the board in which I specifically mentioned that I felt two employees Page 71 1612 A113 February 16, 2012 here needed to be terminated. One of those employees was Ms. Shea. And I wrote that memo based on a statement that the county put out under her name. Ms. Shea subsequently revised that statement when she first saw it. It was not even shown to her until some 39 days after she made it, despite the fact that the county on three occasions published it as true. When I met with Ms. Shea and after we beat the county to abolish their secretive and deceitful ways, we were given her corrected statement in which Ms. Shea absolutely corrects all of the statements that Dan Summers made -- or put in her mouth and the county stood up and said they were true. I've met with Ms. Shea and I've personally apologized to her, because I think she was another pawn on the part of Collier County. Mr. Ochs and Mr. Summers specifically. And I want to publicly apologize to her. I think if they had done the right thing and had her review her statement as they said they did prior to that, then the issue never would have come up and I never would have drafted those concerns. So I want to retract it. When I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong, unlike any of the people at Collier County. And I want to again apologize to Ms. Shea. The second person that I mentioned should be fired for his confession of wrong- doings, I would like to know if anything has been done about that. I maintain my position that he should be terminated, and I'd like to know if that's been looked into, if anything's come of it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Well, that letter, as far as I know, I gave it to you, you took it to Human Resources. I have not heard anything back, any action from anyone at this time concerning those issues. MR. ROGERS: So that I'm clear, here we are 60 days later and we have a person who works here who put in writing and signed that I Page 72 i 1612 A15 February 16, 2012 did all of these things wrong for three to four years while I was an employee and I'm admitting that I've done them wrong and we have no response from the county on what they -- any investigation, anything? CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Nothing that has come back to us. MR. ROGERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: And I will only say that the one thing I did get back from the county manager was a statement who told me that my responsibilities were fiscal, budgetary and deals with money. And personnel I'm to stay out of. So you know me, that I have always contended that there's nothing that goes on here that isn't connected to money, because I don't have personnel if I don't have money. But -- MR. ROGERS: So I want to understand, so the Fire Advisory Board is not going to look into it and it's going to fall on the chief? Because I don't want to -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Right. The current way it's designed is the fire advisory board, both of them that are out there, have no operational authority. Which is one of the things Ms. Neuhaus talked about, some changes. I personally walked that down and I -- from Joe the day that he handed it to me and handed it over to Human Resources and told them that this needed to be looked into and here's a statement. I have not heard anything back since then. MR. ROGERS: And is that the typical way it goes with HR? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not normally. Usually I get a response back. Thirty days, 45 days. MR. ROGERS: Would it be appropriate for you to follow up? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'll send an email to who it was handed to. Because I know who it went to in HR. It was handed down to our generalist. I haven't received anything back on the status. MR. ROGERS: I'm flabbergasted, but nothing has surprised me Page 73 tip � � Z A 13 .f 16 February 16, 2012 in the last six months when it comes to Collier County. Thank you. MR. CROWDER: Alan, who did you hand it to? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It went to our generalist, which is -- MR. CROWDER: I don't know what that means. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Every department, the county has an HR generalist. Ours handles like public works and EDS and several others. So when that was handed over to Ms. Lyberg, it got handed down the trail to I'm sure him, because that's who would actually look into it and do the investigation. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: That would be normal. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That would be Mr. Molinaro, who you already know. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay, any other comments from anyone? MS. NEUHAUS: One last one from me. I can't thank you all enough for taking action tonight. And Kevin, I'll do whatever you need, man. I'll water your lawn, anything to get you to those meetings, man. You need me, I'll be there. But thank you. We need you on this. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Okay. If not, can I get a motion to adjourn. MR. WALSH: So moved. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Do I get a second? MR. GAULT: I second it. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: In favor? MR. GAULT: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: Aye. MR. WALSH: Aye. MR. HUGHES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LANGKAWEL: We're adjourned at. Page 74 i 16112 4M A February 16, 2012 (At which time, the meeting concluded at 8:35 p.m.) Page 75 `tt 161 2 A13 February 16, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:35 p.m. ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE ADVISORY COMMITTEE E LANGKAWEL, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER State of Florida ) County of Collier) or as corrected I, CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM, Notary Public, in and for the State of Florida at Large, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings. I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I financially interested in the action. Dated this 22nd day of February, 2012. CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Gregory Court Reporting 2650 Airport Road South Page 76 Naples, Florida 34112 Page 77 16 12 A13 February 16, 2012 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION M .••••••.........•.. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 February 16, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2012 V. Budget Report – Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report – CLM Fiala Hiller ✓ Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta T� 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 A. Future Projects 2012 and 2013 XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Misc. Corres: Date: 5112- 11,2 Item* 1414 Copies to: The next meeting is March 15, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 A A A AA W W W WW WW 14 NN NN N N N 16> 1 W N >O0 OV ON AWN>O DO V OfTA W N C> T W W -4000. W N 1 C)iE 00,- 'o0CvrE,cnmz�m'o C2, -i- �ZC�c»X-�ZZZTpC� �Ocn wcmiDCpCpDD�° m= ��T =�mz =�mncDm =z��0�D��ADD<cmm��X AA�czi�00� Z�OAm�nmDrz��nz� '�mpmcpi�mmTrD-cznu�Xzzm��tn =DD W «<T��T�D<D�Jrmzl Cl) Z: inn Cm To TT�Dm��pp p cn -n -n X xOQ�z�mcc�- n��OG� m�nznODm�zcmi�m��ppxxmn�m�D< O OOC�yD��czmm=mmM-DZD (n G�0� �mOT0z��6c�Z0�0 -4 Zn�(znuzi c (�nvDXm r-FmooZ w zm Dn�mmcom> >00 --io Zzmm cz-+c)� z mzG)7) �z m �m -jmmCn� O ppD�D "I Mr —;oZ D� Dz O> O mm p OOc) zz � DA )?W �_ 00 ;a CmmmXX cz)m r� m D n U) zm D r Dc W zmnD 0 -4 M nM O r m O cn C>r- �0 co -< � D n D m Krm� m W m p D n -< O 4A GA !A !A 4A EA 09 tn 1n VI 69 iA EA 69 (n !A W !A G9 1n 169 1fl d) 1A W !A !A G9 fA tG W 1n !A !A 69 !A 60 W 1n (A !A V) fA _ A >W --' 'Cl N CO (n W NOA OOACJ (nON W CO�Cn �Q to > > co O co 0) CAoomO O OOCn Cn00 W omo p., C710)(nQ7 A O AO V O O 0 0 O CO 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 Gn 0 0 0 W JO V O O 02 90 O O 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O- 0 O O "" N O 0 0 0 O A A 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0> Cn0 Cn 0 0 0 t 0 O O O O O N O O O O O 000 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 J 0 CD 0 O O fA G9 EA (A Gn !A !A G9 W W 1A 69 1n !A !A G9 fA G9 69 !A G9 1fl fA !A - .. EA !A 11 61 W 1n . G9 11,9 1n cli W N A N � W W 00 A A 4A b9 EA !A ffl W Ij N) A U7 Cn > O O m O O O A W O O (A N A N Cb >�N W NO ON> W cn 0p (D (OOJ O(D CO Cn NO V 0 O W O N C O N 0) O( O woo 1 O 0) co W O) 0 0 CA O N 0 0 co CO 00 0 V in 4C9 lA fA lA G9 1-n 1A !A !A (A G9 1A E13 GA !A G9 (J) > > 0) N (J) N(O O W Oco (r AN O 0 0) V VO) W O O (n CO 4 N 00 W 0(00 A co O 0) 0> N 0 W 0 !A En !A '6 9169 1n 169 G9 (A 1n En !A 469 V) !A fA 4 n W A > --» (C) Ui N i V O O V N cn 0) O) W 0 1 c0 0 O> U) 00-) 001 O O (fl 0000 001 0 V 00 0 0 0 0 00, O O 00 000 C) 00 C? O 3 m A G9 !A 6n 60 !A !A !A !A 69 G9 m x Cn U, m V W G j m W V C N > V V U)(OW , W m > A N N N n En G9 G9 (Al 6q 'En !A !A !A fA Gn O N W 0 Cn (n _K c -mm O!^.� N m n A 0 O_ 0 J O -iz A 0 0 W - N X000 N00 V N D(n0 cno W 0) 0 COO > ON 00 < 0 (n a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m (0 m =Tl va G�OG�G)� W 7 (o rNa3 m m'7 m CLC)m m m m m v (� _ a O 2n dip Sto Sio SMn.N CD n =. (7 O O W m Z O p C C N ID 0) W W (n (/) W m r m 0 O r `G `G 3 m c m0000 �m (moo )>c;o 0 C) U) m a (n 0 - Q W CD cn N C CD m cn m CD m CD 7 — 9 m 3 ° ' ° _K c -mm O!^.� N m n A AAA A A A•�An AA AAAAAA A Z O(Ano Cn CnCn000UIO00 o O v m y 3 - N = 0 Q o m F N P tO O 0 0 0 0 0 C10 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000000 O_ O O_ O_ O_ O_ CI O_ 00 0 0 O_ O O> 0 0 _O 'Q O +p o co:, t0 W W W �0 Cn W W NO)Q)O A n �N0000 QOo0 a V N m m wo rn W N W O J V N O N W A oo A A w A co W O _ a m N A 0 N N >IV N(n N W >N 0 W N co V (r NA U)0)O)�•C�NO >CA W NNA 0w U) o < < < < 2CnQ Cl) rar[.rU)T7 z)5��)pE� 0 (Do - Q � u) in CI.I?N =C 7 c', 3C dd dd m�mcnW.z��Zovm��4.�mfp(DU T (N m 3 Q Q N? N N m m m m `� � c� 7 0 C W 7 (n W W in ? y � Q m Q O ID E3 CD 3 W a N C)) m 6 m m N W (XD CU m '0 a< z3 =5 v n z (v �w C)a) m v .m - 7 W 7 7- (D m a) n 0 m m° -? m pmj m N O a 7 m O' 3 N O u) 0 u) cn m m CD 7 O tU 7 (�D (�D Q y W C D m 7 N Q N N W W cn N W A W O) a !A EA !A (AGO 1n !A 1A 1A GA 1n (A) fA <A G9 1A 1n G9 1n G9 1n 401A G9 � ° 38 o f ° cn CON A > N»pP N N N �! V N 0 CnN W >VW TO - ° oo O Ut 0)N V W PI) 000 m-40 "OW 7 O >(n 0) W co ON -- C)(ON co 0 c 53 ' ij O Cn(DO 00 (7) 0) W 000 W 1000 ca 0 000 N0 Co0 W00 V(0 WOO in 69 !A 69 W GA to G9 !A G9 !A 69 fA 1A fA G9 1n 19 G9 G9 !A en (A G9 1A 3 _ N >A NCO Cn Cn V_ N �n tV a -•N W(n O(n (n r-.) (o N WOOV V CON O A fl.y (00 (n N 0 N0)N W (n 0 VO V W N CO A O> 0)041 W ACo 0) (00 0 W(n >COO 0 O _ V O > 00-0(OO(000 O W V al> o I W O O A 00000000000 O NOA N W A O z A14 m s r Z 0 V/ Ul N N C 0 N v CD C N 4 (c 3 0 M (D ci 3 fD 3 < w -4 O Vim'_ n '' m CD V Ni M O O O V � O O * V n *O N w O O D N O N O Z w -4.0 OV N 000 -n o O 7 CL w o D O r W Q. 0 m II� h Y� (t 0 G ID , 1'4'* o,m9 (DOOO�o w tOn O fn N N •• (D � .� � N C n �Io .O. � v C o m 0 � _ cn (D y °1 CC n. C 0 O O (n o (D o (- 3mm� y ( 3 C -< o�< Q zo m m O Qo��O O (D rv0,' Em O X 3 Io -m?� -I CD N N o m n�i r0 DDS CL oo W 5S� Ov ohm 3 D a N 0 a,3En _ 1D A T o (n � Q C7 w D 0 Z: (D ° a T D L p Z co (n. 0 - W �ro (D n c CD -0 M I c Q p -1 N 3 (D m �. p CD n O O O N ° N,(Q O m ~ � a 0- 3 n S' m ? m w Z W W O A ; D- En W a a (D (D (D 2 N (D 3 En (D (D m N _. o' w w O (D N # (D 0 O Q O n S ((D T ; CD 0 ° =r (D D w (D (n �n @ w _C) (D (D N CD I CA v m w O Q' N O N yN W W < < FL FL 90 r O n vCi D A � O Z O D m m D W I W � c � o � W Z7 m �w 3 �7v m o T1 CD ID Z7 °- CD W;0 (D ��3 A Zlw Co w (D Z7 o• CD CA ZII o w ZJ��w CD (D �, T1 3 m 3 7 w S. w S.. fl? 0 W .< 3 n 3 a o = U CD o 3m o 3 < m m ° 3- 0 O C (D N O O N � �' N Cl 0 0 D 0 C_ CD O C, n. a` Q. (D w 0 d N w (D w < 'O w (D X C (D O cn -9 w w < W Q N O n �' 0 O — v W C N W C w O CD O- 7 C c w (D W W = S< OC O. w (D SU Cj =' C (2 w� d w j- O (D (D (o Q �. Q a. r Cn 3' _ (O O- W w O CD 7 co w DJ d• W W (D w (D 3 m e O w w n N (D w �. D p O a O CD O o C CL = w Q O _ j C. N W N K -0 -° W W W W _r O n wo a wo m° 3 a W (n w Co CL (D 0° (D < w 3 y 3 Q (D C C -O C7 > > C. w W _ (D O 07 '. w (on. C m �: W C IS = 0- = 0 O C. cD 3 a, o W Go _ W W (/J O= (D � (D CD CD fD C1 co ZT CL O w 0 O 0• 3 7 O w C- S o �C w co w W °- 3 (o w m (D w C. y ° O n a CD <. CD .n+ . w O O ? CD S wwi c n O << O o (D CT 9 Z 5. N (2 = N (D (D W W W (D' W W n O Q (� CD (1 w CD = S w f0 a () Q 90 w a O .-n = O. i W (1 d o w O w W ( O (D w (D S (D C Z .w-. 7� (C CD (C w 3 .0-. C_ ? Cl) 0 W O N 0 r CD CD 0 J (C 0 N D..-. 0 (� D. .W.. v N w CO a V1 = < (O ° O CD W Cl -0 N = m D_ W W W W .=r O C (D (D W C C. Z Cl) D m m 3 0 co o � m Q 0 o .i o 3 0 3 '-' 3 C C W A C W Q O w X 0 N L Q O N O N O -'< (C w 3 w CD (C w C W W= �C. (D a 0 W =- O « C �N W m 0 5' w= Q N .W-« (D CD CL w �. O Z MA O s N �o Q ID W a COD CD C (n 0 � CD .00_ �w ccr (D = w CD- w ^� S CD = ° 0 (D W 0- 0 w Cn W w Vl (D W (Q w O N W O = W CD .Z- O p fD -:y O (D N (D w O w N (� w w (•D C C. �. Q a S S N N -• 0- N 'o CL 'o =r (D w O O O O _ �- w CD ,w C' C- N W C w m m N 0 O Z H m O n O m Z r W Q. 0 m II� h Y� (t 0 G ID , 1'4'* o,m9 (DOOO�o w tOn O fn N N •• (D � .� � N C n �Io .O. � v C o m 0 � _ cn (D a (D (D °1 CC n. C 0 O O (n o (D o (- 3mm� o°ov ( 3 C -< o�< Q zo m m O Qo��O (D o m Cl m rv0,' Em X 3 Io -m?� -I W a N N o m n�i r0 DDS CL oo '_+ (D p W 5S� Ov ohm 3 D a w (D - I cn 0 a,3En _ 1D A T o (n � Q C7 w D 0 Z: (D ° a woa) cn O L p Z co (n. 0 - W �ro (D n c CD -0 M I c Q p -1 N 3 (D m �. p CD n O O O N ° N,(Q O m ~ � a 0- 3 n S' m ? m w Z W W O (� Cl) ; D- En o (A o a a (D (D (D 2 N (D 3 En (D (D m _. o' w w O (D N (<p CD -O 7 = 0 O Q O n S ((D T ; CD 0 ° =r (D D w (D (n �n @ w _C) (D (D N CD I o v m w O Q' N O N r W Q. 0 m II� h Y� (t 0 G ID , 1'4'* 0 V 0 d v3 0 3 3 m 1 N v w f1 A_ N V O V 0 z CO N T O x D k co 0 W N y s D V cn v v CD m N O_ W �Q Cj o-n os co CL a) A 0 v m N c4 3 m 0 3 CD y 7 3 O x� D rr O N I'T -+ G) 9 9 9 9 9 9a < T 3 9 T 3 9 9 3 9 9 S O 0 o m m CD m fD m m v o fo fo o CD CD CD m co m = n C1 N 97 v CD W y v N N N N U D) D) v n (D y 2 > i > ±k W .. 2 # 2 Xt it #k �k it 4k N n (D (b V (r p1 A N N N N C W co co V fT1 r o n =r 3 v co ' c w w CL n Q m CD a p ii y D " N W 90 O Z CD r a� `D O D m D N N N N N N N N I� Z7 �' X X T1 :U Gi .ZJ rn O W N (D p C (D 3 (D -p (D m (D s. O O o� (D 3 7 S p O 0 (AD m N s O m (� (D � O O m m _ m n m m< Tm p m g v p a. < (D U 3' D "p O CD m m a o m s m CD N O _ (n v i CS v .5: (O _— t11 ' c a m a m O v v m v m CD -0 m v ac cm mW'o = _ �. 0 =ice D =NN 7- ZT v cr v m= N CD O < m C m CD CO O v O S O CT CO Q m m m = O o= m S v a �'. cr Q Q m s co N O N N O C p � w v _= p c _ m 3 H fn m O a m' (D CD C v m N m m Ll. CD a O (D m m n �" CCDD "�'" G S a 0 < N v m Oa = S S m < D 0 3 n c n ° FD (O Q O v m y tS °' __ l 77 O �c °' m `� O Z CD m X m m N N O 'O fn = S OS = CD S O CO m m S O Qo Z) == 'pa. n i § { ��m Ul O 9 m CD 3 W NO c (O N ..__.� ID p _ N - n v v S O O -Q Q c m m m Z — _ o q 0 C D v D m p p N Cn o CD Q- y y o Z N O 0 m m O = O m CD X CD O m A v; � S A CD CD o m O _ m N O Z H m 0 n O m Z N r 1612 A140' r w p a fA O ro (D H N� (D �1 0 C rt � G O (D v v CD C N N cr N CD fl1 O 3 v w 0 N CTI N O d v 3 � fli CD N d W fO m n � V � 00 O O O N + Co N -n % D x co C) N N m �D V N O -n 0 0 CO Q a O v m w 0 w v m N m 3 O 7 CD N 3 iu (C CD 3 m 7 N 7 D O' O N r•' n 0 3 3 1612 r m O r ri m U) D m U) m m D c D O Z c r N P. n 10 (D r• (D m ;1 n Cl) �* Z3 G O rt (D v m O N Ul N O N CD D) Sit 0 v D) O N .A Ul N A14 * m o m m W 2) CD ° .r A .oN. C A = ik O �. 3 w u? - o r = CD 0 a to = m 0 = °' -- r 0 n m N r O C y n (i m 23 O n z cn • N G N O D m D CD 5. o °< n ID n (D Q p 3 F y o'm 0 o N � p n' 3 v a cw) o m o m 3 0 v° 3 o a o 3 Q o o' O 7 ono N N .. o 0) O Q Q C_ o 7 0 d C C <, Cr •O (D 7 N N 9L Q �. C v Q CD N. y tU C C Q (D C N C, n O' - N Ln N N N N 0 ' C N �. Qo = o(D v 7 p 7"6 ° m 3 CD - 7 �_ n C C °< CD 0 m Q. O 'L < N L Q (D X c) ^" -T a) Q Q O W Q (D c < (n m C y (n Do O CT) Q ro c CD m m �i N N p (D a) N' 7 O X° N N -O O" : Z1 `< n O Q (° D N y (O v =' N (D CD (p 0) (n 0 D1 N �) 7 = C �_ Q (a .Q C n — O m° < o Q N C Q n O 3 c SV -} Q 0 S o C) v 7 C:) Z < C y O p y< � (D O CD (n - = 7 7 ID K D ZI Q — C (° (D � .� m (D 3= 0 3 3 �? Q o �. v � f') CD C C Sl' DI p N �e; 7 p' O O (D 0 Q S O O C O O 3 C O ff1 N N N C N _ N CD N Q (D N tf (p' 07 7 �Q ° _< DON (Da ° = (D t? 7 -"n<, ° CL 6l m O Q Q 3 b N C D N cr �(fl SD .� C (D Q O) p N S (D W O C .Z7 (' Q -0 Q E "6 N y C N C (D C N CL C (D .O p Q (D (D W N Nmo dv ((DD -CQ c OmsuC- c > > m No o c°o 0 CD CD o _ o �p c) ET ct m -1 N Ln pD - m < Ri (D m Q n m m Sn 0 O z Nf m 0 n O m z I to n 0 3 3 1612 r m O r ri m U) D m U) m m D c D O Z c r N P. n 10 (D r• (D m ;1 n Cl) �* Z3 G O rt (D v m O N Ul N O N CD D) Sit 0 v D) O N .A Ul N A14 161 E A14 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 March 15, 2012 MAR 2 3 � AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 2012 V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Bridge Project C. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Committee Reports X. Old Business A. Future Projects 2012 and 2013 XI. New Business XII. Public Comments XIII. Adjournment Fiala v Hilier ✓ Henning _ Coyle ✓ �;oietta x The next meeting is April 19, 2012 at 2:00 p.m,MisC. Corns: Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintgnpceb 12:2-4)2- 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 _ Nem 0: l U Copies to: a CO 00 V ON 1612 A w N Ow OV mo AWN — O wm V O(n A w m N 1 ;u ;o 000,- --0 ppmOprrr�(n00— pr— (nm-04 - iZC�C7-i- -I17- - -TpCi I cmn cmn Umi D 0 O D D m i T= m ;,a 2 A Q D 'mm- z 55� 0, D'�� D D< m m m� D mmmzppzz��Am�nmDZ��c _�z.'�mnmo�<mDz.;.oX m��cn =DD r mmmmmmm�D�DOrcn�rMoo � a0Z> r5 �mAmmmmmmmzwm .:<< W <<< -I r N D m r c ��Op�zpmOW m�nzc��,m zcnmACnpp�� n�m�DD c mm ��cn,'zmDX�� G��ziz�00zs.��anzp'0 47 OOnDD A=mnm Z> D cn - —Om -m app mi znCmm cc�i�v��m��0� z� rn�cmi�mr^p<�z��oxc�zzmm U, z OmzOOCnD -��m m m o 0o vmOm D� �� p� z mcz, m0�o°D Dx cZm z OOD�D� m�mm�Dx Dz OD O mm m ��n r D;�W mZX� Zn��X czim rcn D n Cl) zm D D� W zm0D �0 cmi) m z m m O r m O 0 � D � m 1 n m m r n i m� D m m C) z W p D r) EA EA to (A 4A EA (A 4A EA 4A EA En to tf) to to Efl GS t-A to fA to fA 69 EH (A EA Efl H> to EA to to Cn ffl to fA EA EA EA A Pli O N _ O Co W N (n A N A A (0 N Cn Cn W N O A (b A J Cn O N (b _ c0 (7i (n p. O coo 00_ a) 00NO O 00031 Cn00 W 000A a) 0) A O ACG V O O 0 0 O (fl 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 W J O J O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O N P, 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 (A 0 0 0 0 00 O 00 O c O O N O O 0 0 0 0 O A A 4 0 0 0 0 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0— 6 0 Cn O O O CO O O 00 O N 0000 O 000 0000000 J O COO O O fA to to EA A4 to ffl 44 A VA4ml 4A v to to to to 69 EA ffl fA EA fA EA to (A EA 69 ICA EA EA EA fA (A EA fA (A 69 EA EA 69 w A CD w co O A 00 W N O N (n V + V O tA O O (A O O CA O O O CJ( A 00 00 (A a z a? D 3 < N _ 0 c< v o x N ^ A 'aoa� d�3 Z�c 3 m O 3 *G(nanK g(�)g -- `o, er ammmmoomCo7n o no0o700 D Q < wonLt )OOC 3mD FD' '= O m M CD o y fg ?- Rc Qo L) (D m �o o m N N M O Q O 0 w M y 7 7 O 3 C1) (n (n (n (n w (D 7 ZJ O '_' r �G �G CD �G fD 0 0 C) 0 7 CD CD C 7 7 C X n. n CL m Q -0 0 Cl O CS (n (D CD y CD m y N CD m 3 7 X K A w� A AAAAAA(AnAA A A A A A A CA- AA m & A N 3 N W m N OD SOON _O CD G) W N W O N O - A co C n N N A (D �N NON CnN W8N�(o Cl) NOOJ 3 COOCO OOCn (n NA Cl m 0NO 00NNA 0 Cl) Cn OCDN ON A W COON N W OA (.O m2000Cnra'- CrC/) m5 Cimm -n ZJ�.L7p�� 'o °o O W O (11 O CA O W O O A 1 N , CD y (D r (D (D tD (D 7 `< n' ^'" O. CQ D. Cr a C A O (A O O A O N O J O 3 C) C y j (n y y Cn y G): (D 0 2 N Q .-. O O O fD (n 69 EA fA 69 to to to to W EA EA EA 60 EA EA (A a) -O y (D C y o (� Q = �' II1 SU (U ? en fjp 0 �. c- 69 fA EA fA 69 69 69 EA EA EA 69 m 0 y p 7 Q 7 7 0 N CD Q F 7 3 O y N CD Cr CD CD y tD E: ?- j o (11 w Z 7 W 7 7 CD N CU, N x 31 (7'1 7 0 0 3 v �v 2�< - y� m0-mm CD O ((OA n (D (n y y (n _ CJ X N Cn O W G A J -4 N W co W � EA fA EA EA w 69 EA EA EA in EA EA EA EA EA to ffl fn fA fA fA 4A (A EA ? (A .c-n ) - O o< O(n (n AOA JO N No °o 7 D J C CD O --j CA 0) C-" (.0 N�CnA W 0000 7 3 Cn 91 OA 90ApO p N J (n A in EA to to to to to fA to to to EA fA to to EA EA EA to to to to to fA to 1 J8 CD (D CAC(DCD CD Cn NJ W O A A OO 00000 W0 00 v 0 Coo Cn J N O N(AO W Cn OOOJ -4 0) Cfl A O. (AAA W CO A(o O OCb(n. Cn6) O O JW NN to 69,69 Efl <A to to to to to to to Efl tf7� fA to ffl to 69 fA 69 to EA EA fA 60 to to A j W �N u NJ O N W 1 (n N CD (n (n A A 0 J O OJ N(n OOO W O(D� (A Cn(A W J0) Co O O� Cn 00 —. 00 N -40-40 01 CD N— Co O —(fl OOOC, OOCn 00 007O0 N(70(n N O JC. 0000 00 W CnO CnO (n -4 -4 (A O O O C A 0,2 O O 0 0 O C O —&W ( b *G(nanK g(�)g -- `o, er ammmmoomCo7n o no0o700 D Q < wonLt )OOC 3mD FD' '= O m M CD o y fg ?- Rc Qo L) (D m �o o m N N M O Q O 0 w M y 7 7 O 3 C1) (n (n (n (n w (D 7 ZJ O '_' r �G �G CD �G fD 0 0 C) 0 7 CD CD C 7 7 C X n. n CL m Q -0 0 Cl O CS (n (D CD y CD m y N CD m 3 7 X K A A AAAAAA(AnAA A A A A A A CA- AA m & A N (n Cn (n Cn (1 n O Cn (n (n (n Cn ( (n J O (n Cn O O O O O O O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 m O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O_ O O_ O_ _O CD G) c) W N W W N CO W W N W W W W O O W W W CD (31 W W (%�(A N00000 co 0 o a o m QpOA 0700 N W(AJ JNCNW A NAA Cl) AOo W O N A (D �N NON CnN W8N�(o Cl) NOOJ (n NA Cl m 0NO 00NNA 0 Cl) Cn o << { m2000Cnra'- CrC/) m5 Cimm -n ZJ�.L7p�� 'o °o a o 3D(p DD(n� (n�n° n'vo 0 °�0 (D m v v m N , CD y (D r (D (D tD (D 7 `< n' ^'" O. CQ D. Cr `G n a x x x c G c 0 �'O 7 C) C) COD N (D CD .0 - Cn a) S y Mo ^^, CD CD O 3 C) C y j (n y y Cn y G): (D 0 2 N Q .-. O O O fD cG G G< E m a) -O y (D C y o (� Q = �' II1 SU (U ? en fjp 0 �. c- 3 m m m 0 y p 7 Q 7 7 0 N CD Q F 7 3 O y N CD Cr CD CD y tD E: ?- j o (11 w Z 7 W 7 7 CD N CU, N CD 31 (7'1 7 0 0 3 v 2�< - y� m0-mm CD (D (n y y y W A J a � EA fA EA EA w 69 EA EA EA in EA EA EA EA EA to ffl fn fA fA fA 4A (A EA CD -n o< A � O (7o W — N W N N 0) O No °o N OON CD AN W O W t n O O C7tAN O W cD0 Cn 00N W "ow 7 D CD O --j CA 0) C-" (.0 N�CnA W 0000 7 3 O W (D O (n O W W W 0 0 8 woo O (3100 (AO NOW AJO W00 in EA to to to to to fA to to to EA fA to to EA EA EA to to to to to fA to 3 3 NNW N(o� 07 -+N W N0o(nCn N(A N W (DJJ -ACA W Co A p:y v 0 Coo Cn J N O N(AO W Cn OOOJ -4 0) Cfl A O. (AAA W CO A(o O OCb(n. Cn6) O O .4. O 0080(DOA00 O W J(n(O 0 co W O O A 0 0 0 0 W O A 0 0 0 Cb0 A m W O A O A14 9 - m 0 c r N � � � N C N o' C N' w• m � 0 - V� oc co V 00 Cl * -4 T 117 -n " w o x w .•� D N W W A V O V co v ca' m O 7 3 a1 7 (Q (D (D a) D s z -0 C-) ((D (� 0 fD O < 3 2. (D (D P n. (D O C o :3 0 0 0 01Q 36 3 (D CID O cn N o �3 CD (D y Na 0 0 ° o D CD W -0 �-0 N 3 0 N O (n � � s O =r (D Q �: CIO _. 7 Z3 Q cn 0 j (D CD (DD < D (D m QO CD. 3 cn Fn (D M 0- C1 CD ::1 O Q m v � (fl Cl) CD 0 0 Ln E N m a ZY (D a w Q S n 0 I� 0 0 0 0 m m 3 3 3 3 to A W N (D 3 N N m O (D n (D Q 3 3 IT ID 0 0 0 _0 .= o. .o 0 av, (D s;M �' o •�•� W K cm CD 7 C) C) �� m N 3 (D CD � �o m v G7 N0 9"20 v > cl) r Nn :L7 m O, 0.0ncn CID (nQv �D v° 0 m �DC/) oCD co M 0yD vo z �c C -c'- �_ „ n n N C) Q w �n O rev z N N C7 in (7 � � C D D C7 n r 0 0 -CD a W N .-n Q E3 w C7 O w (D cn N_ X ;a 0 -0 - m 1 CD CD a 7 O v � � < < (D (D -a O is n CD 3 W (D D � 0. Q o 0 0 0 N (D m D v =. N N � O_ N 4 W 1612A14 co m U) CD CD H r y > Y = CL rL m �CD N (n CA (A � 90 O cn D 0 Z O D rn D W W W W W W W W N) U) A w Z7 �p m w ;u �p m v m m m -u 3 Cl) (fl w x (0 (D ^(o A 3� fU w (D w ;� 0- (D '� CJ m � m X m co A O m 77 m r CO w ;a ry m w <. !D w <-.: (D 3 -a m w, o- a v o 0 D w< 3 rn o Q 3 3 o � m w< °- m -o m (c o a D 3 '� w o ' O O o o m— 3 3 0 m o o m CD O m O o N 0 v 3 < m (D (<D o Q m �' 3- �• m O_ w 3 m Q (D Q Q m (c m w>> 03 N `� D- U) v w Q 7 Q �. m e x, O O 3 S . N N w N W O O< w o Q w 'O N m v m X D a (D co 0 W o(D -a o' (D w o O) Q w 0 w O < (7 v fl.7 v St N O c O 73 UD — O (n W w (D O c (O �' Cl) O = (n (D m Zr w 97 w 0- (D < 3 w (n cn fl' w 0 �' S< w S Q Q w ,-. 0 c w ..- O c O CD = O w w Q c m O< m Q c O.. m c v Q Q o °< c o C%i 5 6 m w 0 w C 5. 3 6 m c (o a' a' b n (D (D w 0 0' O w o 'O w o O m C Q w .—.., m 'a SL w �_ Q —I O w (p (n 7 w m O m Q O Q o p (D m= (n SU Q O m — -0 3 0- O N 'O w Ri (D O w 6 W Q O Q o O w �"' c �' m y in' CA Q p CD a- o cn ^. 3 w w 0 ? v° o Q w (n m O w 0 0 w O [n' I- n'I O m 0 (n O (D O (O Q 3 �, w O c 7 O CJ7 CO 0 .-. C (oD � � � o� 3 m _ ? � C ?, m C a AIL m m � a o- �_ > 3 ,..,, 3 w S Q w (Q 3 p) w Q 3 (CI w w w (n CID m w c �' (n rn � m << - Q o <. �. w (n w < ° O (D a (6D w O. (wn w �_ 0 6 w Z cum (u m v < ° o Q W w (D ° _ o m Q Q (n (n (n (n — 3 C7 Q- a m 3 0 Q �_ ? 'O' Ca w G7 o- 0 O O 0 Q Z' (D(] O (D ° N O T O RI A _. 5 3 Q —, �' o = v° w 0 Q o v w 3 C 0 C' m C. O _' (n Co (n Q 7 w 6 (D P. w m w cr (U m 3, m m w Z O v N (D -O Q w < O O m a N m .0-. ° o Q (n (�' (o 0 c m v m ci c a R1 Z C) CID a -En- �, s m s oc23 s < w 3ao rn o D m m m �' (D 3 oW 0 07 Doc O c (n 0 3 —II O N 0 m (0 Q M m -0 to w w 0 0 0' w Q �� m 0o Vt rs 3 o m 3 _0 w w C (D w o m a � m 0 '0 _0 m o "a T 0- w n ° m (o o_ w n 0 m �� 03 w Wro o Vv 0 Z3 o w v° w ° ° .a A 3 N "" (D Q 'O (D m p 0 0 m 3 Q w CD Q 03 o A x O (T (n a) (0 W N) N 0 � Q (o w _ W m N O z (A m 0 n O m Z n 0 I� 0 0 0 0 m m 3 3 3 3 to A W N (D 3 N N m O (D n (D Q 3 3 IT ID 0 0 0 _0 .= o. .o 0 av, (D s;M �' o •�•� W K cm CD 7 C) C) �� m N 3 (D CD � �o m v G7 N0 9"20 v > cl) r Nn :L7 m O, 0.0ncn CID (nQv �D v° 0 m �DC/) oCD co M 0yD vo z �c C -c'- �_ „ n n N C) Q w �n O rev z N N C7 in (7 � � C D D C7 n r 0 0 -CD a W N .-n Q E3 w C7 O w (D cn N_ X ;a 0 -0 - m 1 CD CD a 7 O v � � < < (D (D -a O is n CD 3 W (D D � 0. Q o 0 0 0 N (D m D v =. N N � O_ N 4 W 1612A14 o'• m N I W v0 1 f A � � O V l0 O t v ' T O r V N �I O W -n D x N W CO i V � � O 0 00 -o N O W v cn• >F m O 3 m C1 7 a1 tc tD tD O T1F V 7 7 cc 7F D g O M. N• I O O O IrD m m d D3i d r N � r o 1 b12 0 ) V D a J J k S n v 5 3 y ID V_ 1 V A14 9 9 9 g -9 < -n 9 9-n 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 r (D O O (D (D n) O (D (D O O O O N (D (D (D (D (D (D r a c a a a a a 0. a a _ w ci fli m' = m y �' m y m a)' w w a> ni a> ci m sv it it Ca ,-. I s it " 1 it CO 00 it 0u V O) al W it N 1 V 1 O cn 1 t A ry w O CD y -� N -� - y D r _ s 3 n W r 03 n a C r 0 O D (n o ° A - D r N c 7 � fZ , Dri C i C x O = x c D 70 = � D c i A W I� IJZ7(° N (D o S o (D 'a 'O., C (D (D C 0 0 O. 7 CD v N 0 (^ N (0D O (D (D 0' N O 0 (D (D O :z 0 0� O_ O (D 0' a Q cD TJ 0 c� 0 1 o w ° 3 m O lD N __ -a n O_ j s 3 N 0_ C o o i (Oii N ,0—Y vOi (D o Q. v (p (D (0 O — C: _ (D (D 0 0 N � m Q 0 < -d' (D Q _ m 00; m Q N o 3 _ v °— ° (n o o o m 6 0 n v O. (D N 0 < n (D N 0 0 0 Q. C 0 O O w l 0-(O (D N ((DD o 3 N O O-- O .O-. Q v a v (D _0 3 •_-• N ,0-• (n co N -o o- a' (D 0 < 0 0 (n N 0 (°D n� (D ° (D :D u a 3 m m a °c c= (n n v C7 m O Q N � 3 S 6 N O Z) Q N O �. O 0_ �- (D (D (D (D I• O o C D m 1 w a 0 S m ° a Q s 0-(0 w 3 0- a° a < m v 0 m° L7" N 0 (n O 77 N- ° n a a Z �' . X W v � (D Q (D j = 9 v 0 W O m O cD_ (D Q cn S in in o0- ° CD m - cn — m v m A a m a o o ° a (n (D v m o O v ? m —'0'2 m (� a n ° 3 m n 0 m N D o < �' (fl m (D m °a �_ Q m Z o v - 3 v ° Q o 0 0 (D N( w ((D D _ a CD C' (D 0- O a0 m3 z O O_ O O o O a- o (D 7 m S_ to O (D (D (D C7 N (D (n' r. (D n (D 0 S 0 0 L. cn S O o_ o (D = ° (D O m N 'O O Z t/f m O A O rn Z to O O O IrD m m d D3i d r N � r o 1 b12 0 ) V D a J J k S n v 5 3 y ID V_ 1 V A14 „ o - o = (D N t W r t A � � � V ' 00 (70 * O TI O r V • O � ( W 0 ! D x i N 1 W . SO S Z � f V f O - O f v W CFQ m rD w O W v m fA m O m m B 7 'O 3 3 fQ �E D UJ' '•r Ed G) O r m m D m cn m m D C m D O z X CD m O v V 0 i N CD O 7 v O W N N A14 .Z) N p W 00 S C fD � fD N M _ CD I ci O CCD is 4. (D Q C M �7 — y n 3 cr C1 W ((DD 7 Z1 � f;i � 2. fD CD W � 7 Xk (D n = CD cn r. c 00 - at ' m = o r o c (D 0 p r) oyi C7 y O D 23 CL it " (n 0 � m ;:L O z it N n C N O c O fn X fQ X m D W Cr CJi N W N W I� (n �7 fn W W =1 iJ `< N �. (D C O 0. CD CD O (D (D N (D 7 � O O t,= Cl) n �. �- W -� W W W O W n (n N CD CD ((DD 3 'o W 7 Q Q N N ((DD (°D O O ,-. (2 M = 3 -�,. S S cn in (D f2 = O_ 0- 3 11 -° CD p (p O 7 (D n W l0 (D Q •< 0 O N .a M -° (D (° W W O O W� O OW W (D Q -ter. O W W f2 O W n, `< p O O Q O co '� 3 W Q (D Z3 "0 (D C (D 0 m o o 0 o cr W W o o m (D CD (n W ° C 3 N -'. 7 7 C 7 3 O Z7 (D O X< (Q �_ .�.. (p v O 3 (7 (n 6 7 (Q ((DD Q O (D '3 `< O CD fS (D Q. 3 Q C �-'O CO f1 ,-• O (D W O O ? -° O cn c (D 7 W w N (0 O _ W Q. (p n O 0 N O Q< 7 O "T1 (a (D W xo C Z3 r- s v Q (D 7°.- CD O T. (D O °- O (n cn CD S W W W p (D O 6(n O Z; cn W in W (OD O C O (D = a Z7 W (2 (D Q N' C Q m Q1 <� Q (D N 3 C W (n O p_, (D _° W O Q W < N M O CO N N iA C &0 W -0 •G 3 >> CD 0- C W X O 0 0 W< O C f, D 3 (D O p O O' -Oa S W D O X O N cn � -° ZT °- � v O_ N O -0 O °- O �' 0 ° W (n O t2 C ° CO N N 3 W 5' 3 O (Q QQ N W O W O (D d O. N 3 fll 3 C 6 W Q 7 O (O z ° ° CL _ (Wn� 77 (� o Q CD ry� QO W O cn < (T W (fl ACS O° �'o W Z3 N CD M Q�Q (D rD to c O (D m j (� ° (OD m = o � ° CD (a m O (- (D m n c N W v CL 0 tS ° ° �_ S N ff i O a' (D O O W W En Q (OD 3• O O W O 7 f2 --n O W .�-. W Q f= < O CD O (D�°_ (D O v CD (D �- m = S, (D -° o Cp m o- cn o w w �' ° 2 ° m °°° _ v 3 z (°D w' � ° 0- 3 -° o- e m 's' °- W CD r- 0 Q� ° °. a 0- o o �_ cn o W O Q (D O O N — aO W W c- (D *k (D (D (0 W (D z C -° n (=n CD - c ('D O cn O 0- -° O m N �' < O N ° a7 �, O W Q m o W a n _ N' = o �_ CD (n O ^^ � iz .� c5 � O lD w cn C W W O N CL W in O ( 0 0- W (D :3 .-. (D 0- (c (D O S O CD W CD o (D , cn :CC C W 3 Z3 cn (fl °`n' 3 CD (D -° f- O Z- W (n c D (D CD CL O �' cn o Z) m O z Ln m O n O m z LA G) O r m m D m cn m m D C m D O z X CD m O v V 0 i N CD O 7 v O W N N A14 J1 1612 A14 1612 A14 DORAL CR. WEIR STRUCTURE SCREENING BUDGETING OPINION OF COSTS PER CONCEPT DRAWING LC -1 COMMERCIAL GRADE CHAIN LINK FENCE 6' HT. GALVANIZED: GATE & CORNER POST - 6 @ $50.00 EA. _ $ 300.00 GATE - 1 @ $250.00 EA. _ $ 250.00 FENCE PANELS - 42 @ $14.75 L. F. _ $ 619.50 CANTILEVER PANEL - 1 @ $75.00 EA. = 75.00 TOTAL: $1,244.50 PVC COATED BLACK: GATE & CORNER POST - 6 @ $55.00 EA. _ $ 330.00 GATE - 1 @ $300.00 EA. _ $ 300.00 FENCE PANELS - 42 @ $17.50 L. F. _ $ 735.00 CANTILEVER PANEL - 1 @ $100.00 EA. _ $ 100.00 TOTAL: $1,465.00 DECORATIVE PICKET FENCE 6' HT. GATE - 1 @ $450.00 EA. _ $ 450.00 FENCE - 42 @ $45.00 L. F. _ $ 1,890.00 CANTILEVER PANEL - 1 @ $200.00 EA. = 200.00 TOTAL: $2,540.00 LANDSCAPING: PAUROTIS PALM - 2 @ $500.00 EA. _ $1,000.00 OOZE WATER TUBES - 8 @ $50.00 EA. = 400.00 TOTAL: $1,400.00 w \ N N O N N 3 N N v C 1� F•+ c N o N m F � O O o W 0 t'D i* O F+ O O O Z N O pp < p N O 1-, p O v � m n O O No o F+ N W TIC) O S O ' p' �8 N O A Dm W C r N m r^ O G D O O 0 O N ap 01 C � p O O O 0 0 O O <� O O O C O O O O O O O O O O w Ui O O O O V W O O O O v v O w O 0 O m p V) D rri Go r m J 00 w it W N V, U'1 Q1 Ln O O N w N 00 lD O O 1612 A 1 k", CD In �o M i rF i Irt 0• ;Cl) C N I M ii Cl) Im I i x CD i� 'D I� I � i i C I�A I, 1; N N N N C C p i=) 0 0 W 00 rn cn O O v v O w O 0 O m p V) D rri Go r m J 00 w it W N V, U'1 Q1 Ln O O N w N 00 lD O O 1612 A 1 k", CD In �o M i rF i Irt 0• ;Cl) C N I M ii Cl) Im I i x CD i� 'D I� I � i i C I�A I, 1; N N N Ittl 1612 A14 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 January 19, 2012 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 2:05 p.m. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff 111111. Approval of Agenda Add., X. B. Review of Stone at Doral X. C. LASIP Weir at Doral Xl. A. Treasure Point Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: December 15, 2011 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the December 15, 2011 minutes as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera - None VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported: o Mulching is complete o Sod installation at the Forest Hills Golf Cart Crossing is incomplete due to a shortage of Sod materials by the Vendor - Installation of the missing 8 -10 pieces will be complete by Monday - The clogged dirt (under the metal cover) will be cleared by Monday Robert Slebodnik questioned the status on the Irrigation issues in Median (15.) Robert Kindelan perceived the Plants should improve as the Water supply was increased and Irrigation Head adjustments were requested (by Mike McGee.) 1 4 1612 A14 " VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reviewed the Report: (See attached) • Fertilization is complete • Golf Cart Crossing - The Sod is installed - Irrigation was reviewed at the location - Deemed after CLM clears the dirt from under the metal plates the Golf Course should be responsible to maintain the area Robert Kindelan reported the excavated Crown of Thorn were transplanted to select areas (Noted the Golf Course as one location.) Mike McGee presented a new Fertilization Schedule to include the following: (See attached) o (3) types for Canopy Trees o (2) types of Blooming /Bougainvillea Fertilizer o Florikote for Palm Trees Reuse Mixing Chamber and Water cost and Usage Reports (See attached) • The new nozzles have not been installed - Irrigation components (body and nozzle) are Toro brand • Irrigation heads will be relocated from the center of the planting to an outer position - To provide better coverage - Reduce water usage and cost • When zone times are increased designated stop times are necessary to allow ample time for the Mixing Chamber to refill as the system operates on gravitational flow • Over time sediment occurs in the lines from the Reuse water and will require periodic maintenance (clearing debris to provide maximum flow) Pebble Beach Street Lighting Improvement Project (See attached) ❖ Lighting Plan - Sheet No. L-4 o The best option is to install the line on the East side as a Force Main is installed at Median 14, 15, and 16 - Noted it may be an issue to install crossings at the Median locations o A Main Water Line is located on the opposite side of the road o The required depth to install cable under pavement is a minimum of 30 -36 inches (FDOT requirement) o Boring will be conducted in the ROW in lieu of trenching on private property Darryl Richard noted coordination with the Utilities Department is needed to determine if an official Variance is required. 2 1612 A14 Plans (on CD) will be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and comments. Discussion took place on the setback dimensions on the proposed Light Poles and continuous damage to Poles by vehicles. Mike McGee reviewed the setback specifications and noted the aluminum Poles will break away at.the bolt area if struck by a vehicle. 2:39 p.m. Robert Slebodnik left Discussion continued on the Light Poles. It was stated that Lights in the Median center are double headed fixtures with the exception of (2) on Big Springs. ❖ Lighting Plan -Sheet No. L -10 o The Fixture is bolted on a screw down anchor base 2:40 p.m. Robert Slebodnik returns ❖ Pole Details - Sheet No. L -11 o The top of the Fixture arm will be 18 ft. high ❖ Pole Specifications -Sheet No. L -12 ❖ Lighting Plan - Sheet No. L -5 • A transformer is located north of Donner Residence #111 - Verification is needed from FPL to determine if a connection can be made with the transformer • A second transformer was located (to the west) • The last Pole will be located on the west side of Big Springs Staff noted the plans are at 60 %. Mike McGee anticipated that the Project can go out for Bid in 60 days (March) if the review process is promptly initiated. Darryl Richard perceived that the Project may be under Construction in August. B. Doral Bridge Project - Mike McGee - Discussed under X. B. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following Reports: A. Project Managers Report - (See attached) (L -48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridoe • The Contractor is on hold until the Stone work is reviewed • Contractual completion date is scheduled for March 5, 2012 B. Review of the To Do List - Darryl Richard (See attached) _Item No. 3 - Light Repair b By entley Electric • The Contractor was directed to conduct monthly inspections • Bentley Electric reported the repairs are complete 3 1612 A14 o A report was provided to FPL on the inoperable Lights Mike McGee reported Lumec is replacing the cover plates on the Light Poles on US41 due to peeling paint. IX. Committee Reports — None X. Old Business A. Future Projects 2012 and 2013 - None B. Review of Stone at Doral Mike McGee summarized the Stone Evaluation Report prepared by McGee and Associates: (See attached) • Written and Electronic files were reviewed on the Stone Specifications • It was determined that a photo comparison between the Hibiscus Bridge and supplier catalog was performed Staff noted the following: • The Golf Course positively verified that the Specifications were used on the Hibiscus Bridge • Masonry products can vary throughout the years and render a different appearance • The Contractor pulled the materials based on the Specifications Discussion ensued on the Stone veneer. David Larson stated the Residents like the aesthetics of the Doral Bridge in comparison to Hibiscus Bridge. Kathleen Dammert viewed the Stone as modern. Tony Branco noted that additional work was performed to correct the large gaps on Stone wall the since the December meeting. David Larson moved to proceed and complete the Lights and the few remaining pieces of trim on the Bridge to see the finished product. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. LASIP Weir at Doral David Larson expressed dissatisfaction with the black chain link gate with barbed wire that was installed at the Weir. He deemed the fence is offensive and noted that other Weir Stations do not have a gate installed. Staff replied the issue will be reviewed with the Storm Water Department. (Staff Action Item) Xl. New Business A. Treasure Point Jennifer Tanner reported: o (12) lots are at the end of Forest Hills Blvd. (previously the old Tennis Club) o Privately owned homes are located on (7) lots 4 1612A14 • The (7) Home Owners developed an HOA • The Home Owners expressed interest in merging the (Treasure Point) HOA with the Lely Civic Association • The Property Owners are not paying into the Lely MSTU Discussion ensued on ownership of the roadway. It was concluded that the property was originally owned by Hibiscus and was sold to Treasure Point prior to homes being built. Michelle Arnold stated Staff will conduct the following: • Obtain the legal description from the Tax Collector • Verify if Treasure Point is within the MSTU Boundary - Noted if Treasure Point is not within Lely MSTU jurisdiction the Committee may request an Ordinance Amendment to adopt Treasure Point into the Lely MSTU o Request the Graphics Department determine the MSTU Legal Boundaries Darryl Richard noted the Budget Report is included in the meeting packet. XII. Public Comments - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:25 p.m. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebo nik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on 3L, , as presented or amended 2� The next meeting is February 16, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 February 16, 2012 Minutes 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 2:01 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, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Robert Kindelan -CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add. X. B. Treasure Point X. C. Weir at Doral Vll. C. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Xl. A. Utility Equipment in ROW IX. A. Chairman Meeting with George Ramsey RE: Annual Meeting on March 2nd Tony Branco moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2012 Change: X. B., page 4, second paragraph, last sentence: strike "the" Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the January 19, 2012 minutes as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 2:08 p.m. Kathleen Dammert ar►ived. V. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera Gloria Herrera reviewed the Report: • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $156,677.32 • Improvements General Commitments $35,628.93 (Bonness P.O. balance) 01 1612 A14 Robert Slebodnik questioned the purpose for the following two Line Items: o Line Item 11 Carry Forward of Encumbered $105,578.59 Staff responded that the Line Item is comprised of the balance of open P.O. monies that were rolled over from the prior Fiscal Year. o Line Item 17 Indirect Cost Reimbursement Budget $10,600.00 Staff clarified the Line Item is for services rendered by County Departments (Purchasing, IT, County Attorney.) Discussion ensued on the Water and Sewer Line Item deficit ($1,500.00.) After discussion it was concluded the P.O. Commitment $18,352.39 was opened in excess and will be decreased in June (by $9,000.00.) VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Robert Kindelan reported: o Routine Maintenance is underway • Estimates were submitted to the County for replacement Plant materials • Fertilization is scheduled in March - Coordination is needed with Mike McGee on the Fertilization • Golf carts are damaging the irrigation head and newly installed Sod at the golf cart crossing on Forest Hills Discussion took place on the golf cart asphalt path. The following was concluded: • Staff verified that Road and Bridge Department did not install the golf cart path • The golf cart path was installed in the ROW by the Golf Course • Darryl Richard and Robert Slebodnik will meet with Alan Cooper to discuss the golf cart asphalt path and suggest that the Golf Course install a decorative post to deter the golf carts VI1. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report - Mike McGee reviewed the Report: (See attached) • A few areas of Sod at the US41 entry require immediate attention • Ixora in the Doral center Median require treatment B. Doral Bridge Project —Mike McGee Mike McGee gave the following update: • Installation of Lights - Complete • Gravel in the ROW requires cleanup (by Bonness) • Requested a quote from CLM for (1) Tabebuia replacement David Larson perceived that the Lights ( Doral Bridge) have an electrical issue as some of the Lights are inoperable or operating irregularly. Additionally he expressed dissatisfaction with the brightness of the bulbs. 2 1612 A14 Mike McGee replied: • The bulbs are 60 watts • A frosted bulb or lens cover may be installed to defuse the light Staff will confirm the bulb wattage (60 watts) with Bentley Electric. (Staff action item) David Larson presented photographs of the Light Fixture noting that the Fixture is elevated. Mike McGee responded that the Fixture was preordered to match the existing Fixtures. Additionally stated a cowling can be installed to cover the voided area at the base of the Fixture. Weir at Doral David Larson distributed photographs of the unsightly fence at the Weir. He suggested Mike McGee review the area and make a recommendation to disguise the fence. Jennifer Tanner moved for Mike McGee to provide a concept to camouflage the barbed wire at the Weir at the March meeting. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. C. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Mike McGee reported: o A spread anchor base may be needed to maintain the required separation from the sewer line (due to the depth of the lines) o (2) additional manholes were discovered o Spread footer cost is $300 -$500 more per footer - Footer is poured onsite - Engineering review is required o (14) Poles require deviation from Utilities - Total poles (23) Staff anticipated the following timeline for the Project: • Bid Solicitation — May • BCC Bid award — June • Under Construction — July • Project completion —November 1St VIII. Transportation Operations Report — Darryl Richard - Previously discussed under Vll. B. and Vll. C. A. Project Managers Report (See attached) B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) Break 3:18 p. m. Reconvened 3:22 p. m. 3 1612 A14 IX. Committee Reports A. Chairman Meeting with George Ramsey RE: Annual Meeting on March 2nd Robert Slebodnik volunteered to give a basic report on the Pebble Beach Lighting Project at the Annual Lely Civic Association meeting on March 2 "d X. Old Business A. Future Projects 2012 and 2013 B. Treasure Point Staff and Jennifer Tanner confirmed that Treasure Point is contributing to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU. C. Weir at Doral — Previously discussed Vll. B. XI. New Business A. Utility Equipment in ROW Tony Branco reported: o The Traffic Signal Utility Box on US41 has a billboard style label and is an eyesore • The Telephone boxes (by the school) are outdated and appear derelict - The Telephone Company should update the Phone Boxes or the MSTU should be permitted to disguise them • Perceived the Lely Beautification MSTU should be advised of any proposed installations within the ROW Staff will convey the Committees comments to Traffic Operations and the Utility Companies. XII. Public Comments - None 4 1612 A14 ' There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:35 p.m. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slebodnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented *'-I or amended The next meeting is March 15, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 1612 A15 February 15, 2012 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOA Naples, Florida, February 15, 2012 BY: ....................... LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M. at Immokalee Community Park, 321 North 1St Street, Immokalee, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes (Excused) VICE CHAIR: Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Fiala J Phil Brougham Hiller David Saletko (Excused) Henning Murdo Smith Coyle Coietta G Misc. Corres: Date: S 12-2. j ►2. Item #: ► LID =ZW4 )s Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager III Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director 1 1612 A15 February 15, 2012 I. Call to Order Edward "Ski" Olesky, Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM. A quorum was established at 2:03 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. III. Approval of Agenda —Addressed after V. IV. Approval of January 18, 2012 Minutes —Addressed after V. V. Staff Highlights a. Marketing Highlights Annie Alvarez reported the following scheduled events: Barbara Buehler arrived at 2:15 P. M. ➢ Sun -N -Fun will be opened over the February 18th weekend and on President's Day ➢ Park Dedication for Cindy Mysels Community Park will be held February 25' ➢ PAR will participate in the St. Patrick's Day Parade on March 17th ➢ Spring Festival to be held at Eagles Lakes Community Park on March 31St ➢ Sun -N -Fun will be open for Collier County's Spring Break ➢ Easter Events - March 31 - Spring Festival/ East Naples Community Park - March 31 - Bunny Workshop/ Veterans Community Park - March 31 - Easter Egg Hunt/ Immokalee Community Park - April 7 - Max Hasse Community Park/ Easter Eggstrvaganza ➢ Summer Camp Registration — April 14 ➢ Summer Camp Expo to be held at North Collier Regional Park on April 14. ➢ Volunteer Recognition Luncheon will be held at North Collier Regional Park on April 14. b. Recreation Highlights Annie Alvarez gave a slide presentation on the Sunshine State BMX Qualifier held from January 13 -15. She reported: ➢ State and Local Sponsors ➢ 525 Riders ➢ Over 3500 spectators ➢ 30 -40 RVs did dry camping at GGCC ➢ No gate fee was charged Staff will provide a State BMX Qualifier Expense report at the March meeting. 2 1612 A15 February 15, 2012 III. Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin requested the following "Add On" items be placed under New Business: VI. b. Approval of Beach Access Signage Installation for Vanderbilt Beach Road VI. c. Verbal Updates to Board - 183 Grants /TDC Funding and Beach Facilities - Recommendations Relative to TDC Funding Staff suggested the PARAB could hear items and recommended items be placed on the March agenda. Phil Brougham moved to continue the Approval of Beach Access Signage to the March meeting when it can be properly advertised. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 4 -0. Murdo Smith moved to hear updates for the 3- Verbal Updates for informational purposes only. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 4 -0. Phil Brougham moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. Approval of January 18, 2012 Minutes Phil Brougham moved to approve the January 18, 2012 Minutes as presented. Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 4 -0. It was noted a 'finalized" draft Policies and Procedures on Overnight Parking will be on the March Agenda. VI. New Business a. Clam Pass Bridge Gary McAlpin distributed an Executive Summary for the recommendation to authorize structural pilings inspection and bridge repairs to the Clam Pass Draw Bridge and approve a budget of $72,500 to complete this work. (See attached) He reported Cronin Engineering, Inc conducted a visual inspection of the Clam Pass Park tramway and walkway on March 22, 2011. (See attached) He reviewed physical inspection observations and Engineer recommendations. It was noted the bridge is inspected yearly and a survey of all top of pilings for the last 5 years. There is no danger of a structural collapse. Community concerns have been expressed on the structural safety of the bridge. Gary McAlpin asked the Advisory Board to approve the Executive Summary to inspect the structural pilings and repair the Clam Pass Drawbridge. It was noted the drawbridge will be operational when repairs are completed. Discussion was made on the Engineers recommendations, repair of fasteners and blocks that have been split, the non - working electrical control unit under the 3 1612 A15 February 15, 2012 bridge, section to be inspected and maintaining the integrity of the bridge and meeting permit requirements and Coast Guard rules. Public Speaker Marcia Cravens spoke on the shallow channel below bridge being non - navigable and the minimal draw bridge usage over years. She suggested the Board make a recommendation to research steps on how to have the drawbridge decommissioned. Staff reiterated the bridge structural integrity needs to operate under the current guidelines. The existing structure maintained and an inspection needs to be done. This is a public safety issue and the drawbridge is in violation and subject to fine. Discussion was ensued on the drawbridge used three times in the last year, the direction received from the Coast Guard and the obligation of the County to maintain the bridge. It was noted the Coast Guard is aware of the number of times the bridge has been used. Murdo Smith moved to approve the Executive Summary and the cost to repair the Clam Pass Bridge and direct Staff check with the Coast Guard to see if we can get the bridge decommissioned. Edward "Ski" Olesky recommended the two motions be made separately. Murdo Smith moved to approve the Executive Summary and the cost to repair the Clam Pass Bridge. Second by Edward "Ski" Olesky. Motion failed 2 -2. Phil Brougham and Barbara Buehler opposed. Phil Brougham moved to recommend and direct Gary (McAlpin) to contact the Coast Guard, make them aware of usage of the bridge as documented over the last 3 -5 years, at the drawbridge and request documentation on what the process is to decommission the bridge and bring back in conjunction with the Executive Summary for consideration. (Phil Brougham added) to approve $1 5,000 for the inspection of the drawbridge to verifying it is a viable bridge structure. No second made. Phil Brougham moved to approve $15,000 for the inspection of the drawbridge. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried 4 -0 Staff will provide the PARAB with the inspection results. Phil Brougham moved to direct Staff to contact the Coast Guard and make them aware of usage of the bridge over the last 3 -5 years as documented and request documentation on the cost and the length of the process to investigate the decommission of the drawbridge. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried 4 -0. 0 16 12 A15 February 15, 2012 b. Verbal Updates to Board 183 Grants /TDC Funds and Beach Facilities Gary McAlpin distributed an Executive Summary FY 2011/12 to approve the Category "A" Tourist Development Fund 183 Grant Applications for the Advisory Boards information only. (See attached) He suggested holding a Workshop with the Staff at the next meeting to discuss all the beach park facilities and determine what issues we should focus on, prioritize them and compare to current beach park facilities activity list. It was decided March would be the best month to hold the Workshop. Recommendation Relative to TDC Funding Gary McAlpin distributed a report created by Rick Medwedeff, General Manager of Marco Island Marriott and a member of the TDC Subcommittee for the TDC Subcommittee on a business case for "Economic Impact, Jobs, and Quality of Life in Collier County." (See attached) He noted the TDC Subcommittee will be making a recommendation on the permanent restructuring of the Tourist Development Tax Allocation over the next 5- years. The report reflected the following Category A recommendations: - Fund 195 — Beach Re- nourishment/inlet management from 33.33% to 34.00% Fund 183 — Beach Park Facilities from 16.67% to 6.00% The recommendation could have a devastating effect of the maintenance of beach park facilities. The next TDC meeting is scheduled for February 27th at 9:00 A.M. at the Government Complex in Building F. Public Speaker Marcia Cravens made remarks on the restructuring of the tourist development, more marketing to attract more business, possible other revenue streams, user fees for museums and the use of more volunteers. VII. Adopt A Park Edward "Ski" Olesky reported Immokalee Community Park, Immokalee Sports Complex, Ann Olesky Park/Boat Ramp and South Park appear they are being well maintained. He submitted a petition to Staff requesting playground equipment be replaced and installed at Dreamland Park. Staff responded the prior equipment was un- replaceable and discarded. Community feedback identifies community needs for consideration during the budget process. Staff will provide the 5 -Year Capital Plan for Boards review. Phil Brougham suggested Staff involve the PARAB to back Staff on issues going before the BCC to lobby on important issues and when there could be a benefit to making or breaking decisions affecting PAR. VIII. Director's Highlights Barry Williams gave an update on the following projects: Gordon River Greenway Parkway 5 1612 February 15, 2012 He reviewed the issue regarding the County received a "Warning" letter regarding the land swap between CC and the zoo in June 2010. They cited any changes need to be reported to the Florida Community Trust. The land swap had not reported previously. The zoo is private use and does not meet the Intent of Land Use. A new land survey, a revised Declaration of Restricted Covenants, a revised Land Management Plan will require approval by the State. Then it will be submitted to the BCC in March and finalized by the end of March. Eagle Lakes/ Immokalee South Park — The public Notice of Intent (to transfer grant funds from Eagle Lakes Community to Immokalee South Park Project) cure period ends on March 2. Human Services will take the recommendation to the BCC on March 28. Max Hasse Expansion project was approved by the BCC on February 14, 2012. Expansion construction will begin in 30 days. Vineyards Renovation water feature construction will begin in next couple of weeks. Marla Ramsey resigned. Leo Ochs will announce an Interim Administrator. IX. Informational Items — Read only. Murdo Smith requested a copy of the Freedom Park Management Plan. The "Adopt A Park" Report has been newly assigned to him. X. Public Comments/Board Comments Marcia Cravens remarked on the Eagle Lakes / Immokalee South Park resolution and kayak facilities and the use of mobbi mat as a launching surface. Phil Brougham moved to adjourn. Second by Murdo Smith. Motion carried 4 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 3:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Chairman John P. Ribes These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on presented or as amended C as 1612 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, January 101h at 1:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay located at 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida 34108. The following members ere resent: v C��IIC�I� Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Tom Cravens, Chairman MAR 1 ) 2012 Geoffrey S. Gibson Dave Trecker BY:. ...................... Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator (absent) Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Also Present Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary AGENDA Roll Call Presentation by Kyle Lukasz on Pelican Bay's Water Management System Discussion on Exotic Invasive Plants Audience Comments Adjournment Fiala I Hiller J` - -"'— Henning �- ---- --""'- Coyle ✓ Coletta ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. PRESENTATION BY KYLE LUKASZ ON PELICAN BAY'S WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Mr. Kyle Lukasz made a presentation about Pelican Bay's surface water management system that consists of six basins or drainage systems, forty-four (44) retention lakes that stormwater runoff flows through and is managed by the Pelican Bay Services Division at drainage easements, or at locations where stormwater is discharged into Clam Bay and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico. The system also includes three (3) fountains that serve the purpose of aeration to control algae, but the aeration is not as effective as some aquatic plants are in controlling algae. Geo- textile tubing and littoral plants prevent erosion around the lake banks. Water quality testing and landscaping best management practices are used to control nutrients. Ms. Diane Lustig, Hyde Park was concerned about lakes and long term nutrient management. Dr. Ted Raia was concerned about contractors not applying fertilizer using best management practices. Mr. Lukasz explained the purpose of Tim Hall's ongoing nutrient management study is to be able to identify areas where there are high nutrient levels and through the Foundation's authority to enforce covenants, implement landscaping best management practices. DISCUSSION ON EXOTIC INVASIVE PLANTS Chairman Cravens described exotic plants as any plant introduced into Florida after European contact occurred or roughly the year 1500. Exotic plants are not necessarily bad plants, Awt". these plants can become invasive. According to the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, Category I exotic invasive plants have escaped Date: s12 -11 %z. 11 Item k t U =-L14 I Q. Copies to: 116 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting 16, 1 Alb January 10, 2012 cultivation, invaded natural communities, and disrupted and caused damage to the environment. Category Il Exotic Invasive plants have not yet disrupted and caused damage to the environment, but have potential to do so. Coastal Zone Management department received a grant to remove exotics at Clam Pass Park and along the beach in Pelican Bay which are mainly Australian Pines, Brazilian Pepper, and Scaevola. Chairman Cravens is concerned about using exotic invasive plants in landscaping in Pelican Bay and would like to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Services Division stop using exotic invasive plants in landscaping in Pelican Bay and attempt to remove those that are already being used. The Subcommittee directed Mr. Lukasz to develop a landscaping plan to replace exotic invasive plants with non - invasive plants, such as Cocoplum, with a cost estimate that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board. ADJOURNMENT There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. T Cravens, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 2/8/2012 11:48:03 AM 12 1642A16 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday, February 1, 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 0 Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Susan O'Brien W 1 2� 12 i Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman Dave Trecker John P. Chandler Mary Anne Womble absent Geoffrey S. Gibson John Baron absent BY ........................ John Iaizzo Hunter H. Hansen absent Michael Levy 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 Fiala 4i%— Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Hiller Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation Hipnning REVISED AGENDA Coyle Coletta 3c 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. New Business a. Clam Bay Restoration Plan Annual Report Update (O'Brien) b. East of Berm Water Samples Results Update (O'Brien) 6. 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. Roadway /Pathways (Chandler) d. South Berm Restoration Permitting Update e. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Clam Bay Update b. Announcements 8. Committee Reports a. Clam Bay (Trecker) b. Landscape Water Management (Cravens) i. Use of Invasive Exotics in Landscaping in Pelican Bay c. Budget (Levy) d. Strategic Planning Committee (Dallas for Womble) 9. Old Business 10. (Additional) New Business c. Letter to Commissioner Hiller to Request Increasing Road Maintenance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Chandler) 11. Audience Comments Misc. Cones: 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. Adjournment Cab: 5712.7--1 1-2- Item #:1 U-= 2141 Le Copies to: 8526 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 ROLL CALL 16 112 P. 16 With the exception of Ms. Womble, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen all Board members were present. There were approximately seventy-five people in the audience. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda to hear New Business items regarding Clam Bay first. Mr. Levy added Budget Subcommittee to Committee Reports. Mr. Chandler added "Letter to Commissioner Hiller to Request Increasing the Road Maintenance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget" to additional New Business. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 4, 2012 Regular Session minutes as resented The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. NEW BUSINESS CLAM BAY RESTORATION PLAN AN UAL REPORT UPDATE Mr. Tim Hall distributed the draft Clam Bay Xnnual Report to the Board and explained that he and Mr. Ken Humiston would present the formal report at the Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting on February 21 at 4 p.m. Due to technical difficulties with tidal gauges, Mr. Humiston's data was not included in the draft report, but anticipates it would be presented February 21. T OF BERM WATER SAMPLES RESULTS UPDATE Mr. Hall reported he is doing a study for the Foundation that involves collecting samples from locations east of the berm to test for water quality and nutrient levels to identify areas of concern. The study is in progress and results would be summarized and reported on an annual basis. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported the community crosswalks project is complete. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING Mr. Dorrill reported landscaping associated with the crosswalk projects was done using in -house labor. However the original budget considered using contract labor. There were savings made by doing the work in house and money is available in the existing Capital Projects fund to do additional projects. As directed by the Budget Subcommittee on January 17, Mr. Lukasz proposed a landscaping project to implement in house this summer using Ms. Ellin Goetz' "typical intersection" design plans for landscaping improvements at five public roadway intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard in the following street order at: 1) Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard; 2) Hammock Oak Drive; 3) North Pointe Drive; 4) Crayton Road; and 5) Glenview Place. The work would cost $18,000 - $22,000 per intersection, and include installation of streaming irrigation that conserves more water. The Board directed staff to distribute the proposed landscaping design plans and plant palette for further discussion at the March 7 meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Mollie Moffatt and Mr. Jerry Moffatt expressed discontent with the new landscaping and plant palette. Mr. Moffatt understood the purpose of replacing the irrigation with better streaming heads was to conserve water, but observed water spraying all over the place at the North Tram station. 8527 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 1612A16 Mr. Dorrill explained landscaping and irrigation improvements at the North Tram station were only made in the medians and adjacent areas of the new crossing. The remaining area where there is sod was not part of the project's scope. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill presented the proposed pathways widening project as having evolved from the Pelican Bay Foundation's strategic master planning study in 2009 and Community Improvement Plan's many workshops and town hall meetings held jointly with the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board in 2010 and 2011. The proposed project consists of replacing the five feet wide pathways with eight feet wide asphalt pathways because since the community was built more than thirty years ago the standards have changed and more pedestrians and bicyclists are sharing the pathways. The minimum code recognized multiuse pathway is ten feet to as wide as twelve. However space limitations in the road right -of -way cannot accommodate ten feet wide pathways. The question to be considered today is whether the Board would like to continue with eight feet wide pathways that would meander in a uniformed fashion to improve line of sight issues at cross streets and service driveways, and to avoid having to remove trees and develop a plan to replace trees. Mr. Dorrill reported on January 4, the Board directed staff to review the proposed pathways widening project with residents of adjacent condominiums and comments were received, some were well- founded, and some were negative in regards to perceived impact. However this project has been in the planning process for three years and was conceived for the greater good of the community. Mr. Jim Carr, P.E. explained the existing five feet wide pathways could be widened up to eight feet and still be classified as a sidewalk primarily for pedestrians, but bicyclists are not prohibited from riding on the pathway. He advised against installing signage to direct traffic on the pathways and cited a 2007 County Attorney opinion that bicyclists must yield the right of way to pedestrians. To be classified as shared, multi -use pathways, the standard is a minimum of ten feet wide, but twelve is preferred The current right of way permit was approved for widening the pathways to eight feet. If the project was changed to widen less than eight feet, the savings would be approximately $20,000. Installation of root barriers underneath carries the bulk of expense. The code requires maintenance of what the standard was when built. Vice Chairman Cravens acknowledged pathways maintenance is the County's responsibility, but not being done. Chairman Dallas pointed out the Services Division has funds available that are intended for completing the proposed pathways widening and various other Community Improvement Plan projects then opened the floor for audience comments. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ten residents expressed opposition to the proposed pathways widening project for various reasons: 1) concerned that wider pathways would encourage more bicycle traffic on the pathways, creating unsafe conditions, especially at entrance /exit driveways; 2) objected to removing trees obstructing proposed route of wider pathway; and 3) disagreed the pathways were "crowded" or pedestrians and bicyclists usage was increasing and therefore there was no justification for the expense. Suggestions were made 1) to install bicycle lanes in the roadway and 2) perform a community survey before moving forward with the project. Public speakers opposing the project were Paul Liberti (Coronado); Bruce Beauchamp (Barrington Club); Diane Lustig (Hyde Park); Henry Bachman (Claridge); Marcia Cravens (Dorchester); Melanie Korn (Bay Colony); Dave Ritger (Oakmont); Roy Curbow (Montenero); John Domenic; and Elaine Daravingas (Montenero). Additionally, Coronado residents submitted two petitions opposing the project. Seven residents supported the proposed pathways widening project for several reasons: derived from the Community Improvement Plan study; 2) both the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board who agreed the pathways should be widened to eight feet as recommended; 3) improvements should be made to maintain property values; and 4) to uphold Pelican Bay's premier community standards. Public speakers in favor of widening the MM Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 161 2A16 pathways were Bill McCormick (Bay Colony); Calvin Grayson (Serendipity); Charles Bodo (Crown Colony /Strategic Planning Committee); Carson Beadle (Strategic Planning Committee); Howard Boyd (Chateaumere); Ray Bozzacco (St. Kitts); and Jack Thompson (St. Maarten /St. Thomas). Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt supported the project that was carefully planned over a long period, due diligence was done, and that residents had already paid for through property taxes. There were no additional public speakers and Chairman Dallas closed the audience comments session. DISCUSSION The Board discussed how to proceed with the proposed pathways widening project. Ms. O'Brien recommended before moving forward the Board should do a survey to gauge public sentiment. Mr. Dorrill said if the Board decided to do a survey staff would hire an unbiased entity to prepare questions and implement in a format that would achieve statistically significant results. Also the Board would need to consider the commercial properties who do not usually want to spend their money on residential improvements. The Board acknowledged that the pathways were in poor shape, it was the County's responsibility to maintain the pathways, and whether to lobby Commissioner Hiller for support. Consensus was that the pathways needed to be redone, but the issue was deciding whether to widen and by how many feet, safety issues, and circumnavigating trees. Mr. Dorrill would look into what the County is planning for roadway and pathway maintenance for Fiscal Year 2013 and report back. FAILED MOTION Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible) I) if a tree is taken out, or what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in- kind close by; and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibson, Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), 5 opposed (Dr. Tracker. Vice Chairman Cravens. Mr. Chandler. Mr. laizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed. PASSING MOTION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mn Chandler "to make it a six-footpath throughout (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) "with the conditions that were in Geoff's [Gibson] original motion" (where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible): 1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind close by; and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Trecker) and 3 opposed (Chairman Dallas, Mr. Levy, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion was passed. (Pathways failed motion and passing motion transcription pages 8532 -8537) SOUTH BERM RESTORATION PERMITTING UPDATE Mr. Dorrill reported staff had confirmed agency permitting requirements for the south berm restoration project. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is requiring a nationwide "dredge and fill" permit; South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is not requiring a letter of modification or environmental resource permit; and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) affirmed through a letter of exemption that within the drainage easement there are no 8529 i Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 1612A16 February 1, 2012 restrictions to trim or make alterations to mangroves. Wilson Miller - Stantec environmental consultants have suggested exploring amending the site development plan. However, Mr. Dorrill said staff has gone beyond what is reasonable to obtain the required permitting for what is considered a maintenance project. Staff plans to put this project out to bid, so that work can begin this summer. To accommodate equipment and fill, the south berm may need to be partially closed at times for a period of about 3 -4 weeks. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned about the south berm being inaccessible. Mr. Dorrill assured that staff would work with the Foundation to provide necessary access to residents and trams. Dr. Trecker distributed a legal opinion that he was concerned about stating the Foundation owned the berm and requested clarification because the Pelican Bay Services Division is spending its funds on private property. Mr. Dorrill said there is no question that the land is owned by the Foundation. However the earthen berm was constructed with bond proceeds and therefore is an asset of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Drainage facilities and lakes are also assets of the Services Division because they are part of the master drainage system. The asphalt pathway atop the berm was built by the developer and maintained by the Foundation and owned by the Foundation. Mr. Hoppensteadt said he would provide documentation regarding ownership of the berm and the Board planned to discuss further at the March 7 meeting. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the financial report into the record Tile Board voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was passed. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CLAM BAY UPDATE Chairman Dallas reported there is no news regarding Seagate's lawsuit except the FDEP rejected Seagate's request for an administrative hearing; Mr. Feldhaus is still working with the County to develop a mutual agreement to manage Clam Bay; and the Legislature is expected to approve water quality regulations soon. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced upcoming meetings: Foundation Board Candidate Forums are February 7 and 29 at 4 p.m.; Coastal Advisory Committee meets February 9 at 1 p.m.; Budget Subcommittee meets February 13 at 3 p.m.; Tim Hall and Ken Humiston will make presentations at the February 21 at 4 p.m. Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting; Foundation Board meets February 24 at 8:30 a.m.; and next Services Division Board meeting is March 7 at 1 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS CLAM BAY Dr. Trecker said he did not have anything to add to what was already discussed. LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker that the Pelican Bay Services Division would not use any exotic invasive plants (including Mexican Petunia and Wart Fern) listed on the current Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's invasive plant list for landscaping materials in Pelican Bay. The Board voted seven (7) in avor - one (1) opposed (Ms. O'Brien) and the motion was passed. 8530 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes A 16 February 1, 2012 16 12.1 BUDGET Mr. Levy reported the Budget Subcommittee met January 17 and discussed the Fiscal Year 2013 budget preparation schedule. The proposed FY 2013 budget would be presented to the full Board at the May meeting. The next Budget Subcommittee meeting is February 13 at 3 p.m. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Chairman Dallas reported on behalf of Ms. Womble that both the Foundation and Strategic Planning Committee supported the pathways widening project. OLD BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia said the berm became property of the Foundation as part of a lawsuit settlement. Ms. Marcia Cravens presented a map of Pelican Bay that showed restrictions and protective covenants; and disc that contained the map and related historical documents. ADJOURNMENT A motion, second and unanimous vote was made to adjourn the meeting at 4:21 p.m. Keith . Dallas, Ch 'rman 8531 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/2/2012 11:11:33 AM 16112 A16 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PATHWAYS DISCUSSION MOTIONS, SECONDS, VOTES MR. GIBSON: "1'd like to make a motion. I'd like to propose that this Board proceed with the pathways project, that the eight -foot width issue should be modified to flex [down to] six -feet minimum because I agree, I want the paths to be wider, but do we need eight feet? I don't think so. And I'd also like to put that caveat in because I know we've had a lot of people very sensitive to trees and nature and I'm one of them. If we have to take a tree out, for what is the last ditch effort to do that, that that tree be replaced somewhere in kind close by." DR. TRECKER: "I second the motion." MR. LEVY: "Would you entertain adding to that motion that a pathway in no instance will be any closer to a building driveway ?" MR. GIBSON: "I agree. That's a serious... I do ride bikes and I do walk and I haven't been hit yet, but I'll tell you what, I've almost been guilty of hitting people, but I'm not on the other side of that ... I know how dangerous that is." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "So, you will accept the inclusion of that in the motion ?" MR. GIBSON: "Absolutely." MR. IAIZZO: "We have to agree to one more foot which way we are going to go. We are going to go toward the street." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "We need to leave that up to the engineers to put it where it makes sense. We are not trying to disrupt the current landscaping, sometimes it just depends where we are, some places you can go toward the street, but sometimes there is something in the street, I mean there's trees between the pathway and the street, so you can't go that way." MR. CHANDLER ASKED MR. GIBSON what he meant about "flex down to six feet. MR. GIBSON: "We should proceed and not have the new pathway any narrower than six feet but perhaps there is a caveat to that with an engineering study." MR. CHANDLER: "I think the citizens raised a very valid issue about safety particularly encouraging more bike traffic. I think an eight -foot wide pathway definitely would encourage more bike traffic. For a couple reasons. I think some people who are marginally comfortable in the street might go `now I've got a nice new eight -foot wide pathway, I'll go over there. Also I noticed people who do round -trip biking on the berm. They never leave the berm, but if they have a nice eight -foot wide pathway down Pelican Bay Boulevard they may decide to take a circle route, so some of that bike traffic on the berm might end up coming down the pathways in front of the driveways. Speaking as a rollerblader, you give me a nice smooth eight -foot wide asphalt path I might be going down there too and rollerblading and rollerbladers would be the worst thing you want to have on that pathway because a bike has some decent braking power, but rollerbladers don't, so I guess I'm thinking that a six -foot wide pathway is fine and that's a good compromise. I'm just concerned about `flex down to six'. That implies widening to eight feet in some areas." CHAIRMAN DALLAS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "I thought your recommendation was for eight feet, between six and eight." MR. GIBSON: "Yes, in between six and eight. There's areas where... and I think your point is a very good one because don't we want to encourage more bike riding in this community?" MR. CHANDLER: "No, not on the pathways." DR. TRECKER: "Not on the sidewalks." 8532 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16 112 A 1 Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "Okay, then we don't want to encourage it [more bike riding]. Okay." MR. CHANDLER: "I guess what I'm going at is I fully support a six -foot wide pathway, but I'm uncomfortable telling the engineers it could `flex down to six. I mean what does the engineer do ?" MR. IAIZZO: "I don't think that was the motion. 1 thought the motion was six feet period." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "When you made the motion, I didn't quite understand the meaning of the word `flex down to six'. Are you saying...?" MR. GIBSON: "Neil put it in the best verbiage when he was talking about how certain sections would be a width, and there would be a gradual transition. That's what I was trying to re- verbalize." MR. IAIZZO: "Can't it stay at six feet? Let it be at that." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "The motion is for eight feet going down to six..." MR. GIBSON: "Where necessary." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "If you don't like that you should vote that down and come up with another one." MR. CHANDLER: "I'd support six feet wide pathways. I'm going to vote against eight flexing to six." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Anyone else have any comments before we vote ?" MS. O'BRIEN: "Well, the original major objective was to widen it and now we're backing off of that and coming back down to six foot maybe. Then I go back to we're taking a section of the pathway that is not in the worst condition. We have other areas of the pathways in this community that are in much worse condition. Where you literally cannot ride a bicycle safely or you can't walk safely because of tree roots being exposed and so forth. And we're not doing those in the first phase. We're taking... we're doing this area that had been identified for a good place to widen it and now we're saying well that's not really our objective, we just need to fix them." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I think that's why we recommended the eight feet." MR. LEVY: "The motion is narrowing down to not less than six or six - and - one -half feet." MR. GIBSON: "Alright, alright. Let's withdraw the motion and I'll revise the motion as previously stated and I'll go with six feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I'd vote against that. I'd like to see us widen things. Six, six - and - one -half is the bare minimum." MR. LEVY: "That's throwing out a year and a half of work and a few hundred thousand dollars worth of consultant time." MR. GIBSON: "The reason I'm suggesting it is because I see this whole thing going down the rat hole." MR. LEVY: "The objections have been trees and bushes, to lose those, and it's also been a safety issue of the pathway being closer to the driveways and the buildings that people don't want to have. You address those two things in the motion you have made, but I think eight feet is still the right way to go. This is a quality of life issue. The widening of the pathways is not going to be a safety issue. It's a quality of life issue, a quality of life for the people living in Pelican Bay." MR. GIBSON: "Yes." CHAIRMAN DALLAS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "Have you withdrawn it [the motion]? I was thinking let's vote on it and if it fails then we'll talk about something else if there is something else." 8533 I Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "It should be very clear, but first we need a second." MR. DORRILL: "Dr. Trecker seconded it." DR. TRECKER: "I'm certainly willing to withdraw the second." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Is there another second to it ?" DR. TRECKER: "The motion was made then withdrawn and the second was also withdrawn." 1612x16 MR. CHANDLER: "I thought that Geoff said that he would revise his motion to be a six -foot pathway. Is that correct ?" MR. GIBSON: "Yes, because what I'm visualizing happening here this afternoon is that the whole project be ash - canned for who knows how long." MR. LEVY: "Well, let's first try to get it the way it was conceived to be in the Community Improvement Plan." MR. GIBSON: "You mean, no narrower than six feet and no wider than eight feet, reasonable transitions as verbalized by our [Administrator]." MR. LEVY: "Yeah." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "So you do it wider where it works and slightly wider where it doesn't." MR. IAIZZO: "That will be crazy wavy." MR. LEVY: "No." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I don't think it will be that wavy. Not if you do it gradually." Someone in the audience wanted to make a comment CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Sorry, we'll never get to a vote if we take too many comments and we've heard comments." MR. CHANDLER: "I joined the CIP committee maybe a third of the way through, maybe half of the way through, just before I was elected to the Board here, and I frankly don't recall any conversation when we were talking about this potential widening about the potential accidents that might happen to bringing more people onto the pathway with a wider pathway and the issues we have at the driveways, so even though maybe people put time into going on a certain way, I think we have to, if we see a problem, someone raises an issue to our attention, `hey there's a safety issue here' I think we have to recognize it. That's why I'm on the thought that eight -foot is too wide. It's going to encourage more bikes on the pathway, it's going to encourage more accidents, I think six is probably not going to bring people out of the streets onto the path, it's pretty wide. I would support six. CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "What is the motion we have in front of us? Is it eight or is it six ?" MR. GIBSON: "It was eight feet, no narrower than six." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there a second to that ?" MR. LEVY: "Well, he also said that trees should be replaced that need to come out and not be closer to the buildings and driveways. I just want to get the full motion." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, with replace the trees in the area and no closer to the buildings or driveways. MR. GIBSON: "There's no second." 8534 161HAI6 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "If there's no second then that's the end of the discussion." MR. LEVY: "I second it." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, there's the three points. Modified eight feet, no less than six feet, nice transitions; replace the trees in the area where we take them out, and again the idea is to minimize the number of trees we have to take out, that's why we're going to six feet in those areas probably; and at driveways, no closer to buildings. MR. LEVY: "And it's a safety issue at entrances and exits. I CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's in there, that's a good point. Any discussion? I'm going to have a roll call vote just because I know it's going to be split. Start with the guy who did it." MR. GIBSON: "Aye." DR. TRECKER: "No." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yes." MR. CHANDLER: "No." MR. LEVY: "Yes." MR.IAIZZO: "No." MS.O'BRIEN: "No." MR. DORRILL: "Failed 3 -5." Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modEying the eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side o Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible) 1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in- kind close by, and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibson, Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), S opposed (Dr. Trecker, mice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Iaizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed. CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there another motion ?" VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "I'll make a motion to make it a six -foot path throughout with the conditions that were in Geoffs original motion." MR. CHANDLER: "I second." MR. MOFFATT: "What about phasing? Do the worst areas first ?" MR. GIBSON: "Till the whole thing gets done." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah. What we're voting on this year is for that central section. Any discussion ?" 8535 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session , 1612 A16 Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. LEVY: "I think Susan is raising a valid point. We're essentially replacing the pathway. That's essentially what we're doing. MR. GIBSON: "It's a foot wider. That's a big difference." MR. LEVY: "A foot wider. But if that's what we're doing, I think we should do the worst part of the pathways first. Why do this part of the pathways which is probably one of the best parts of the pathways that we have from The Commons down to the North Tram station." DR. TRECKER: "If that's the best then we're in bad shape." MR. LEVY: "The east side of the pathways are probably in worse shape." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "You think the west is bad because you walked on the east. There are a lot of sections that are in bad shape. Other discussion ?" MR. DORRILL: "On the motion, I have detailed sketches and plans for the west side. If anything other than that requires me to go all the way back and redesign and re- permit and we've accomplished nothing. If we can stick to the project as conceived it is much easier to have the engineer issue an addendum for a width of six feet with some minor design changes. That's what I would recommend." MR. LEVY: "A number of speakers here recommended adding a foot - and- one -half which is six - and - one -half feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's interesting. I Googled this when the discussion started coming up. It depends on the use of the pathway, but besides the eight to ten feet multi -use they say well five feet in a walkway, they are talking about pedestrians not bicycles. Five -foot bare minimum, six -foot, six - and - one - half -foot is really recommended..." MR. LEVY: "Well then let's go with six - and - one -half feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I feel more comfortable with six - and - one -half but there's some places where you probably can't get six - and - one -half in, but I'm having the same problem you are. The idea here was to make them wide enough so they aren't uncomfortable and we're on the bare minimum side of uncomfortable I think." DR. TRECKER: "You have a motion on the table for six feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "That's true. Any more discussion ?" MR. LEVY ASKED VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Would you reconsider revising your motion." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No." Someone called out from the audience accusing the Chairman of already making a decision before the vote. CHAIRMAN DALLAS responded he was voicing his opinion and the Board would make a decision by voting soon. VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "This is a substantial modification to what was originally proposed." DR TRECKER and MR. GIBSON agreed. MS. O'BRIEN: "So if we would prefer to have six - and - one -half feet, we would vote no to this motion ?" There was general agreement that if a member preferred any width other than six feet, they would vote no on the motion. DR. TRECKER: "Call the question." CHAIRMAN DALLAS called another roll call vote. 8536 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16112 Q /1 1 1 Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "Aye." DR. TRECKER: "Aye." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Aye." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "No." MR. CHANDLER: "Aye." MR. LEVY: "No." MR.IAIZZO: "Yes." luRX67i lRI112MMI ii The Board voted 5 in favor, 3 were opposed, and the motion was passed. MR. DORRILL would have the engineer issue the requisite addendum and "you will not see this again until it comes time to award the bid" that he estimated would be in April. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mn Chandler "to make it a six-foot path throughout (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) "with the conditions that were in Geoffs [Gibson) original motion" (where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible): I) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind close by, and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Trecker) and 3 opposed (Chairman Dallas, Mr. Levy, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion was passed. Transcribed by Lisa Resnick 2/28/2012 3:00:34 PM 8537 --"'w 16112 A16 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD FEBRUARY 13, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, February 13, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson John Chandler John Iaizzo Keith J. Dallas Susan O'Brien Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Financial goals for preparation of Fiscal Year 2013 budget 5. Discussion of Capital Projects for Fiscal Year 2013 a. Discussion of repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard loan /repayment b. Discussion of repairing /replacing pathways loan/repayment 3i�t ers 6. Discussion of Capital Projects for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2016 7. Audience Comments Fiala ✓� 8. Adjourn Hiller k-- ROLL CALL Henning � Coyle ✓ "�- All members were present. Coletta APPROVAL OF JANUARY 17, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meetin minutes as resented. The vote was unanimously in fiavor, and the motion was p assed. CHAIRMAN LEVY'S INTRODUCTION Chairman Levy reviewed the agenda and explained items 5a and 5b reflected Mr. Chandler's requests and the intent of item 5 is to discuss possible FY 2013 Capital Projects. Mr. Dallas explained he did not revise his cash flow sheets for item 6. Chairman Levy said the intent of item 6 would be to discuss future Capital Projects Fiscal Years 2014- 2016. RESCHEDULE THE MARCH 12 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Ms. McCaughtry reported the County's Fiscal Year 2013 budget policy guidelines would not be available before March 12, the date of the next Budget Subcommittee meeting. The Subcommittee agreed the March 12 meeting should be rescheduled for either Wednesday, March 21, or Monday, March 26 at 3 p.m. depending upon member availability. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None Mist. C:;rres: Date: f 221 I Z Item #: LA) 2 w ► ( ° 1126 r0pies to. 16 112, A16 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2012 FINANCIAL GOALS FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2013 BUDGET Chairman Levy recommended and the Budget Subcommittee directed staff to use as an objective for the FY 2013 proposed budget, the same financial goals that were used to prepare the Fiscal Year 2012 budget without the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) assessment: 1) hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $370.63; and 2) hold the ad valorem millage rate at 0.0531 and strive to provide funds for the CIP. The Budget Subcommittee would determine Fiscal Year 2013 CIP funding requirements and then calculate any additional assessment and millage rates. DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FY 2013 CROSSWALKS AND LANDSCAPING The Subcommittee discussed crosswalk and associated landscaping projects along Pelican Bay Boulevard at three intersections: Myra Janco Daniels, Crayton Road, and North Pointe Drive. Because the funds are currently available ($158,000 estimated) the Subcommittee was in favor of completing the remaining crosswalks during summer 2012 as part of the FY 2012 budget. DISCUSSION OF REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD LOAN/REPAYMENT Mr. Dorrill said it was his understanding that the subject of loaning the County funds to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard early was tabled by the full Board indefinitely. However, the Budget Subcommittee does have the option to revisit with the full Board. He explained the County would enter into a formal agreement with the Services Division. However the monetary transaction would be classified as an "interfund transfer" and "subject to appropriation ", so the main issue to determine is what strengthens the Services Division's repayment position. Years ago, each Commissioner had a resurfacing taxing district. To start the conversation, he suggested mentioning the resurfacing taxing district idea to Commissioner Hiller. DISCUSSION OF PATHWAYS REPAIRING /REPLACING AND LOAN/REPAYMENT The Subcommittee discussed possible FY 2013 pathways projects and as an initial estimate, directed staff to place $557,000 in the FY 2013 proposed budget to complete the remainder of the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard and to do the west side of Myra Janco Daniels (concrete). The Subcommittee also discussed the issue of the County's responsibility, but failure to maintain the pathways. Mr. Lukasz said typically, when he has reported to the County the need to repair a section of pathways, the work is scheduled within 30 days and completed within 90 days. Furthermore, Mr. Lukasz advised that when the pathways are redone, there are no existing sections that could be salvaged. Mr. Dorrill said an attempt to loan the County funds to repair or replace pathways with expectations for repayment would be unproductive. LANDSCAPING The Subcommittee discussed the desirability of proceeding with the CIP Landscaping project during FY 2013. Mr. Lukasz estimated that $200,000 could be beneficially employed, and the Subcommittee directed staff to include $200,000 for landscaping. These funds include the addition of trees called for in the CIP. OTHER ITEMS The Subcommittee discussed other projects and directed staff to include the following projects in the FY 2013 proposed budget: approximately $25,000 for littoral plantings; $85,000 for lake bank improvements; and $50,000 for sign posts refurbishment. 1127 i 161 02 16 1 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2012 DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014 -2016 For cash flow planning purposes, the Subcommittee discussed possible future CIP and Capital Projects expenditures as follows: FY 2014 Five -foot wide concrete pathways in residential neighborhoods: $425,000 Pathways along the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: $600,000 Pathways along the north side of Gulf Park Drive: $150,000 Sign posts refurbishment: 50,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 FY 2015 Pathways along the south side of Gulf Park Drive: $150,000 Pathways along North Pointe, Hammock Oak, and Crayton: $250,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 FY 2016 Pathways along the Oakmont Lake: $80,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 ADJOURN Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and vote unanimous to adjourn at 4:30 p.m. / Michael Levy, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/2012 9:59:26 AM 1128 L 1 �2 A 16' PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION p 039W3 Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit MAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY,'1VI'ARCH-7; 201-2• - THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 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: Fiala Hiller 1. Pledge of Allegiance Henning -?--- 2. Roll Call Coyle Coletta �'--- ---._ 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session b. January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee 5. Administrator's Report a. Pathways i. Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler) ii. Pelican Bay Foundation's (PBF) Request for Reconsideration of February 1 Board Action iii. Obstructions between Pathways and Roadway Blocking Street Lights at Night on Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil (Levy) b. Discussion of Proposed Projects to Implement Summer 2012 (Levy) i. Community Crosswalks ii. Community Landscaping c. South Berm Restoration i. Ownership of berm and water management easement improvements (O'Brien) ii. Berm engineering plans to date (O'Brien) d. Revisit Proposal to Resurface Pelican Bay Boulevard Early (O'Brien) e. Monthly Financial Report 6. Chairman's Report a. Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal b. April Meeting Schedule c. Announcements 7. Committee Reports a. Budget (Levy) b. Clam Bay (Trecker) i. Clam Bay Permits Annual Reporting and Aerial Photography Requirements Status (Levy) ii. Recommendation to Support Collaborative Workshop Request (Cravens) c. Landscape Water Management (Cravens) Misc. Cones: d. Strategic Planning Committee (Womble) 8. Old Business Date: 9. New Business 10. Audience Comments Item' tl -�Z2�fl �4 11. Miscellaneous Correspondence Copies to: 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 PELICANBAYSERVICESDIVISION.NET. 3/2/2012 1:59:36 PM a.. k 162 A 16 1 I PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session, Wednesday, February 1, 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 Susan O'Brien Tom Cravens, Vice Chairman Dave Trecker John P. Chandler Mary Anne Womble absent Geoffrey S. Gibson John Baron absent John Iaizzo Hunter H. Hansen absent Michael Levy Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 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 REVISED AGENDA Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Agenda Approval Approval of January 4, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes New Business a. Clam Bay Restoration Plan Annual Report Update (O'Brien) b. East of Berm Water Samples Results Update (O'Brien) Administrator's Report a. Community Crosswalks b. Community Landscaping c. Pathways 16-14It 2 AlE Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 ROLL CALL With the exception of Ms. Womble, Mr. Baron, and Mr. Hansen all Board members were present. There were approximately seventy -five people in the audience. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dallas amended the agenda to hear New Business items regarding Clam Bay first. Mr. Levy added Budget Subcommittee to Committee Reports. Mr. Chandler added "Letter to Commissioner Hiller to Request Increasing the Road Maintenance Fiscal Year 2013 Budget" to additional New Business. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended. The Board voted unanimously in -favor and the motion was passed. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4, 2012 REGULAR SESSION MINUTES Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 4, 2012 Regular Session minutes as resented. The Board voted unanimous) in favor and the motion was passed. NEW BUSINESS CLAM BAY RESTORATION PLAN ANNUAL REPORT UPDATE Mr. Tim Hall distributed the draft Clam Bay Annual Report to the Board and explained that he and Mr. Ken Humiston would present the formal report at the Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting on February 21 at 4 p.m. Due to technical difficulties with tidal gauges, Mr. Humiston's data was not included in the draft report, but anticipates it would be presented February 21. EAST OF BERM WATER SAMPLES RESULTS UPDATE Mr. Hall reported he is doing a study for the Foundation that involves collecting samples from locations east of the berm to test for water quality and nutrient levels to identify areas of concern. The study is in progress and results would be 0 6 ''k 161 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 Mr. Dorrill explained landscaping and irrigation improvements at the North Tram station were only made in the medians and adjacent areas of the new crossing. The remaining area where there is sod was not part of the project's scope. PATHWAYS Mr. Dorrill presented the proposed pathways widening project as having evolved from the Pelican Bay Foundation's strategic master planning study in 2009 and Community Improvement Plan's many workshops and town hall meetings held jointly with the Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee and Pelican Bay Services Division Board in 2010 and 2011. The proposed project consists of replacing the five feet wide pathways with eight feet wide asphalt pathways because since the community was built more than thirty years ago the standards have changed and more pedestrians and bicyclists are sharing the pathways. The minimum code recognized multiuse pathway is ten feet to as wide as twelve. However space limitations in the road right -of -way cannot accommodate ten feet wide pathways. The question to be considered today is whether the Board would like to continue with eight feet wide pathways that would meander in a uniformed fashion to improve line of sight issues at cross streets and service driveways, and to avoid having to remove trees and develop a plan to replace trees. Mr. Dorrill reported on January 4, the Board directed staff to review the proposed pathways widening project with residents of adjacent condominiums and comments were received, some were well- founded, and some were negative in regards to perceived impact. However this project has been in the planning process for three years and was conceived for the greater good of the community. 1612 � A16 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes February 1, 2012 pathways were Bill McCormick (Bay Colony); Calvin Grayson (Serendipity); Charles Bodo (Crown Colony /Strategic Planning Committee); Carson Beadle (Strategic Planning Committee); Howard Boyd (Chateaumere); Ray Bozzacco (St. Kitts); and Jack Thompson (St. Maarten/St. Thomas). Mr. Jim Hoppensteadt supported the project that was carefully planned over a long period, due diligence was done, and that residents had already paid for through property taxes. There were no additional public speakers and Chairman Dallas closed the audience comments session. DISCUSSION The Board discussed how to proceed with the proposed pathways widening project. Ms. O'Brien recommended before moving forward the Board should do a survey to gauge public sentiment. Mr. Dorrill said if the Board decided to do a survey staff would hire an unbiased entity to prepare questions and implement in a format that would achieve statistically significant results. Also the Board would need to consider the commercial properties who do not usually want to spend their money on residential improvements. The Board acknowledged that the pathways were in poor shape, it was the County's responsibility to maintain the pathways, and whether to lobby Commissioner Hiller for support. Consensus was that the pathways needed to be redone, but the issue was deciding whether to widen and by how many feet, safety issues, and circumnavigating trees. Mr. Dorrill would look into what the County is planning for roadway and pathway maintenance for Fiscal Year 2013 and report back. FAILED MOTION Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible) 1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in- kind close by; and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibson, Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), S opposed (Dr. Trecker, rice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Iaizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed. PASSING MOTION (Pathways failed motion and passing motion transcription pages Mr. Dorrill reported staff had confirmed agency permitting re( Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is requiring a nationwide "d District (SFWMD) is not requiring a letter of modification o o Environmental Protection (FDEP) affirmed through a letter of e 8529 berm restoration project. The VcepSe h Florida Water Management -sot; and Florida Department of within the drainage easement there are no �. 161? A16 ` Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutts February 1, 2012 restrictions to trim or make alterations to mangroves. Wilson Miller- Stantec environmental consultants have suggested exploring amending the site development plan. However, Mr. Dorrill said staff has gone beyond what is reasonable to obtain the required permitting for what is considered a maintenance project. Staff plans to put this project out to bid, so that work can begin this summer. To accommodate equipment and fill, the south berm may need to be partially closed at times for a period of about 3 -4 weeks. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned about the south berm being inaccessible. Mr. Dorrill assured that staff would work with the Foundation to provide necessary access to residents and trams. Dr. Trecker distributed a legal opinion that he was concerned about stating the Foundation owned the berm and requested clarification because the Pelican Bay Services Division is spending its funds on private property. Mr. Dorrill said there is no question that the land is owned by the Foundation. However the earthen berm was constructed with bond proceeds and therefore is an asset of the Pelican Bay Services Division. Drainage facilities and lakes are also assets of the Services Division because they are part of the master drainage system. The asphalt pathway atop the berm was built by the developer and maintained by the Foundation and owned by the Foundation. Mr. Hoppensteadt said he would provide documentation regarding ownership of the berm and the Board planned to discuss further at the March 7 meeting. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to accept the financial report into the record. The voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker that t an ices Division would not use any exotic invasive plants (including Mexican Petunia and ) lis the current Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's invasive plant list for landscaping ial a ay. The Board voted seven (7) in favor - one (1) opposed (Ms. O'Brien) and the motio 8530 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Minutes 16 1 2 A16 February 1, 2012 BUDGET Mr. Levy reported the Budget Subcommittee met January 17 and discussed the Fiscal Year 2013 budget preparation schedule. The proposed FY 2013 budget would be presented to the full Board at the May meeting. The next Budget Subcommittee meeting is February 13 at 3 p.m. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE Chairman Dallas reported on behalf of Ms. Womble that both the Foundation and Strategic Planning Committee supported the pathways widening project. OLD BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dr. Ted Raia said the berm became property of the Foundation as part of a lawsuit settlement. Ms. Marcia Cravens presented a map of Pelican Bay that showed restrictions and protective covenants; and disc that contained the map and related historical documents. ADJOURNMENT second and unanimous vote was made to adjourn the meeting at 4:21 Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/2/2012 11:11:33 AM 8531 .a t 16112 A16 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2012 PATHWAYS DISCUSSION MOTIONS, SECONDS, VOTES MR. GIBSON: "I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to propose that this Board proceed with the pathways project, that the eight -foot width issue should be modified to flex [down to] six -feet minimum because I agree, I want the paths to be wider, but do we need eight feet? I don't think so. And I'd also like to put that caveat in because I know we've had a lot of people very sensitive to trees and nature and I'm one of them. If we have to take a tree out, for what is the last ditch effort to do that, that that tree be replaced somewhere in kind close by." DR. TRECKER: "I second the motion." MR. LEVY: "Would you entertain adding to that motion that a pathway in no instance will be any closer to a building driveway ?" MR. GIBSON: "I agree. That's a serious... I do ride bikes and I do walk and I haven't been hit yet, but I'll tell you what, I've almost been guilty of hitting people, but I'm not on the other side of that ... I know how dangerous that is." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS ASKED MR. GIBSON: "So, you will accept the inclusion of that in the motion ?" MR. GIBSON: "Absolutely." MR. IAIZZO: "We have to agree to one more foot which way we are going to go. We are going to go toward the street." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "We need to leave that up to the engineers to put it where it makes sense. We are not trying to disrupt the current landscaping, sometimes it just depends Where we are, some places you can go toward the street, but sometimes there is something in the street, I mean there's trees between the pathway and the street, so you can't go that way." MR. CHANDLER ASKED MR. GIBSON what he meant about "flex down to six feet." MR. GIBSON: "We should proceed and not have the new pathway any narrower than six feet but perhaps there is a caveat to that with an engineering study." MR. CHANDLER: "I think the citizens raised a very valid issue about safety particularly encouraging more bike traffic. I think an eight -foot wide pathway definitely would encourage more bike traffic. For a couple reasons. I think some people who are marginally comfortable in the street might go `now I've got a nice new eight -foot wide pathway, I'll go over there. Also I noticed people who do round -trip biking on the berm. They never leave the be but if they have a nice eight -foot wide pathway down Pelican Bay Boulevard they may decide to take a circle so some of that bike traffic on the berm might end up coming down the pathways in front of the dri Speaking as a rollerblader, you give me a nice smooth eight -foot wide asphalt path I might be going do e toc and rollerblading and rollerbladers would be the worst thing you want to have on that pathway beca i has some decent braking power, but rollerbladers don't, so I guess I'm thinking that a six -foot wide pa is nd that's a good compromise. I'm just concerned about `flex down to six'. That implies widening to ei some areas." CHAIRMAN DALLAS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "I thought your recommendation was t n six and eight." MR. GIBSON: "Yes, in between six and eight. There's areas where... and ur po a very good one because don't we want to encourage more bike riding in this community. MR. CHANDLER: "No, not on the pathways." DR. TRECKER: "Not on the sidewalks." 8532 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "Okay, then we don't want to encourage it [more bike riding]. Okay." MR. CHANDLER: "I guess what I'm going at is I fully support a six -foot wide pathway, but I'm uncomfortable telling the engineers it could `flex down to six. I mean what does the engineer do ?" MR. IAIZZO: "I don't think that was the motion. I thought the motion was six feet period." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS SAID TO MR. GIBSON: "When you made the motion, I didn't quite understand the meaning of the word `flex down to six'. Are you saying...?" MR. GIBSON: "Neil put it in the best verbiage when he was talking about how certain sections would be a width, and there would be a gradual transition. That's what I was trying to re- verbalize." MR. IAIZZO: "Can't it stay at six feet? Let it be at that." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "The motion is for eight feet going down to six..." MR. GIBSON: "Where necessary." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "If you don't like that you should vote that down and come up with another one." MR. CHANDLER: "I'd support six feet wide pathways. I'm going to vote against eight flexing to six." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Anyone else have any comments before we vote ?" MS. O'BRIEN: "Well, the original major objective was to widen it and now we're backing off of that and coming back down to six foot maybe. Then I go back to we're taking a section of the pathway that is not in the worst condition. We have other areas of the pathways in this community that are in much worse condition. Where you literally cannot ride a bicycle safely or you can't walk safely because of tree roots being exposed and so forth. And we're not doing those in the first phase. We're taking... we're doing this area that had been identified for a good place to widen it and now we're saying well that's not really our objective, we just need to fix them." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I think that's why we recommended the eight feet." MR. LEVY: "The motion is narrowing down to not less than six or six - and - one -half feet." MR. GIBSON: "Alright, alright. Let's withdraw the motion and I'll revise the motion as previously stated and I'll go with six feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I'd vote against that. I'd like to see us widen things. Six, six - and - one -half is the minimum." MR. LEVY: "That's throwing out a year and a half of work and a few hundred thousand dollars worth sultant time." MR. GIBSON: "The reason I'm suggesting it is because I see this whole thing going down the rat hol MR. GIBSON: "Yes. 161 A16 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "It should be very clear, but first we need a second." MR. DORRILL: "Dr. Trecker seconded it." DR. TRECKER: "I'm certainly willing to withdraw the second." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Is there another second to it ?" DR. TRECKER: "The motion was made then withdrawn and the second was also withdrawn." MR. CHANDLER: "I thought that Geoff said that he would revise his motion to be a six -foot pathway. Is that correct ?" MR. GIBSON: "Yes, because what I'm visualizing happening here this afternoon is that the whole project be ash - canned for who knows how long." MR. LEVY: "Well, let's first try to get it the way it was conceived to be in the Community Improvement Plan." MR. GIBSON: "You mean, no narrower than six feet and no wider than eight feet, reasonable transitions as verbalized by our [Administrator]." MR. LEVY: "Yeah." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "So you do it wider where it works and slightly wider where it doesn't." MR. IAIZZO: "That will be crazy wavy." MR. LEVY: "No." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I don't think it will be that wavy. Not if you do it gradually." Someone in the audience wanted to make a comment CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Sorry, we'll never get to a vote if we take too many comments and we've heard comments." MR. CHANDLER: "I joined the CIP committee maybe a third of the way through, maybe half of the way through, just before I was elected to the Board here, and I frankly don't recall any conversation when we were talking about this potential widening about the potential accidents that might happen to bringing more people onto the pathw with a wider pathway and the issues we have at the driveways, so even though maybe people put time into goi a certain way, I think we have to, if we see a problem, someone raises an issue to our attention, `hey there's issue here' I think we have to recognize it. That's why I'm on the thought that eight -foot is too wide. It' o g to encourage more bikes on the pathway, it's going to encourage more accidents, I think six is probably, oing to bring people out of the streets onto the path, it's pretty wide. I would support six. CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "What is the motion we have in front of us? Is it eight or is it six ?" MR. GIBSON: "It was eight feet, no narrower than six." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there a second to that ?" MR. LEVY: "Well, he also said that trees should be replaced that need buildings and driveways. I just want to get the full motion." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, with replace the trees in the MR. GIBSON: "There's no second." 8534 1612 Alb Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "If there's no second then that's the end of the discussion." MR. LEVY: "I second it." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah, there's the three points. Modified eight feet, no less than six feet, nice transitions; replace the trees in the area where we take them out, and again the idea is to minimize the number of trees we have to take out, that's why we're going to six feet in those areas probably; and at driveways, no closer to buildings. MR. LEVY: "And it's a safety issue at entrances and exits. CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's in there, that's a good point. Any discussion? I'm going to have a roll call vote just because I know it's going to be split. Start with the guy who did it." MR. GIBSON: "Aye." DR. TRECKER: "No." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "No." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yes." MR. CHANDLER: "No." MR. LEVY: "Yes." MR.IAIZZO: "No." MS.O'BRIEN: "No." MR. DORRILL: "Failed 3 -5." Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to proceed with the pathways project, modifying the eight foot width to flex down to six feet minimum with reasonable transitions (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) and with the following caveats: (and where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible) 1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in- kind close by; and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted 3 in favor (Mr. Gibso Chairman Dallas, and Mr. Levy), S opposed (Dr. Trecker, Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, laizzo, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion failed. CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Okay, is there another motion ?" VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "I'll make a motion to make it a six -foot path throughout with were in Geoffs original motion." MR. CHANDLER: "I second." MR. MOFFATT: "What about phasing? Do the worst areas first ?" MR. GIBSON: "Till the whole thing gets done." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "Yeah. What we're voting on this year is for that 8535 that � Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 16112 A 16 1 Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. LEVY: "I think Susan is raising a valid point. We're essentially replacing the pathway. That's essentially what we're doing. MR. GIBSON: "It's a foot wider. That's a big difference." MR. LEVY: "A foot wider. But if that's what we're doing, I think we should do the worst part of the pathways first. Why do this part of the pathways which is probably one of the best parts of the pathways that we have from The Commons down to the North Tram station." DR. TRECKER: "If that's the best then we're in bad shape." MR. LEVY: "The east side of the pathways are probably in worse shape." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "You think the west is bad because you walked on the east. There are a lot of sections that are in bad shape. Other discussion ?" MR. DORRILL: "On the motion, I have detailed sketches and plans for the west side. If anything other than that requires me to go all the way back and redesign and re- permit and we've accomplished nothing. If we can stick to the project as conceived it is much easier to have the engineer issue an addendum for a width of six feet with some minor design changes. That's what I would recommend." MR. LEVY: "A number of speakers here recommended adding a foot - and - one -half which is six - and - one -half feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "It's interesting. I Googled this when the discussion started coming up. It depends on the use of the pathway, but besides the eight to ten feet multi -use they say well five feet in a walkway, they are talking about pedestrians not bicycles. Five -foot bare minimum, six -foot, six - and - one - half -foot is really recommended..." MR. LEVY: "Well then let's go with six - and - one -half feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "I feel more comfortable with six - and - one -half but there's some places where you probably can't get six - and - one -half in, but I'm having the same problem you are. The idea here was to make them wide enough so they aren't uncomfortable and we're on the bare minimum side of uncomfortable I think." DR. TRECKER: "You have a motion on the table for six feet." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "That's true. Any more discussion ?" VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "This is a substantial modification to what was originally proposed. DR TRECKER and MR. GIBSON agreed. MS. O'BRIEN: "So if we would prefer to have six - and - one -h, There was general agreement that if a member preferred any motion. DR. TRECKER: "Call the question." CHAIRMAN DALLAS called another roll call vote. 8536 on the 16112' A16 i Pelican Bay Servieds Ditlisidn Board Regular Session Supplemental Transcription of the February 1, 2012 Pathways Discussion MR. GIBSON: "Aye. DR. TRECKER: "Aye." VICE CHAIRMAN CRAVENS: "Aye." CHAIRMAN DALLAS: "No." MR. CHANDLER: "Aye." MR. LEVY: "No." MR.IAIZZO: "Yes." MS.O'BRIEN: "No." The Board voted 5 in favor, 3 were opposed, and the motion was passed. MR. DORRILL would have the engineer issue the requisite addendum and "you will not see this again until it comes time to award the bid" that he estimated would be in April. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler "to make it a six-foot path throughout (along the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard beginning with the section from The Commons to the North Tram station) "with the conditions that were in Geoff s [Gibson) original motion" (where the engineer and/or landscape architect determines it is feasible): 1) if a tree is taken out, for what is a last ditch effort to do so then the tree would be replaced somewhere in -kind close by, and 2) to address safety issues at driveways, that pathways in no instance be any closer to buildings. Chairman Dallas requested a roll call vote. The Board voted S in favor (Vice Chairman Cravens, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Iaizzo, and Dr. Trecker) and 3 opposed (Chairman Dallas, Mr. Levy, and Ms. O'Brien) and the motion was passed. 8537 Transcribed by Lisa Resnick 2/28/2012 3:00:34 PM .3 16 H? A 16 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, January 10`n 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: Landscape Water Management Subcommittee Tom Cravens, Chairman Geoffrey S. Gibson Dave Trecker Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator (absent) Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Also Present Michael Levy Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Presentation by Kyle Lukasz on Pelican Bay's Water Management System 3. Discussion on Exotic Invasive Plants 4. Audience Comments 5. Adjournment ROLL CALL All Subcommittee members were present. PRESENTATION BY KYLE LUKASZ ON PELICAN BAY'S WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11 16 121 16 r A Landscape Water Management Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes January 10, 2012 cultivation, invaded natural communities, and disrupted and caused damage to the environment. Category I1 Exotic Invasive plants have not yet disrupted and caused damage to the environment, but have potential to do so. Coastal Zone Management department received a grant to remove exotics at Clam Pass Park and along the beach in Pelican Bay which are mainly Australian Pines, Brazilian Pepper, and Scaevola. Chairman Cravens is concerned about using exotic invasive plants in landscaping in Pelican Bay and would like to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Services Division stop using exotic invasive plants in landscaping in Pelican Bay and attempt to remove those that are already being used. The Subcommittee directed Mr. Lukasz to develop a landscaping plan to replace exotic invasive plants with non - invasive plants, such as Cocoplum, with a cost estimate that the Subcommittee could recommend to the full Board. ADJOURNMENT There was no further discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Tom Cravens, Chairman 12 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 2/8/2012 11:48:03 AM e 1 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services ivi o B rd Zgular SesW 5ai. Administrator's Re ort Pathwayllk6tes P S tics (Chandler) Page 1 of 4 From: John Chandler [ mailto :johnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:50 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: PBB Pathway Data Lisa, Please forward this email and its attachments to all PBSD Board members as a one way communication. Since it appears that we will be discussing "Pathway Widening" at our 3/7 Board Meeting, I decided to gather some more facts in order to help us reach an informed decision. The attached "Pathway Walk Notes" detail the results of my walk along Pelican Bay Blvd, today. The "Pathway Walk Statistics" summarize and average observations that Dave Trecker and I have made at different times of the day. You will recall that accident data provided by Lisa last month showed that in the last four years, there were two reported car vs bike accidents on the boulevard and two on the pathway. Both accidents on the pathway occurred when cars exiting an association driveway struck bikes that came from the right (going north) on the pathway. Dave and my observations show about six times more bikes using the boulevard versus the pathway. Thus, the numbers indicate it is six times more dangerous to be riding a bike on the pathway on the west side of PBB than it is to be riding a bike in the boulevard. John Chandler Pelican Bay Boulevard Pathway Walk of 2/25/2012 Notes • Walked from the Commons to the North Tram Station and back, today. Took paper and pen and stopped and made notes along the way. • Started my walk at 10:55 AM and ended it at 11:38 AM • Counted the number of pedestrians that I encountered during this 2.6 mile walk. There were 18. This equals 7 per mile. • Counted the number of bikes that passed me on the pathway. There were 3. This equals roughly one per mile. • Counted the number of bikes that passed going southbound on the boulevard. There were 22. • I encountered no baby strollers or rollerbladers • I stepped off the pathway, into the grass, four times (to let the three bikes pass and to let a group of four pedestrians pass) John Chandler o� •N C N O N L U O U a U) m N c o o Z ,N Y N T V f0 (O !) a m O m n c m U 0_' N d O N_ � N � E O U Q N (c6 Lo a- f o� •N C N O N L U O U a U) m N c o o Z ,N Y N T V f0 (O !) a m O m n c m U 0_' N d O N_ � N � E O U Q N (c6 Lo a- 1612 A161, N r M O 4l :L l6 U) d C C O O Cl) N Y -------- Y m m � L t N r N -- 00' (d r M r r a m c O g N Q Y_ m N N (0 M 0) 03 (.0 .4 (0 Lo N G L C CL a a mmm co U) N N N N 7 O (0 U") N 00'. �. M N N N. N a) m U) O •c M 00 M LI Y � ma 0 0 4t E N N C0 N 00 Lo :- C OJ r r r r fA N U) U c Cl) (0 CA �6 N i � a N a Y 0 r m m *t o m m Q a Q U L cc 0 Cl) 0 M L LO (p �� 00 MO O CL N N N Y r r r m 0 0 0 O N N N O LO 00 LO L O N N N -0 r r N E 3 L Q) L N L L N (n N ) N U O (L6 N 41 U IF- U Q Z 1612 A161, 4 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (Chandler) t Page 3 of 4 16 Topic . A 161e Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual Volume 1 — English Revised — January 1. 2012 8.5 Drainage and Utility Considerations Drainage inlets, grates and utility covers are potential problems for bicyclists. When a new roadway is designed, all such grates and covers should be kept out of the bicyclists' expected path. For RRR projects refer to Chapter 25.4.19.2 of this volume. Refer to Figure 3 -11, Curb Inlet and Gutter Inlet Application Guidelines, and Figure 3 -12, Ditch Bottom and Median Inlet Application Guidelines, of the Drainage Handbook: Storm Drains; and Design Standards for further information in selecting appropriate grates and inlet tops. See Chapter 2 of this volume for horizontal clearances for light poles. 8.6 Shared Use Paths Shared use paths are paved facilities physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right of way or an independent right of way. Shared use paths are used by bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, runners and others. The bicycle's operating characteristics will govern the design of shared use paths. The term path as used in this section refers to these paved shared use paths. An example typical design is provided for guidance in Volume 2, Exhibit TYP -15. 8.& Considerations Shared use paths adjacent to a roadway may be considered if the following conditions are met: 1. The path will be separated from the roadway. 2. There will be few access points or roadways crossing the path. 3. There will be adequate access to local streets and other facilities along the path. 4. There is a commitment to provide path continuity with other bikeways throughout the corridor. Shared use paths are not replacements for on- street bicycle lanes. Within a roadway right of way, bicycle lanes are the safest, most efficient bicycle facility. When paths are located immediately adjacent to roadways, some operational problems are likely to occur: 1. Paths require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride against motor vehicle traffic, which is contrary to the normal Rules of the Road. Motorists are not in the habit of scanning for traffic from that direction. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -24 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5ai. Administrator's Report Pathway Walk Notes & Statistics (C]LandAr) ' Page 4 of 4 ' 2 N] t 2 yT a Topic #625- 000 -007 January 1, 2009 Plans Preparation Manual, Volume 1 — English Revised —January 1 2012 2. At path ends, bicyclists riding against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the street, as do bicyclists getting on to a path. Wrong -way travel by bicyclists is a major cause of bicycle /automobile crashes and should be discouraged. 3. Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the path because they have found the roadway to be safer, less congested, more convenient, or better maintained. 8.6.2 Widths The appropriate paved width for a shared use path is dependent upon context, volume and mix of users. Typically, widths range from 10 -14 feet, with the wider values applicable to areas with high use and /or a wider variety of users (bicyclists, pedestrians, joggers, and skaters). The need to provide for larger emergency or maintenance vehicles or manage steep grades can also affect appropriate width. The minimum width for a two- directional shared use path is 10 feet. FHWA's Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator may be used as a guide in determining when a width greater than the minimum might be needed. At locations where the path narrows from the typical width warning signs or pavement markings in conformance with the MUTCD should be used. 8.6.3 Cross Slopes Since pedestrian use is expected on shared use paths, ADA requirements shall be met. Therefore, the maximum cross -slope shall be 2 %. 8.6.4 Grades To meet ADA the maximum grade is 5 %. Grades greater than 5% should be considered ramps and designed accordingly. Maximum ramp slopes are 8.33% and can have a maximum rise of 30 inches, with a level landing at least 60 inches in length. To accommodate bicycles exclusively, grades should not exceed 5 %, since steeper grades cause difficulties for many bicyclists. If the terrain makes it necessary to use steeper grades on short sections, the following restrictions are recommended: Pedestrian, Bicycle and Public Transit Facilities 8 -25 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 ; 16112 A 16 From: John Chandler [ 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. • I 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 _ A � / 1612 H /v, 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 HAV Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. February 23, 2012 Mr. Keith Dallas Chair Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re: Pathway Widening Dear Chairman Dallas, 16 11 2 A16 The Pelican Bay Foundation (PBF) Board respectfully requests that the Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) Board reconsider its decision from its February 1, 2012 meeting to reduce the previously recommended widening of the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet. An extensive process has been utilized to properly inform the decision to widen the pathway from five (5) feet to eight (8) feet (please see the included "Background Addendum" below). The PBSD Board directed its administrator, and its engineer to pursue the development of plans to effect the widening on the path to eight (8) feet, and the Chair stated in an article in the Pelican Bay Post that the PBSD Board would discuss this issue at both the February and March PBSD Board meetings. The purpose of the Strategic Master Plan and the CIP was to ensure that all projects in Pelican Bay fit into a long -term vision of keeping Pelican Bay competitive for the next 30 years and do not fall victim to the vagaries of individual personal preferences and shorter -term considerations. Unfortunately, by reversing its decision on this project prior to the previously reported timeframe, the PBSD Board has inadvertently disenfranchised those members who have a legitimate expectation of the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. from the Commons to the North Tram Station to be widened to eight (8) feet. At the February PBSD Board meeting, Mr. Geoff Gibson made a recommendation that the PBSD Board move ahead with the expansion of the pathway to 8 (eight) feet with three caveats: 1) that when necessary and appropriate, the pathway width be allowed to be modified down to a minimum of 6 (six) feet to save desirably kept trees; 2) that at the driveways, the pathway be positioned as close to Pelican Bay Blvd. as possible so as to Improve lines of sight between vehicular, and pathway users; and 3) that the removal of any trees due to unavoidable pathway design or because of the health of the tree be compensated for by planting replacement native species trees at appropriate locations along Pelican Bay Blvd. as identified by the PBSD retained landscape architect. The PBF Board believes that Mr. Gibson's recommendation is a thoughtful and reasonable alternative and compromise. The PBF Board respectfully requests, and urges, the PBSD Board to please reconsider its action of February 1, 2012, and instead to pursue either the previously disclosed, and fully vetted CIP widening of the pathway along the west side of Pelican Bay Blvd. from the Commons to the North Tram Station to eight (8) feet, or Mr. Gibson's reasoned compromise proposal. Sincerely, illiam arpenter Chair Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. - 6251 Pelican Bay Boulevard - Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 597 -8081 - (239) 597 -6802 FAX - E -Mail: memberservicesOpelicanbay.org 1612 A16t � Pelican Bay Foundation Board Background Addendum In 2007, the Pelican Bay Foundation began a comprehensive and professionally administrated strategic planning process. The planning consultant, Wood & Partners, utilized on -site assessments, data collection, community and stakeholder work sessions (including one -on -one interviews, and randomly populated focus groups), and the most extensively conducted survey in the history of Pelican Bay to inform and guide the process; 6,200 member surveys were distributed, and just under 2,300 were completed and returned. With a 95% confidence rate, of those facilities and amenities where it was estimated that approximately a third of our community had a need for them, 4 of the top 13 issues related to paths: • Multi -use paved walk /bike paths - 56% • Dedicated paved "walk only" pathways - 51% • On- street bike lanes - 35% • Dedicated paved "bike only" pathways - 32% This resulted in one of the top prioritized improvements listed in the February 2009 Strategic Master Plan being to "reconfigure /enhance path network along roads ". When the joint working group (consisting of Pelican Bay Services Division Board and the Pelican Bay Foundation's Strategic Planning Committee) started working on the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) in November 2009, one of the foremost topics of discussion, identified at the outset as a top priority, and discussed at almost every documented meeting, was the issue of pathways. Collectively, the working group logged thousands of person -hours in working with the independent consultant, WilsonMiller. Over two dozen community meetings were held as part of the development of the CIP, and throughout the process a series of articles were published in the Pelican Bay Post discussing the various aspects of the CIP: • Early January 2010 - front page • Mid January 2010 - front page (following the Mid January Post article - 7 (seven) publically announced meetings were noticed and conducted so that Members, in season, could become informed on what the joint working group was focused on) • Early March 2010 - front page • July 2010 - front page (and the entire CIP report was put up on the web site) • Early November 2010 - in the PBSD Advisor section, the Chair specified the PBSD's first phase of priority as including crosswalks, pathways, and landscaping • Mid April 2011- the CIP was a topic of discussion at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Membership The topic of the pathways was fully discussed, vetted, and included contemplation of multiple configuration options and different construction material options. The widening of the pathways from five (5) feet to eight (8) feet was first officially recommended at the culmination of the Phase One Report issued December 2009. The eight (8) foot width has been a professionally recommended standard within our community for over two years. Additionally, series of public information meetings were held to explain the immediate projects, including the pathway widening from five (5) to eight (8) feet. This included Town Hall meetings on November 16, 2010, November 17, 2010, and January 18, 2011; a President's Council presentation on December 8, 2010; and a Men's Coffee presentation on March 1, 2011. At the February 1, 2012 PBSD Board meeting, the PBSD Administrator, Neil Dorrill, advised the Board, that the current state guidelines for multi -use pathways was for a width of twelve (12) feet to ten (10) feet. During discussion, it was stated that a preliminary County plan review had accepted the eight (8) foot alternative even though the County indicated that the standard to be applied in the case of the Pelican Bay Blvd. pathways would normally be ten (10) feet. 1612 A16 4 Subsequently, and coincidently, in an article that ran in the Naples Daily News on February 4, 2012 about the pathway along Vanderbilt Drive (not to be confused with Vanderbilt Beach Drive), Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator for the County's Growth Management Department was quoted as saying, "The path also will be wider than the current version, which is between 4.5 feet and 5 feet and is crumbling at the edges. At one time, there was talk that the path would be 12 feet wide, which is the state guideline." The article also stated that Casalanguida said the state allows communities, in certain conditions, to construct paths that are 8 feet wide, instead of the 12 feet, which is what will be done along Vanderbilt Drive. Both Wood & Partners and WilsonMiller emphasized that an improved pathway system was a key component of any strategic or community improvement plan and an item that was not only prioritized by members, but also an area that was specifically identified as an "under met need." Attached is a recent Pelican Bay Pathway Report that reinforces the viewpoint that multi -use pathways were always considered an integral part of Pelican Bay's lifestyle allure, and in fact were marketed as "bicycle and jogging paths ". Pelican Bay Service M ision s25i Pelican Bay Blvd. Naples , Florida 34108 James F. Morrison 1 1b12 A16 100 Glenview Place, ##904" �� Naples, Florida 34108 CE r ` ,ED PELICAN SAY SERVICES DIVISION 19 February 2012 Dear Sir, I have read with interest your idea to widen some of the walkways in Pelican Bay - There is a MORE pressing sidewalk safety issue that t think needs to be addressed first. It can be done quickly and not at a great cost- My wife and l reside at The Glenview and walk from The Glenvie whereilbush�s black outwftai limrtedr This sidewalk is NOT SAFE to walk at night as there are many places lighting there is. It is impossible to see the sidewalk There cauId be sticks, debris oreven animals that you cannot see on the sidewalk This is an accident: waiting to happen. For some reason the west side sidewalk on Pelican Bay Boulevard and to a lesser extent the east side sidewalk from The Glenview to the Phil are the ONLY areas on Pelican Say Boulevard that have high bushes BETWEEN the sidewalk and the street- The west sidewalk is much more convenient and we do not have to cross Pelican Bay Blvd twice at night which we would do if we used the east sidewalk. Some of the bushes are waist high and some are head high. in some cases the bushes extend about a third of the way over the narrow sidewalk. My is this the ONLY area that has bushes this high between the sidewalk and the street? I note there is one area where there are VERY high bushes. They help hide the telephone equipment_ Why is there only one area on Pelican Bay Blvd- where this equipment is between the sidewalk and the street so that high bushes are needed? Reducing the bush height will not solve the entire problem becauSe the trees have grown over the years and black -out more of the street lighting, but eiiminaiing the bushes would be a big help_ Please investigate this situation and advise me what you Will do AND when. This is a safety issue that can be easily coneeied with landscaping exPertise- 'Sincerely, ames F- Morrison i�gyk� -• 16112, JI,Q L�c`�" �aw;;t � uS�� 5 i� n,-t- �ca�•1<y iw."�rv��- � S i�gyk� -• 16112, March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ? 5.a.iii. Administrator's Report Pathways 1 V I 'A 16 ' Obstructions between Pathways and Roadway Blocking Street Lights at Night on Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil (Levy) Page 1 of 1 James F. Morrison 100 Glenview Place, #904 Naples, Florida 34108 RECEIVED Pelican Bay Service Division 6251 Pelican Bay Blvd. PELICAN SAY SEh,- CES DIVISION Naples , Florida 34108 19 February 2012 Dear Sir, 1 have read with interest your idea to widen some of the walkways in Pelican Bay. There is a MORE pressing sidewalk safety issue that ► think needs to be addressed first It can be done quickly and not at a great cost. My wife and 1 reside at The Glenview and walk from The Glenview to the Phil at night about 15 times per year. This sidewalk is NOT SAFE to walk at night as there are many places where bushes block out what limited lighting there is. It is impossible to see the sidewalk. There could be sticks, debris or even animals that you cannot see on the sidewalk. This is an accident waiting to happen. For some reason the west side sidewalk on Pelican Bay Boulevard and to a lesser extent the east side sidewalk from The Glenview to the Phil are the ONLY areas on Pelican Bay Boulevard that have high bushes BETWEEN the sidewalk and the street. The west sidewalk is much more convenient and we do not have to cross Pelican Bay Blvd twice at night which we would do if we used the east sidewalk. Some of the bushes are waist high and some are head high. In some cases the bushes extend about a third of the way over the narrow sidewalk. Why is this the ONLY area that has bushes this high between the sidewalk and the street? I note there is one area where there are VERY high bushes. They help hide the telephone equipment. Why is there only one area on Pelican Bay Blvd. where this equipment is between the sidewalk and the street so that high bushes are needed? Reducing the bush height will not solve the entire problem because the trees have grown over the years and black -out more of the street lighting, but eliminating the bushes would be a big help. Please investigate this situation and advise me what you will do AND when. This is a safety issue that can be easily corrected with landscaping expertise. Sincerely, 7 r"lve- ames F. Morrison 10- 27- 2011,01:47 PV 006 ' 161 Alb 3 O rD rD � Q fD Q � 07 D 7o r co m n n n h n n n n n r"1 Q Q 'S Q n '+ 0 v - � Q rD < O < m -% O O s o 0 " 0 -1 0 -Z 0 0 -, 0 0 " 0 0 � s 0 0 M M -D 0 O r Q�-a rD D Q vi in to 0 w in 0 to 0 0 0 0 cn 0 3 ,..* FD' n Q f1 3 (D G :E :E :E :-5 :E :E :E * `2 �E :E :E * D) C � 0- 7 0) d 0) v 0) 0) 0) OJ n) 0) 0) N d 7C" 7r 7� 7r 7C' 7C 7� 7c' 7r 7� 7C' 7c' 7r v 0) 3 v Y Y Y Y Y lD 00 V M llt W N Y < p W N Y O n� rD -0 0A n vii D rD -G 3' n rD aq Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F-' = 3 r n N 3 rr 3 rt co N rf rD � N O C r to r to r to r N r v, r to r to r to r to r to r to r to r r N to r+ m r�o to tls to In. tn. Vk. tn• tn• t/)- tn• ter Vl - t/ O f+ ~' V1 of (n cn (n to 00 01 U1 .A 4%. A 01 U1 lD 0. -r- M U7 V = Ul N Ln O l0 tD 01 l0 00 0) �J Ui O W W V w in w `A 0o tD � 00 l0 -,l O tD cn m -;, ry D O A V 01 0o U1 to O tk.0 Y t.0 U'i V (.D N %.0 V O Y A m tD LP O U1 Co 01 U1 Y Y 00 to y y Q a) Ol N N 00 Y W lD 00 W lD N O I-n 00 Y M CM Cl) P. Y 00 A W V V N Ol O V N Y n Q 3 - rD rD rD t/? W 3 N In rD N (n Vf In O iR tn• th tl> tn• V)- t/� t/� t/1 i!� th ih i/? C C 7 ^" N O 00 V V In m M 00 V lD 01 rn V 01 00 3 X ,L = 00 W W O O 00 I� 01 �1 ill N F-� �--' N A Q. V1 O N to vi O W 00 N V Y W N F-s A l0 20 C 0 m Y N V V to 00 01 Y Un 00 O A fv V N N W Ln � O O W O Ul N A� N 00 O 3 :3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a< M n O oo 3 O _ m V) N Ln (A N 01 t/? � t/� tR � to tl> th {n• tlD if)- to tR N M tD rr y 2 00 01 �� N W W M4�h V W W U1 4- V r y N LM V U1 �l 00 LM O l0 00 -Cl. W F- tf1 N 01 j n O lD t., 00 Y O ID M N M O 1.0 Q1 A j vOi O W N U9 O N W O U1 O Ol M 4- N N eM o Ln -P- 4N 01 01 N U1 O N O N M 00 01 0 -:3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H 0 CO m w k V- _ C 41, Q Q w "V -0 CD C CD m CD CD = 0 0 0 o cQ (D v � O• tTJ G7 too G7 W ,.,y W � `< `< `< 3 N. by CG CC 0 a% w Ry O 0 O c C D 3 0 0 O C N (D CD CD < fD < � y O. C. R. W p to c o a a n — — a O O 3 m O Z p = cc p Go W Z3 " Q CD O 3 N 0 ,.,� 1�-'� d O G Q- (A C� O u X � O o0 N rD 3 T." ? •• CD D. by N d Cn O1 y CC C7 � cn Cl 1 Lp_I ro � t t t , t t t t U t \ t t t t t t t t t t t t t � t t v t , t t t N t \ t t t t t t 1 N.Z s 1 j P t D..._�I �t \ t 1 \ i I i t f " I 1 / , t T O riw. � I@ A 3 £ � 3 � � m u 3 ll S \z /g " 3 � ro 0 3 , a PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY BLVD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION NAPLES, FLORIDA r g tI ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS: AS BUILT a 00 3i �3 161' A1G' Seal &Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 1.239.643.0077 www.gsnapies.com E -mail egoetz @gsnoples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com Ellin Gcerz - Fc51152 N N O N' P 1 N.Z O P p D..._�I C n 3 $ I'-° c ZZ I p I Q •J I ° 3 $ "a^ s °� iT p n- 9. ;a D� o O 9 0 0 '^ o 6 \� � S n ` c l o g ° a PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY BLVD & RIDGEWOOD DRIVE INTERSECTION NAPLES, FLORIDA r g tI ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS: AS BUILT a 00 3i �3 161' A1G' Seal &Signature GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 1.239.643.0077 www.gsnapies.com E -mail egoetz @gsnoples.com /bbromley@gsnapies.com Ellin Gcerz - Fc51152 1612 ' A16' , `y ,t g p > 0 < z1;;j PELICAN BAY FOUNDATION -M p,V LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS - NORTH TRAM STATION MEDIANS NAPLES, FLORIDA v r FROADWAY PLANTING PLAN GOETZ+STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 www.gsnapies.com Ellin Goetz - F1.41152 E-mail egQefz@gsnoples.com / bbromley@gsnoples.com LP-4 _LP -2 FROADWAY PLANTING PLANS aoFw O 0 161 ,2'A16� f LTCHLINE 4 __4 1 e� ' r M 0 M LP-2 MATCHLI LP — - - — o— ..... — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — LP-1 LP is Seal & sig—t— GOETZ+STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 —.9snaples.com E-mail egoetz@gsnapies-com /bbromIeyCa.)gsnapIes.com, > > > n C C": is- f ZI 0 M o 0 :i < - n > FROADWAY PLANTING PLANS aoFw O 0 161 ,2'A16� f LTCHLINE 4 __4 1 e� ' r M 0 M LP-2 MATCHLI LP — - - — o— ..... — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — LP-1 LP is Seal & sig—t— GOETZ+STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 —.9snaples.com E-mail egoetz@gsnapies-com /bbromIeyCa.)gsnapIes.com, 1612 8 A so o nr� 3 z � veil � C n �' N •° � i D ci V ° ° ° R' Z O A l U a 3a 9 ° I O ' o c 0 ° < m ------- --- ---, "m A� f1' �' a° 3 3 Q b' iC¢p3 Q o o o B s 'v I o� 0 P.16 Seal &Signature ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS: AS BUILT 1 t w Ellin Goeh - FL# 1 152 GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 185 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 1.239.643.0077 www.gsnoples.com E -mail egoetz @gsnaples.com i bbromley @gsnoples.com 16 L2 'A16i s� a 1 PBSD ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PELICAN BAY BLVD & OAKMONT PARKWAY INTERSECTION NAPLES, FLORIDA I ROADWAY PLANTING PLANS I sea. &5ig °acre GOETZ +STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. 165 TENTH STREET SOUTH, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 t. 239.643.0077 w—q aples.com Email egoetz @gsnaples.com / bbromley @gsnaples.com Eipn Gcetz - FlK i 152 . v, MATURE CONDITIONS GOETZ +STROPES GULF PARK MEDIAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS log PIN WN ^ , m `` 10 16 iN 14 low "I 1b 16 low "I .�q GB>kli .0< 12 'A 16 1 l r, it _ � __ r: 1• � �•. ��.' , ., March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Re 5c. Administrator's Report. South Berm Restoration. ,% Page 1 of 1 16 What is Riprap? Riprap lining a lake shore Riprap Concrete rubble used as riprap along the San Francisco Bay shoreline Session is i ap� (Wort�le) s16 /K E23prap Stiirwa,, Riprap Stairway Riprap — also known as rip rap, rubble, shot rock or rock armour or Rip -rap — is rock or other material used to armor shorelines, streambeds, bridge abutments, pilings and other shoreline structures against scour, water or ice erosion. It is made from a variety of rock types, commonly rg anite or limestone, and occasionally concrete rubble from building and paving demolition. It can be used on any waterways or waxer containment where there is potential for water erosion. Protection mechanism Riprap works by absorbing and deflecting the energy of waves before they reach the defended structure. The size and mass of the riprap material absorbs the impact energy of waves, while the gaps between the rocks trap and slow the flow of water, lessening its ability to erode soil or structures on the coast. The mass of riprap also provides protection against impact damage by ice or debris, which is particularly desirable for bridge supports and pilings. It is frequently used to protect the base of old Edwardian and Victorian sea walls, vertical are often undermined. The riprap absorbs the impact of the waves as they and then fall back down. Riprap information from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia being up the wall -1 • $ March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessio 5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements A 16 Page 1 of 6 From: Neil Dorrill [mailto:Neil @dmgfl.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:18 PM To: McCaughtryMary Subject: RE: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system Mary: This opinion is consistent with my belief that any improvements or water management facilities built by PBID within this tract are the property of the Services Division. Please share this information with the Board, Kyle and Kevin. Neil From: McCaughtryMary [ mailto :MaryMcCaughtry@colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:46 AM To: Neil Dorrill Cc: LukaszKyle; Jim Powers Subject: FW: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system Neil — see Heidi Ashton - Cicko's comments on berm ownership. From: AshtonHeidi Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:34 AM To: McCaughtryMary Cc: Sheffield Michael; ZimmermanSue; KlatzkowJeff Subject: FW: PELICAN BAY OWNERSHIP of water management system Mary, The issue presented is whether the county by virtue of holding drainage easements over certain property in Pelican Bay would retain ownership over the improvements that the County constructs within its easement. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, Collier County would be the owner of the improvements constructed within its drainage easement by the County with public funds for the Pelican Bay water management system maintained and operated by the Pelican Bay Services Division, a department of Collier County, as successor to the Pelican Bay Improvement District (PBID). The County will have the burden of proving that the improvements that were installed were in fact part of the Pelican Bay water management system. Please note that I have not reviewed the drainage easements conveyed to the PBID or to Collier County. If you would like me to review them, please let me know and have them sent to me. Please note also that I have no recollection of a conversation with Mr. Jim Carroll in 2003 and that I do not issue oral opinions, except during publicly noticed meetings. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. 77ei� �fiJtcn- liic�c Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Land Use Section Chief Phone (239) 252 -8400 Fax (239) 252 -6300 t � 4.•� March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sess,1 6 ' A 1.6 1 5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and WaMr Management Easement Improvements ITEM NO.: Page 2of6 FILE NO.: ROUTED TO: DO NOT WRITE ABOVE THIS LINE (orig. 9/89) REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Date: February 21, 2012 To: Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney's Office From: Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Pelican Bay Services Division Re: BERM OWNERSHIP BACKGROUND OF REQUEST /PROBLEM: In 2003 there was an opinion by Heidi Ashton, who at the time was working with Lisa Barnett, a copy is attached. The current Pelican Bay Services Division Board is asking about berm ownership again as we are seeking a permit to do some renovation work. ACTION REQUESTED: Please review and advise that if bond proceeds were used to construct the berm, spreader swale and culverts, as part of the water management system, would that make them county assets? OTHER COMMENTS: Please return by email at your earliest convenience. 1 (L) 10 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses1 v 1 i2 16 5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements Page 3 of 6 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 A161 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Ses 5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Management Easement Improvements Page 4 of 6 CHEFFY PASSIDOMO WILSON & JOHNSON ATTORNEYS AT LAw, LLP EDWARD K. CHEFFY 821 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201 KEVIN A. DENTI BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 JEFFREY S. HOFFMAN BOARD CERTIFIED BUSINESS LITIGATION ATTORNEY BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS. TRUSTS & ESTATES ATTORNEY JOHN M. PASSIDOMO TELEPHONE: (239) 261 -9300 LOUIS W. CHEFFY BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY FAX: (239) 261 -9782 BOARD CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY GEORGE A. WILSON E -MAIL CPWJ @napieslaw.com LISA H. BARNETT BOARD CERTIFIED WILLS, TRUSTS & 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 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors FROM: Lisa H. Barnett C�t," v� RE: Ownership of Foundation Common Areas DATE: April 9, 2003 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 .: arch 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services vision Board Regular Se Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Ma Atsl 6 Page 5 of 6 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. Il. Analysis. 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. V 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. 5d DCA 1980). Although the PBSD may 2 *� �/� YES March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sio , - 5ci. Administrator's Report Ownership of Berm and Water Ma er6 E e Improve ents Page 6 of 6 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: \wy du cs%RE\PelicanBayFonnd.uioa\Buad of Dimcrors-- bermioakmont. wpd 3 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Reg r S ion 6 5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Eng er g la to ate (O'Briefi) Page 1 of 7 I IsOnMiller MEMORANDUM TO: Frank Laney, Pelican Bay Foundation, Inc. FROM: Dan Waters, PE DATE: November 24, 2010 SUBJECT: Pelican Bay South Berm Erosion Considerations / Side Slope Restoration Permitting History The 1,200 acre Pelican Bay subdivision was originally permitted by the SFWMD as Permit No. 04178 -C in August 1978 and by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The original permit approvals authorized the construction of a 50 foot wide berm and spreader swale from Seagate Drive along the western boundary of the developed areas of Pelican Bay northward to what is now the Montenero condominium. The berm was designed to serve both as a recreational facility and as part of the infrastructure of the Pelican Bay surface water management system. The berm was permitted to have a ten foot asphalt path on its top; the asphalt path remains in place and serves as a shared -use pedestrian trail as well as the travel way for trams conveying residents and visitors to the beaches. The berm also acts as the perimeter containment that allows for stormwater to be stored within the detention areas on the east side of the berm while stormwater control structures that are placed intermittently along the berm's length discharge the runoff from the developed areas west to the existing wetland areas adjacent to Clam Bay at a controlled rate. The permitted berm cross section consisted of a four foot high berm with four to one side slopes, a ten foot wide asphalt path on top of the berm, and an eight foot wide spreader swale on the western side of the berm. A copy of the permitted berm section is shown in the center of sheet 41 of the Water Management Plan attached to this memorandum as Attachment A. The permitted section consists of a 50 foot wide envelope (a 42 foot wide berm and an eight foot spreader swale). Current PermittincEReguirements / Design Standards The Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) contains standards for berm and embankment slopes and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Plans Preparation Manual provides standards for sideslopes for pedestrian facilities. LDC Section 4.06.05.J provides for the required treatment of slopes (a copy of the LDC Section has been included as Attachment B). For slopes of four to one (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, grass groundcover may be used as stabilization. Embankments with slopes no steeper than three to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize trees, groundcover (pinestraw, mulch, etc.), ornamental grasses, and shrubs as stabilization. Embankment slopes that are not steeper than two to one (horizontal to vertical) may utilize rip -rap or other forms of scour protection. Section 8.6 of the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual provides the criteria for Shared Use Paths (a copy of Section 8.6 has been provided as Attachment C). Section 8.6.5 of the FDOT standards suggests that a two foot wide flat area be provided adjacent to paths that are typically �15r root. 193513 V., 01! MATERS X5335 -f 10 UO ?- f COA 29036 Rp r > 41 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien) Page 2 of 7 16 12"" A 16 Pelican Bay South Berm Page 2 of 4 Side Slope Erosion Evaluation utilized by pedestrians, joggers, in -line, skaters, and bicyclists. The intent of this two foot wide flat area is to provide an area of relief and recovery outside of the pathway for pedestrian users prior to the steeper side slope back to existing grade. This two foot flat area for recovery was not proposed as part of the original design of the berm / pathway system, however we recommend that it be added as a part of the improvements to bring the path to the current ,required standards. Problem Statement / Existing Condition Based on several site reviews and the compilation of survey information for the berm, the most significant maintenance problem on the south berm is the erosion of the sideslopes on the western side of the berm adjacent to the preserved wetland areas. As a part of this evaluation, WilsonMiller Stantec performed topographic survey cross sections of the berm at 200 foot intervals; the existing- condition survey information was then interpolated to create cross sections at So foot intervals for use in evaluating the current condition of the berm. The plan containing the existing condition survey information is included with this memorandum. A review of the existing - condition survey indicates that severe erosion of the side slopes has occurred along the western side of the berm. In contrast, the eastern side of the berm has not experienced significant erosion from the original design standard. It appears that the erosion has occurred from the toe of slope of the berm and proceeded up the slope toward the pathway. In this case, the erosion appears to have potentially been caused by either storm surge or grass die off / lack of slope stabilization instead of wash outs from stormwater runoff. Some of the concerns created by the eroded condition of the berm are as follows: • Drop Qff Hazard: As stated above, the design plan and existing condition do not provide any flat area for relief from the side of the path to the bottom of the berm. This could potentially create an unsafe condition for tram operation, bikers, in -fine skaters, or pedestrians. The tack of the flat area to provide relief for someone that inadvertently leaves the path is exacerbated by the fact that the eroded slopes are extremely steep in some areas and make recovery difficult. • Maintenance Difficulties: Generally, a four to one (horizontal to vertical) side slope or flatter is required to allow for the use of riding mowers for maintenance. Based on conversation with Pelican Bay Foundation staff and Pelican Bay Services Division staff, the deficient portions of the berm are currently too steep to be cut with a mower and 11�K -'aWO � 220411 Vw— OWATEAS W1000WOM ECOR 1315 • Pelican Bay South Berm Side Slope Erosion Evaluation March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to -date (O'Brien) Page 3 of 7 1 1614 A 16 Page 3 of 4 maintenance is currently performed with weed whackers. • Aesthetics: As stated above, the severe erosion makes maintenance of the grass difficult and therefore creates aesthetic issues. • Berm Stability: The continued erosion of the berm side slopes is likely to continue and could eventually undermine the integrity of the berm and pathway. Proposed Remedies The correction of the erosion obviously requires that the berm sideslopes be restored and that the appropriate slope coverage be provided to provide stabilization and prevent future erosion. Potential stabilization options that have been investigated include the following: Option 1 - Rip Rap at Toe -of- Slope: An on -site investigation indicated that the vast majority of the erosion occurred at the toe of slope of the berm along the western side. This erosion at the toe of slope may be caused either by the movement of the tidal waters within the wetland areas or could be a result of the die -off of grasses at the toe of slope that are not tolerant of water with high salinity. The placement of rip rap at the base of the restored slope would provide a maintenance free solution and provide the stability for the portions of the slope above the mean high water levels. Reference sheet two of the plans for two typical cross sections depicting the restored berm with rip rap protection at the toe of slope. The two sections evaluated for Option 1 are as follows: o Restoration of the berm to its original cross section with four feet of rip rap at the toe of slope on the western side and a sodded four to one slopes to the top of berm. This alternative would include placing additional along the west side of the berm to "reclaim" the original berm footprint and would include trimming of vegetation to allow for the construction to occur. Restoration of the berm within its existing footprint with eight feet of rip -rap at a two to one slope from the existing toe of slope to the top of the berm. This alternative would either eliminate the need to trim the existing vegetation or require only minimal trimming. It would also preserve the low areas that currently hold water adjacent to the existing toe of slope at their existing elevation. Option 2 - Slooe Stabilization Product at Toe -of- Slope There are a wide variety of slope stabilization products available for use in this type of application. These systems are typically high strength cellular confinement systems that can be filled with soil material and planted with sod to provide stable slope protection from concentrated flows and long term erosion. if, as suspected, the high salinity levels in the brackish water within the preserved wetlands are responsible for the die -off of the grasses at the toe -of- slope, the grasses would continue to die -off if planted on the cellular confinement system and periodic replacement of the sod would be required. A picture of a typical cellular confinement system is provided below. t till? 4, S20471 VA t , ONATERS N¢td�- Qb5.b20 ECOR .333,5 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5cii. Administrator's Report South Berm Restoration Engineering Plans to date (O'Brien) x Page 4 of 7 4 - 1612 Pelican Bay South Berm Page 4 of 4 Side Slope Erosion Evaluation Option 3 Different Sod Varieties: If neither of the above two methods are utilized for the slope restoration, it would be advisable to test and observe the performance of a variety of sod types in small areas prior to installing the best sold alternative along the entire length of the restored berm. Typically a berm of this type, where irrigation is not available, would have been planted with bahia sod. Bahia has poor tolerance to shade and saltwater, and in light of the fact that the erosion has generally occurred on the western side of the berm, the influence of the brackish water in Clam Bay and the lack of sunlight due to the shading provided by the encroachment of vegetation on the western side of the berm, have likely been detrimental to the bahia sod planted on the western side of the berm. The ideal sod to be planted along the western side of the berm should have a combination of good drought tolerance (because no irrigation is available), good shade tolerance (because the vegetation along the western side of the berm blocks sunlight), and a high tolerance to salinity. Due to the uncertainties associated with the survivability of grasses in options two and three, it is our suggestion that one of the alternatives shown on sheet two the plan for Option 1 be pursued. Construction Considerations As a part of this evaluation, we conducted a site visit to review the existing berm with an earthwork contractor to receive an evaluation of the existing conditions and considerations related to access and staging of materials. It is anticipated that two weeks will be required to complete the construction of the berm restoration. The two week timeframe assumes that the work could be completed in the end of the dry season (April or May) to avoid delays as a result of washouts caused by heavy rains during the construction. To ensure safety during construction, access to the berm by pedestrians and tram traffic would have to be eliminated or restricted to early morning and evening hours (periods during which work is not occurring). The construction work could be completed using small rubber -tired vehicles that would not damage the existing asphalt path and require repairs. An Opinion of Probable Cost has been prepared for the two alternative cross sections for Option 1 (shown on sheet two of the plans). The unit costs included in the attached Opinion of Probable Cost (Reference Attachment D) assume the following: • The parking lot at the Pelican Bay Foundation can be used for storage and staging of materials (rip -rap, filter fabric, fill material, vehicles, etc.); • The turnarounds on the berm, specifically adjacent to Heron Point, the Glenview, and the boardwalk, can be utilized for staging of materials; • Construction traffic traveling along the berm will be able to drop off material at locations along the berm and exit at the southern end of the berm through the county park (instead of having to turn around and travel back north to the Pelican Bay Foundation site); 11;23,W10 2200 ?1 Vn 1.1DWATEPS N;1-0m.30 EGON -3.15 A 16� A) w �: o �� C Li M Co o Li Mt 75 w in U C, 2! 0 0 CO 021, tt Mw IL C,4 C) C'4 2 CD ' Lo CL IL 44 z 0 8 V) U) 0 z 0 R LJ x 0 �i Ld z 0 0 9 m 1612 " A161 w �: Li Cl- Li Mt C, 021, tt z t, �E A) C� b 0 oa CD C: Cl) CD W -2 co: O LY E E CO L) 2! 0 0 rp CO CL N -P CL C) CA E -0 'o < Al 1612'A161 :3 0 C. to , cn ": -4 C� Cl to IN M C5 C,4 m 11 It It N !7 77 co LL CK) 0 0 CD O C) O In N (D Lr) In (1.1 0 U) > M CO L) CD 0 0 Cl C, C', 'o rL to o t M cn 64 69 cli azao 0 CL U) w 0 (f) U) u (n IL f.) -j COO W co CD 0 E -j ¢ m Cl! q C'� I -- b- 0 m < m Z LL m 0 z 0 a 0 0 W 2 �- _Z3 a: W 0 cc 0 Iwo , CD 0- 0 V- ca 'I C RN CD co (a ILL (D t� C) E .iz > m tK) cr 51 2 r b x w CL co A) �o b 0 CU CD CD LU .2 CO .0 a) ce > CO U 0 >, 1-- to 0 M [If N N .2 o E cli — E C) -1 C3) :5 1612 A16'1 O1 C Cl cli -It m W CD m to co In Ci co Eta to to 00 It It It CC >- o c-j LL -j uo -j cn — — — — — — — cr. Cj to CNI :3 co T! 'COO 0 m In z CD 09 (D Ln a 6a .c- ca O O Cry Eta I to U3 w x En cn In ,P CL 0 0 z V) U) LL J to 4) cc LU -j 0 CD E co cli < m 0 C C-i IY Z 0 0 F- Z w 0 CL 2 0 1 0 0 c n- AS w IZIF Z o 0 Of 15 co c 0 LL 3 T D. > OL a) U) LL cr 0 CA Lij cr iz A16'1 � �, March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular S si A l ,+ # 5d. Administrator's Report. Revisit Proposal to Resurface PIn6 BIIe�wl / ////�� Early (O'Brien) i.� •; Page 1 of 2 From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:12 AM To: FederNorman; V1ietJohn; CasalanguidaNick; GossardTravis; TeachScott; SheffieldMichael; OchsLeo; ResnickLisa Cc: MarcellaJeanne; BetancurNatali Subject: FW: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request To all: Please see Mr. Chandler's response below. I am closing this issue out. Thanks Barb From: John Chandler [ mailto .johnehandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:21 AM To: ChesneyBarbara Subject: Re: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request The Pelican Bay Services Division Board has decided, at this time, not to further consider loaning money to the County to advance the scheduled repaving of Pelican Bay Boulevard. However, our PBSD Board Chairman recently sent a letter to Commissioner Hiller, pointing out the deteriorated condition of PBB and our sidewalks and asking that she and the other commissioners work together to see that the County's mad and sidewalk maintenance budget is significantly increased. Please advise other interested parties of our position. John Chandler On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:15 AM, ChesneyBarbara < BarbaraChesney (a.colliereov.nety wrote: Mr. Chandler: Good morning. I am checking back with you to see if you are going to continue to move forward with the accelerated resurfacing request. Thank you Barbara Chesney GMD Administration From: ChesneyBarbara Sent: Monday, December 05, 20114:30 PM To: johnchandler219(&wnail.com Cc: FederNorman; OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; V1ietJohn; GossardTravis; TeachScott Subject: FW: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request Mr. Chandler: I appreciate the information below. I will check back with you/staff first of March to see whether or not you wish to continue to move forward with this item. Thank you again for advising. Barb From: John Chandler [ mailto :johnchandler219ajzmail.coml Sent: Monday, December 05, 20114:25 PM To: ChesneyBarbara Cc: OchsLeo; FederNorman; CasalanguidaNick; V1ietJohn; GossardTravis; TeachScott; ResnickLisa; Nei dm fl.com; SheffieldMichael; BetancurNatali; HillerGeorgia Subject: Re: RM 2894 Dorrill/Pelican Bay Accelerated Resurfacing Request Since our Board has committed to holding public workshops on this topic, I can't see it approving the proposed transaction before March. John Chandler PBSD Board Member T co W a M N 7 O cu T O m N C N m (u U � a � U CT � N � 7 'O N cu a O p M C @ O N N O Q O N a N N U , O U c/)� T C C O CO a C N U a' _ N �o a N � O .N N � N 0 "O q L N U Q U (6 CT a C L U O a i O N O N ti H N W. 4ft1 4- ` W 9E O i V Y NN� I.I. 4A t L a O m V a 161 16 �\ 0 0 N U) 0 0 N CC) 0 0 CO Cn 0 0 00 LO o 0 LO 0 a o 0 0 O O to w 0 0 O w 0 0 - w 0 0 N w 0 o Lo w 0 0 CO w 0 0 t` CO 0 0 O h 0 0 - I- 0 0 t f r- 0 0 LOW I- 0 0 r 0 0 N r 0 0 O O 0 0 O w 0 0 N O 0 0 N O 0 0 NW O 0 0 O N m N ® c a' M � c a E T 0 a L p D 4- O O ; N O '>3 (% v m 'p O "„ ^o w W w 3 c 0 C c w a > aci w I -a a�i am i m a w > m d O a m e ca y Q M a W O ^ 0 a W OO p 0 O-0 O d O O m 0 p-0 0 - O �+ O 0 p , D O p �.+ 0 "O L � 0 O °O a Y J w J t13 `� `' p m i CU L a J Y T d y0 O Y 0 O �,., T U D O p i > 6 O cC O C) CO y d m- y a 0 O m 0 "O O� m c 0 a LU CO ° °E N o m O > 3 3 o o o a a L o w 3 cc a c - c m O ,g V 3 3 m 3 c o O d O N m N M Z O d c c o m m u a z m m a -a a Cm 7 _ m a F- � m a� 04 a) _ c c c m J O C7 Y �.. Q V �L m � ^ V (� O Y V U a Q L L c J N O �' J -I U ca -0 0 33 °m ° 3 w a> m o o o o 00 c 3 co c m 0 to t4 >, co c 0 t c x ►- U U) 1612 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 87,700.00 $ 82,816.31 $ 4,883.69 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense Pelican Bay Services 51,100.00 $ 49,861.35 $ 1,238.65 Engineering Fees Municipal Services Taxing Unit 236.25 4,763.75 Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012 14,000.00 2,900.00 812.65 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 200.00 (Unaudited) 200.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 9,400.00 Annual YTD YTD 1,500.00 - Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Revenues: 286.42 113.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment- Water Management Admin 666,300.00 586,344.00 592,676.96 6,332.96 Special Assessment- Right of Way Beautification 1,907,800.00 1,678,864.00 1,696,831.19 17,967.19 Special Assessment Past Due - - 2,603.19 2,603.19 Charges for Services 1,500.00 - - Surplus Property Sales 450.00 - Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 Insurance Payment for Damages - - - 5,400.00 Interest 15,300.00 6,373.00 2,695.88 (3,677.12) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,393,881.00 $ 3,417,107.22 $ 23,226.22 Operating Expenditures: 7,488.00 5,012.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 Water Management Administration 720.38 (120.38) Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 15,844.98 $ 55.02 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 11,200.00 8,216.00 2,984.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,600.00 1,197.30 402.70 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 200.00 107.69 92.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 4,700.00 5,183.00 (483.00) 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 2,000.00 800.00 232.34 567.66 Training and Education 1,100.00 500.00 85.00 415.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 87,700.00 $ 82,816.31 $ 4,883.69 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 51,100.00 $ 49,861.35 $ 1,238.65 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 5,000.00 236.25 4,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc. 14,000.00 2,900.00 812.65 2,087.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 9,400.00 2,528.25 6,871.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 400.00 286.42 113.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 21,300.00 22,120.00 (820.00) Telephone 500.00 200.00 144.16 55.84 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,300.00 2,510.87 789.13 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 2,300.00 846.59 1,453.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 3,700.00 1,061.42 2,638.58 Tree Triming 30,000.00 12,500.00 7,488.00 5,012.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 600.00 720.38 (120.38) Page 1 of 3 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 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 2,322,825.44 96,538.00 $ 2,419,363.44 $ 2,419,363.44 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 916.22 20,230.65 1,292,615.54 1,105,601.03 $ 21,146.87 2,398,216.57 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,419,363.44 1612116 5Y 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 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 2,322,825.44 96,538.00 $ 2,419,363.44 $ 2,419,363.44 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 916.22 20,230.65 1,292,615.54 1,105,601.03 $ 21,146.87 2,398,216.57 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,419,363.44 1612116 Right of Way Beautification - Operating 16 2 A 161 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200.00 491.34 7,400.00 (291.34) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 34,200.00 30,073.11 200.00 4,126.89 Office Automation Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 600.00 381.25 Other Contractural Services 218.75 14,300.00 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,879.87 1,600.00 (379.87) 401.70 Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 152,000.00 $ 124,041.91 $ 27,958.09 12,500.00 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 16,400.00 $ 16,324.12 $ 75.88 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 7,100.00 7,000.00 100.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 14,300.00 12,283.00 2,017.00 Telephone 3,900.00 1,600.00 1,198.30 401.70 Postage 3,000.00 400.00 (92.28) 492.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 5,200.00 5,600.60 (400.60) 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 1,114.67 200.00 Legal Advertising 2,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Office Supplies General 2,500.00 1,000.00 371.47 628.53 Training and Education 1,500.00 600.00 105.00 495.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 47,650.00 $ 43,240.21 $ 4,409.79 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense $ 807,300.00 $ 310,500.00 $ 290,215.00 $ 20,285.00 Emergency Maintenance and Repairs 3,300.00 - Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) 89,900.00 38,800.00 36,643.67 2,156.33 Pest Control 5,000.00 2,100.00 2,325.00 (225.00) Landscape Incidentals 2,500.00 1,000.00 471.44 528.56 Other Contractural Services 29,500.00 16,800.00 15,814.00 986.00 Temporary Labor 190,100.00 101,200.00 100,487.74 712.26 Telephone 3,200.00 1,300.00 897.18 402.82 Electricity 3,400.00 1,400.00 904.72 495.28 Trash and Garbage 17,000.00 5,400.00 5,398.95 1.05 Rent Equipment 2,500.00 1,000.00 1,114.67 (114.67) 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 1,700.00 700.00 - 700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 25,100.00 10,500.00 11,750.57 (1,250.57) Fuel and Lubricants 67,300.00 25,500.00 11,042.43 14,457.57 Licenses, Permits, Training 800.00 300.00 101.94 198.06 Tree Triming 63,600.00 56,500.00 57,759.25 (1,259.25) Clothing and Uniforms 9,400.00 3,000.00 2,942.51 57.49 Personal Safety Equipment 3,000.00 1,300.00 644.34 655.66 Fertilizer and Herbicides 62,000.00 22,900.00 22,975.97 (75.97) Landscape Maintenance 46,000.00 29,200.00 31,326.75 (2,126.75) Mulch /Landscape Materials 53,100.00 39,800.00 22,517.40 17,282.60 Pathway Repairs 6,000.00 2,500.00 - 2,500.00 Sprinkler Maintenance 30,000.00 9,200.00 3,687.58 5,512.42 Painting Supplies 800.00 300.00 28.66 271.34 Traffic Signs 3,000.00 1,300.00 - 1,300.00 Minor Operating Equipment 3,000.00 1,300.00 1,333.96 (33.96) Other Operating Supplies 9,000.00 3,800.00 2,713.49 1,086.51 Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating $ 1,556,600.00 $ 697,100.00 $ 632,574.15 $ 64,525.85 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,289,200.00 $ 984,450.00 $ 882,672.58 $ 101,777.42 Page 2 of 3 g Capital Expenditures: Water Management Field Operations Other Machinery and Equipment General Improvements Total Water Management Field Operations Capital Right of Way Beautification - Field Autos and Trucks Other Machinery and Equipmeny Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital Total Capital Expenditures Total Operating Expenditures Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 Tax Collector Fees Property Appraiser Fees Reserves (2 1/2 months for Operations) Reserves for Equipment Reserved for Attrition Revenue Reserve Total Non - Operating Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Profit /(Loss) 1612N161 $ 1,000.00 $ - $ $ $ 1,000.00 $ - $ _ $ _ $ 102,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 540,300.00 - 1,000.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 (31,700.00) - (31,700.00) _ $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,081,050.00 $ 979,210.58 $ 101,839.42 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 79,600.00 47,760.00 45,790.16 1,969.84 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,134.55 2,180.45 538,000.00 540,300.00 540,300.00 - 94,800.00 94,800.00 94,800.00 (31,700.00) (31,700.00) (31,700.00) 129,500.00 - 129,215.93 $ 1,320,000.00 $ 1,127,975.00 $ 1,123,824.71 $ 4,150.29 $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,209,025.00 $ 2,103,035.29 $ 105,989.71 $ - $ 1,184,856.00 $ 1,314,071.93 $ 129,215.93 Page 3 of 3 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012 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 $ 501,143.98 Liabilities and Fund Balance 4,055.00 1612 A16 1 $ 501,143.98 $ 501,143.98 $ 4,055.00 194,157.20 302,931.78 497,088.98 $ 501,143.98 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Operating Revenues: 161 Z 16r4 -: Variance Carryforward $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ - Curent Ad Valorem Tax 436,800.00 - 384,384.00 384,027.50 $ (356.50) Delinquent Ad Valorem Tax Telephone 400.00 200.00 144.16 $ - Insurance Claim 18,400.00 14,452.43 3,947.57 18,330.25 $ 18,330.25 Interest 4,500.00 Insurance - Auto 1,485.00 386.76 $ (1,098.24) Total Operating Revenues 598,900.00 543,469.00 560,344.51 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 16,875.51 Operating Expenditures: 905.02 894.98 Fuel and Lubricants 1,200.00 500.00 106.80 Street Lighting Administration Other Equipment Repairs 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 Personal Safety Equipment Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 15,844.86 $ 55.14 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 $ 11,208.33 10,216.00 $ 992.33 Telephone 3,900.00 $ 1,600.00 894.02 $ 705.98 Postage and Freight 2,000.00 $ 200.00 107.69 $ 92.31 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 121100.00 $ 5,000.00 5,425.95 $ (425.95) Insurance - General 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - Office Supplies General 800.00 $ 300.00 15.36 $ 284.64 Other Office and Operating Supplies 1,000.00 $ 400.00 - $ 400.00 Total Street Lighting Admin Operating 93,700.00 37,408.33 35,303.88 2,104.45 Street Lighting Field Operations Payroll Expense 62,500.00 24,000.00 23,628.48 371.52 Emergency Maintenance & Repairs 9,600.00 - - - Other Contractual Services 800.00 300.00 - 300.00 Telephone 400.00 200.00 144.16 55.84 Electricity 44,200.00 18,400.00 14,452.43 3,947.57 Insurance - General 800.00 400.00 400.00 - Insurance - Auto 900.00 450.00 450.00 - Building Maintenace & Repairs 1,700.00 Fleet Maintenance and Parts 4,300.00 1,800.00 905.02 894.98 Fuel and Lubricants 1,200.00 500.00 106.80 393.20 Other Equipment Repairs 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 200.00 - 200.00 Electrical Contractors 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) Light Bulb Ballast 12,400.00 3,300.00 2,144.50 1,155.50 Page 1 of 2 j. Total Street Lighting Field Operating Total Field Expenditures 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) 1612 A 146,800.00 53,350.00 46,194.79 7,155.21 240,500.00 90,758.33 81,498.67 9,259.66 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 241,500.00 90,958.33 81,498.67 9,459.66 13,500.00 8,100.00 7,723.40 376.60 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 - - 357,400.00 325,995.00 320,723.40 5,271.60 598,900.00 416,953.33 402,222.07 14,731.26 - 126,515.67 158,122.44 31,606.77 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 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 422,055.11 422,055.11 $ 422,055.11 Liabilities and Fund Balance 2,762.50 303,213.58 116,079.03 2,762.50 419,292.61 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 422,055.11 1612 'A 161 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 Total Clam Bay Ecosystem Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 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 $ 451,311.88 $ $ 163,368.75 $ 70,151.60 29,000.00 349.77 7,500.00 588.01 1,000.00 16 12 A � 16 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 113,119.00 113, 03 2.16 34,000.00 34,000.00 500.00 584.55 437,130.88 $ 437,128.59 $ 68,100.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 29,200.00 9,728.00 12,100.00 - $ 271,958.13 $ 109,400.00 $ 27,385.75 $ $ 7,253.75 $ 143,000.00 100.00 $ - 1,200.00 - $ 150,253.75 $ 1,300.00 $ - 7 W Total Clam Bay Operating Expenditures $ 422,211.88 $ 110,700.00 $ 27,385.75 $ Variance (86.84) 84.55 (2.29) 50,442.25 19,472.00 12,100.00 82,014.25 100.00 1,200.00 1,300.00 83,314.25 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees $ 3,900.00 $ 2,340.00 $ 2,260.64 $ 79.36 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 $ 19,798.00 $ 19,643.01 $ 154.99 Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 130,498.00 $ 47,028.76 $ 83,469.24 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 306,632.88 $ 390,099.83 $ 83,466.95 Page 1 of 1 Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets 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 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - February 29, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets $ 2,575,437.06 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 47,013.85 7,653.85 2,582,848.52 (62,079.16) 1612 A161 2,575,437.06 $ 2,575,437.06 54,667.70 2,520,769.36 $ 2,575,437.06 I 1612 A16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (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 Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services 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 53,487.00 331,900.00 292,072.00 295,124.59 3,052.59 19,500.00 6,435.00 4,098.50 (2,336.50) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,288,391.04 $ 3,342,594.13 $ 54,203.09 $ 131,654.37 $ 13,165.44 $ 12,345.90 $ 819.54 2,956,362.25 443,454.34 426,539.74 16,914.60 5,568.58 69,365.50 1,000.00 13,680.14 39,568.70 39,568.70 38,553.60 1,015.10 21,323.00 - - - 50,000.00 - - - 85,000.00 - - - 500.00 - - 22,275.72 - - - $ 3,306,684.04 $ 496,188.47 $ 567,053.46 $ 18,749.23 $ 10,300.00 $ 6,180.00 $ 5,902.55 $ 277.45 6,800.00 4,080.00 3,896.51 183.49 17,500.00 - - - $ 34,600.00 $ 10,260.00 $ 9,799.06 $ 460.94 $ 3,341,284.04 $ 506,448.47 $ 576,852.52 $ 19,210.17 $ - $ 2,781,942.57 $ 2,765,741.61 $ 73,413.26 Page 1 of 1 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 5e. Administrator's Report Monthly Financial Report /Revised/ Page 11 Page 1 of 1 1612 'A1 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - February 29, 2012 i Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTE) 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 Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services 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 53,487.00 331,900.00 292,072.00 295,124.59 3,052.59 19,500.00 6,435.00 4,098.50 (2,336.50) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,288,391.04 $ 3,342,594.13 $ 54,203.09 $ 131,654.37 $ 13,165.44 $ 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 39,568.70 21,323.00 50,000.00 85,000.00 500.00 22,275.72 $ 3,306,684.04 $ $ 10,300.00 $ 6,800.00 17, 500.00 39,568.70 12,345.90 $ 426,539.74 5,568.58 69,365.50 1,000.00 13,680.14 38,553.60 819.54 105,605.47 (5,568.58) (69,365.50) (1,000.00) (13,680.14) 1,015.10 584,879.34 S 567,053.46 $ 17,825.88 6,180.00 $ 5,902.55 $ 277.45 4,,080.00 3,896.51 183.49 $ 34,600.00 $ 10,260.00 $ 9,799.06 $ $ 3,341,284.04 $ 595 „139.34 $ 576,852.52 $ $ - $ 2,693,251.70 $ 2,765,741.61 $ Page 1 of 1 460.94 18,286.82 72,489.91 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal Page 2 of 2 �w 1612 A16 A G R E E M E N T 09-5174 for Management Services for Pelican Bay. Services THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this 23rd day of June, 2009, by and between Dorrill Management, authorized to do busilies s in the State of Florida, whose business address is 5672 Strand Ct. Suite 1, Naples Florid). 34110, hereinafter called the "Consultant" and Collier County, a political subdivision of tl;e State of Florida, Collier County, Naples, hereinafter called the "County ": WITNES3ETH: COMMENCEMENT. The Consultant shall commence the work upon execution of this agreement. The contract shall be for a peri )d of (12) months. Additionally, by mutual agreement and funding availability, the car tract may be renewed for three (3) terms of twelve (12) months each. In no event, including renewal options, shall the contract exceed four (4) years. The County shall dive the Consultant written notice of the County's intention to extend the Agreemen term not less than ten (10) days prior to the end of the Agreement term then in effect. 2. STATEMENT OF WORK. The Consult; nt shall provide Management Services in accordance with the terms and conditioi s of RFI' #09 -5174 and the Consultant's proposal referred to herein and made in integral part of this agreement. This Agreement contains the entire unders : anding between the parties and any modifications to this Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing by the Consultant and the County Contract Manager or his designee, in compliance with the County Purchasing Policy and Administnitive Procedures in effect at the time such services are authorized. 3. THE CONTRACT SUM. The County shall pay the Consultant for the performance of the Agreement the sum of ($42,300.00) (forly two thousand three hundred dollars) for the period of time commencing on July 1, 2009 and ending on June 30, 2010, payable at the rate of (three thousand five hundred thi .ty three dollars) ($3,533) per month, subject to Change orders as approved in advance 1 y the County. Tlus price shall be fixed and firm for the first year duration but will incr, -ase to ($56, 400.00) (fifty six thousand four hundred dollars) for subsequent years of th+ contract and any approved travel expenses shall be paid at actual costs with no markup for any, travel outside of Lee and Collier County. Payment will be made upon receip- of a proper invoice and in compliance with Section 218.70, Fla. Stats., otherwise known as the "Local Government Prompt Payment Act ". Page t of 9 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Chairman's Report Dorrill Management Group Contract Renewal Page 1 of 2 a 1612 A16 MANAGEMENT CONTRACT RECAP Original Contract approved by BCC 6/23/2009 with commencement date of July 1, 2009. Annual Amount $42,300 for the 1" year Contract states increase in the 2nd year to $56,400 (July 1, 2010) but the board approved an additional $18,960 starting July 1, 2010 at their 7/7/2010 meeting due to increased hours. Annual contract amount currently is $75,360.00. Field Management Services were added to FY 2012 purchase order for the south berm restoration permitting work in the amount of $3,000.00. Contract up for renewal for the 4th and final year July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ( y��' / A 16� 7bii. Clam Bay Subcommittee Recommendation for Board Consideration Clam Pass /Ba P rmi21laborative Workshop) Page 1 of 1 2/21/2012 PBSD CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MOTION: Submitted by Tom Cravens The Clam Bay Subcommittee recommends to the full Board that: The PBSD /MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Societyo review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit application materials. . , ��a R£# S 6 0 4 � � 0 o O 70 Z ❑oorr❑ d i —i H , • • f sa s r €o of �o P� �o o a ,.O O� �O g m (JJ C \ r A ■a�}��on�.n Qnoo;s ,: ■ ■Q■■ a ui ■QQ%■ �-!! �� ■■ ■Di.n.��{iI�IWY _ ■ ■■ Q �© E a�►s!�! ■�i ii■Q■iiii s �l ■Q ©cmuira■ ■Q■■Q■iQ m °=�ar�.�i��r ■■.L.ti►u ► ��1 LT Q o ■ ■Q■ ■■■Q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Q■ ■■■■ ■■ ■QQQ■ Lsir mot. �o.n��S►7ur.at}LU ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■i ■ aL1II©■ ■Qson ■■■ii ■t■ Qi■� sr.-: _i1■ ■�C =�■ �1QJrbr� ■ ■Q ■ ■ ■■■ . ■ ■Q ■ ■Q■Q■QQQ ■ ■■ ■' ■■ ■ • u ■ Q�� ®■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Q ■ ■Q ■ ■■ ■■ ■ —' °C iQ i a..��■■ ■■ ■ ■QQ CI�1�iiIICQ ■ ■Qi■■ ■Q■ ■■FIE■EiQ �'�'f ■�`Q1IZ ■E2gEi �■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ N K� O 0 ,m 4m 0 O 0 v z z O o y Y ❑ ❑L z 0 r � N m O o 3 V) 1J or� n� a � V 3 r Q A` Q 9L d ©= 11Qt]Q�Q l�IIfliDfiHIIa !iiliiiill DD�my DQL1Pi C7[3�QL90D == rOO ,ana QD® : %; �� OL•IDSMISORiIN ©!i!!!l�it� = . Q IIO i!!ti MM lQiii!! !!��W! ��}lIti�'i L�:iSL stlC • • aiiLaL�LLJlil1 BMW t4: L7 ' t (liit!!i!i i1 �ma�!°! H�>u�Qi x" -�!! FSQ! ©iLi■ • i0 i■i!!!!lliii!!!lil�i �.. +�Lli !i!W! ■!ti h+::— 9L d . � 1 J W;A 16 121161 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive • Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 February 24, 2012 The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 -5746 Dear Commissioner Hiller, The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is studying ways to maintain the Pelican Bay community and keep it appealing to current and future residents. In this process, we have looked at the current condition of our roadways and pathways. As you are well aware, Collier County is responsible for maintaining both. In 2006, Pelican Bay Boulevard was unfortunately resurfaced using an experimental and low cost method called Micro - Surfacing, a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and mineral fillers or "gravel' applied overtop of the existing roadway surface and intended to preserve and extend the life of the pavement an additional 5 - 8 years. However this process was unsuccessful and within a year the new surface revealed significant wear. The attached photograph shows the current condition of a section of Pelican Bay Blvd, in front of the Philharmonic. We have been told that the County is scheduled to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. no sooner than 2016. Similarly, the County is deficient in maintaining Pelican Bay's pathways. The County uses the "patch" method to repair our pathways. However many of our pathways have been patched to the extent that they are now hazardous for walking, particularly by some of our older residents. The attached photos illustrate the problem. We have been told there is no money in the County budget to rebuild the pathways in the foreseeable future. Hence, the PBSD Board is faced with the dilemma of either waiting indeterminately for the County to make repairs or use our Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU) monies collected for other purposes. It is difficult to explain to residents the current conditions of the roadways and pathways, but it is even more challenging to rationalize using MSTBU monies for maintenance items that we have already paid through our County property taxes. Also, we understand that to the extent MSTBU monies are used for these items, we would have to defer other projects for which the monies were originally intended. Clearly, staff can only provide as much maintenance work as has been funded, and the County has experienced a significant decline in revenue. Nonetheless, the County should recognize its responsibility to maintain its essential infrastructure, On behalf of the PBSD Board, we implore you advocate strongly to provide adequate countywide funds to maintain roadways and pathways. Regards, Keith j. Dall , Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board C__ o t t : c o H t V I pit; K�� 01s, SIST lot IV tilt" eKAj rr AV 00 q 1 t 1 w , QW, pit; K�� 01s, SIST lot IV {k .t•• ;. E. ,. q�q ��°�� . � � � a i4�; -.��z?�,,� ;��, ,fit r�M t �f • �° $� l t 1 =t4Tt r s i Vr Ic I fill t T � •V, d , M, 16121 X16 � APR 10 2092 Ed of Coun y Commissioners PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET ON MONDAY, MARCH 26 AT 3 PM AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AT PELICAN BAY LOCATED AT 8960 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 AGENDA 1. Roll call 2. Approval of February 13, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience participation 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Budget 5. Discussion of non -ad valorem and ad valorem cash flow spreadsheets with and without the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard (Dallas) 6. Initial discussion of capital components (ad valorem pp d non -ad -No em) to be included with FY 2013 budget Hiller 7. Audience comments Henning 171 8. Adjourn Coyle �- Coletta 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 BAYSERVICESDIVIS ION. NET. Misc. ;;o,; - Date. -2-,2,t I Z 3/19/2012 1:23:04 PM Item #:16 X-2-1A I Le Copies to: i Lt - A16 1612 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD FEBRUARY 13, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Monday, February 13, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. at the Community Center at Pelican Bay, 8960 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, with the following members present: Budget Subcommittee Members Michael Levy, Chairman John Chandler Keith J. Dallas Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Geoffrey S. Gibson John Iaizzo Susan O'Brien Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary REVISED AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee meeting minutes 3. Audience Participation 4. Financial goals for preparation of Fiscal Year 2013 budget 5. Discussion of Capital Projects for Fiscal Year 2013 a. Discussion of repaving Pelican Bay Boulevard loan/repayment b. Discussion of repairing/replacing pathways loan/repayment 6. Discussion of Capital Projects for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2016 7. Audience Comments 8. Adjourn ROLL CALL All members were present. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 17 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11Mr. Gibson made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien to approve the January 17, 2012 Budget Subcommittee m= minutes as presented. The vote was unammousiv in favor, and the motion was passed. CHAIRMAN LEVY'S INTRODUCTION Chairman Levy reviewed the agenda and explained items 5a and 5b reflected Mr. Chandler's re intent of item 5 is to discuss possible FY 2013 Capital Projects. Mr. Dallas explained he did not revise sheets for item 6. Chairman Levy said the intent of item 6 would be to discuss future Capital Projects 2016. RESCHEDULE THE MARCH 12 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Ms. McCaughtry reported the County's Fiscal Year 2013 budget policy € March 12, the date of the next Budget Subcommittee meeting. be rescheduled for either Wednesday, March 21, or Monday, March 26 at 3 P.M. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None 1126 1.6 1214, A 1;6'1 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2012 FINANCIAL GOALS FOR PREPARATION OF FY 2013 BUDGET Chairman Levy recommended and the Budget Subcommittee directed staff to use as an objective for the FY 2013 proposed budget, the same financial goals that were used to prepare the Fiscal Year 2012 budget without the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) assessment: 1) hold the non -ad valorem assessment at $370.63; and 2) hold the ad valorem millage rate at 0.0531 and strive to provide funds for the CIP. The Budget Subcommittee would determine Fiscal Year 2013 CIP funding requirements and then calculate any additional assessment and millage rates. DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FY 2013 CROSSWALKS AND LANDSCAPING The Subcommittee discussed crosswalk and associated landscaping projects along Pelican Bay Boulevard at three intersections: Myra Janco Daniels, Crayton Road, and North Pointe Drive. Because the funds are currently available ($158,000 estimated) the Subcommittee was in favor of completing the remaining crosswalks during summer 2012 as part of the FY 2012 budget. DISCUSSION OF REPAVING PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD LOAN/REPAYMENT Mr. Dorrill said it was his understanding that the subject of loaning the County funds to repave Pelican Bay Boulevard early was tabled by the full Board indefinitely. However, the Budget Subcommittee does have the option to revisit with the full Board. He explained the County would enter into a formal agreement with the Services Division. However the monetary transaction would be classified as an "interfund transfer" and "subject to appropriation ", so the main issue to determine is what strengthens the Services Division's repayment position. Years ago, each Commissioner had a resurfacing taxing district. To start the conversation, he suggested mentioning the resurfacing taxing district idea to Commissioner Hiller. DISCUSSION OF PATHWAYS REPAIRING /REPLACING AND LOAN/REPAYMENT The Subcommittee discussed possible FY 2013 pathways projects and as an initial estimate, directed staff to place $557,000 in the FY 2013 proposed budget to complete the remainder of the west side of Pelican Bay Boulevard and to do the west side of Myra Janco Daniels (concrete). The Subcommittee also discussed the issue of the County's responsibility, but failure to maintain the pathways. Mr. Lukasz said typically, when he has reported to the County the need to repair a section of pathways, the is scheduled within 30 days and completed within 90 days. Furthermore, Mr. Lukasz advised that when the pat redone, there are no existing sections that could be salvaged. Mr. Dorrill said an attempt to loan the County funds to repair or replace pathways with expeor repayment would be unproductive. LANDSCAPING The Subcommittee discussed the desirability of proceeding with the CIP Lan Mr. Lukasz estimated that $200,000 could be beneficially employed, and the include $200,000 for landscaping. These funds include the addition of trees OTHER ITEMS The Subcommittee discussed other projects and directed staff to proposed budget: approximately $25,000 for littoral plantings; posts refurbishment. 1127 t d 10111r013. PWstaff to ects in the FY 2013 and $50,000 for sign 6 A 16 , Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board Meeting Minutes February 13, 2012 DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2014 -2016 For cash flow planning purposes, the Subcommittee discussed possible future CIP and Capital Projects expenditures as follows: FY 2014 Five -foot wide concrete pathways in residential neighborhoods: $425,000 Pathways along the east side of Pelican Bay Boulevard: $600,000 Pathways along the north side of Gulf Park Drive: $150,000 Sign posts refurbishment: 50,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 FY 2015 Pathways along the south side of Gulf Park Drive: $150,000 Pathways along North Pointe, Hammock Oak, and Crayton: $250,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 FY 2016 Pathways along the Oakmont Lake: $80,000 Landscaping: $200,000 Lake banks: $85,000 ADJOURN Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and vote unanimous to adjourn at 4.30 Michael Levy, Chairman 11: Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/2012 9:59:26 AM 1612 i A16 FY 2013 Preliminary Budget Preparation ❖ The FY 2013 budget was prepared as directed by the budget sub - committee. The assessment level and the street light ad valorem rate are the same as last year without CIP increases. ❖ The OMB has said that the Fund 111 contribution to Clam Bay Fund 320 will most likely be 5% less ($32,300) and this budget was prepared with that figure. ❖ To date, several costs from OMB have not been received. Due to time constraints we have prepared this preliminary budget using last years' cost for indirect cost, insurance cost and maintenance site insurance and assessment share. 3/23/2012 1612'A16' FY 2013 BUDGET 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 (2/28/12). March 26, 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. 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. April 20, 2012 Friday — Transmittal of budget to OMB May 14, 2012 Monday — meeting at 3 p.m. Final review for submission to CM office. June 1, 2012 Friday — Review Session with CM, our budget due one week prior. June 28 -29 Thurs /Friday— BCC Budget Workshop & Wrap -up July 24, 2012 Tuesday— BCC sets proposed millage rates September 6 & 20, 2012 Thursday— Public Hearing 5:05 p.m. Revenue Carry forward Rolled Capital Project/Program Carryforward Interest Income Plan Review Fee income Interfund Transfers (Fund Ill) Assessment or Advalorem Tax Lev} Total Revenue Appropriations Projections Personal Services Administration: Indirect Cost Reimbursements Other Contractual Services Storage Contractor Telephone - Service Contracts Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight & tips Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Mntc. Site fns. & Assessment Fees Information Tech Automation Allocation Priming or Binding - Outside Vendors Legal Advertising Clerks Recording Fees, Etc. Office Supplies - General Other Training & Educational Ezp, Other Operating Supplies Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Field Services: Engineering Plan Review Fees Electrical Contractors Other Contractual Services Landscape Incidentals Pest Control Tree Trimming Temporary Labor Berm & Swale Maintenance Water Use Charges Landscape Materials Celluar Telephones'Radios Trash & Dumpster Fees Water Quality Testing Insurance - Vehicles Insurance - General Bldg, Repairs/Mntc. Electricity Fertilizers, Herbicides, Chem Sprinkler System Maint Mulch Equipment Rental Licenses and Permits Repairs & Maintenance & Fuel Road and Bike Path Repairs Photo Processing (Aerial) Minor Operating Supplies Employee uniforms Other Operating Supplies Light, Bulb and Ballast Personal Safety Equipment Paint supplies Traffic Signs Emergency Maintenance & Repairs Capital Outf ty Rolled Capital Projects/Pro ;rams & Reserves Clam Bay Projects Hardscape Imp, Project Lake Bank Imp, Project Reserves 1.2 1112 am for Operations) Resent for Operating Fund Capital Imp. Equipment Reserve Other Charges7Fees Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Resent Total Appropriations Equivalent Residential unit's: Projected Rate: F.RI' or Millage Projected Total Rate: ERU or Millage Actual Rate (F1' 2012) Actual DollarAlillage Change March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boar 161214 � � 61 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Corrected 3/26/2012) Page 1 of 19 So Collier County Corrected Pelican Bay Services Division $2,013,330 $2,077,350 3 -26 -2012 Fiscal Year 2013 54,600' Operating Budget $700 General Funds Capital Projects Funds 546,800 Community Street eF Clam Bay Capital Total Cut Beautification Lights x „1: System Proiech All Funds s0 So so i;,y "P:. 564,020 $2,013,330 $2,077,350 54,700 $11,100 54,600' 560.25 $700 525,700 546,800 511500 SO SO '. s0 So 51,500 so So so 532,300 so $32,300 $666,800 51.907,375 5270.300 S124,300 5125,200 S3,093,975 $916,199 $2784,497 5648,710 _ S242,670 $2,497,230 56,689,306 $163,300 $831700 $105,700 51,100,300 illi9! $94,500 so $5,300 rl� :}tic $89,800 529,700 537,100 $26,900 593,700 so $800 $800 "! $1.600 5400 $400 5400 d'' $1,200 $3,500 $3,500 $3,200 f ' 510,200 52,200 $2.200 $2,000rti 56,400 59,500 59,800 5'),500 �+� u' 'p@E $28,800 $1500 $1,600 SI,500 �, 54,600 51,200 $500 5300 S2,000 $13,300 SO $0 N mi, (. ", $13.500 $4,400 59,600 s0 $19,000 $1,800 $2,600 5o %; 54,400 $1,500 $2,000 so 53,500 $1,500 $2,000 5o a 53,500 $2,000 $2,500 $800p 55,300 S1,100 51,500 so 3 S2,600 $0 $0 SI,000 !y' 51,000 88,800 $7,400 $OuU 516,200 R "; $10,000 S0 so x $731600 $50,000 S133,600 $1,500 So so "f SI,500 So so S7,300 � ( $7,300 S1,000 529,500 $800 yI S20,000 560,800 $112,100 So 0 $2,50 so t S2,500 so $6,000 $0 "",I, y $6,000 $30,000 $64,575 so �a,FI 534,000 $128,$75 544,900 $201,400 So 5246,300 $14,000 s0 $0 Ir S85,000 699,000 SO S89,900 SO 589,900 $8,500 $52,000 s0 $225,000 $285,500 5500 53,200 S500 N;, 54,200 55,700 517,000 SO $22,700 $30,100 so So! $30,100 5900 $10,000 $900 1 $11,800 $2,300 $8,800 5800 i�' %11,900 51,700 51,700 $1,700 $5,100 So 53,400 544,200 i'.rl, S47,600 $98,400 562,000 so I;h;" S160,400 $0 530,000 So li'n: 530,000 so 546,000 So 546,000 s0 $2,500 so 1 52,500 $o 5800 s0 '; $800 57,400 $85,900 $2,300 1 ' $500 596,100 so $6,000 s0 $6,000 so S0 $o ti ��f 57,500 $7,500 50 $3,700 s0 S2,400 56,100 $1,100 $9,400 s0 ,, SI0,500 52.500 $9,000 So t $500 $12,000 s0 $o $13,100 513,100 5500 $3,000 $500 H $4,000 s0 $800 50 $800 $0 53,000 SO $50,000 $53,000 5o $3700 $9,600 0 $12,900 51,000 $36,000 SLOW S11,000 $49,000 1;> $64,020 564,020 $2,013,330 $2,013330 So $0 $204,174 5410,272 5591710 516.350 $0 $690,506 $0 $0 $288,900 $288,900 $45,325 562,550 $32,500 $140,373 520,400 558,400 58,400 S3,800 53,900 594,900 $20,600 $52,100 55,500 52,500 52,600 $83,300 $87.526 5250.368 0.0531 S16.316 516.434 $337.894 0.0531 32.750 5370.64 $337.88 0.0858 560.25 5398.13 $0.01 - 0.0327 (521.:0) ' ($27 .49- 0.00 % 100.00% - 45.64`/. -690 % 1 1 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board 1 L; 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Bud g e o ed �V1 Page 2 of 19 Corrected Collier County 3 -26 -2012 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 Canyforward 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 W'orker's Compensation Sub - total: Indirect Cost Reimbursement Other Contractual Services Telephone - Service Contract Telephone - Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildin- Information Tech Automation F Insurance - General Mntc. Site Ins. & Assessment F Rent Equipment Printing (Outside) Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Other Educational Sub - total: Emergency Maintenance /Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: PA 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 $607,709 $31,891 $639,600 $666,800 $3,500 $4,460 $4,600 $1,185 $3,415 $4,600 $4,700 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $188,831 $0 $187,527 $0 $0 $0 ($6,300) $922,231 $706,720 $859,927 $608,894 $35,306 $644,200 $66b,700 $28,000 $28,106 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $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 $0 $2,142 $2,096 $2,200 $754 $1,446 $2,200 $2,100 $3,304 $2,554 $1,600 $502 $1,098 $1,600 $1,900 $7,504 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8,400 $8,800 $76 $76 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $41,200 $40,436 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $41,000 $108,200 $108,200 $84,500 $42,250 $42,250 $84,500 $84,500 $30,800 $28,011 $26,900 $8,216 $18,684 $26,900 $29,700 $600 $336 $400 $160 $240 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,417 $3,500 $1,037 $1,763 $2,800 $3,500 $3,000 $14 $3,000 $108 $2,492 $2,600 $2,200 $11,100 $ 10,293 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 1 $8,200 $8,100 $5,200 $2,400 $2,800 $5,200 $4,400 $1,300 $1,300 $1,200 $600 $600 $1,200 $1,200 $14,600 $14,600 $13,400 $6,700 $6,700 $13,400 $13,500 $2,500 $1,240 $1,800 $431 $669 $1,100 $1,500 $2,300 $595 $2,300 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,800 $2,000 $677 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $1,500 $2,500 $453 $2,000 $233 $367 $600 $2,000 $1,100 $143 $1,100 $85 $515 $600 $1,100 $195,700 $176,379 $158,800 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $158,300 $8,800 $0 $8,800 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $204,500 $ 176,379 $1 67,600 $66,972 $84,328 $151,300 $167,100 $245,700 $216,815 $209,000 $82,817 $109,883 $192,700 $208,100 PA March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Corrected 3/16/2 Page 3 of 19 Corrected A 1 L Collier County 3 -26 -2012 1 V 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 Bud et Plan Review Fees $1,500 Regular Salaries $79,400 $79,655 $79,400 $29,155 $50,245 $79,400 $79,400 ER 457 Contributions $665 $165 $700 $39 $661 $700 $700 Reserve For Salary Adjustment $59 $0 $2,600 $0 $2,600 $2,600 $0 Reserve For Salary Attrition $0 $0 ($9,500) $0 $0 $0 ($9,500) Overtime $15,500 $15,587 $15,400 $5,576 $9,824 $15,400 $15,400 Social Security Matching $7,300 $6,886 $7,500 $2,481 $5,019 $7,500 $7,300 Regular Retirement $11,300 $8,896 $5,300 $1,650 $3,650 $5,300 $6,300 Health Insurance $17,400 $17,396 $19,500 $9,750 $9,750 $19,500 $20,300 Life Insurance $217 $217 $200 $110 $90 5200 $200 Worker's Compensation $2,500 $2,500 $2,200 $1,100 $1,100 $2,200 $2,200 $123,300 $49,861 $82,939 $132,8001 $122,300 Sub - total: $134,341 $131,302 Engineering Fees $16,400 $7,706 $12,000 $200 $14,000 $14,200 $10,000 Plan Review Fees $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Other Contractual Services $1,000 $0 $1,000 $286 $714 $1,000 $1,000 Tree Trimming $30,000 $29,952 $30,000 $7,488 $22,512 $30,000 $30,000 Temporary Labor $42,400 $53,077 $42,400 $22,120 $20,280 $42,400 $44,900 Swale Maintenance $14,000 $13,745 $14,000 $813 $13,187 $14,000 $14,000 Water Quality Testing(Ind Pay) $22,600 $29,198 $22,600 $2,528 $20,072 $22,600 $30,100 Telephones (Includes Cellular) $500 $432 $500 $144 $256 $400 $500 "Crash & Garbage Disposal $8,300 $4,519 $5,700 $2,511 $3,189 $5,700 $5,700 Insurance - General $2,400 $2,400 $2,300 $1,150 $1,150 $2,300 $2,300 Insurance- Auto $900 $900 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 Bldg. Repairs- ."Mntc. $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 Autos Trucks RM $900 $0 $900 $0 $900 $900 $900 Motor Pool $200 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 Labor - Fleet Maint. (ISF) $1,000 $996 $1,900 $632 $1,268 $1,900 $200 Fleet Maint. Parts $600 $329 $1,600 $174 $1,426 $1,600 $400 Fleet Non. Maint. ISF Parts $1,500 $0 $500 $41 $459 $500 $500 Boat R &M $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 Other Equip. R&M $1,500 $3,821 $1,500 $381 $1,119 $1,500 $1,500 Uniform Purchase & Rental $1,100 $913 $1,100 $720 $980 $1,700 $1,100 Fertilizer, Herbicides, Chem $98,400 $80,693 $98,400 $30,074 $60,326 $90,400 $98,400 Replanting Program $8,500 $11,141 $8,500 $0 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 Fuel & Lubricants - Outside $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel & Lubricants - Inside $3,200 $2,525 $8,900 $1,061 $3,839 $4,900 $3,300 Other Operating Supplies $2,500 $2,870 $2,500 $2,880 $2,000 $4,880 $2,500 Personal Safety Equipment $500 $500 $500 $491 $0 $491 $500 $261,500 $74,144 $178,927 $253,071 $261,000 Sub - total: $260,400 $245,717 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Jre6l ?? 416 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 316122) Page 4 of 19 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 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. F� Other /Off. Mach. & Equip./Tru Sub - total: Total Field Services: Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: $744,091 $622,65411 $679,500 $232,347 $413,124 $645,471 IF $66b 700 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) ($1,271) $380,670 $136,200 $243,199 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations 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 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 90 $1,000 $408,941 $377.019 $385,800 $124,005 $261,866 $385,871 $384,300 $24,750 $15,425 $23,900 $14,085 $1,015 $15,100 $20,400 $22,600 $13,395 $22,000 $11,440 $1,560 $13,000 $20,600 $42,100 $0 $38,800 $0 $38,800 $38,800 $33,300 $89,450 $28,820 1 $841700 $25,525 $41,375 $66,90011 $74,300 Total Appropriations: $744,091 $622,65411 $679,500 $232,347 $413,124 $645,471 IF $66b 700 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) ($1,271) $380,670 $136,200 $243,199 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) $204,174 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $204,174 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10 /01/12) $39,025 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $6,300 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: $45,325 Total Equipment Replacement Cost Total Fund Balance -Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $249,499 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budge o6ed1/2E212) Page 5 of 19 Corrected Collier County 3 -26 -2012 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 Revenue Assessments Interest Income Miscellaneous Reimburse P/Y Expend. Carryfonvard Total Revenue: Appropriations: Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pay Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Retirement Health Insurance Life Insurance Worker's Compensation Sub - total: IT Automation Allocation & Capi Other Contractual Serv. Storage Contractor Telephone- Service Contract Telephone- Direct Line Postage, Freight, UPS Rent - Buildings Rent - Equipment Insurance - General Eq. R &M Printing & Binding Legal Advertising Clerk Recording Fees Office Supplies Training & Education Sub - total: Emergency Mntc. /Repair Sub - total: Total Administrative: I A 16 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat( 2012 Expended Budget $1,938,600 $1,869,030 $1,907,800 $1,739,869 $91,631 $1,831,500 $1,907,375 $8,200 $10,400 $10,700 $7,945 $2,755 $10,700 $1 1,100 $0 $9,977 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $495,070 $0 $498,338 $0 $0 $0 ($6,800) $2,441,870 $1,889,407 $2,416,838 $1,747,814 $94,386 $1,842,200 $1,911,675 $28,850 $28,959 $28,900 $10,606 $18,294 $28,900 $28,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $900 $2,200 $2,160 $2,300 $776 $1,524 $2,300 $2,300 $3,400 $2,631 $1,600 $517 $1,083 $1,600 $2,000 $7,740 $7,732 $8,700 $4,334 $4,366 $8,700 $9,000 $78 $78 $100 $41 $59 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $42,400 $41,660 $42,700 $16,324 $26,376 $42,700 $43,300 I $7,000 $4,200 $ 14,500 $7,200 $7,300 $14,500 $9,600 $37,500 $21,784 $34,300 $12,283 $22,017 $34,300 $37,100 $0 $0 $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $400 $392 $400 $161 $239 $400 $400 $3,500 $2,266 $3,500 $1,037 $1,863 $2,900 $3,500 $3,000 $40 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $2,200 $11,400 $11,877 $9,800 $4,896 $4,904 $9,800 $9,800 $2,600 $2,187 $1,900 $462 $1,438 $1,900 $1,600 $500 $500 $500 $250 $250 $500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 $1,219 $2,600 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,600 $2,000 $633 $2,000 $0 $500 $500 $2,000 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $2,639 $2,500 $371 $1,229 $1,600 $2,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $105 $695 $800 $1,500 $79,000 $47,737 $79,300 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $76, 100 $7,400 $ $7,400 $0 $0 $0 $7,400 $86,400 $47,737 $86,700 $27,008 $45,992 $73,000 $83,500 $128,800 $89,397 11 $129,400 $43,332 $72,368 $115,70011 $126,800 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Bud ( ect 012), A 1 Page 6 of 19 Collier County Corrected Pelican Bay Services Division 3 -26 -2012 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 Bid -, 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: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year- To -Dat4 2012 Expended Budget $442,400 $382,516 $430,700 $137,800 $251,800 $389,600 $424,300 $2,200 $1,170 $1,700 $590 $1,110 $1 ,700 $1 ,700 $103,000 $82,227 $99,200 $32,240 $54,960 $87,200 $97,400 $100 $0 $15,300 $0 $0 $0 $15,300 $0 $0 ($22,200) $0 $0 $0 ($22,200) $41,900 $33,105 $41,900 $12,200 $25,700 $37,900 $41,300 $64,600 $42,100 $29,200 $8,481 $13,019 $21,500 $35,000 $133,500 $133,500 $149,600 $74,819 $74,781 $149,600 $155,800 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $601 $599 $1,200 $900 $38,800 $38,800 $38,500 $19,250 $19,250 $38,500 $38,500 $827,700 $714,618 $785,100 $285,981 $441,219 $727,200 $788,000 $83,800 $78,415 $89,900 $36,600 $51,300 $87,900 $89,900 $53,100 $40,406 $53,100 $22,500 $31,100 $53,600 $52,000 $29,500 $35,890 $29,500 $15,800 $13,700 $29,500 $29,500 $35,900 $48,713 $63,600 $57,759 $13,841 $71,600 $64,575 $5,000 $4,475 $5,000 $2,325 $4,275 $6,600 $6,000 $204,500 $197,787 $190,100 $100,488 $119,812 $220,300 $201,400 $700 $480 $300 $77 $123 $200 $500 $3,200 $3,026 $3,200 $897 $1,503 $2,400 $3,200 $3,400 $2,502 $3,400 $905 $1,595 $2,500 $3,400 $24,900 $7,960 $17,000 $5,400 $11,500 $16,900 $17,000 $5,500 $1,000 $2,500 $1,115 $1,285 $2,400 $2,500 $9,000 $9,000 $8,800 $4,400 $4,400 $8,800 $8,800 $9,900 $9,900 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $1 ,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $ 1,700 $30,000 $31,318 $30,000 $3,688 $24,312 $28,000 $30,000 $60,200 $53,273 $46,000 $31,300 $15,500 $46,800 $46,000 $100 $1,811 $100 $270 $100 $370 $100 $8,500 $8,496 $10,600 $3,532 $7,068 $10,600 $7,200 $9,600 $7,661 $11,400 $3,520 $7,880 $11,400 $10,200 $1,000 $1,038 $1,000 $150 $850 $1,000 $1,300 $2,000 $16,572 $2,000 $4,281 $219 $4,500 $2,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $770 $800 $800 $9,400 $7,084 $9,400 $2,943 $6,057 $9,000 $9,400 $62,000 $62,782 $62,000 $22,900 $37,200 $60,100 $62,000 $100 $0 $100 $0 $100 $100 $100 $44,100 $46,403 $67,200 $11,042 $24,058 $35,100 $64,500 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $3,000 $6,023 $3,000 $1,334 $1,666 $3,000 $3,700 $11,500 $8,898 $9,000 $2,713 $6,387 $9,100 $9,000 $0 $0 $2,500 $500 $2,200 $2,700 $2,500 $3,000 $793 $3,000 $644 $2,156 $2,800 $3,000 $800 $0 $800 $30 $570 $600 $800 $3,000 $3,620 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $717,500 $695,326 $746,000 $342,143 $407,227 $749,370 $752,075 0 0 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $717,500 $695,326 $749,300 $342,143 $407,227 $749,370 $755,375 $1,545,200 $1,409,944 F $1,534,400 $628,124 5848,446 $1,476,570 1 543 375 $1,543,3T5- 1 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boards 6 12 1 � +� ` V 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Corrected 3/26/2012) Page 7 of 19 Corrected Collier County 3 -26 -2012 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 2012 Net Income from Operations $84,792 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $672,722 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10,101/12) $616,972 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Canyfonvard $0 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $206.700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $410,272 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $55,750 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $41,800 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $35,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $472,822 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Data 2012 Expended Budget $13,600 $355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $23,597 $102,000 $96,538 $0 $96,538 $35,000 $17,000 $12,200 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1 ,000 $58,600 $36,152 $103,000 $96,538 $0 $96,538 1 $36,000 $52,700 $31,255 $51,300 $26,694 $6,206 $32,900 $52,100 $57,750 $35,994 $55,700 $32,865 $2,835 $35,700 $58,400 $98,000 $ $90,700 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $208,450 $67,249 r $197,700 $59,559 $9,041 $68,600 $205,500 $1,941,050 $1,602,742 1 $1,964,500 $827,553 $929,855 $1,757,408 - $1,911,675 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations $84,792 Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $888,230 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $300,300 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $672,722 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10,101/12) $616,972 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Canyfonvard $0 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $206.700 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $410,272 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $55,750 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $41,800 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $35,000 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $62,550 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $472,822 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boar A 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Bullet 6re1d 2/201j) 6 Page 8 of 19 Corrected Collier County 3 -26 -2012 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 Carryfomard Total Revenue: Appropriations Administration: Regular Salaries ER 457 Contributions Other Salaries & Wages Termination Pav Reserve For Salary Adjust. Social Security Matching PBSD Retirement Worker's Compensation Health 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 Inro Technology Automation Allc Office Supplies Copying Charges Minor Office Equipment Other Operating Supplies Sub - total: Emergency Mntc. /Repairs Sub - total: Total Administrative: Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended filar. /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Bud et $273,200 $275,688 $436,800 $396,200 $23,200 $419,400 $270,300 $1,200 $1,623 $4,500 $600 $3,900 $4,500 $4,600 $0 $6.578 $0 $18,330 $0 $18,330 $0 $0 $0 $157,684 $0 $0 $0 ($7,300) $274,400 $283,889 $598.984 $415,130 $27,100 $442,230 $267,600 $28,000 $28,107 $28,000 $10,294 $17,706 $28,000 $28,000 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75 $ $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,140 S2,096 $2,300 $754 $1,546 $2,300 $2,300 $31300 $2,554 $1,500 $502 $998 $1,500 $1,900 $100 $10 $100 $50 $50 $100 $100 $7,500 $7,504 $8,400 $4,206 $4,194 $8.400 $8,800 $100 $7 $100 $39 $61 $100 $100 $41,215 $40,437 $41,400 $15,845 $25,555 $41,400 $42,200 $6,300 $6,300 $5,300 $2,650 $2,650 $5,300 $5,300 $20,800 $25,654 $26,900 $10,216 $16,684 $26,900 $26,900 $0 $ $800 $243 $557 $800 $800 $600 $325 $400 $159 $241 $400 $400 $3,500 $1,663 $3,500 $735 $2,065 $2,800 $3,200 $2,000 $15 $2,000 $108 $1,892 $2,000 $2,000 $117100 $10,010 $9,500 $4,752 $4,748 $9,500 $9,500 $2,500 $1,958 $1,800 $431 $1,069 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $ $0 $15 ($15) $0 $0 $400 $40 $300 $150 $150 $300 $300 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $ $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $49,000 $46,325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $51,700 $0 $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $46.325 $52,300 $19,459 $31,541 $51,000 $51,700 $90,215 $86,762 $93,700 $35,304 $57,096 $92,400 $93.900 I March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division J 2 A 16 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget (Corrected 3/26/2012) Page 9 of 19 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 FR 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 - General Bldg. Rcpairs/Mntc. Fleet Maintenance Electrical Contractor Light Bulbs Ballast Personnel Safety Equipment Sub - total: Emergency Electricl Repair Servi Sub- total: Total Field Services: Capital Outlay: Building Improvements Improvements - General Other Machinery & Equipment Sub - total: Total Capital Outlay: Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Sub - total: Total Other Fees & Charges Total Appropriations: Corrected 3 -26 -2012 Received Anticipated Total Proposed FY 201 I FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mac /Sept. Received 2013 Budget Actual Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $40,400 $40,585 $40,500 $14,856 $25,644 $40,500 $40,500 $165 $165 $200 $39 $161 $200 $200 $4,000 $3,745 $4,000 $1,640 $2.360 $4,000 $4,000 $100 $ $1,400 $0 $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 $3,400 $3.200 $3,500 $1,178 $2,322 $3,500 $3,500 $5,300 $4.270 $2,600 $758 $1.842 $2,600 $3,200 $8,300 $8,300 $9,300 $4.652 $4,648 $9,300 $9,700 $100 $11 $100 $56 $44 $100 $100 $1,100 $1,10 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62.865 $61,475 $62,500 $23,629 $38.871 $62,500 $63,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $800 $0 $500 $500 $800 $500 $432 $400 $144 $256 $400 $500 $44,200 $35,100 $44,200 $14.452 $29,548 $44,000 $44,200 $900 $90 $900 $450 $450 $900 $900 $800 $800 $800 $400 $400 $800 $800 $0 $0 $1,700 $0 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,500 $1,011 $5,700 $1,076 $4,624 $5,700 $2.300 $7,300 $13,567 $7,300 $3,900 $3.100 $7,000 $7,300 $12,400 $9,950 $12.400 $2,145 $8,655 $10,800 $13,100 $500 $0 $500 $0 $500 $500 $500 $68,900 $61,760 $74,700 $22,567 $49,733 $72.300 $72,100 $9.600 $0 $9,600 $0 $0 $0 $9.600 $78,500 $61,760 $84,300 $22,567 $49.733 $72,300 $81,700 $141,365 $123,235 $146,800 $46,196 $88,604 $134,800 $145,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $1.000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $14,200 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $8,400 $5,295 $13,500 $7,967 $1,553 $9,520 $8,400 $5,500 $ $8.900 $0 $8,900 $8,900 $5,500 $14,400 $0 $22.000 $0 $0 $0 $13,600 $28.300 $5.295 $44,400 $7,967 $10,453 $18,420 $27,500 $28,300 $5,295 $44.400 $7,967 $10,453 $18,420 $27,500 $274,080 $215,292 $285.900 $89,467 $156.153 $245.620 $267,600 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board � 2 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Bud l Co�I'ectel 3/2672012) 16 p 9 ( Page 10 of 19 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 2012 Net Income from Operations $196,610 Fund Balance October I, 2011 (Actual) $177,200 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $0 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $373,810 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Operations Opening Balance (10/01/12) $115,710 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Carryforward $0 Transfer to SL Capital Reserve $56,000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $59,710 Reserve for Street Light Capital Improvements Capital Improvement (Opening Balance 10 -01 -2011) $228,100 Transfer from SL Operations $56,000 Addition to Capital Reserve $4,800 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Improvements: $288,900 Reserved for Capital Outlay Equipment Replacement (Opening Balance 10/01/12) $30,000 Fiscal Year 2013 Additions $2.500 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfers to Carryforward $0 Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay $32,500 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $381,110 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 10 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board '11A 16 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget ( orre ed 6/ ) Page 11 of 19 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2013 Clam Bay Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Revenue Projections Carryfornvard Interest Income Transfer from TDC Transfers from Fund 1 I 1 Assessment levy Appropriation Projection Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance (511001) Engineering Fees Other Contractual Services Photo Processing Tree Trimming Repairs & Maintenance Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Capital Outlay Clam Bay Capital Projects (511051) Engineering Consultant Services Other Contractual Services Other Fees & Charges: Tat Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve $5,000 $700 $0 $32,300 $124,300 Total Available Funds: $162,300 $73,600 $20,000 $7,500 $34,000 $500 $2,400 $500 Sub Total Operating Expenditures $138,500 $11,000 Total Operating Expenditures $149,500 $0 $0 Total Ecosystem Enhancements $0 $3,800 $2,500 $6,500 Total Other Fees & Charges: $12,800 Total Appropriations: $162,300 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 11 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Bo � 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 B t rre ed /201 16 Page 12 of 19 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: Carryfonvard Assessment levy Transfer from Fund 322 Interest Income TDC Funding Interfund Transfers (Fund I 1 I) Carrytonvard of Encumbrances Total Revenue Appropriations: Operations (183800) Engineering Other Contractual Photo Processing 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 Tar Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees and Charges Total Appropriations Corrected 3 -26 -2012 12 Adopted Received Anticipated Total Proposed F1' 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 Expended Mar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 Budget Actual 1 Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $209,458.00 $0.00 $301,300 $5,000 $35,000 $33,744 $127,100 $115,900 $6,200 $122,100 $124,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,300 $3,200 $700 $832 $268 $1,100 $700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000 $34,000 $0 $34,000 $34,000 $32,300 $U $0 $0 $U $U $280,758 $71,944 $463,100 $116,732 540,468 $157,200 $162,300 $102,944 $51,175 $163,369 $12,900 $111,600 $124,500 $73,600 $137,390 $67,238 $70,151 $0 $45,000 $45,000 $20,000 $0 $7,500 $0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $0 $29,000 $7,488 $21,512 $29,000 $34,000 $485 $842 $350 $0 $350 $350 $500 $4,800 $4,005 $580 $0 $580 $580 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $1,000 1 $1.000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $500 $246,619 $123,2601 $271,950 $20,388 $187,542 $207,930 $139,000 $11,300 $4,046 $7,254 $4,800 $48,500 $53,300 $0 $143,000 $0 $143,000 $0 $96,700 $96,700 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,300 $4,046 $150,254 $4,800 $145,200 $150,000 50 $1,100 $675 $3,900 $2,318 $1,582 $3,900 $3,800 $700 $0 $2,600 $1,482 $I,Il8 $2,600 $2,500 $1.800 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $6,500 $3,600 5675 $8,300 $3,800 $2,700 $6,500 (- $12,800 �0 $404,519 $127,981 [-$430,504 $28,988 $335,442 $364,430 1 $151,800 12 March 7, 2012 of Proposed Services Division BBud )+ 4. Initial review of Pro osed Fiscal Year 2013 Bud ct 3/ 012 ` Page 13 of 19 A 16 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 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations ($207,230) Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) $292,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer to Fund 322 $u Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $85,370 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Opening Balance (10/01/12) $85,370 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryfonvard 564,020 Fiscal Year 2013 Transfer to Fund 322 (Capital Projects) $0 Capital Projects/Programs - Transfer to Carryfonvard $5.000 Sub -total Reserved for Operations: $16,350 Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $16,350 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 13 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board n r 16, 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Budget ( e 3/ /2 Page 14 of 19 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Revenue Summary Carrvforvard $333,000 Interest Income $25,700 Assessment Levy $125,200 Total Available Funds: $483,900 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering $50,000 Other Contractual Services $60,800 Landscape Materials $225,000 Mulch Requirements $o Other Operating Supplies $0 Total Improvements 33 ,800 Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.t) Engineering s0 Berm and Swale $85,000 Total Improvements $85,0W Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Traffic Signs Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Equivalent Residential Units Projected ERU Rate: $50,000 Total Improvements 50,000 $3,900 $2,600 $6,600 Total Other Fees & Charges: $13,100 Total Appropriations: $483,900 7618.29 $16.43 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 14 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division B 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 B 9 e orre' cte ?26/2 16' Page 15 of 19 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 Carryfonvard of Rolled Pr, Carryfonvard Total Revenue Appropriations: Pelican Bay Hardscape F Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service: Sprinkler System Landscape Materials Mulch Requirements Road Materials Licenses and Permits Electrical Contractors Other Operating Supplies Lake Bank Enhancemen Engineering Fees Other Contractual Service Sprinkler System Mainten Swale Maintenance Landscape Materials Other Operating Supplies Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Traffic Signs Total Operating Expense Corrected 3 -26 -2012 15 Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Amended Expended 11tar. /Sept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Budget Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Budget $331,900 $331,900 $276,575 $42,000 $318,575 $125,200 $19,500 $19,500 $5,925 $13,575 $19,500 $25,700 $0 $0 $0 $O $O $0 $0 $0 $53,487 $0 $53,487 ($53,487) $0 $2,080,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 $442,900 $O $0 $0 $0 $333,000 $794,300 $2,432,026 $335,987 $55,575 $391,562 $430,413 tenovations (50066.1) $75,000 $131,654 $12,346 $48,000 $60,346 $50,000 $549,700 $2,956,362 $426,540 $400,000 $826,540 $60,800 $5,570 $6,000 $11,570 $0 $0 $69,365 $100,000 $169,365 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $21,323 $16,500 $16,500 $1,000 $O $1,000 $7,004 $2,500 $9,504 $0 $39,569 $38,553 $1,200 $39,753 $0 $624,700 53,148,908 $560,378 $575,200 $11135,578 $335,800 is (51026.1) $O $500 $0 $500 $500 $0 $0 $22,275 $0 $22,275 $22,275 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $85,000 $85,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $107,775 $0 $107,775 $107,775 $85,000 Renovation (50103.1) $50,000 $50.000 $O $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $O $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 s $759,700 $3,306,683 $560,378 $682,975 $1,243,353 $470,800 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 15 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Bo rd % i 1 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 g or ct 26/20 1 Page 16 of 19 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 Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fees & Chgs. Total Appropriations Received Anticipated Total Proposed Budget Expended MarJSept. Received FY 2013 FY 2012 Year -To -Date 2012 Expended Bud et $10,300 $6,800 $17,500 $34,600 Fiscal Year 2012 Net Income from Operations Fund Balance October 1, 2011 (Actual) Fiscal Year 2012 Transfer from Fund 109, 778, 320 Fund Balance September 30, 2012 (Projected) $5,532 $4,768 $3,897 $2,903 $9,429 $7,671 Fund Balance Allocations - Fiscal Year 2013 Reserved for Capital Outlay Opening Balance (10/01112) Transfers from Funds 109 Rolled Capital Projects /Programs - Transfer to Carryforward Capital Projects /ProgramsTransfer to Carryfonvard Sub -total Reserved for Capital Outlay: Total Fund Balance - Sept. 30, 2013 (Projected) $10,300 $3,900 $6,800 $2,600 $0 $6,600 $17,100 F $13,100 ($868,891) $2,572,000 $436.500 $2,139,609 $2,139,609 $206,700 $2.013.330 5332.979 $0 $0 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 16 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boa 1 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 Bu t re d /2012 Page 17 of 19 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2013 Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape ( Including Hardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Capital Projects - Irrigation Sytem, Community Landscaping Pelican Bay Hardscape Renovations (50066.1) Engineering (322-183825-631400-50066) $50,000 These fees are being budgeted for engineering services as may be required for the implementation of the proposed community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Other Contractual Services (322 - 183825- 634999 - 50066) $60,800 These fees are for contractor services that would be required for the construction services required for the implementation of community capital improvements identified and approved by the PBSD Board. Westside PBB Pathway (Est. Total Cost $557,000) $21,300 Myra Janco Daniels Pathway (Concrete) $39.500 $60.800 Landscape Materials (322 - 183825- 646320 - 50066) $225,000 Intersection Landscape Improvements $200,000 Littoral Plantings $25,000 $225,000 Mulch Requirements (322 - 183825 - 646314 - 50066) $0 Other Operating Supplies (322 - 183825- 652990 - 50066) $o Corrected 3 -26 -2012 17 March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Boa 4. Initial review of Proposed Fiscal Year 2013 BtteCi rreed lZ/2o,A 16 Page 18 of 19 Corrected 3 -26 -2012 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Proposed FY 2013 . Capital Projects Fund Irrigation System & Community Landscape( Including Ilardscape) Improvements Appropriation Analysis: Lake Bank Enhancements (51026.1) These fees are for contractor services required for the installation of Erosion Barrier Tube for the enhancement of the water management system lake banks. Engineering (322-183825-631400-510261) Berm and Swale (322 - 183825 - 634251 - 510261) Pelican Bay Traffic Sign Renovation (50103.1) Funds are being budgeted for the renovation of the community enhanced ornamental traffic signage to be completed over a three year program.. Traffic Signs (322-183825-653710-50103. 1) Other Fees and Charges: Tax Collector: (322- 959050- 930700) $3,900 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments to be collected. The Tax Collector charges three percent (3 %) of the assessments collected. Property Appraiser (322 - 959050- 930600) $2,600 Fees are based on Fiscal Year 2012 assessments levied. The Property Appraiser charges two percent (2 0%) of the amount levied. Revenue Reserve (322-919010489900) 56.600 The Board of County Commissioners policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estimated revenues, which will cover discounts and non - payment of assessments. Sn 585,000 $50,000 Total Other Fees & Charges: $13,100 Total Appropriations: $483,900 18 O M U ttit ♦�i a L CD ti (0 CV ✓ C ) U m � O (0 7 Om m c� C .00 y N 5 0) U N U 0) L Ua T Q) co w Co O C O U d O O a O � w N O � � O U 'E 07 — 01 V ncu f1612A161 Q 0) .o cc F- 00 _ E h O C`- .- ? [� h C m h h O� 00 00 `7 O In O N vl r^. 7 O� — d' O 7 h M v� .--• r~, 6�3 ..• IO N fig .r u9 -: F k. ° sfl vt vj v3 .. N 619 Q Q O O O o c o 0 0 O h O In 6R 0 6/9 0 0 0 0 69 69 � 6R o 6A c O v N C� 00 In O lO V^ C h M �O C M` 00 10 N O, r•� r ^. O rte. h 00 7 vi ^ C f^ N O v 69 .M. V9 cq N y 4oq V5 v u d .L 2 O C69 O O G G b t- p 6fl p v O O O O V3 69 6H 619 O fi O O T N R N S M a O E R C 6N9 6q V U r „, O p V? O O O O O 6R O O O O O ^ O O O V) O O O 00 � 'V N 00 h h O� O h VI ~ h t- M O1 00 00 O N N h f/3 C fR N3 6M19 f9 61, � O N Lu L oo . V N O O V 7 rf N VCl 69 oq 6A 69 603 6� � C 69 v 0 N N b C U L N G O N N O C N O O O a 0 N O co 41 H V II n� N r O h N n 00C 0 6f 00 a G 0 It 14 h ^ O 60) 00 (• r, fH fA V CA O 7 64 6R (A 49 W11 6m O Ls °= E J ' = 0 h h 01 O: voc v h 6n WI h o 69 v oov. O 6S N o 0 O ry iq .✓'7 N N �C ... �-' ^' C @ M O 6R 00 M 7 7 O O M 49 V 6R 69 69 69 69 619 R C R V p D u a as 40- d R c Gsd = E RS v a E E Li as 0. Y A C� .o _M . a. O M V d E 5 M R6V E j 0 O In GN ' i C O M u � c oA ° F ^ C E 6 O E M u l ^w V In c E M�2 > u aaNN .41 Z FE- o c ell C4 � u u N Cl O f/� Q L'0 L v L W O '' •'" O O V ° e� N CVI c`a ti co Cc vu. Lu Lt Lt Q 0) .o cc F- 1612A16" ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pathway Evaluation Attachments: Pathway Evaluation copy.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, have attached an evaluation of the Pelican Bay pathways that Kyle recently provided me. Please see it is distributed to Board members before the Budget meeting. In his transmittal, Kyle said: "Attached is a modified pathway evaluation that includes the section from Commons to the North Tram Station west side. I have modified some of the ratings, I found that some parameters weren't scoring correctly. After going back and looking at Hammock Oak I noticed that although it ranks 23% and 29% it wouldn't need to be overlayed but could just be repaired at this point, especially compared to others that are below 20 %. As a point of reference a 1000 foot sidewalk with two patches and one are of root damage with minimal edging problems would score 92 %, the same 1000 foot sidewalk with 10 areas of root damage (one /100') would score 20%." I hope this will help us think about where the PBSD goes in future years. Keith 1612 A I&'I Pelican Bay Pathway Evaluation * Overall Pathway Location Length Rating Pelican Bay Boulevard Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Commons, West Side 5430 29% Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Gulf Park Drive, East Side 5950 21% PBB - Gulf Park to North Tram Station, East Side 5675 7% PBB - Commons to North Tram Station, West Side 6240 28% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, East Side 4900 10% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, West Side 4900 10% Gulf Park Drive Gulf Park Drive - North Side 3960 63% Gulf Park Drive - South Side 3960 66% Pelican Bay Boulevard Side Streets MJD Blvd. - Bridgeway to Seagate, West Side 1220 11% MJD Blvd. - PBB to Bridgeway, West Side 725 73% MJD Blvd by Phil, East Side 725 62% Crayton Road 2050 60% Glenview Drive 440 37% North Point Drive, West Side 2150 87% North Point Drive, East Side 2150 57% Hammock Oak Drive, West Side 1625 23% Hammock Oak Drive, East Side 1625 29% Ridgewood & Oakmont Single Family, Commercial @ Ridgewood Dr. /Laurel Oak Dr. Ridgewood Drive, Laurel Oak Drive 6300 22% Oakmont Pkwy, Greentree Drive 6300 55% * Rating is based upon the number of repairs estimated to be necessary in the next 18 months from root damage, amount of cracking on the edges of the pathway and the general condition including amount of existing patches. March 7, 2012 Budget Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board 1612 Al 5. Discussion of non -ad valorem and ad valorem cash flow spreadsheets with and without the resurfacing of Pelican Bay Boulevard (Dallas) Page 1 of 4 ResnickLisa Subject: 3/26/2012 Budget Subcommittee Meeting Agenda Item 5. Revised Cash Flow Sheets (Dallas) From: Keith Dallas jmailto:keithjdallasCcOgmail . coml Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:33 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; McCaughtryMary; LukaszKyle Subject: Revised Excel Sheets for Budget Committee Lisa, Attached are revised Excel projections for the Budget Committee next week. Please see they are distributed in advance so that members will have a chance to understand them before the next Budget meeting. A few comments on my approach may help: The Advalorum Sheet is unchanged from last time. It assumes this year's tax rate is continued into the future, with the tax base increasing 3% a year. The cash flows are from Wilson Miller's projections with inflation, and assume we replace the Pelican Bay and Gulf Park Drive light fixtures (not the poles) in 2018 and the residential street light fixtures and poles in 2021. Then I've assumed the Pelican Bay and Gulf Park Drive poles (but not fixtures) are replaced in 2026. I didn't reduce the tax rate in 2022, although I expect that is what will happen. The Fund 322 Non Advalorum cash flows are shown twice, once assuming monies are not loaned to the County to repave Pelican Bay Blvd, and once assuming the loan: • Both projections assume the 2012 tax rate continues into the future. • Both assume projects as listed on the bottom of the charts: ■ 2012 is what we have decided for this year. ■ 2013 assumes we also redo the rest of the pathway on the west side of Pelican Bay, adjusting the W/M numbers by 40% to reflect expected increased cost.The rest of the items are listed in last month's Budget Committee minutes. ■ 2014 and 2015 diverge from what we discussed at last month's meeting. Rather they reflect Kyle's analysis of our pathways, and assume we would do the worse pathways first. In 2014 I assumed we redo the East side of Pelican Bay (I just used the expected cost of the west side, and ignored that pathway might not be 8 feet wide and therefor cost a bit less). ■ In 2015 1 assumed we redo Ridgewood Drive and Hammock Oak. My numbers take the W/M numbers and prorate them for the relative length of segments (using Kyle's estimates) versus the total length as described in the study. A lot of proration, but I think they are reasonable. ■ I stopped doing projects in 2016 because I had no idea what would be appropriate at that time. I'll leave that to future Boards. ■ Note we still have $500,000 left in the Capital Fund at the beginning of 2016, which is consistent with our unofficial objective of always leaving something in the account for unexpected emergencies. o The second page uses the same numbers, but also assumes we loan the County $1.3 million next year to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. Obviously that would mean we couldn't do as many pathways, but I did not try to anticipate how that would work. I also did not reflect the repayment of the loan since again I wasn't sure of the timing. I hope this helps the Board put the Capital Fund and potential projects in perspective. Keith 1612 A16 (A L o a czs C X 2 C a i O � 21 a J 0 -o N o U -0a J (1) C m o > L I- v m (n co co ob m W M L U LM 0) C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — L O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Li Q (L° 4�00000000OOOOOOOOOOOO p o Q Q ri fh ri ri (Yi M M M M M ri M fh ri M M Cy'I M ri (h Q U C O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O O O O O O O O O O L d -1 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 N 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W LO C M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L 41 O U QJ N L_ J � 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.0, 0 o � � L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � za m C (XO N to O tD tD tD O t0 t0 tD t0 tD t0 0 ',D 0 t0 t0 %D t0 10 a' ° L O~ C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o w o �. c y U U) - + O- O n n O O Q� d> L(1 I O O 0� N I\ O o d- O N Q y o a U U O +--j W O N M M tD t O N O N d' M L(1 d' N 0 M C U) ^ (l7 C O O. 4 M M d' W d' I\ M O C ° f N L O U 4� -Z CO ' i O t0 M tD t0 00 r [t CO 00 t0 N to O Z N M M W L(1 _4 O N N l0 111 00 w O I M tD O m O N N (n 3 O +L-� m N M L(1 N M O M M N iPr N m l0 m ri lD Ol � ) ° OL L LL C i iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr ifs iPr ifs iPr .--I .--I ,-( .--I � w m 0} U LLJ iPr iPr ifPr iPr c y ° o It 0 z +- N N O N 0) M d- 00 t0 O M I N Ol n M d- to 1 r+ O •+i �-• d C N d N M N d +-{ O N N O 1 tD d' 1\ L(1 N M t+ i M O O p_, L N .--1 ,--I ,--I .-i N tD +-1 M m 111 N O M N +--I tD +1 L� M O O (D m N 'd U (D .-i N M d' L11 tD 'i, M N .--1 N 4, L(1 Lf1 Lf1 t0 W O -4 C O (-6 w > > N 7 O U� 4' V+ �iiiAli+�tft��fPr� ++ if�tf -�tPr +P} V+ i�. -I + w mod' C o� II o N 11 O d' M +1 O N d' N ,-{ m O N tD I'D N t0 N w d' N LU G+ �p N ° t0 M d' 01 w-A O d" m -A m N tD It +-I O Ln M M Ln � E N " ,1 0 N m O m ,i d- 0) to d' d' 0 O to M M Ln O Ln O N O L > C Q1 M W N N O M O d O to N Q1 L() N 01 1p M r1 N O O c°) o N O d' L(1 L(1 to to N n 00 00 01 O O +-I +-I N M M d" L(1 o 0_ U O> U ,--1 r-I I ri I rl I rl I I N N N N N N N N N N co " U .� U - iPr ifs iPr tU+ iPr V4- iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr ifs if} iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr � o N 0)c E � M O � N M{f} c m o O v LU p O � Q 4� 7 cn < N > 2, ° (a a O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL 'J O_ C3.0 C3 n w co - 'L -0UQ .N , � -b+ iPr A& iPr if)- if} if} iPr 4A iPr iPr iPr ifs til- ifT if)- iPr ifi X30 n- a C L, (d (p N N 0 (n LA a� a� a� U a -i a 0°m � ui o E U C Ln( U f — m C U Q Q dS � dS Oo0ocowcocccoo- ioccoo m Nop if)• ifi iPr iPr iPr iPr O if} iPr N iPr iPr iPr iPr m � if} iPr iPr iPr W aan'a (6 tD 00 o I\ to O U U U -' Co 00 U) iPr iPr iPr (p M (p f6 Q a a U N O N d' N O Gl O O L(1 +-I p 0 M N N O O .--I It M UOO+-iWON111Mtod or- ONd'MMd'NtD C I'D O O *-L M M d 00 d' N 4 O M C d L(1 T--I +--I O d' o^ lr0 M t0 O M -1 N N 0 0 0 tD O O fu m O CO Ln r-i O t0 L(1 00 m -i tD O L(1 O {f} N M Ll> N O O M 111 N co N d' I- O tD 0) d' to O O O O M M if)- iPr iPr if} iPr iPr iPr iPr Vi- iPr iPr iPr iPr iPr ifl- N N N O .A iPr tA- iPr m 4- C w O L N M d Ln t0 N 00 m O N M fo ri —4 .--I +--I O O O O O O 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 00 Y G) ;41 } O O O O C C O '"" '- U N O N 0� M fa m 0 a fa m 0 m mm m U a O tm U N N N w 0 L a c m m o w O N .N y0 a� CZ U N Zn N " o I= O L CO U U a� E 0 _0 > O a A w? c E 0 O 0 > > (� a a� f0 CD o o c m 0 N_ O O O N V .N fn O � U M m� CD ui d 0 O N N o2S N N CL Q Q � Q C O O a a L Ln 0 CL T4 41 U O co U N 4A X U m p U . m +O+ (n W > U fL- 0 O 7 � 0 U p o M LL N C *� p 6 0 00 It C CIO =3 M ri LL (a iPr -0 O 3 a) L O 7 � LL 0 U N o U E U O Wri 4A fs U f0 41 X in 'C d O 4l E E Z L N U Q Q M .O C LL 0 0 0 to O O O M O w C \0 \o \o \o \0 \o \° \0 \o \o � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0000000000 410000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U c O O O O O O O O O O +10000000000 fo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M M M (,i M (yj M M M M 4- En 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 "0000000000 aO� O to 0 t0 t0 t0 lD t0 t0 t0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri .- I r\ O +--1 'CT -q N O O O M d O to c:l- O 0) N M O u f\ l0 O. M N 0) dt N w m O O O o6 N r\ Lf1 d Lr mNOMOQIOOOOO op U) 00 M U) r\ O M to 0'i N r N tfi A& +f} r-i r-I I ri N if- if} +fr +f)- if} +f+ ifs LU O O t0 m m O N r\ -q N 4� M M O M N N M to M [f (n N N O W,t N M N M M L- t0 M O d � to r\ O ,--i M W +& if+ +f- ,- ,� L L!1 LC1 L(1 Lfl Ln LIl Lfl Ln Lf'f Ln L+ ri ri ri r1 ri r--1 ri ri ri r-I 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 — r l ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r-i ri +f} +f} +f- if- ifi• +f- iPr Q 0000000000 0000000000 4"0000000000 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 U r-I r+ r-I .--I r-i r-i ri r-i —i r-i U +fr 4A +fi- ifi- +f)- ifr +f} -LPr +f+ -bAr Lnl fa on O M B t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 L!) r\ O X � ,--I C& Lr LX t0 � M N �t001Nn fa U 0 to .-I r-I r\ O .-1 T- N W U 00 M [f O M M M N M C 00 r\ t0 to -4 M N O'It N O O O C O O N r\ L(1 ;: M W N O M O M M W 0 00 M O M O O M N O M o O if} ifr ifF O if} +fl- ifi- if} i& ifi- Vf m N C w O ,C, L N M Ln O r\ O L ra r-1 r l r-i ri ri N N N m+ 00000000000 C C C N N O N N N N N N N N " U 1612 + O + O O O L11 O O O + ri O O if} r\ O N ifs O N U) rl C > Ln m 4 L C o fa o O .2 m (a m U N C d 0 41 - a� E �_ + E O (n ra n O z O m 0.S' O W ai + ifi- 0 p N O O cn O 0) 0 '0 O E. O C Lr1 00 Q 00 fu A OEn 'a -,)e 7C3 0 C fa (Ca p (a J Co 4- Q1 m + N (U � O E C 0 a) .2 E J Ln J U w m 0i + 4-j + M O LL. C Z O 0 + + O O — O O On O O Ln C O if} fa 0 O L0 p OO u, C LnO E cfao 000 o N U C m O C O >, Co e+ Qj m Q fu M M C O -�e (n t (�6 J 0) N - flaa J 000 +�+ C +J O O N 0 + O + C) 0 0 >, 0 D O 0 0 O fa t0 Ln 3 0 N O N 4A N if! + O 4A 4� M (a fn 0 (n ri 0) d m N 0) +f} .- C m C +f} C N 0 C C C J o fa a m . fa CL C a O Q_ 1 n L- � " (n " E N 0) O 41 41 O o ro rU J (n J O J J J O N M Ch Ln O O O O p Y A16'1 N m m 0 (0 > N 0 O m ca m (6 U a 0 cn C ej) a� 0 L .s a �> m 0 s m .3 .2 w m s� y m Co U � Z a N no 1� m m ca U U _ a� E a w> 0 m m -0 w? c E E E 0 0 O 7 > �a a 0 c mo N O O v U) 0 U p m Sri ri N ,--I O N O M � O L W W L M M Q Q Q C O O tl 4� L O Q LA a p O U v co rX0 C N F- (1) O U N W N CD 0 CL o m auu ) O O L H LL N CL 0 M 0 L co Li N al p UaL, 'o O t U m o U v O £ O U O ri O LL U a M ~ CO C = N N Z L L N�aa M V C 7 LL 000 11000 �ZuT% N C U O f J .+ aL+ a w C C C O ""U w O O O O O O O 00 O L 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06666666666 U C ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C M M M M M M M M ni M 0 0 000000 0 L 0000000000 Q1 0 l0 lO l0 l0 0 l0 O <D <D C O O O O O O O O O O 0,1.- i10M�MNN01N U M 11- , rt N Cif O N N 00 cNN�� -4r-4 )M0M ro ON ri N d' M N ri m LI1 Ln M 00 m N i& M 10 0) i N 'A if, ldlr 4A- if44PFifll 0 LL O O M LI1 N N m N M M U) a-+ r-I 4A Mfr 4A 4r 4A 4jr -b pr A& C {f} L Ln Lf1 Ln In L!'1 Ln Ln Lf'1 Ln l!'1 � N n N n � n N r- N� U N N N N N N N N N N _ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ri ri ri ri ri ri .-4 ri tfr 4fr 4ft -64r tsr 4A -r J& tfr ttr Q 0000000000 0000000000 410000000000 C O O O O O O O O O O 00000000000 U r-i --I r-i ,-I --i ri ri , -I r-i ri U tfr -bPr tfr 4- 4dr -bPr ter 4fr Mfr JA- 0 m Il;j- 10000000 O V M 10 4dr if} 4fr ifr tfr tfr 10 Ln I, O X 'It .1 00 Lf) LL l0 N N M r14 N AA- N , i V� 4A tfr rtz U U O M t�-,t N O O N N C 00 N N ri '� ri .-I M M O C 0 l0 M M C M G M Ln m W L!'I 11'1 M 00 lf1 N A M l0 N (V 4fr 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A- 4A 0 tfr -blr co MN M 't Ln 10 N 00 m O ri r-I ,-i .-1 ,--I ,-i ri ri r-1 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N 1612 O + O O 0 Ln O O O + '-i 00 O iA- N O ? N r6 M 0 O L o C: a «y .6 fi co v w a O C C + -0 O m " (n m a O 4- _ z -Y o fu C76 Y -i O W > fu > + O 0 O Ln O 0) p O O C ° L •- Ln O o � a 00 �r v + U O (A 'D � O O C C C O O ra m 0 41 J CD a rn > + N O `1 E C ° o0 J U 0 a' +� rLs Qi � O c In 00+ No F.+. ++00 0 00 Ln N O O C �} 00 C Ln O r0 O O 0 E Co N M p Ln 000 o C Cg > -Y O 00 4 C r + 0 C C fu r0 O M O N .-. m ro Na O C M C O U) GO O ate-' i& O O + 0+ 0 + >�0 O 0 C rM � �o 1 00 M N rl rB o O N {jr rI {/} d O N a) {i1 .O m C -61- C O 4- Co a + Z -Se Ql > ra m a C C C J ra ro rCLO C G1 ° a rap a C N m E 0) (U � O � o J (n w 00 .J J J 0 N M Nr Ln ri ri 1-1 1-1 O O O N 0 n Y 1612 1 A161 ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @gmail.comj Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:45 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Cost of Pathways. Lisa, Would you also see this email is distributed to the Board before our next Budget Meeting. It explains where numbers came from and hopefully eliminates some past confusion as to what is included /excluded from various numbers. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithdallas()comcast.net> Subject: Cost of Pathways. Date: February 20, 2012 3:50:46 PM EST To: Kyle Lukasz <Kyle Lukasz(a)-colliergov. net> Cc: Lisa Resnick <LResnick(a--)colliergov.net >, Neil Dorrill <neil - dmgfl.com> The question you asked about my estimates of the cost of pathways. All came from Wilson/ Miller report, and then I increased them 40% to reflect the one quote that was obtained for the central section of PBB. Here is a summary: Item Central PBB Gulf Park W/M Cost $205,700 $351,700 $138,000 Increased 40% $288,000 $492,300 $193,200 Confusion is that the total of N & S PBB and Gulf Park Drive, increased 40 %, is $685,500, which may have described by some as "the remainder of PBB ". That with the central section gives you almost $975k. We will have to be careful (me included) to make it clear that the higher # includes Gulf Park, or to say rest of PBB is only $492k. Keith 16112 A16' ResnickLisa From: John Chandler [johnchandler219 @g mail. com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:54 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Project Prioritization Lisa, Please forward this email to all Budget Subcommittee members as a one way commun cation.Since I will not be at Monday's meeting, I would like to pass on my comments concerning prioritizing capital projects for budgeting purposes. Without raising taxes, we must choose between repaving pathways and resurfacing Pelican Bay Blvd. My recommendation is that we not raise taxes, we budget the repaving of PBB for summer 2013, we assume that the County will repay us in fiscal 2017 (to be conservative) and we postpone pathway repaving so that our capital fund stays above $500,000 at all times. In the meantime, we need to press the County to repair the worst sections of our pathways. John Chandler r PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit AP's 10 252 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11 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: ✓ Fiala 1. Pledge of Allegiance — 2. Roll Call Hiller 3. Agenda Approval Henning 4. Elect Chairman and Vice Chairman cayie 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes Cole<<a J L a. February 21, 2012 Clam Bay Subcommittee b. March 7, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6. Administrator's Report a. Pathways b. Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive (Chandler) c. Beach Renourishment d. South Berm Restoration Permit e. Monthly Financial Report 7. Chairman's Report a. Letter to Commissioner Hiller and response regarding resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard b. Letter to Army Corps of Engineers and response regarding dredging workshop c. Announcements 8. Committee Reports 9. Old Business 10. New Business 11. Audience Comments 12. Miscellaneous Correspondence 13. 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. MISc, Corres. DOW: ram #: l to T 2-A 16 Copies to: 3/30/2012 2:35:19 PM 4 1612 A16 CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Clam Bay Subcommittee of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met on Tuesday, February 21 at 4:00 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 Tom Cravens Pelican Bay Services Division Board Geoffrey S. Gibson Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Mary Anne Womble Michael Levy 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 Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers In the audience: thirteen (13) attendees. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Permits and Regulatory Updates by Dave Trecker, Chairman 3. Clam Bay Tidal Monitoring Procedures & Purpose; Update on Status of 2011 Annual Report by Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E., Humiston & Moore Engineers 4. Clam Bay Restoration 2011 Annual Report by Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. 5. Public Comments 6. Adjourn Triggers for dredging are hydrologic, but not quantified. There are no bi "t Approval is pending. 5 I i S+ 1612' Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes A16" February 21, 2012 CLAM BAY TIDAL MONITORING PROCEDURES & PURPOSE; STATUS OF 2011 ANNUAL REPORT BY KENNETH K HUMISTON P.E.. HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS Mr. Kenneth K. Humiston, P.E. gave a presentation about Clam Bay tidal monitoring procedures and purpose, and the status of the 2011 Annual Report. He explained the purpose of tidal monitoring is to maintain tidal flushing and to keep the Clam Pass inlet open. Prior to monitoring, the inlet was unstable and would close and need to be dredged frequently, so the 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management plan was developed and implemented to stabilize it. Gauges are deployed throughout Clam Bay to measure tidal range and phase lag. The smaller the phase lag is the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. The larger the tide range is in the bay the more efficiently water is flowing through the inlet. This data tells whether shoaling in the inlet is going to interfere with circulation important to water quality, the health of mangroves, and other environmental issues. Inlets have a natural equilibrium condition that is determined by measuring velocity that helps indicate whether dredging is necessary. The higher the velocity is the better and indicates the Pass will stay open longer. The Pass was dredged twice since 1998 in 1999 and 2007. In his opinion, the current entrance channel dredge cuts are appropriate to maintain tidal flushing. Mr. Humiston explained that due to due to malfunctioning gauges, the tidal data is incomplete. However new gauges were deployed and will be retrieved for analysis prior to coming to any conclusions or making any recommendations. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Marcia Cravens was concerned about dredging cut parameters in the new permit application. Mr. John Domenie asked what the function of the ebb shoal is. Mr. Humiston explained the ebb shoal is the platform allowing sand to be transported across the inlet to naturally maintain tidal flushing. Ms. Mary Johnson asked how the inlet cross - section survey was done and was concerned whether increasing the width of the dredge cut would contribute to beach erosion. Mr. Humiston said cross - section surveys are done using GPS kinetic systems and appropriate dredge cut width is between 40 -80 feet to maintain tidal flushing and minimize beach erosion. N. Clam Bay Subcommittee Meeting Minutes 1612 A16 February 21, 2012 not present and there is no evidence of any oil spill damage within the system. Other comments made expressed support for the Services Division to continue to monitor the Clam Bay system. SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD Mr. Cravens made a motion to make a recommendation to the full Board to support requests to hold a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers workshop. The Subcommittee agreed clarification of the process was needed. Mr. Cravens made a motion, second by Chairman Trecker for the Clam Bay Subcommittee to make a recommendation to the full Pelican Bay Services Division Board that the "PBSD/MSTBU Board acknowledges, supports and endorses requests for a collaborative Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of SWF, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier Audubon Society and others to review and propose remedies of deficiencies in permit application materials ". The Subcommittee voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADJOURN Discussion concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Dave Trecker, Chairman 7 Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/7/2012 10:06:09 AM 3 1612 A16 1. 2. 3. 4. 6. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION (DRAFT) MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2012 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board met in Regular Session on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 1:00 PM 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 Pelican Bay Services Division Staff W. Neil Dorrill, Administrator Kyle Lukasz, Operations Manager Susan O'Brien Dave Trecker Mary Anne Womble John Baron Hunter H. Hansen Mary McCaughtry, Operations Analyst Lisa Resnick, Recording Secretary Also Present Susan Boland, President, Pelican Bay Property Owners Association Jim Carr, P.E., Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. Kevin Carter, Field Manager, Dorrill Management Group Tim Hall, Senior Ecologist & Principal, Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. Jim Hoppensteadt, President, Pelican Bay Foundation 35 in the audience 853E Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 8. Old business 9. New business 10. Audience comments 11. Miscellaneous correspondence 12. Adjournment ROLL CALL 1612'A16•" All present. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Chandler suggested the Board discuss the Foundation's request to reconsider Feb. 1 Board action first under Pathways; and Vice Chairman Cravens added "Erosion along the west side of the berm" to Landscape Water Management Subcommittee report. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the agenda as amended Th Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 1 2012 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD REGULAR SESSION Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to approve the February 1, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session minutes as presented The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was assed. JANUARY 10 2012 LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve the January 10, 2012 Landscape Water Management Subcommittee meeting minutes as presented. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 8539 i a 1612`' A16 ' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 AUDIENCE COMMENTS OPPOSED TO WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Harry Weingartner (Avalon), Mr. Henry Bachman (Claridge), Mr. Bill Hennig (Grosvenor), and Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) were not in favor of widening pathways to eight feet because: (1) concerned about tree removal to accommodate greater width; (2) perceived that wider pathways encouraged more and faster bicyclists creating unsafe conditions at driveways, particularly from bicyclists going against traffic; (3) pathways in the project area are not in as poor condition as in other areas, and pathways in the worst condition should be redone first; and (4) it was not the Services Division's responsibility to maintain the pathways, because residents pay property taxes to the County to maintain pathways. IN FAVOR OF WIDENING PATHWAYS TO WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET Mr. Carson Beadle (past Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Charles Bodo (Strategic Planning Committee), Mr. Mike Kitchen, Ms. Patty Vlasho (Crown Colony), and Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) were in favor of widening pathways to eight feet. Comments made included: (1) February 1 decision should have been postponed because three members were absent; (2) that the decision made February 1 did not represent the community majority, but a minority of dissenters; (3) Board should recognize that the CIP recommendation was based on a significant amount of work; (4) that they had stopped using the pathways because pathways are too narrow, surface is uneven, and one could easily injure themselves on the existing pathways; and (5) agreed that wider was better to encourage an active lifestyle and would mesh with the community's conceptual design. M 16'1 w 1612 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 Mr. Dorrill said the engineer would complete the plans and apply for necessary right of way permits then the project would then be put out to bid for the Board's review and recommendation prior to construction. OBSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN PATHWAYS AND ROADWAY BLOCKING STREET LIGHTS AT NIGHT ON PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD FROM THE GLENVIEW TO THE PHIL The Services Division was informed by Mr. James Morrison (Glenview) that high shrubbery was blocking street lights from reaching the pathways along Pelican Bay Boulevard from the Glenview to the Phil. Staff began trimming and Mr. Morrison sent a follow -up letter March 5 that the lighting had improved significantly. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT SUMMER 2012 COMMUNITY CROSSWALKS Mr. Dorrill reported that February 13, the Budget Subcommittee discussed whether to do additional crosswalk and associated landscaping projects this summer in advance of FY 2013. The proposed projects would renovate existing crosswalks along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive, Myra Janco Daniels Boulevard, and Crayton Road to make them consistent with the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) crossings recently completed. The cost is approximately $50,000 per intersection. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mr. Steve Seidel (San Marino) conveyed residents' complaints of the noise made by vehicles driving over the cobblestones at the Beach walk crossing; Dr. Peter Collis (L'Ambiance) said the cobblestones were not effective as rumble strips; Ms. Diane Lustig (Hyde Park) observed that the crosswalks are not uniform throughout the community and agreed with Mr. John Domenie (Breakwater) that the crossings needed to be illuminated at night; Ms. Marcia Cravens (Dorchester) said the cobblestones created a tripping hazard, and suggested the Board add a blog to its website; all agreed with Mr. Dave Ritger (Oakmont) that the Board should obtain community feedback before implementing more crosswalk projects; and Messrs. Domenie, Ritger and Bill Hennig (Grosvenor) agreed the projects were a waste of money. Mr. Dorrill said that the statement made about cobblestones was untrue; cobblestones do not create a tripping hazard. Mr. Levy did not agree that the Crayton Road intersection should be left out. Vice Chairman Cravens was concerned with the Board moving forward without doing a survey first. Mr. Gibson reiterated that safety was the Board's first concern, but purpose of the CIP was to retain property Dr. Trecker made a motion, second by Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Gibson to implement crosswalk projects during the summer of 2012 along Pelican Bay Boulevard at the intersections of North Pointe Drive a Mvra Janco Daniels Boulevard. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. COMMUNITY LANDSCAPING dr. Lukasz proposed that additional landscaping renovation projects be done this summer in hou ad 113 budget at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard: 1) Myra Janco Daniels; 2 ointe; and 5) Hammock Oak. Each intersection is estimated to cost $18,000 - $25,000, depe er tion improvements needed, and design was based on the landscape architect's t 1 con an . As. O'Brien suggested that the Board, on a future agenda, discuss perfo ual to obtain coi prior to moving projects forward. !AUDIENCE COMMENTS Vs. Marcia Cravens was concerned about the irrigation he in with the landscaping ai ion. Mr. Lukasz clarified that the appropriate rotator pop -u lume tion heads were installed. 8541 _. 1612 ' .� A16 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 ' Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Dr. Trecker to approve in -house landscaping improvement projects to be done this summer at five intersections along Pelican Bay Boulevard. l) Myra Janco Daniels; 2) North Pointe; 3) Glenview; 4) Crayton; and S) Hammock Oak. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. SOUTH BERM RESTORATION OWNERSHIP OF BERM AND WATER MANAGEMENT EASEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (O'BRIEN) Mr. Dorrill explained that the parcel of land upon which the berm sits is owned by the Pelican Bay Foundation; that within this parcel are drainage easements upon which the former Pelican Bay Independent District (PBID) used public funds to construct improvements to the water management system; therefore, any improvements constructed by the PBID within the drainage easements are now assets of Collier County/Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD), as successor to the PBID. The PBSD is responsible for operations and maintenance of the Pelican Bay water management system and assets located within the drainage easements. Mr. Chandler made a motion, second by Mr. Levy to approve into the record th tna report as amended with revised income statement. The Board voted unanimou t motion was passed. 1612 A-161 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes March 7, 2012 7L2O13The ade a motion, second by Vice Chairman Cravens to renew the Dorrill Management Group e existing fee structure: annual contract is $75,360 to start July 1, 2012 and end June 30, ard voted unanimously in favor and the motion was passed. APRIL MEETING SCHEDULE The majority of the Board agreed to cancel the April 4 Board regular meeting and rescheduled April 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Dallas announced that the Coastal Advisory Committee meets March 8 at 1 p.m.; Foundation Board meets March 23 at 8:30 a.m.; the Foundation's Annual Meeting is March 26 at 9 a.m.; and the Services Division's Budget Subcommittee meets March 26 at 3 p.m. CLAM BAY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIVE WORKSHOP REOUEST (CRAVENS) Vice Chairman Cravens and Dr. Trecker reported that at the February 21 Clam Bay Subcommittee meeting, a motion was passed to make a recommendation to the full Board that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board provide support to several environmental groups request to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that the Corps hold a workshop to allow these groups to participate and express concerns about the County's Clam Bay dredging permit application. Mr. Tim Hall clarified that anyone can make a request to the Corps to hold a workshop. However, it is the Corps sole decision as to whether it is necessary; the Corps is not obligated or mandated to do so. If the request to hold a workshop has already been made, then the Board could provide its support to the groups that made the request and send to the Corps regional office in Fort Myers. Ms. Cravens confirmed that the letter of support should be sent to Corps reviewer, Ms. Linda Elligott. Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by as amended, that the Pelican Bay Services Division Board acknowledges, supports, and endorses requests for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass- Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Group, and Collier County Audubon Society. The Board voted 8 -1 in favor and the motion was passed. Chairman Dallas was opposed. Messrs. Baron & Hansen were not present. Dr. Trecker recapped the February 21 Clam Bay presentations and noted that Mr. Hall's report showed the were healthy; and that the tidal report was incomplete due malfunctioning equipment and missing data, and that recommended the Services Division purchase four new tidal gauges. Mr. Lukasz said he would obtain cost esf . heading south, ends at mile marker 1.2, generally from the north boardwalk to by the nesting behavior of Florida soft -shell turtles. He planned to show Mr. that staff could address before the rainy season. Vice Chairman Cravens reported that the County did a were still several Brazilian Peppers and Australian Pines. 85' believed was caused noticed the problem, so the beach, but at R 38 there ' Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session (Draft) Minutes 1612 A 16 March 7, 2012 BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (LEVY) Mr. Levy reported that the County was in the process of drafting its FY 2013 budget policy, so the next Budget Subcommittee meeting is March 26 at 3 p.m. At this meeting, staff will introduce the very preliminary FY 2013 budget and discuss proposed projects and cash flow and the annual assessment. STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (SPC) REPORT Ms. Womble presented schematic design plans for two Foundation restaurants that illustrated what could be done within the current "footprint" or available space; and reported that Mr. Carson Beadle stepped down from the SPC and that it was not yet known what the plans were to replace his spot. ADJOURN Vice Chairman Cravens made a motion, second by Mr. Chandler to adjourn. The Board voted unanimously in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 4.27 p.m. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman L-O I I Minutes by Lisa Resnick 3/23/2012 4:46:30 PM April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 1 of 12 1612 ' s ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas fmailto :keithidallasCa)gmail.coml Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:16 PM To: LukaszKyle; Neil Dorrill Cc: ResnickLisa Subject: Arborist Kyle & Neil, The Foundation today discussed Rich Galli's letter where his arborist said 40 or 50 trees would be killed by our pathway widening. Initially they were going to pass a motion saying the PBSD and the Foundation would jointly hire an arborist to look at trees throughout the community. Then realizing how little they liked the PBSD motion about paving the upland at the Commons for parking, Gerry Moffat withdrew his motion. Then they debated sending us a letter requesting we hire an arborist, but finally agreed that letter was unnecessary since I assured them we would discuss the item April I Ith. For your information, at least Mary Ann and Susan also were there (a couple other PBSD Board members attended earlier in the session, but i think had left by the time this was discussed at the end of their session). Before the next meeting, I'd like you to think about hiring an arborist and at the 1 Ith be able to : Discuss how we would go about hiring an arborist, possibly with ideas about some specific individuals, or • Have a good discussion about why it is unnecessary Someone also brought up that some of the condo associations had used a County Extension arborist for their trees, which is a free service. The issue about the trees is currently being primarily driven by those who don't want the pathways widened and those who don't like our recent landscape decisions. Nonetheless, I think there is an underlying issue that we should address: should we use an arborist to advise us on the ramifications of widening specific pathways, and also where trees throughout our community have lived their useful life and should be replaced. Having a professional advise us on the pathways will become even more major if in future years we decide to work on pathways to the north of North Tram Station or the east side by the driving range where whatever we do may harm nearby trees. If we can do whatever possible to assure the public we care about the trees and are doing everything practical to make sure we don't have unintended consequences, I believe most people will support our projects. Keith March 22, 2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways n 16 Page 2 of 12 161 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors: Ms. Bonnie Bellone Mr. Bill Carpenter Ms. Mary McLean Johnson Mr. Jerry Moffatt Ms. Noreen Murray Mr. Robert Naegele Mr. Robert Pendergrass To: Pelican Bay Services Division Board of Directors: Mr. Keith J. Dallas, Chairman Ladies & Gentlemen, RECE1V ) t 2 PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION I have been an owner here in Pelican Bay as a resident of St. Maarten for 24 years (since our building opened). We love the ambiance of PB & all that it has to offer. I am very disturbed at what I for see as a disaster with the plan to widen the West side of Pelican Bay Blvd. walkways to 8 ft. Until recently, I was under the impression that they would be 6 ft. I personally do not know, professionally, the impact of such action, but logically as I view the landscape along Pelican Bay Blvd., it would decimate a hugh amount of trees. This would be totally unacceptable!! My friend here at St. Maarten, who is a qualified engineer & builder of high quality homes in Southern New Jersey, sent you the attached study that he has done & the impact of what you are planning. I would ask that you evaluate his recommendations in the attached & reconsider the current plan to widen the walkways. The last thing we need to do in our community is destroy the beautiful trees & landscape that has taken years to mature for the sake of a walkway. Perhaps a 6 ft. wide walkway is sufficient & would prevent much of the destruction that Rich Galli describes in his memo. Please check it out TO BE SURE we preserve the beauty of Pelican Bay Blvd. I would appreciate a response to my letter with your evaluation & next steps before the Board proceeds. truly hit) Gutermuth 6101 Pelican Bay Blvd. Apt. # 401 St. Maarten Condominium Naples, FL 34108 Phone 591 -3160 judesterz @aol.com Copy: St. Maarten Board of Directors Mr Rick Galli, St. Maarten, Mr. Phil Dabill, Montenero, Mr Jack McHugh, Cap Ferrat April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 3 of 12 � A 1 i 6 ResnickLisa From: g.moffatt4l @gmail.com rmailto:g.moffatt4l0gmail.com1 On Behalf Of Gerald Moffatt Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:35 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Gerald A Moffatt Subject: Re: Pelican Bay Services Division Board March 7 Recap Lisa -- Please forward this email to all Board members. Thank you Jerry As you move ahead with repaving and widening the pathways I ask that you consider why Pelican Bay, the premier community in Southwest Florida, will be the only community that has asphalt pathways. You will be hard pressed to find any sidewalks or pathways in North Naples that are not concrete, which is a much more premium look. I sat through the very limited discussion at the joint SPC meetings when the comment was made that concrete is 3 times more expensive than asphalt. That same rational did not prevent the use of pavers for crosswalks which is also 3 times more expensive that paint striping. This is a 30 year decision. When you put in the crosswalks, you used concrete for all the approaches. A great upscale look. Before you begin this work in the summer, please revisit the decision to use asphalt. With the proper root guards, reinforced concrete should be the premium answer. Thanks for reading and considering. Jerry April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session .. 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 4 of 12 A 1612 16 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Admininstrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas f mailto :keithidallas(acimail.coml Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 1:45 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Cost of Pathways. Lisa, Would you also see this email is distributed to the Board before our next Budget Meeting. It explains where numbers came from and hopefully eliminates some past confusion as to what is included /excluded from various numbers. Keith Begin forwarded message From: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(cDcomcast.net> Subject: Cost of Pathways. Date: February 20, 2012 3:50:46 PM EST To: Kyle Lukasz <KyleLukasz(cDcolIiergov.net> Cc: Lisa Resnick <LResnick(a)collieroov.net >, Neil Dorrill <neil(cDdmpfl.com> The question you asked about my estimates of the cost of pathways. All came from Wilson/ Miller report, and then I increased them 40% to reflect the one quote that was obtained for the central section of PBB. Here is a summary: Item W/M Cost Increased 40% Central PBB $205,700 $288,000 N & S PBB $351,700 $492,300 Gulf Park $138,000 $193,200 Confusion is that the total of N & S PBB and Gulf Park Drive, increased 40 %, is $685,500, which may have described by some as "the remainder of PBB ". That with the central section gives you almost $975k. We will have to be careful (me included) to make it clear that the higher # includes Gulf Park, or to say rest of PBB is only $492k. Keith April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Di�on�ard�eg/A�r Sessic� � � 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways LLJJ A Page 5 of 12 i -�'r -yo -k-c; tPAFb V1 Wit �- TO: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors RECEIVED BILL CARPENTER NAR I � g12 RONNIE BELLONE frcm BAY SEWIces DIVISO BOB UEK JERRY MOFFATT NOREEN MURRAY ROBERT NAEGELE ROBERT PENDERGRAS S FROM: RICK GALLI, Resident Owner 1 pub . • . . i lo I Attached is my 2 page report, that I prepared for your information and consideration, on what I think will likely happen if we proceed with this project as now designed, along with my recommendations to prevent or minimize the damage that I think it will cause. Air. PehaadJLGaIH Mr. iclican J nit l2 Naples, FL 341 d "' t April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session A 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 6 of 12 ' A 16 16112 To: Pelican Bay Foundation Board of Directors, & SPC, PBSD Chairs MARCH 16; 2012 REVIEW - PATHWAY PR -01ECT I want to warn you about an unrecognized major threat to our Pelican Bay Boulevard streetscape that we are facing from the proposed West pathway expansion to 8 feet. I have practical experience with Northern Species trees and believe that the health and survival of our trees have been overlooked. The extensive tree root cutoff that is planned will probably weaken and disfigure or kill 64% of the irreplaceable large old growth trees (Some up to 20 inches in diameter). Before any damage is done, I wanted to point out the specifics and ask you to have a professional, certified arborist address these concerns and either dismiss them with his independent appraisal, or show you how to minimize the forecast damage. Today, for 3 hours, I took the June 2011 Construction Plans for the 8 foot expansion and walked the proposed project route both ways to observe, measure and understand how the pathway would impact the treescape. You may not realize it, but when you cut into the existing root structure of a tree down to the planned depth of 17 inches, you will weaken the structural strength and reduce it's resistance to overturning from storm and hurricane winds; lower it's biological resistance to disease and infestation; and curtail it's uptake of nutrients and water. By my count this project will put most of the other established trees at risk in addition to the 10 trees that you are planning to remove. This represents a major reconfiguration and change to our streetscape and I wanted you to be fully aware of what you are planning to do to the community before you start. I would like to show you what I found and review my findings with a certified tree arborist to develop a better, knowledgeable path forward for our community. The Construction Drawings do not show the extensive root damage an 8 foot pathway would inflict on the trees *. I have actually measured the proposed level of root removal and predict that 33 trees will be structurally and biologically weakened. The proposed tree removal of 10 trees will decimate one of the prettiest natural canopy archways that we have and I would like to show you a way to avoid that with a simple realignment. The alarming conclusion, that apparently no one has reached, or expressed, is that 83% of the total 52 trees along the pathway will be removed, damaged or killed. Or only 17% or 8 of the 52 trees will be unaffected. *One section of the design calls for a subgrade compaction to a 10 foot width which would do more damage. I used the 8 foot width. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session �,. 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways ` Page 7 of 12 1612 A16 Ea If we had unlimited space I would have no objection to a wide pathway and in 60% of the route that is the case. But in 40% of the route we will suffer a progressive deterioration and die off like the Mangrove die off of a few years ago. I am sure that you do not want to be responsible for inflicting that kind of blight on our community. A tree is a living element and the idea that if we cut to within 2 feet of the trunk we will not damage the tree is false. The roots extend out as far as the canopy drip line and any construction inside the drip line will disturb the tree. In the cases that I cite, you are proposing cutting off up to 3 feet of the root structure which is a huge damage level that will have serious consequences over time. You can save 4 critical trees that are scheduled to be removed, by rerouting a section to preserve a beautiful canopy archway in front of the Montenaro. One tree is missing from the plan and another tree that is shown on the plans was removed and sodded over the stump area. I do not have a problem with removing dead or diseased trees, in fact there is one big dead tree that is not mentioned on the plans. I am concerned about this project because the mature treescape along the Boulevard is a signature element that elevates Pelican Bay above other high end residential communities. The established old growth trees that line the street create a distinctive, tranquil and aesthetically pleasing road thru the center of our community. The well developed green canopy and lushness of these trees is an irreplaceable hallmark that developed over a 25+ year growth period and needs to be maintained to preserve our identity as the premier residential West Coast Florida community. The trees attract people to a walking and driving adventure thru the shade, provide shelter for wildlife and enhance property values. We need to maintain and preserve it and not allow it to be inadvertently destroyed by shortsighted good intentions. Thanks for your consideration. I would be glad to help in any way I can. Rick Galli, St Maartens April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sess ion 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 8 of 12 1 ��s 1612 1 ResnickLisa From: Keith Dallas [keithjdallas @g mail .com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 3:58 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Neil Dorrill; LukaszKyle Subject: Pathway Evaluation Attachments: Pathway Evaluation copy.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Lisa, I have attached an evaluation of the Pelican Bay pathways that Kyle recently provided me. Please see it is distributed to Board members before the Budget meeting. In his transmittal, Kyle said: "Attached is a modified pathway evaluation that includes the section from Commons to the North Tram Station west side. I have modified some of the ratings, I found that some parameters weren't scoring correctly. After going back and looking at Hammock Oak I noticed that although it ranks 23% and 29% it wouldn't need to be overlayed but could just be repaired at this point, especially compared to others that are below 20 %. As a point of reference a 1000 foot sidewalk with two patches and one are of root damage with minimal edging problems would score 92 %, the same 1000 foot sidewalk with 10 areas of root damage (one /100') would score 20%." I hope this will help us think about where the PBSD goes in future years. Keith April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 9 of 12 Pelican Bay Pathway Evaluation 1612 A16 � * Rating is based upon the number of repairs estimated to be necessary in the next 18 months from root damage, amount of cracking on the edges of the pathway and the general condition including amount of existing patches. * Overall Pathway Location Length Rating Pelican Bay Boulevard Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Commons, West Side 5430 29% Pelican Bay Blvd. - South Entrance to Gulf Park Drive, East Side 5950 21% PBB - Gulf Park to North Tram Station, East Side 5675 7% PBB - Commons to North Tram Station, West Side 6240 28% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, East Side 4900 10% Pelican Bay Blvd. - North Entrance to North Tram Station, West Side 4900 10% Gulf Park Drive Gulf Park Drive - North Side 3960 63% Gulf Park Drive - South Side 3960 66% Pelican Bay Boulevard Side Streets MJD Blvd. - Bridgeway to Seagate, West Side 1220 11% MJD Blvd. - PBB to Bridgeway, West Side 725 73% MJD Blvd by Phil, East Side 725 62% Crayton Road 2050 60% Glenview Drive 440 37% North Point Drive, West Side 2150 87% North Point Drive, East Side 2150 57% Hammock Oak Drive, West Side 1625 23% Hammock Oak Drive, East Side 1625 29% Ridgewood & Oakmont Single Family, Commercial @ Ridgewood Dr. /Laurel Oak Dr. Ridgewood Drive, Laurel Oak Drive 6300 22% Oakmont Pkwy, Greentree Drive 6300 55% * Rating is based upon the number of repairs estimated to be necessary in the next 18 months from root damage, amount of cracking on the edges of the pathway and the general condition including amount of existing patches. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessipn 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways Page 10 of 12 A 16 k 1612 ResnickLisa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session ---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: John Chandler <johnchandler219 mail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM Subject: Pathway Repair /Replacement To: Neil Dorrill <Neil@dm flg_ com> Cc: "Keith J. Dallas (keithdallasgcomcast.net)" <keithdallas(?comcast.net> As you know, the one issue for which there seems to be unanimous support in our community is the need to repair /replace our pathways. At our 4/11 P13 SD Board Meeting, I'd like Kyle to show us his log of calls or emails to the County for pathway repair /replacement so that we can all see how many requests have been issued since 1 /l /11, when those requests were issued and when the repairs were made. Also, Kyle can educate us on his program for reviewing all pathways and prioritizing his requests to the County. John Chandler April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6a. 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways ' �,J R A 16 Page 11 of 12 G ResnickUsa Subject: 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways. 4/11/2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas fmailto :keithdallasCcbcomcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:50 PM To: LukaszKyle Cc: Neil Dorrill Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Thanks. When you have a plan I'd like a copy. Also have you considered going over the plan with the impacted condos? Specifically I'm thinking of the Marbella. The question is if we remove trees to allow the pathway to be moved away from their driveway entrance to help visibility, or leave the trees and possibly make a difficult situation slightly worse. I would leave that decision up to the condo association, as long as they understand the tradeoffs and accept the consequences of their decision. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:32 PM, LukaszKyle wrote: First, none of the trees at the Montero will need to be removed. There is a total of 1 -pine tree, 3- sable palms, 3- mahogany trees, I- orchid tree and 4-oak trees that will need to be removed. Of the materials above to be removed the 3- sables can easily be replaced with the exact same size palms, the pine, orchid, one oak and one mahogany are in poor condition and would eventually be removed regardless of the pathway (see attached pictures). Also, two of the other oak trees only need to be removed in order to realign the pathway for improved visibility at the two Marbella driveways. The proposed alignment will allow a minimum of approximately 2 foot clearance from all remaining trees and a minimum 2 foot distance from the edge of curb. Any questions please let me know. Kyle From: Keith Dallas fmailto: keithdallasCcbcomcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:22 PM To: LukaszKyle Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Kyle, Will you have the answers today? We are having a Montenero Board meeting tomorrow morning and it would be nice if I could confirm that the latest plans don't require the Montenero's oak trees to be removed. Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Dallas <keithdallas(cbcomcast.net> Subject: Re: Motion for Pathways Date: March 12, 2012 12:19:33 PM EDT To: Robert Lauer <ralau43(Whotmail.com> Cc: <aecummins2bcomcast.net >, <rd6arvis1469 ()Qmail.com >, "'kevin "' <kcshanahan(d-)comcast.net> Bob, That is my understanding. I have asked staff to show me the latest plan and to confirm our trees do not need to be removed and to make sure what other trees are being recommended to be removed. I should hear early this week, and will confirm this when I have heard. Keith On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Robert Lauer wrote: All —fyi Keith —does this mean that the Oak Trees at the front of our property will be preserved? Bob April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Sessipn 6a. Administrator's Report. Pathways 1612 A �. 6 Page 12 of 12 y From: med5(&comcast.net Imailto:med5Ca comcast.netl Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:08 AM To: Bob Lauer Cc: Mike Wooldridge Subject: Fwd: Motion for Pathways Bob, just received this email from Susan Boland. We have checked with two certified arborists and our oak trees are in OK. It is winter and some lose their leaves now. We pruned them a couple of weeks ago and they look great. I don,t know how they will fit in the pathway without losing quite a bit of landscaping. Note that Keith voted for the 8 ft. along with Mrs. Womble and the commercial board members. Womble and the commercial members were not present at the February meeting. Elaine From: JOHNSUSANBOLANDAaol.com To: waltAkovacicusa.com, med5Acomcast.net Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:51:23 AM Subject: Motion for Pathways MR. GIBSON MADE A MOTION, SECOND BY MR. HANSEN RECOMMENDING THAT THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PATHWAYS TO EIGHT FEET ALONG PB BLVD FROM THE COMMONS TO THE NORTH TRAM STATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS (AS DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT): 1) THAT THE REMOVAL OF ANY TREES DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE DESIGN OR BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE TREE BE REPLACED IN KIND NEARBY; AND (2) AT DRIVEWAYS, THAT THE PATHWAYS BE POSITIONED AS CLOSE TO PB BLVD AS POSSIBILE TO IMPROVE LINES OF SIGHT BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES AND PATHWAY USERS. THE BOARD VOTED SEVEN(7) IN FAVOR(GIBSON, BARON, HANSEN, DALLAS, CRAVENS, LEVEY, WOMBLE) TO FOUR (4) OPPOSED (TRECKER, IAIZZO, CHANDLER, O'BRIEN) AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED. THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE DRAFT OFTHE MINUTES. Susan F i Nn� N o � m € z a y 1612 A16' I my I 1 I I I 1 1 CLf O I i A �r z z 8 $ n $ w y >41 > >"Oy z oo H4 b m m � Nryrq,',� arge33� nm '"m�O m �°I3on E mtn f m mm 3 3 s 3 a a A o a r xt N >`� w� "xyoabn�n rANz �a$ z i-� (/ °�� M� x i 3 z < b m w�a °abn bC > ¢ m mo5 � z � m m v �Da x ~e� E G yCy C � O �4 C)� {W mo dd O C) Ob V O, M A w N H O b RO ��•pp � U MA A fA b7 ro N A yv r r ro b b ryy A �� n 'tii z VJ z VJ z V7 x VJ z Vi z 0 z 0 > e °r e V �C ITJ O z° C) O �O� o 00 x O ° O CD O c M CD V ON "Ic �-t 0 > o oc tTj �1 A {W N O b Ob V O, M A w N H O � ro y ry ro r ryy r ro b b ryy y r �� 'tii z VJ z VJ z V7 x VJ z Vi z CA z V7 x V] z V] x V! z V] z !� ��SJ C] 47 47 G� G] 47 C1 G] C1 47 47 b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a o [�+rJi try o tz d a d a d a d a d a d a d a d a o a d d a 0 roy 0 yb 0 royy 0 yb 0 royy 0 byy 0 ro o yro 0 royy QM' yro 0 yro v p b 5 z °�d x ME g a =, iN I Am R as <g ^$ m m�R as m" a9f� x >q; CRY> ,seg fig{ qF a S "� p�� mp�� m ,-- � qq Aug $$ 8 2L Ax N v y_ _ .. P Y TAN!,, A- o� „ �� : €� �R Vim$ N If a 51A �' Ail gig Gi Pim qw� sH I a4 � $i q 2 F4 R f sti8� > € 3RD ,;a= �€ 1612 A16' W P ' a to N N ro o y s c REVISION: e c $ PEWECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO NORTH TRAM STATION CLIErvT rvAME: PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 F �° S6 y f y �� s 8 ` R• d iiiii� ii 'up" ® A ° " 19M, € 2 -IS -1E REVL4C NOTE MASTER SITE / AERIAL PLAN & GENERAL NOTES 1612 A16 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET - -- ---------- -- b J` S'`--------- I I 11 I-1 I ) y 3 1 � \ I I I I ,,I >� �y I B■ZBy�' I if A> I I. 1 4 4, I I I z8 5 I m 1 m F '1 n m MI V d. - iy mri 099 it U o71 I� !1! 9U8 ri0 / zq mm 9 � Z I I I I yo�< ZDp I I t �OZC 6Z4 / v0z� #�,I li_ ii+i 94 ICJ 003 z zorI nom Inp <JJ ~ff cl o. 3 0� 96y , mb o I (SNOWWOO) L ym m o 3niaa 3lbniad I V I I 4wX -i m x 2-a y �DZ v 3 uoz o �� F I I �, •$ ^j I ��Gi ppONN �O� m O:' iii p v3� Z 1 q�oPAN `fGl ].4 I I 0' 3> mAH U9 N3m �NA�N T pmp g$ l 1 o I m gm45b �t�o iii , ' 6 11 "� A m 3 m �m� ..pz�� D m�3" y3� S I p sm IOyp�' I z^'z�D mvOZ v °uJa� Z N�mm A3y e oy O oxb O�z 4zibA A tt 41 EIjN 60g# Inm b I ! I A_ z. I �!RO00 jo 6 UI T m c mm Dz �y 4 � tit A a I I gi A f # m om p O1N 1 Z m DCIDYi1iF _ w 2 I y m � O �xg r I Iv a ry, I � � I► _ xru o o. ,r� o ys bt`� ry Z6 \ m' zr BIN s Q A t fIB I 8 50 = I � v II o ® o o N I i, I I v 2� -ylOi + Iy9 v� I 00 �,A f 9iim AO m m o m m e?❑"�i m C °z Z pm 8'�° zo y Z 4> D rn f O \ ✓ I II�bGO a ss Rm q- ° s° N A - I M. r j' 6 '✓I I Ov0 F. I I I tIJ lOg� I L 1 _ I O p m zmA mo ye mH `' *y I mpgos$ �5(A]0 I I� Imo/ tll I {/ m 58 o zz ON I��-. cr ma ZNO InyT zcLrm I I {ter? y6y 2:J I TAm1�I+� IL o myy l I r _?9fP D x ° O�-nn 1 F rp r ODrP M'�� y D IN 2P �/ /�� O z /\/ l A n �•�9Rd 2 l YoZ I N I� - Q .- ... -.- -- .------------------- o I lld_1------------- I I i�- o SEESHEET4- ... - - - - -- -a- s- r -.... ....... SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET �, b s Cf as> O R9V120111 a �O 1.0 O z m m PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CWENT YANF.: PELICAN BAYS F 'gsRRg § 85 Y Gn �9 ��R�� g eeee "ay �; u •••Gl Cp ADIUST PAIN AWCNNENT k AESf R011 IJNE, A00 BIOBARRER 'A9 -90 -IZ ADIURT PAIR 11IBTH k AIJGNYBNT TO 8 WESTSIDE NORTH - COMMONS TO TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION E 7 C R3C;o a —WING T]TF & STRIPING, PAVING, c 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 e Q w SITE, SIGN NAPLES, FL 34108 w GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (1) a 1612 A16' SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET -= SEE SHEET 3 - - -�------------ ---------- t -L - - -- - - - - - -- I I; I I I i y0 II kJ Lam} L I I � .B < t off* • 1 I jar► 1 m I NryL 1 mP i , IXoW '1 ZO 0 I I m I +I N Loa I 6 I� ! j`* m-0/ 96"L A(m1� ❑ 069 - ti N p mZJ 1O 86.L 9 Z "0 X Som } +B +B s e s 'S9 +9O" moz0 ' ly ^ 1� n moE5 2 - Z # Nm f�> Z O Vo v m I 'p I � ~ p I o g Imo I I II � i }I 9> 9p01 jf m I I _ m -- sa'L rnfn ei "I I> 1? 00 2 > Im z zL'L L6.L II ,;a' WL n-", mam '1S) I Z 3AIBa 31`dAl2id I :;- o .�+ _ I _ n I v A2 -c I co I ,• i� Gm A I Lc t � � � I A _ mim 0, L 7b 71 �i el D � ! � F I I f Vlv �A Oo N2 W O D D A003D m A m I 1 y�yz o y�m 'I O m r zA D N%3 Nymmr S.9Bm x V I I m <D w m za m m DZ D. 0, 0 rn y 0 949 0 0 L 9 0+ ICI I I 8 � �O 3 m � 'vnayDi� Z3mA P+ Z 8 m I I m oO I .x . ..x . m ._3 mO I I i r� c N y� o> I 03> � �O I < O DZ JO R nZo m�2 5 I mA I ££ � Z UnO II J` i1 i 0 go Owl V zo, mOy #O i -,r dot II I PS Z5 n �, D yti0 s w I I SS ti m o N z �, 0w d I I� >� s i I ► o CC I I I Z! C A 0 iii fi: Z O i o rn m I ( Z 0 I tI N O 10 I m 0 3 p z m o 0 v Ba'L q5 'Fw„ %bW 0 O y z I I 1 LD II I � � � I I ! 7 � 0 I6•L �tii I D ]. ' m ° I I I I S I c o H3HNd I . .........- - - - -- -r_ =- - -- - -- ---_SEE m •4�HN� o ----- ................. ........ ........... E .. BOTTOM VIEW T p f0 ^Ri6 -29 rvl AOJU6T PATH AWCNYeNT h 1IE8'1' ft0i LINE, �� C C PROJECT NAME: ADD H10BARRIER m PELICAN BAY 4— I6 -D -11 REMO�� 2 TREE6 CWENT NAME: BOULEVARD PATHWAY PELICAN BAY �•q'rf C9 p n ••••••••• - 6 a p�1Ctl �,3 -30 -12 ADJUST PATH RIOTII & AWGNMENT TO 3� tl p WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO a @� - K K NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION H ��.% C w >� > f0 DRAWING TITLE: > R 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 9 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (2) g a 1612 A16 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET -------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - ---------- - - - - -- SEE SHEET 4 ----- 1------------- - - - -�� - - - -- - -r- - - - - - -- I sti � ,- 's I I 333 I ! I I I II I i SS I I II j I I I Z I 2 m ii I I I° IO'B m04f N mmAO� b + W X 2. moon ZN ZO II I 5. m o� ox A N 1 I yob s ss ZOO -Z �y co f j ' s miN I OMT m i 6Z'B �� + ; ❑�� Ceti/ � m s � Z G t i Q N y Z z cxi o $ I lL L �,I qti ISI i ' m i 16 �zD3\ o z � I Ii 49 y 9= O D I I I lA aa I r \ D Z '.. i 6 I ' J .i s _ yq m� z I l z m 4y� rs �• > I I ® 19 2 r- qJ m az m5i 61 G1 I D��iII b m 9 40 S y Z DN � oD�DA m y� vj Z W O Z � o � O � ACAm y�JOI ly I�48 a s S I ` o p0V x y0 Si O o° O Zy -01 F A V x I O I C��n i I •� 00. V N SVIOHOIN yI I S> �mii I I Z Nx0 Z if z pOy Oz r y I n S I z ITa iy m OZ A L A� mo \ A 90 N ml I y M, m �i9 y I 4 l TB > �, O T I O T 111 II I d' Z ZI V Rti qti m II.. I II W T II I I O A I J" ?s II' ��i�I1M fCil �'a I B � B39 psi% I I I S. I DCm�I -I I � -tBSJ 1 II AP�ti N r� 9y 30 � I 5 °J // I •ly � w•� R �s? I 1'S 8 } LAOy Z I � I �- I � C. k mx m i 1 m m 11 11 O N�flNd Ii- I-------- Nd p ---------Y, - ----- SEE SHEET 6 r'- �--. o ------------- --- - -- ---- -- -- -- --- - - -- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET ro S R Bn2D rl l ADJUST PATN AIJCNI@Mf h A63T Rm! LINE a A O m yy M S W P n v' ""0 310J EEUST PATM EIDTH k AuGRMERT N PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CLIENT NAME: PELICAN BAY gyy C ^ b . ..... �9 e P m' �� gQ I a�.;;; °•�y C) N o 5 -90 -12 ADJUST PATH DTH k AiI.RMENT TO C17� .. m WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO '•A7 tz �* c a � •• NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION : b ? 6. o ua o Y c w ' II ram DRAMG 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 jnm E SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 cj GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (3) a 1612 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 5 �........�. ................� .... .J .....- .... Z ... .. �I� I I I I Z I rn VQ.. INr G� � I r OP T h} zp AOV 03 Dr Z I.� �! n 5 Y "v � es Nsm� �Nm<y m I m © o m-moo �_min Trg3i � I ss l r Im T m zo'x 9 I+ 4+ <m O2' �-. 0 'I EIN N D m m A aR o x!^00 �'z m m � Z c_ D� 7 z I j � p =cm��w; III i vpADO >�yz m -N:r I S r /"A ✓ � dJ `�` � 0 p p 0� ��° x i h st I r A i r i �mX OaTF I� I m-Zz §22 I I I SII Z. I If + �p Op'O; S I O I I k 1'Y N90� 1 T A 9 \ I, A x �, m a p O m C O mo 'fib I Ip \ 3 Ag I + 1 z Tm 23 0 0 - r I I ,pD I m DtiA m i I mb� \ �w ggg R �� m z �2 u m z 9F's a 'o bbl i I� YI 9�z 6 � y w — — _ s <,e� . 4� -- �- m z i O SI. iIP J 1 O�vp gg , El ❑ro LE r N ��gy 5�9+ Iam� `moo 3o yy m z }y m u z�'� n$ z� °" zw 4'e j � mm� 23, p vez v N i z- °�m � a 1 gib` I ��Apm �i Q W i N 1 ul I'I , n w pxO b+ fib* I „3m 4 m v°. ae �, pAyym.! 1 11 [ 1 p om — y p gAwa _ '0 m l m rn 3ldl INd ` `et q 4 Rl A ' aDy 6z ITI m i v 0P m` < y �< dam 9� p ° << <J T( I > ti �� 1 7N *>M I � �; G t ✓ � pmao� I t ^JN m 9�vDG)1 mTJox I 1 JJJ pz I „0 ) r l 7I + mo zD p I <J Big. I S m Z Emil I I I >t V Zpyr r7i + yj5 1b y A _W1• <� 8� ; bZ I I I 0� o tD i sp I I , {I o •o44 TTOA OAgZO I I I m D x mm l i I I S (�o p Z yT z n m '1 2m 1z b�Jl A m� I 22 m. 1 111 D O T m 1 , I m. x 2 f m gy Fgc p 1,1 I I D I ° O It 11 g . J. I'..... ......./` ................�..... .j.......... c .L' ..L. I' J9.� dfHl SEESHEET7 .. � ................•• _ a,..1 ........ SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET n m a 2Q-1 ADJUST' PATH A GNYENT 6 NEHT How IJNH, p o m w CllENT NAPE: ;a § S 6 R° a ......... PftoIF.CT NAPE: v, s ADD HIOHAEHJEE �N m PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY a =' oi 2 -13-12 ADJUST PATH 1110TH & —NYENT e PELICAN BAY g� � �` g 0 2 -30 -12 ADJUST PATH 11IUTtl & AWGNYENT TOES K WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO x s ; e - C0� ,; y '� '� .'�.� NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION x:816 4 A Ana °""" "G 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 F 2 g to GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (4) g a 1612 A16+ SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 6 . m I 7 S t9 �ro A j$ # ja�j e � z ; O I z iti -' h �o • prn { s I � m, m 1 b z !F xvw 1�p o� g 0m 4 + �gl I I I� 1 I mplr �O A ; w0 ( �oli+ e� m I y s [x I I S AMEAD ANEAY <I E m fit q54 p� /ip•OYS_r 0+ T ]m1 Z ZyZy Z pp m I D I f I II A i OAnm I .I 6 1 0 Ny nDA S A I I I - 0Di ~AQQ I � Q Z y fz m W T 1 90mXI A O X01 ue,� 0° Z 0 n \ Iv I I 628} I b�� Ly I + N20A mrwm I y w o" �y + o m �'N*L.. >? l i iii9 9 s p' I a >0 (30V -ld I f j )WVdN3l.VM) 3ARIa 31VARId 16 }I .grt �9 I1 A 1'ti N Z0m �O v A w wp m yym N 2 x% -y1 rZ9 v 02 I 0? I v x m A C A N ;a �N ICI h�9S, �p m MT B � s i'D lei lttJJ. 'B I'Stm 6 * D I- 0 N N N A () J. m�A A�pv� Z I I ..W�j Z `'�../ v ` m I i m I I I ,, =3 mw 3D mjo vz3z �Zm I Imo vJ °� I I yfie m00� ZO�yNO> z I I I 4 I }P -Ni ODI OA m3'Ey D ill mo DZOp 13SDO y I I 6 I IH ��'34J 91o79 S mmZ0 I I w mm�-' ��Dy ON 4 4^k bs A=W �i •1��it ) BJ 6j P(DIp�` O WTI: 4; II s Iles Ox�z (( I I i. SQ 17im°° I A I I I iS6 I I'w I� CJ >p JcWJ ` A I I I p s�8� �� Gm) �' �' I I I e' o"t ? '• �' z Q o I Z I. A s I III i Ag M D m y p mm$ I pr m 9s g i z NZC A iJPn I I DD I yy99 e AO 30 O'X m Z I I I! DO �O om 2 Z Q. m O -z' 2 D w l7 I N `2 i s I I ay �y6� 1 I ( 6•o LT 4 CZ) pz (mil n 41 Z m 00� � � riI S I I I I I I •re ��& ro I %Z I(�v 9 I ' o, c` • 1 J p gJ ' � o n D L III 9cj0 � Q HUJO m m A n H7HNJ0 . .............I- .�__.___ _ •ars .. ....... o ------ t--------------------- '1-------- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 8 �„ y 6 n y 4 REVISION: t1 �5� � �p m yC d p - ` O y PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY GWENT NAME: PELICAN BAY:• �R.° •� �� p +��ii �.R -29 -I1 AOJUSf PATH Al /CNYENT ! 1168T ROR LNE, ADO HIOHARRIFR. ADJ 4,2 -13 -12 UST PATH WIDTH k A GNMRNT �7 C m WESTSIDE NORTH - COMMONS TO TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION -30 -12 ADJUST PATH WIDTH k ALIGNMENT TOE O 801 LAUREL L J OAK DRIVE, SUITE DWNG TITE SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 g GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (5) 1612 A16 1 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 7 :en..�- --- ------- -- - - -- --------------- --ry ------ �=Dm I Q < j C v IJ. S:A u ~ 11 4J (53811NV A dVO) I 0 I} 3AR1(3 31VARld N a I 11 1 liz I I v r°R fi.sz it it N m I I rF $ m cJ p I e1 W II I 6.fiz o n o A m ,$ I { I I S0.6 I m. I i 4� v� �m om m ) A 5 5 IR�s I ❑O O O ��rm>I Im { Z I I S m��o I I r �A.6, 9. ao z f a z o N 6L8 C, p I II Opnr w yy �m 1 ' o f I sam Z ci I I S rp 6'8 298'9 5 Z£'6 I z }I =N OT�mp�C1 Dm Op�pLr �'us gad p 'o 04 I•u. ° 1 r Z -D S r z> m 41 p a D 3 gi p rm oZ�E r tStS rp� >NOV m >3> °yD T m ~~ rmpQ yxDpp y W W 5 omr~ Z� 3nD < 64 6 d 3 p N A W i D y z m c r N�r pp 0 tixD << L66x I I TI 9yI I �r 9Z.6 + 0 I I y I 0^ I I r I I � I I 9Z6� I I I () I l �Lx I �l g J t Nv I JI A {� IBJJ I I 5y6 4 zgo° II Ii1 p w0 > D= I opp; I v��j I I I II am=lw ZS4 A II' 5 j 0 ti 1, j 9 ' m lqp m y CJOAi a� m m }f w1 II I I, 0 cm p� Z V7 miw I ' v D 1xv. I T6 Z 6 B 'e 3166 I I I I half B � ou � 06 g 0 .m I a s 0 i£96 I 1 I I I F 066 S £Z'Oi>z I I I +9 I esO I $ I I I � I I 4p I I I I I ' I p �. I N1 OP y D I OY. INC }) Oi Xw CP 9 1 ..I ',; ------------ ---��----_ t, 4 II ^` w:ta vx921v Imo •� S ` A I N7F1 tld W .w s a r d SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET � °^^a -- „ ' it B SEE SHEET 9 I tier C 6 > `•' REVISION: y� < m A m > PROJECT NAME: CWF.NT NAME: yy¢ a 1 C g g 4- c ^93R9 Ij i w m :::...... --- °- °r1�- i9 -29 -II ADJUST PATH ALIONNENT k 11ESf ROl! LINE, goo D DDARHIEH — _ ,R,2_J3 -12 AOJUHT YATH xfLIT k ALIGNMENT -12 ADJUST PATH 1fIDTH k AIJGNNENT TO D Iy��y.,�Iy.,.,II �j o O N n p m K PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY VJESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY $�� s• @� � ' " g CS7 NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 e ? m DHAAING SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 E c� oo GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (6) g a 161'c A16 SEE SHEET 8 ...... - ------ SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET - - ----- ----- - -4C� - - - - - -- - - - - -- -r- � �- - ---- - _ H �B 1 tl #t5j o T v � I i o w I �f- IJ I 1 I m ! ;T C�v 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I. m�0 l i I rP i I + m I• 1£9 f6.Lf \ I I p I 9L9 t bZ'Bx + ! II / I I JR 1 .m I56'L m p 9k w myF jm, I d d� A h A 9 ° '�J y m C m ti9A, m f y0.6 °r \ 66'9 ME, 'K.. L9'6 m $ i 4£'6 I /I ! sm bT Cb ° Wml < Pc,< oSTI , �J aFy �mN I I I I o' ('QA-l9 a31(1tIN3b9) 3ARIa 31`dAINd m aq IjyIa y♦oob z m Ho ° ox x -- 9 I q 3ARIa 3iVAI21d Ao I I f. -_.. -- --- - - f y 6 I y 496 p i° —_ -- Na � m z0 V I m 6'- O 0 I mbx o N m c m I e }},, p� mom r im pgpg z B�i �TmO 0\ mACW < I x. _.1.8.77 90'8 ^yti y K b I ,r yP I �,� � 2mo I :N U 1 gSr I ✓� � I ,, N'1VM z m m ° � � m K H3V38 s I � m C m N m 'm I 6 ZL9 a 9L' ? ZL.9 44 I ��,� N� �r9 ..t• ss 9 JI l mlv �OSNN O0m OJ 'A vJDr1A1W1 Ampvr z Nm <4J 111 8 fL'6 49'8 I,z I B�1 roLL �'G�j, �"11VMj �y I� �' •, ir.°. / �lfw. #� �m io" I / 0 `. II zN� .I ;Wy �J°7i 60 I % `\ pg 9'L>.J w <.�m' .N.6Z� m m 3 z o 2 D A y O00 m m Ir7rn / SO'6 j'1'' 9S L a 2m 'mm, yNOp m 0 r p2N O f� z � p-z i I �i ° l..i I I '✓ 6 ^J � Wrw O. -.CNN 6 Twm I ICI`. I I I� S /JpXm� i � X V AHEAD C� _ AHEAD #6,.7 0 b N y�T+NON v p 5 l O m ap i W cmi _mm I - C) / 8do 1 m y j i o< 1 c�i 0 jjz � -F mZ >z n I G P o 1 < yi J m} �1 I 3u I ` I ' ¢ I I � Q m m z .AO I I Io nxe I i CIS I W ii ii H iJ iJ b c9E5 60 I :16171111 �u I�'�r Y 1 o- 111 m.l W I I III; I n M m i- �I I r m� O� zo 1 I ' +4m Sow I I j z8po 9Z'9 Sm b ,.. +d ''' I ' N m m n o ❑� ❑ ❑TV /- N AF ^e9 m III I I :III zpyA°+ m I IJ yNX tyr v °N m it�� 1: 11 II kll O m� nz ao z9 N m N v- z Q0 mm m m c$i N 0. y� x�0 ZO I �_� NTZm i8 O�P !I zzN 9 I sl qi .I, pp� nni rim° AA 3 Z Z M s9�prm ffim I I 1 yz I i I' v-1 FT) II 2�A �pAy �J 1 p I I I Ui 5 D \ Y I yW 3 O20< II %Z 1 I 2 r N O 1 00 v-1i / 8 I w jI 04'9 { I c��H �� k IiS D N Z ti V N jri ti I ♦ '� lJ a CE• INC w OP 0 I I K W OE. C OP 7 I m , > 0 I 1` N36Utl6 I b'.i6Md0 I !1-- Q J-1 J- ° ----- - - - - -- ------- ------- SEE SHEET 16 - - - - -- ---------------- ...... - - -' - - - - - -- SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET - X71 c ',J 'ON R6ryED a0 N 69 m 9 y n PROJECT• NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CWENT NAME: PELICAN BAY yy LL Q =r @ H 1!" ' u ••••••••• € 11 ADJUST PATH ALIGNMENT t WEn ROW LINE, ADD BIOBARRIER (p2 -lO -IE AOJU3f PATtl WIOTtl & ALICNYENT m WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO g g �� 3 -90 -12 ADJUST PATB WIOTB k ALIDNYENT TO 8' met ;s NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION s. A = c H Y c g m m DJ AWp D 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 e a? m SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 �-• GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (7) g a 1612 A16 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 9 1 it 1 I 1 .�1 IIS V + 40 l mvpv mAZO z I I I I =pm 5 2 I I XS o z L u A m I I i �•- 2 6 i Z itt! NmN.bS _ 1 S [ mr I + I 0 I I I 1 Q m 1 1 1 19ayy ? p ) r In (( uDi x 1 I m mmNA m�0 i v>z Igo CiB# I I w �Si N �y ' <° I pCIT NA��\ -�I 1 01 309 L N.Z°I�C?A 1 I�eN A. PCpm +� 4~ b�9 00 1 N mmpA pro Azo I zzom \ I }' m_°y AO 1 0J� ItA, A, Mor— `p m� k - mn = <� ( wo mN °v lml� - ::'�`pti wmm �p6 �ino ("13`dHdt/?J '1S) e I WDO m \ Y v El - ZszmAr mxm 3Awa 3lVAINd I ygA oLQ AT x m ° ii N mA N) m��AL� � °mD �t- yRl I r' A-D m y 1 Z m F A N iy L ) A F ..... .___..__ .......... _ _- ..._._. S m A m O J� (2 y° f A m Zm N 00 W Zmmr 1 LfB J ANm<y X� I •B�i S \ 'm 3 \ + @�O 0# ,8 I �� .J I �8 S6'L OA�O(,0-- H:�O°m,,) `4'$ �b!OyN ml }O OAimyJ I 0" �,9 �l �Omi V 9 z D Z $5'6 NN N, D I, I I 9 <� r 1 - ' 14IgKL5AAO A x�D°G3 q9 ��m y� �.� �m E >�0 I it 1 1 �T) M� SI QJONnJ TOmOJA�4J NO cJwwm r3 pAp,w1'n� I I 6C0 I 1 1 mA� D r n N2�D Ap �D m Z[ yy my A mCm Z TR O y vJm NFm mD NK °Z w D°OmX I m0�� m 0+ ow A { .= Y yWlM-> 1 ,I 1 (T =�N�" 3Nm <N D- m N A D o PI D r m0 w�z� 1< m 00 A �2 fy/JO Z yyom m 3vE D 1 D m pp m 0 H o gm I GJ a o z�m y SAN f e8? Ay1 AOz I N N O i 1 > m T p O X_ Z 71 O o3 D° y Z _Dp w mmDy = wrDy 0NCmv /z) �OV I Az-o00 ! \b o _m J � I iii NACIV I Immom3 # 4k�' '7t A OmvN o'. Lrtj DAOoDZ C3 >'QW m F )�DJ ��N mp }Gam $4'$ myAN Im 0 '\1' X Lll I , I(5 0FD ., < Z�am 0� i g of A a I 1Z$1 O O /( mg \ A m \(° o s I i (OUVNONOD V-i'IIA) 1 z I � A � s 1; I ;� — - Z z m � Z � ,I N � 3A121a 31VARId DAp mA20 1: Ii. / z rn FDm� i or lii f o fi 9L "9 1.,z�m j 1 Z 1'A ZmOy I IS y m x p �n T Y9'L y4. S l nD_ Fry '`. 1 I C mEn A 8� 1 EE f1 y p I I pZ0 I IS is I w � I I s.J iSj$ li ZDm z N I I ISI ~ I I I i ,r� v om.< I ac1m0 0 0' r N AwIn m� X rii 1 I \ ' 1 I A .'9° 4] x y' W $z L 6) efM Z �m 9.bi, 1 x m° 20 m o \I ((<< mVpV z a 9. 6 D yh I V I y I 0+ I1 I o 1 \ 1 I m IS mA20 y `Z) O wC) %Aa ZO 1 O m rA O °> { mc- ohm °� AD<O ° /\r 1 ti4 CO \... ✓1: i �+ p 6p1 z Z DC)p`b' Am Sm O Gi np �m�m 9I'8u I 'V u,� 0# 1 � -1 V ul�ey, 0 + oil p I � % 2 m y V X0 9 Z 1 N V p `D z 1 I mn G y z N I m Im of I y 9 1 1 I I IZj1 T >> 166. N001 09 Z", IOyry=IO m\ 4B i� { co40 IfnF� pCAr nnNs9 2 1 I ZZ-ZIZZDnRN I I A. i 1 1 ��ONm jj li Oy�y I yL7m 7bym y m0 1 A0�, Om �Asm ,�YV O'AD�( vNAr Z 6vq II# \j mmGZfs Cq "a #1}I fG'$ He I f �_I.. O Z i Z I 1 "�oyoz > x1 1 O° O m I D`m \ w4 Fxo I LL 5Z 91< p x,.5< ��" n i �., I II y0 r > i Nm ~DF l y `� a y T I W m j NA W 1,C0eie O m Z m I LO .9 rfr \., J i O y Z z I I � MZ 0 Im 1 M 0 O A A (V�l3SUVW 1V 3A0� 3Hl) I A N Mm N o o = g m I " m o� N 3AM0 31VARid I °A N I mm 26 9 W = n m yD O m w m W mJ( In Jim Nmwl I vpn I L7 m A' Z A w F y I I d m a GF I NL O@ 6 OP 7 8 ., D A n A`1 T Y. N O i i/ D K ° I I m mOm I II G� -Dp� O C p T I I 1 1 ICI CP , m 1 1 N r. N III N CN1 YY. y A I 1 D C n I m m o�. !" m ` I Trirm I I ` IJ I (r9A0� II ��flN�e 4 / �• I I�-- Z� Yp� I Zy I.... O+ N I I +iflNtle 11 1 •...�14� ,(. ��II� .. TII /� .............. .L 1�l '�y! m O ------------------ SEE SHEET 11 SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET $ o RMSION: � N N m m G C PROJECT NAME: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY�� CLIENT NAME: PELICAN BAYBy� h E §E$ `n 3 b B��eMeM�• ^0 �° a 1 ADJUST PATH ALICNMBNT 61.831' ROW LRJB, _El- A00 RORARRIER E,2 -10 -12 AOJUSf PATH 1lIOTH 6 ALIGNYENT 3 -30 -12 AOJUSf PATH BRTTR k ALIGNMENT TO R O (/J �, m O C K WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO § a c e y 00 m �^ Ky 9 NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION =8 R� 6. z a DEAJHNG TITLE: m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 _ M SITE SIGN &STRIPING PAVING NAPLES, FL 34108 g p GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (8) a 1612 A16' SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SH ,o m N Cl 4 oy m I I `' OR A z o I e 'SI mc�o � � 1311 I 1 i Ltl. Z�nrm If I I I I H 1 It, T, I'72 NmyWyp ti I WS w p 4 i71 TO o2 c x 0 % I n➢ y I I IS( r-- Ng8 t ; >< Z oA, I N I I IS X , >,, 2=tnON m m Z) I N v V I ,i mAZ-. O I �DZ G]sO �mm zzom I7}I sYx is xvn mw llll"'Wvvvv wZ0 I Ztiyr I V I I qy 4 I N �� mYl ti0 I I I 1 I m y A wy I � 0 --1 N OV ' �,� >� I' 0 jl ' m .zo I 1 1 88j DAO O jO � 1 00_ I 1 ZZOm ass I}n Zti�r - o IB+6 i mm�Q5m1 I k 'fl o c yo Lq� Nmyy� I I `L�� I ' I� � I�i A�0 � '4" t�. z I 9N ODm 1 3 Tr I c I 'il H N c 0o2 [[ 00 Im / ' 8.46 t �1 3 (1 Ztb� 1 Pb'ir Iv momO/ \ 4 ` I 9U.B* I I} y 1 1 + I/ I TO INn Dm.< O ti I I ., rJ. mZZO IC. ►, mDOtON V �y1 ti O m\ A A a , A O OADpN �mUm fM t NF0 !And y 0 p I INN s I Di0 1 Z�m TON I I 7�~ gz- x 7.I < DDDr arm am g A o Nv r -� I I} mmpp Isl m A z O IM) p � ayc�m I I I I ii I z q•ZmA Z <6 V m -mo c9} �s I rnpo I I I I ..i I mmon �+ AyAOn 2�ma Vc�mi r moA�m pmp A�m I I•I lY�� i iy uo n�a O ] cNiAAoANO m p�m Z. 0 T m 0 N 15c Ct'g }I 5 +aS� N m y jl j m 6� Tr�- 20 -�� — I Ov ��$ �' g N ",,.' Z8 m A .�'' I rn zzNN O I I � I w I mcrm by n m 0 I I � � v rani -gar, �DDm� "' I � AA�N �'2mAO Aymmm `91 m6z'/ yIl 11 nv11-rnnn INN/ pzg i� i Z I.I 9 1 �91'6x NZ DD ;0 myrA Z N z0 3 { Avcv ICB I I B,E6 a flj zZ A 0 vvi z m om r S I 3� � CS_ ......_8.58 i 1 ^ziN 3 Z o y mOOA O Nom Z moo >0 Z N zre ia0 ) Z ( Nm(1 I W I� o Pammo'a 71 I f -0o TO Oc D� .. pcM ro v„ oirz 2330 w:. O C 0 3 Imr 4; mV N U I m OA I a 4lA -ziv Gu y N OA%D C,. 3mvy ANx OrD I rr m C>m i �AA INTO zoOV anti I 7J 2 zC0- I I I vO�O n0-yIZ m N�� I 1� 2 i xN0 OI �/ 3Aiaa 31VAINd < ~�Z y�DD yQ r7r I I A�m NNZ I tm'IDm DOS vmlNy oy O O 1 g Z ti I ' m \`y Z I I ) 9:�- 8.59 4 y 40 + ��. m oo + I I ui r�n H o v y y y _ v it i1 Z. it I I +' I '— I m I J ' A GZi T"2 I LI I ,} yV I,rf{I 01 O ® O O m mo z 0 py 29. I �� I ' 1 m M" Oplm s@ �v ZMy°r �AmO . y(° ao io pH ��I om rn 17i vim =�%'. 1 T °Op ! S MT 4 I N i pho ZO ° v p2 i 2 &Ty I m909 m."¢Z tiSA ZZON I ,..i. .0 I�i f H ZZOtNi� I I tI. .O �� S jAm gZ 1, 8 og z arm° i 'I m�90 1{ %-II I li Z �g�� !op yl J Alm I y lavN 0`� kx' �O Y +0j pCa T W RN 0 ° C� A ' TSA I m mm 0 I ODA8�0 I 1 y0oA I I I I E3'B 0m Z ZOy 0 �Ii I Zzo I I I IN GC- 0 m 0.iB20 j•y`1 1� mvx D PC, p.. INS N '; I 4 I 1 i I I II N7fllld0 ` I I /�� f� a N47A�- II t I ...................... o I I I i[oq;1 oa ° SEE SHEET 12 ... ................J.L... �.' ..... ....... SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET O m y SION: aN . m A PROJECT NAME: CIJENT NAME: s ��g § �b �° �� RBVI2B 11 ADJUST PATH ALIGNMENT h 11631' P011 WNE. IRIBARRIER S o m o i o PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY WESTSIDE COMMONS TO PELICAN BAYY�€ �� R7 y R ••••••••• ••••.• ,R,2 -10 -12 ADJUST PAIN WIDTH k ALIGNMENT -30 -12 AOJURT PAIN FIDTH & ALIGNMENT TO '� 1/J � K - - o � � a � NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION c _ DRAWING TITLE: o Y w a II m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 fFFVV/++ SITE SIGN &STRIPING PAVING NAPLES, FL 34108 c GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (9) 1612 A16 SEE TOP VIEW THIS SHEET SEE SHEET 11 ...�� ..... ..Py� ..._....__..I. - - --------- - - - - -- `i3 It�ye. -II I I I I 'i 4ti I 1A I�� I I %tlW ? ZS'8 '� V I S aryl sn � a �ti ° 00 ° I 0° O�.o DA0 I I I ;Z6'6 f I moo I �Dym" I II Y ZO C ~ T 0 b0' t $ 6 m D N X 1 v�c7 y/ I Tim I I I y z 0 b z OOT } y > C S oym po OG I I I O=�yCT� Fn + } IT s La'L NZOp : 1 I i�8) I I, w •ojx mmy-n I y I I mpgo �, ILA i I Z o° w (02i3N31NOW) I I �Dmry it I s`g O 9 3AING 31`dAR id z. �w y yM1� Z mm _ Tm3 Dm W, I um�0 I I 699 Ny°Np�p I CmN N� I � I I pPo °g gam" b I tw 6+ e II ti � A S`{5 I i I Oft /6 > CZAf JNp� 111tff °b lov I I 7I I m I oD 130 a 'fib mxm yy m r -',p o S5�9 I I li I � Z J II y � / I X90 I� °' II I < � I �O0 IZ7 m m p y m I p I ' I m W I I.S Wmcmis�p >at� q� }} 0 3a I } ^7gmg Cyp" TImp O' II y>0mv D r Z I -m' TIP II DD m y > K I II yea " moOA zx g�mox Z Z�oM, m� eD D m �.. m IS b '� mD Z zCX -D� co n 03 °c p m °ODO ��Z ypr.lOmm y�pm2 m O D myCr y <r I I I I•4 . b I m m 00 I S \ 17 8? I 6.19 m 6.J �� -/' z I4 soe Z 0- I{ +y V v A Am$' P "p OT mmr i, I i < ❑ y Z I n cJ I z I m m I mmg0 - ..I ? p� m o c D I g0 m0 m np� I g > I I 1 \T�pOm fi p .2 I I ..:: I Dsop I Z 0 I ?z gp I I S`°9 j y00yDp � 0' r V! '^� I I W =1 .Tp <10032i I I mZ —o O-� ZW -0 O� oo z'zo 62 o �y G� p y A I •�'` �- ` o° I I-R1 k2 z I I i �>> F 30 OypN I I I I Az � ✓ i I I 'p \ I i Ij I 1 I omp I 4 I w ! I I I m 0 Y n ` 00 D I I I I 0 c M1 i I N7flNd� I I I �:lflNd II I I o • " "" "'• " "" " " "'�' SEE SHEET 13 SEE BOTT MVIEWTHISSHEE�- SHEET r0 6 D y O N < m y 9 vmi PROJECT NAPE: PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY CIJEN'I NAME: 1 q e $ °� E °OP6 a 6 ^ �_' ••••••••• x o R••R••R•• R� p,u iiiiii•M• 8ry28 11 ADJUST PATH ALIGNMENT & WEST ROW IJNT AUU_6IOHARRIER S "I ,2 -1R -12 ADJUST PATH WIDTH & AWGNMkNT. REI.00ATT mZm m K WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY .i9 30 -12 ADNST PATH RIOTTI & AWGNMENT TO 6� o- K NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION = E x 0 6 z ~ ~ ~ Y II > m 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 ' a ^ Y DRAWING TmE: - v SITE, SIGN &STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 9 s GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (10) 1612 A16 SEE - - - - -I T VIEW THIS SHEET - - - - - -- -I -- - - - - - -- -46i � - SHEET .......................... 1----- - - - - -- S,I EE i II I cl zo lr 9m h ,TIZ� i I ,pA �.m T b z I I� I I � m A N I I. C N I 06 ', I $ y�} ��,J ro�� r I '.0 L.orno�v!S JIInI yQQyA'' Sg I AF R'�g `NOJC t .-\✓ i } a � J y m i O I OSem ZI x iy i zw3 a oti0 I mN -AO V A " m m S � I pTDr I I I ZnDOfm 1 1 0 Z m O �j I I m_ o_m m A\_ p 4 I 1 J m v I I'� I I I I ''lm ggmZ gm< I y f ,L I �08 I I I IO rM I I .v I I i I # I l I r 1 otl'L V 11 � I I k9g b I t�, I Ygg i ! (083N31NOW) v� I I N°° I I 3ARIa 31VARId I i I I C w� s IIE I + A l }l I I I I fi I jj .-- -ref U "� 4eU .� II I � II II �❑ l I I Z m4�1' II v 0. I nLAAlmomi` i1 t*e� 1 I I �� D02N I v D lily _>l OymO_, P. Al Z I'I III 2o�tmn03�<W i2�wE Z I� p3�pnA II K VJ D fil . �mm I ��I �1 P..C_. DNA 1 N m 3 m yoz�l� ' tt 1 (I D N rn 1 8ODD I ov��Ci ££mo I I }� moan I II -• I S I II mDmm I p�NO� A3,el to -04 ' I I ti l m 0m I I I, I I IA I Azo I I Dz °o mm>-, I I I p� = y3a yo N '� II I I II zi�ap -O I coo IT 19fg Iy9L OmNN pp.. nNy _w W2 I I IB� I iv ` I I I -Z I I I II (m I m_ W I DD�N I gcj %� nO�z mON�D N-1� I, I II $ n'Syzp II I I S% mDZD m�z �Z —FZ Z �" �' f g v g Z ©f m I 1 > f, o° I ; I l \ ' q,L LFax °as cr o w ��d• 757 0 ` �. 0 c y I I I I o v� q%3 ~' I °-AOA �Z LYB I II I I I "Z 44`. \� "- . ,—ZDm p A -i =m m z o m o°- vy % / II p I 1Hi> I I I I o l �dil ' o' M�F c 9 I I i I II' 4�Yx z m o A. A <m a. 0, fl I I I I I I I xvr 1- I I I %z m OP v -yet m -M, m I I II I 4 o c % ? Z a m< mi 0 �-5J MA F>L A AFL# O m a O m x D m / z H D > 904w'Im � I' z( / :U <O o \ -- m p YZ nZ 3 I x L I ® t ( SEE BOTTOM VIEW THIS SHEET y m > REVISION: �� A m PROJECT NAMB: �6 -20 -11 ADJUST PATH ALICNMBNT h 11631' 6011 LING AUR 6IONARRIER_ N m PELICAN BAY Itl ,$ o 2 -19 -12 ADJUST PATN 11IOTtl k .WCNYBNT s c ^9 z ......... CLIENT NAME: I f. 2. 1. ii....... BOULEVARD PATHWAY _ _ ° """"' PELICAN BAY I° V = O \µM1J{ I`iJ „0 -90 -12 AONST PATH FIUTN k AIICNMBNT TO 6 1% a y O 1...1 ' �` WESTSIDE NORTH - COMMONS TO SERVICES DIVISION °` e C TRAM STATION �,SE YSdEc _ o � � _ URAN NG TIT E: � 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 �' m SITE, SIGN & STRIPING, PAVING, NAPLES, FL 34108 9 g " w `'' GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (11) a 161ZA16' E \\ o 111 1111 P w. o�i'i m p S i� D °_ ° °`� \i /� � rn-^: m ��" III— � � nl •� �a � '� D � m _ g /off /\ D g� 11111111 a `� III -1 m 6 �; �� z � m y r� z ° i m N � � 41 co _ 1 II � � ♦ � n m z � vl a s" r A 1 � N Al A i � N TT� � A ♦ Am n y y � C] �_ mOm qOq OOOn X101 � '? w �f OOOOOOn `��l m •`�/ // /%, � � ~ O N O°m Z AR " 8 I I I pa G Z 'Z: o o I I I I p�o r Om o /// ^\ D a y m Z N i�<m ro I I I mm�D X ' O D O A i 3 v� AN. y I F D 9 j I II mxz x °> m'� I \ A r C� ONOCCo y a 7m rt, v N � k p p a K o n , D D w`° N : Om >mm O g yO A m co > �vm S yo p m w wi'ili o T °(�m $ 2 O F O ti< = O* 5 i <p y o m y W A m z of RE �m =f m � ;� 3 mz U A f Hp 1 � i y O ' 11 obc. r2 O Z 'T m0 Si fN Om oil ga f rn i Fn gig leg rn 0 cpL "Z -19 -12 EEVLSE SECTION A H B, ADD PAVER OHTAIL > a e I n 'Sd N PROJECT NAPE: CLD3NT NAYS: G Iii R 1 °°°°88888 3 -90 -12 RBVtSE 9ECTION A H B N PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY ° 1 a" """� °° s «- WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO PELICAN BAY Y �s € A � e z o M U ° K NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION s 6 ° > y m °"'" "° 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605 a' M W CONSTRUCTION DETAILS NAPLES, FL 34108 O 4. RTJ O ZZZ � �« �� O 4 ,• t. * �a ��$ h�� t ° z�>wE n gill, O o Proi $ IIIIII I,, a � Aso n s 8Ym � • v� d - ;F yy�« ro i �m 3 ra. Y$ O o Proi $ IIIIII I,, a � Aso n • v� d - ;F yy�« iM i ra. � A� • v� d - yy�« iM i s� 1612 A16 , tri I i ,1 /�, Ili I ° ' r�v� \\• �\ I ; ; , I, f.7 V. 11 • OG s I 1 ti i �I \ 1 I I 1, ' � P Cn I QD FTI I I a C ap�1 O Z D I , x = Ix a - I I r 1 u I I, I iy " ,I❑ i i" I" �I � 1 � 4 I � jC � Icy. � 1 I� .r I{ � •� 1; i I Iln - ... 1 _I F ,�.�. x it I I c I; II � I I I Ir Ic x I 04 I I III I I" 1. m IM Ih II p m I I! I 1� 1 I I I In . . I � I I li I I I � It I I I+ 1 I x hil y I I� + I i t k 11 I mm I II I - I I4 9D 1 h p I 1 111 I i it II I Iti I I I II 1Zm i is II II tr.. lI 11 1� li I I I IT T 'f o i I i"k p � I 117 • � II ly II � IM � I %� I 1 � o - i it � � I PC) 1 I I 11a lo _ I i; I' i I 1 j �1�� 1 k! I i'yl 'j li C) �,` ,' 1 Ili; 1° II 3 I IV II I BF 1 I. ' 9 G I 1 m , Iln/' P ' II I ._ �. _... _. { I Ir 5 I� �O to m it I t 1 p 77 J , it I 1 ;r �ry 11 (I jl '� lj I ], 1 �o A :Rd 1% I I ' I 1, 1, m 'I it i ,1 I" ; I I If o gg II( �3g� CC�C 3 'r9R 1. 'I I I I Iv L Ili " it 1� ji I ! - �g��' If E o2Ry Rim li ti I' i 1 1 ;1 II �p cup.- $ hi d II I I �p s 4 I '48 A i'-zo )' I j; i' / 11; i❑ it j i" i f, It , •i yc r y a RhNI510N: ° �x M S y N PROJECT NAPE: CIIENT NALE: Y m g'2 -19 l2 AQ10ET PATE TIVmOk AIJGNMENT '30 p'ga�= c �„ s PELICAN BAY BOULEVARD PATHWAY pELICAN BAY 1�Y�� 1. v ° � d e WESTSIDE - COMMONS TO s s o; ; o z m i NORTH TRAM STATION SERVICES DIVISION =s" 0 a s °� ' m RR.F NG TITEE: 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 P s a M SOIL EROSION & NAPLES, FL 34108 �, -� o,__ 1—' U SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS to � April 11', 2012 Pelican Day Services Division Board Regular Session 1612 A -7b.' Ch6irman`s Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dredging workshop Page 2 of 2 March 1S, 2012 Ms. Linda A. Elligott U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville Regulatory Division Fort Myers Section 1520 Royal Paler Square Blvd., Suite 510 Fort Myers, Florida 33919 RE: Permit Application No. SwAJ- 1995 -02789 (IF /LAE ) *Clam Pass" Dear Nis. Elligott The Pelican Bay .Services Division /Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit (PBSD /MSTBU) Board ac~imowledges, supports and endorses requesu for a collaborative U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clam Pass - Clam Bay Dredging Permit Workshop with their Federal Permit Consultant Agencies that allows meaningful participation by the Sierra Club Calusa Group, Consemancy of Southwest Florida, Mangrove Action Croup, and Collier County Audubon Society. Regards, &Y' Keith J. Dabs, Chairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7b. Chairman's Report. Board and Corps Correspondence re: support for Clam Bay dred g osht 2k16 Page 1 of 2 V ResnickLisa From: Elligott, Linda A SAJ [Linda.A.Elligott @usace.army.mil] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:49 AM To: ResnickLisa Subject: RE: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas - response from ACOE (UNCLASSIFIED) 1' APR 10 2612 !� Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Lisa, `_= a: ca s,r <- �ursty (o +nrnissioners Thank you for your request on behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division. The Corps does not have a function that supports a Permit Workshop such as you have requested. I appreciate your understanding and thank you for your interest in this project; if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Linda - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ResnickLisa [mailto:LResnick(2collier og v.netl Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:48 AM To: Elligott, Linda A SAJ Cc: Jim Powers (jimkdmgfl.com); Keith Dallas Subject: On Behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Dallas Dear Ms. Elligott: On behalf of Pelican Bay Services Division Board Chairman Keith J. Dallas, please see attached. Regards, Lisa Resnick Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Naples, FL 34108 Tel. 239.597.1749 Fax 239.597.4502 lresnick@collier og v.net <mailto:lresnickn,collier og v.net> http:/ /pelicanbaysservicesdivision.net <httl2:Hpelicanbqyservicesdivision.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. Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE a m m 0 0 m c T o •N m N C N f4 U) U IL (6 N 7 � O) O C � (UO a � m � O N Co C O N N 0 N N a UC O O_ N U) `) T O �U m � c o M o. U N N � d N N C � c6 N .'m o L (h U o c rn Qom Q ti a 1612 A16 0 0 m C >' O m N N C O @ (n U @ O � C Q' U @ O N m � C _O N � N � U O O_ � N O N T O @ U c o UD _ N a N N C @ o n N O U ro rn Q g a_ 1612 A16� 0 m c T N N C � m (f) U m � � C U m O N m � C O N 0 j U N C U O N N � Cl) O m U Co c O m n. U � ni _ v � n m m Q n 1612 A16 J April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 2 of 5 1612 k16 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT Pelican Bay Services Division 801 Laurel (yak Drive - Suite 605 • Naples, Florida 34108 • (239) 597 -1749 • Fax (239) 597 -4502 February 24, 2012 The Honorable Georgia A. Hiller Commissioner, District 2 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, Fl, 34112 -5746 Dear Commissioner Hiller, The Pelican Bay Services Division (PBSD) is studying ways to maintain the Pelican Bay community and keep it appealing to current and future residents. In this process, we have looked at the current condition of our roadways and pathways. As you are well aware, Collier County is responsible for maintaining both. In 2006, Pelican Bay Boulevard was unfortunately resurfaced using an experimental and low cost method called Micro - Surfacing, a mixture of slurry seal and emulsified aggregate of asphalt, water and mineral fillers or "gravel" applied overtop of the existing roadway surface and intended to preserve and extend the life of the pavement an additional 5 - 8 years. However this process was unsuccessful and within a year the new surface revealed significant wear. The attached photograph shows the current condition of a section of Pelican Bay Blvd, in front of the Philharmonic. We have been told that the County is scheduled to repave Pelican Bay Blvd. no sooner than 2016. Similarly, the County is deficient in maintaining Pelican Bay's pathways. The County uses the "patch" method to repair our pathways. However many of our pathways have been patched to the extent that they are now hazardous for walking, particularly by some of our older residents. The attached photos illustrate the problem. We have been told there is no money in the County budget to rebuild the pathways in the foreseeable future. Hence, the PBSD Board is faced with the dilemma of either waiting indeterminately for the County to make repairs or use our Municipal Service Taxing & Benefit Unit (MSTBU) monies collected for other purposes. It is difficult to explain to residents the current conditions of the roadways and pathways, but it is even more challenging to rationalize using MSTBU monies for maintenance items that we have already paid through our County property taxes. Also, we understand that to the extent MSTBU monies are used for these items, we would have to defer other projects for which the monies were originally intended. Clearly, staff can only provide as much maintenance work as has been funded, and the County has experienced a significant decline in revenue. Nonetheless, the County should recognize its responsibility to maintain its essential infrastructure, On behalf of the PBSD Board, we implore you advocate strongly to provide adequate countywide funds to maintain roadways and pathways. Regards, Keith J. Dall:�,thairman Pelican Bay Services Division Board April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard Page 1 of 5 16 12 A 16 ResnickLisa Subject: 7a. Chairman's Report. Correspondence re: resurfacing Pelican Bay Boulevard 4/11/12 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session From: Keith Dallas rmailto :keithdallas(a)comcast.net1 Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 1:57 PM To: ResnickLisa Subject: Fwd: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing a, Please forward this to Board members for their information. Keith r��ysicners Begin forwarded message: From: HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHiller(acolliergov.net> Subject: FW: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Date: March 20, 2012 1:13:06 PM EDT To: Theodore Raia <tedraia(cDvahoo.com >, "nsdordll(cDaol.com" <nsdorrillO-aol.com >, "Bob Naegle (ronir(cDnaegelnet.com)" <ronirQnaegelnet.com >, "Keith Dallas (keithdallasa-comcast.net)" <keithdallas(cocomcast.net >, "nsdordll(5aol.com" <nsdordliOaol.com> Cc: HillerGeorgia <GeomiaHiller2Dcolliemov.net >, RaineyJennifer <JenniferRainev(Mcolliemov.net> Commissioner Hiller asked that I send you this email for your information. Thank you, Jennifer Rainey Executive Aide to Board of County Commissioners Aide to Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District #2 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite # 303 Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8602 (239) 252 -6407 Fax - - - -- Original Message---- - From: HillerGeorgia Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 12:06 PM To: OchsLeo; CasalanguidaNick; KlatzkowJeff Subject: Pelican Bay Road Resurfacing Leo/Jeff- The roads in PB were superficially resurfaced with a product that was supposed to extend their life. This has not happened. What's the warranty on the product and what recourse does the county have against the manufacturer and /or contractor. Please provide a copy of the contract and product information for my review. In light of this failure, the road resurfacing will need to be scheduled other than as would have been anticipated had this product/application worked. Please provide the revised schedule. With thanks - Georgia Hiller Commissioner, District 2 k Operating Revenues: Carry Forward Transfer from Fund 109 General Foundation Payment for Crosswalks Special Assessment Interest Total Operating Revenues April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 11 of 11 1612 A16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual Variance Operating Expenditures: Irrigation & Landscaping Hardscape Project (50066) Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services Sprinkler System Repairs Landscape material Permits Electrical Other Operating Supplies (Pavers) Other Road Materials Traffic Sign Restoration Project (50103) Traffic Signs Lake Bank Project (51026) Swale & Slope Maintenance Engineering Fees Other Contractural Services 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 53,487.00 331,900.00 308,667.00 310,738.42 2,071.42 19,500.00 6,825.00 5,925.14 (899.86) $ 3,341,284.04 $ 3,305,376.04 $ 3,360,034.60 $ 54,658.56 $ 131,654.37 $ 15,798.52 $ 2,956,362.25 532,145.21 39,568.70 21,323.00 50,000.00 85,000.00 500.00 22,275.72 $ 3,306,684.04 $ R 10,300.00 $ 6,800.00 17,500.00 39,568.70 13,854.20 $ 429,605.74 9,370.03 72,615.50 1,000.00 13,680.14 38,553.60 587,512.43 $ 578,679.21 $ 6,386.00 $ 4,216.00 6,214.77 $ 3,896.51 $ 34,600.00 $ 10,602.00 $ 10,111.28 $ $ 3,341,284.04 $ 598,114.43 $ 588,790.49 $ $ - $ 2,707,261.61 $ 2,771,244.11 $ Page 1 of 1 1,944.32 102,539.47 (9,370.03) (72,615.50) (1,000.00) (13,680.14) 1,015.10 8,833.22 171.23 319.49 490.72 9,323.94 63,982.50 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 10 of 11 Pelican Bay Services 1612 A 16 Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Capital Projects Fund 322 (Unaudited) Assets Current Assets Cash and Investments Interest Receivable Due from Tax Collector Total Current Assets Total Assets $ 2,575,171.35 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 2,575,171.35 $ 2,575,171.35 39,832.15 9,067.34 48,899.49 2, 582, 848.52 (56,576.66) 2,526,271.86 $ 2,575,171.35 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 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 9 of 11 1612 A 16 Pelican Bay Services 442,414.88 Municipal Services Taxing Unit 941.63 Income Statement w/ Budget -March 31, 2012 81,700.00 Clam Bay Fund 320 - FY 2012 64,042.25 (Unaudited) 35,100.00 Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual - 14,500.00 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 289,511.88 $ 12 7,100.00 118,203.00 119, 010.42 34,000.00 34,000.00 34,000.00 700.00 700.00 834.21 Variance 807.42 134.21 $ 451,311.88 $ 442,414.88 $ 443,356.51 $ 941.63 $ 163,368.75 $ 81,700.00 $ 17,657.75 $ 64,042.25 70,151.60 35,100.00 9,728.00 25,372.00 29,000.00 14,500.00 - 14,500.00 349.77 - - - 7,500.00 Revenue Reserve - - 588.01 - - - 1,000.00 - - - $ 271,958.13 $ 131,300.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 103,914.25 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) 15,900.00 100.00 1,200.00 - 1,300.00 $ - $ 132,600.00 $ 27,385.75 $ 2,730.00 $ 1,818.00 15,900.00 2,380.20 $ 1,482.37 15,900.00 Total Non - Operating Expenditures $ 29,100.00 $ 20,448.00 $ 19,762.57 $ Total Expenditures $ 451,311.88 $ 153,048.00 $ 47,148.32 $ Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 289,366.88 $ 396,208.19 $ Page 1 of 1 100.00 1,200.00 1,300.00 105,214.25 349.80 335.63 685.43 105,899.68 106,841.31 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 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 8 of 11 16 12 A 16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Clam Bay Fund 320 (Unaudited) Assets $ 425,400.97 425,400.97 $ 425,400.97 Liabilities and Fund Balance 303,213.58 122,187.39 425,400.97 $ 425,400.97 Total Street Lighting Field Operating Total Field Expenditures Capital Expenditures: Street Lighting Field Operations Other Machinery /Equipment General Improvements Total Capital Expenditures April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 7 of 11 1612 6 146,800.00 64,250.00 55,089.63 9,160.37 240,500.00 110,500.00 95,215.49 15,284.51 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 1,000.00 200.00 - 200.00 Total Operating Expenditures 241,500.00 110,700.00 95,215.49 15,484.51 Non - Operating Expenditures: Tax Collector Fees 13,500.00 8,775.00 8,225.77 549.23 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 357,400.00 326,670.00 321,225.77 5,444.23 Total Expenditures 598,900.00 437,370.00 416,441.26 20,928.74 Net Profit /(Loss) - 128,029.00 169,240.07 41,211.07 Page 2 of 2 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 6 of 11 1612 A 16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement wJ Budget - Marh 31, 2012 Street Lighting Fund 778 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Annual YTD YTD Budget Budget Actual 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 Electrical Contractors Light Bulb Ballast $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 $ 157,600.00 436,800.00 406,224.00 409,145.99 4,500.00 1,575.00 598,900.00 565,399.00 18,330.25 605.09 585,681.33 Variance $ 2,921.99 $ 18,330.25 $ (969.91) 20,282.33 $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.75 $ 1,194.25 5,300.00 $ 2,650.00 2,650.00 $ - 26,900.00 $ 13,450.00 10,216.00 $ 3,234.00 3,900.00 $ 2,000.00 1,078.23 $ 921.77 2,000.00 $ 300.00 107.69 $ 192.31 12,100.00 $ 6,100.00 6,402.83 $ (302.83) 300.00 $ 150.00 150.00 $ - 800.00 $ 400.00 15.36 $ 384.64 1,000.00 $ 500.00 - $ 500.00 93,700.00 355.50 46,250.00 40,125.86 6,124.14 62,500.00 31,300.00 29,456.46 1,843.54 9,600.00 - - - 800.00 400.00 - 400.00 400.00 200.00 191.51 8.49 44,200.00 22,100.00 17,218.39 4,881.61 800.00 400.00 400.00 - 900.00 450.00 450.00 - 1,700.00 4,300.00 2,200.00 1,055.02 1,144.98 1,200.00 600.00 210.35 389.65 200.00 100.00 64.40 35.60 500.00 300.00 - 300.00 7,300.00 3,700.00 3,899.00 (199.00) 12,400.00 2,500.00 2,144.50 355.50 Page 1 of 2 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report 6 Page 5 of 11 1612 y Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 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 $ 508,249.56 $ 508,249.56 $ 508,249.56 Liabilities and Fund Balance 42.95 $ 42.95 194,157.20 314,049.41 508, 206.61 $ 508,249.56 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report, Monthly nan�al Report Page 4 of 11 1 Z A 16 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 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Other Machinery and Equipmeny 1,000.00 - - Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Capital $ 103,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Capital Expenditures $ 104,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 96,538.00 $ 62.00 Total Operating Expenditures $ 2,393,200.00 $ 1,294,050.00 $ 1,130,562.89 $ 163,487.11 Non - Operating Expenditures: Transfer to Fund 322 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ 436,500.00 $ - Tax Collector Fees 79,600.00 49,352.00 48,212.00 1,140.00 Property Appraiser Fees 73,300.00 40,315.00 38,714.56 1,600.44 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 $ 1,129,567.00 $ 1,126,826.56 $ 2,740.44 Total Expenditures $ 3,713,200.00 $ 2,423,617.00 $ 2,257,389.45 $ 166,227.55 Net Profit /(Loss) $ - $ 1,100,244.00 $ 1,282,503.36 $ 182,259.36 Page 3 of 3 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 20,095.85 $ 1,204.15 6e. Administrator's Report �o�y Flan 3 of 11 A 16 Personal Safety Equipment 500.00 500.00 1,318.70 (818.70) Fertilizer and Herbicides 98,400.00 39,900.00 36,356.11 3,543.89 Other Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 800.00 381.25 418.75 Other Operating Supplies and Equipment 2,500.00 2,800.00 3,058.37 (258.37) Total Water Management Field Operating $ 394,300.00 $ 184,600.00 $ 152,255.32 $ 32,344.68 Right of Way Beautification - Operating Payroll Expense $ 42,600.00 $ 21,300.00 $ 20,095.85 $ 1,204.15 Emergency Repairs and Maintenance 7,400.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - Office Automation 14,100.00 7,100.00 7,000.00 100.00 Other Contractural Services 34,300.00 17,200.00 12,763.00 4,437.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,461.30 538.70 Postage 3,000.00 500.00 (92.28) 592.28 Rent Buildings /Equipment /Storage 12,500.00 6,300.00 6,612.75 (312.75) Insurance - General 500.00 250.00 250.00 - Printing, Binding and Copying 2,600.00 200.00 33.00 167.00 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 1,300.00 434.63 865.37 Training and Education 1,500.00 800.00 105.00 695.00 Total Right of Way Beautification Operating $ 129,300.00 $ 57,550.00 $ 48,863.25 $ 8,686.75 Right of Way Beautification - Field Payroll Expense Emergency Maintenance and Repairs Flood Control (Water Use & Swale /Berm Mntc.) Pest Control Landscape Incidentals Other Contractural Services Temporary Labor Telephone Electricity Trash and Garbage Rent Equipment Motor Pool Rental Charge Insurance - General Insurance- Auto Building Repairs and Maintenance Fleet Maintenance and Parts Fuel and Lubricants Licenses, Permits, Training Tree Triming Clothing and Uniforms Personal Safety Equipment Fertilizer and Herbicides Landscape Maintenance Mulch /Landscape Materials Pathway Repairs Sprinkler Maintenance Painting Supplies Traffic Signs Minor Operating Equipment Other Operating Supplies Total Right of Way Beautification - Field Operating Total Operating Expenditures $ 807,300.00 $ 403,700.00 $ 345,621.23 3,300.00 - - 89,900.00 45,600.00 43,918.51 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,325.00 2,500.00 1,300.00 471.44 29,500.00 18, 700.00 17, 688.00 190,100.00 117,100.00 119, 5 56.62 3,200.00 1,600.00 1,132.36 3,400.00 1,700.00 1,047.14 17,000.00 6,600.00 6,060.33 2,500.00 1,300.00 1,123.38 300.00 200.00 76.93 8,800.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,700.00 700.00 - 2 5,100.00 13, 600.00 14, 396.97 67,300.00 30,700.00 14,269.66 800.00 400.00 101.94 63,600.00 61,800.00 57,759.25 9,400.00 3,400.00 3,251.06 3,000.00 1,500.00 1,471.70 62,000.00 31,700.00 33,547.00 46,000.00 33,000.00 31,326.75 53,100.00 47,800.00 22,941.40 6,000.00 3,000.00 - 30,000.00 11,000.00 4,757.45 800.00 400.00 28.66 3,000.00 1,500.00 - 3, 000.00 1,500.00 1,562.08 9,000.00 4,500.00 3,379.53 $ 1,556,600.00 $ 858,700.00 $ 743,214.39 $ 2,289,200.00 $ 1,197,450.00 $ 1,034,024.89 Page 2 of 3 $ 58,078.77 1,681.49 (3,325.00) 828.56 1,012.00 (2,456.62) 467.64 652.86 539.67 176.62 123.07 700.00 (796.97) 16,430.34 298.06 4,040.75 148.94 28.30 (1,847.00) 1,673.25 24,858.60 3,000.00 6,242.55 371.34 1,500.00 (62.08) 1,120.47 $ 115,485.61 $ 163,425.11 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial Report Page 2 of 11 1612 1 16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Income Statement w/ Budget - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ Annual YTD YTD Engineering Fees 12,000.00 6,000.00 236.25 Budget Budget Actual 3,500.00 Variance Operating Revenues: Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) Carryforward $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ 1,122,300.00 $ - Special Assessment - Water Management Admin - 666,300.00 619,659.00 624,033.04 286.42 4,374.04 Special Assessment - Right of Way Beautification 42,400.00 1,907,800.00 1,774,254.00 1,786,576.40 Telephone 12,322.40 Special Assessment Past Due 180.20 119.80 Trash and Garbage 2,603.19 3,400.00 2,603.19 Charges for Services Motor Pool Rental Charge 1,500.00 - - - - Surplus Property Sales 1,150.00 1,150.00 - - 900.00 - Miscellaneous Building Repairs & Mntc. 1,700.00 403.48 - 403.48 Interest 5,400.00 15,300.00 7,648.00 3,976.70 Fuel and Lubricants (3,671.30) Total Operating Revenues $ 3,713,200.00 $ 3,523,861.00 $ 3,539,892.81 $ 16,031.81 Operating Expenditures: Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 760.38 (60.38) Water Management Administration Payroll Expense $ 41,400.00 $ 20,700.00 $ 19,505.87 $ 1,194.13 Emergency Maintenace and Repairs 8,800.00 - - - IT Direct Capital 400.00 200.00 200.00 - IT Office Automation /Billing Hr. 4,800.00 2,400.00 2,200.00 200.00 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 84,500.00 42,300.00 42,250.00 50.00 Inter Payment /Mnt. Site Ins. Assessment 13,400.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 - Other Contractural Services 26,900.00 13,500.00 10,216.00 3,284.00 Telephone 3,900.00 2,000.00 1,459.30 540.70 Postage and Freight 3,000.00 300.00 107.69 192.31 Rent Buildings and Equipment 11,300.00 5,700.00 6,113.73 (413.73) 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 1,000.00 254.34 745.66 Training and Education 1,100.00 600.00 85.00 515.00 Total Water Management Admin Operating $ 209,000.00 $ 96,600.00 $ 89,691.93 $ 6,908.07 Water Management Field Operations Payroll Expense $ 132,800.00 $ 66,400.00 $ 62,283.88 $ 4,116.12 Engineering Fees 12,000.00 6,000.00 236.25 5,763.75 Flood Control Berm and Swale Mntc, 14,000.00 3,500.00 812.65 2,687.35 Landscape Materials /Replanting Program 8,500.00 300.00 - 300.00 Interdepartmental Payment (Water Quality Lab) 22,600.00 11,300.00 4,919.25 6,380.75 Plan Review Fees 1,500.00 - - - Other Contractural Services 1,000.00 500.00 286.42 213.58 Temporary Labor 42,400.00 24,400.00 25,056,00 (656.00) Telephone 500.00 300.00 180.20 119.80 Trash and Garbage 5,700.00 3,400.00 2,803.87 596.13 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 2,700.00 1,004.59 1,695.41 Fuel and Lubricants 8,900.00 4,500.00 1,213.40 3,286.60 Tree Triming 30,000.00 15,000.00 9,984.00 5,016.00 Clothing and Uniforms 1,100.00 700.00 760.38 (60.38) Page 1 of 3 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 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6e. Administrator's Report. Monthly Financial R �rt Page 1 of 11 1612 A 16 Pelican Bay Services Municipal Services Taxing Unit Balance Sheet - March 31, 2012 Operating Fund 109 - FY 2012 (Unaudited) Assets 2,301,231.69 96,538.00 $ 2,397,769.69 $ 2,397,769.69 Liabilities and Fund Balance $ 2,146.82 28,676.87 $ 30,823.69 1,292,615.54 1,074,330.46 2,366,946.00 $ 2,397,769.69 April.11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 1612 APM Q� J 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renourishment Page 13 of 13 To compli cate matters the County will conduct a survey in September to measure the exact amount of sand to be brought in - depending on the profile of the beach at that time. If large amounts of sand have been washed away during summer storms it might cost us as much as $1,200,000 to obtain the approved profile. We thus have two choices - for which the County wants an urgent answer: a. Do we work within the $840,000 approved budget and receive about 6,300 cubic yards less than estimated - and where do we reduce the profile? (there also exists the possibility that if less than the 36,904 cubic yards are placed on the beach the per cubic yard unit cost may go up! - and hence even less sand!) b.- Do we look for additional funds from within the budget (or the Foundation ?) and restore the beach to the desired profile It is anticipated the beach renourishment will be subject to a six year cycle. Mr. McAlpin has agreed to make a presentation to both our sub - committee as well as the regular board at our next meeting in August. John Domenie fi le://H: \Barbara Smith F driv"each Renourishment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug... 3/29/2012 April 1 , 20 2 Pelican B4 SerJlces 4ision Board Regular Session 6c. AdminisfrAtor's Report. ''Beach Renourishment Page 12 of 13 From: Johandomenie @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:57 AM To: smith b; WardJ @gimoyer.com Subject: (no subject) Barbara: 1612 P„,.116 Could you please include this in the packets going to the Sub - Committee as well as the Board, and make sure the subject of "Beach Renourishment" is included on both Agendas On Friday, July 22n`l , Kyle Lukasz and the undersigned met with Gary McAlpin (Senior Project Manager - Coastal Projects, Tourism) at our offices. 1 had been under the impression that it was to discuss the Proposed Inlet Management Policy, but instead it was to update us on the present status of the Beach Renourishment Project. The shocker was that the overall cost to bring in 673,000 cubic yards of sand from a "deposit" located about 33 miles northwest of Wiggins Pass to be deposited on Collier County beaches stands at $25,000,000 about $6,000,000 above previous estimates. (The work of placing sand stands at $20,450,000 and the balance is for monitoring costs, approving and building the artificial reef, etc) As far as the status of the permitting process goes: The design phase has been completed. The DEP permit has been obtained. The County has drafted the Biological Study (turtles, nesting shore birds, etc) and it is anticipated that the review by Fish and Wild Life will be completed within a month. Then the US Army Corps of Engineers have to provide their Notice to Proceed by early September - no delay is anticipated. It is hoped to present everything to the Board of County Commissioners at their September 16th Meeting for final approval, and that actual work will commence on November 1st 2005 and terminate by May 1, 2006. The problem both for the County and Pelican Bay is the same: In order to meet budgeted allowances we must either: a.- reduce costs, or b.- obtain additional funding. For the County this means to look for funds from the state, and for us to look for a source of funds - beyond the $840,000 presently allocated for this project. The County is funding the renourishment as far south as one half mile south of monument 30.5 - (the southern access from the Ritz- Carlton) - or about monument 33 (the monuments are 1,000 feet apart). We in turn would have to pay $1,011,539 to bring in 36,904 cubic yards of sand to our beach - stretching from monument 33 down to monument 37 located 1,300 feet south of the Sandpiper Restaurant. (based on a cost of $27.41 per cubic yard) file : //H:\Barbara Smith F drive\Beach Renourishment\Beach Renourishment Update - Aug... 3/29/2012 April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services +sion Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beach Renounshment Page 11 of 13 Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2006 Capital Projects Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Clam Bay Operations & Maintenance Clain Bay Improvement Program (183805) Engineering (320- 183805- 631400- 511051) Restoration Consultant Services The Clam Bay monitoring program includes biological, water quality and hydrographic analysis which is performed on an annual basis. Findings of these analyses are developed into an Annual Management Report used to identify any potential improvements in the restoration of the Clam Bay System. The fees being requested are for the consultant services necessary for these improvements. Also, included is 520 hours for biologist time to assist staff in the Clam Bay Restoration Program. Pelican Bay Beach Renounshment This funding will allow PBSD to participate in the permitting process with Collier County which will give the Pelican Bay community a cost effective option for beach renourishment. Other Contractual Servilces (320 - 183805.63 #999- 511051) Pelican Bay Beach Renounshment These fees are the renourisbment of Pelican Bay Beaches from the Contessa south to approximately 1,500 feet south of the Sandpiper Beach Facility. TDC will fund the beach renourishment from the Contessa north to the Ritz Carlton. Interior Tidal Channels Fees are being budgeted for the contractual services necessary for the construction of the Interior Tidal Channels. Cattail Enhancements be Plantings These fees ate for cattail replanting within the Clam Bay System. 58 16 12 A16 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $870,000 $840,000 $5,000 $25,000 C 0 M m 0) W 0� O co E C C 0 pn 15 15 .5; C) 6 C: N In Of U C) U) co >, co t� co " C) C a) U � C) N — 0 E < 'a CU j 1271 < (o CL t I 41 uj as In Ln O O C) QJ OI 6. to In tt) Co (li cli t I 1612 4 A16 as O O C) QJ OI 6. Co (li cli O co co cu st < C:. m 11) cz) a) to C, CD, m Q7 Cj 0. = Cl) CA ci Gj E C3 1612 4 A16 A'pnl 1 -1.; 2012- Pelican Bay.Ser j.ices Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report,; Be ch Renourishment Page 9 of 13 Pre - Construction Planning: 1612 A16 • Determine construction optimal direction and timing: Once a contractor has been determined and it is time to schedule construction, Collier County will coordinate with FWC to devise a construction plan that would minimize impacts to turtle nesting. For instance, if construction is going to begin in sea turtle nesting season, it will make sense to start the project in the Naples Beach segment (which has the lowest nesting density of the project reaches) and then work north from there. By scheduling the construction in this way, the construction in the higher nest density areas may avoid peak nesting season. Minimizing impacts to higher nesting areas also reduces the management and effort required by sea turtle personnel responsible for relocation and monitoring. Implementation of Sea Turtle Protection Measures: • Compliance with all permit conditions: Collier County will conduct the pre - application meeting with FWC and the contractor. Throughout construction the work will comply with all FWC and USFWS permit conditions to avoid or minimize impacts to sea turtles, and FWC will be contacted with any questions or concerns that may arise. April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6c. Administrator's Report. Beacf' Renburishment Page 8 of 13 Subject: Collier County and FWC Video Conference Call Date / Time: Tuesday, January 17`h, 2012 —10:00 am 1612'A16 Purpose: Discuss plan that would allow construction of next Collier County Nourishment Project to extend into sea turtle nesting season (requiring a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC) Collier County is interested in requesting a modification to Permit No. 0222355 - 001 -JC which would, in part, allow construction of the next beach nourishment project to extend into sea turtle nesting season, if necessary. The duration of the project (including mobilization and demobilization), especially if the project is constructed jointly with other nearby counties, will likely make construction entirely outside of nesting season impossible; therefore, the County seeks the flexibility to construct during nesting season when necessary. Collier County is committed to sea turtle conservation, and believes that through proactive coordination with FWC a plan can be developed that will balance the need for nourishment of Collier County beaches with conservation measures that will avoid or minimize impacts to nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Collier County proposes the following suggestions as possible ways to accomplish this goal, and welcomes comments and discussion from FWC. Advance Planning and Coordination: • Local Coordination and Management: Collier County will ensure that all project activities comply with local codes and ordinances, and the County Manager can provide a letter which states this compliance and approves the project. The City of Naples is a partner in this project and can provide similar assurances. • Prepare Necessary Resources: Collier County will ensure that the necessary resources are available which will enable the County to conduct all sea turtle conservation measures (i.e., nesting surveys, relocation, data collection). If necessary, the County would apply for another FWC sea turtle permit and /or secure outside help with proper credentials, which would allow more trained personnel to assist with these activities. • Plan Potential Relocation Sites: For each construction reach, find potential suitable nest relocation sites that will protect nests and hatchlings from construction activities while also maintaining a safe environment with minimal impacts from lighting. Potential areas include those stretches of Collier County beaches not receiving nourishment, as well as areas back towards the dune in cases where fill will only be placed on a portion of wider beach sections. Wide beaches in less developed areas (such as gaps between large condominiums), parks and gaps in the fill are potential candidate sites. For example, Lowdermilk Park or the condominium gap in Parkshore between R49 and R50 have potential. Significant coordination with FWC will go into the final selection of relocation sites. April 11, 2012 Petican Bsy S&vices Division Board Regular Session '6c. Administrator's Repdrt. Beach Renourishment Page 7 of 13 1612 A16 3. Scope manage this project based on direction from the BCC to match available funding with sand placement quantities at the time of renourishment. 4. Assure appropriate staffing, training and permitting of turtle monitors and relocation specialists. Work with State and Federal agencies in the development of this plan. 5. Aggressively pursue partnership with the City of Longboat Key and Captiva Erosion Control District to reduce mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. Additionally, pursue early bidding before contractors have committed production capacity to other projects. 6. Maximize leverage with FEMA and FDEP to secure project funding. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax, Fund 195. It is estimated that the construction costs for Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches will be between $20,000,000 - $30,000,000 depending on the project approach, scope and funds available. It is also estimated that the permit design, plans and specifications for this project will cost $400,000 to $600,000. Pre - construction, during construction and post- construction activities are estimated to cost an additional $800,000 and $1,000,000. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are expected with approval of this Conceptual Plan. No additional carrying costs, operating or maintenance costs are currently anticipated as a result of the Beach Renourishment project itself. As the design and permitting process advances, the maintenance and lifecycle costs will continue to be evaluated. Using today's dollars, the total cost to replace the asset is $20,000,000 to $30,000,000. The project has an expected life expectancy of 10 years generating a hypothetical annual depreciation cost of $2 to $3 million. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action. — RECOMMENDATION: To approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Director, Coastal Zone Management Department April 11,'201 "2 Pr's Re Bay @rvices Di on ioard Regular Session 1612 6c. Ad'ministrator`s Report. B4a Page 6 of 13 Pass and addressing the additional hot spots with additional critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this modification. Savings on the project cost could be expected if it was possible to achieve the following items: • Approximately $5M- $7M could be achieved if the TS Fay PW was extended. • $1M could be saved if this project is combined with similar projects from the Captiva Erosion Control District and/or the City of Longboat Key to share mobilization costs and take advantage of economies of scale. The economies of scale are significant as well as early bidding before contractors have committed their production capacity to other projects. • $1M - $2M savings can be expected if schedule flexibility is enhanced to allow year round renourishment. Examples of schedule flexibility that would result in a price reduction are: stockpiling sand off shore in the non -peak renourishment timeframe; early contracting that would allow maximum planning and minimizing equipment mobilization costs; schedule that permits renourishment during off season and /or low equipment utilization periods; ability for the contractor to pursue "projects of opportunity" with clear and specific guidelines /restraints and schedules that identify start and completion dates and with approval, allow the contractor the flexibility to manage the schedule. • Maximizing FDEP's cost share contribution to this project. • If the schedule cost savings are to be pursued, a FDEP permit modification must be applied for that will permit year round renourishment or renourishment during a portion of turtle nesting season. Turtle nesting season begins on May 1" and ends on October 31" of each year. The FDEP, USACE, FWS and FWC will allow year round renourishment and FWC and FDEP have indicated they have "No Objections" to granting a permit for year round renourishment. No Collier County Ordinance prohibits renourishment during turtle nesting season. However, Collier County has always strived to be excellent environmental stewards and avoid any negative impacts to nesting by renourishment during turtle nesting season. Additionally, the Conservancy of SW Florida recognizes the importance of healthy, cost effective beaches to our local economy and both organizations agree and support without objection the following renourishment schedule. 1. Renourishment to begin on September 15, 2013 on the Naples beach segment which has the lowest nesting density of all beaches within Collier County. This will require any nest laid after 7/7/13 on a Naples beach segment to be relocated to a designated relocation area. Offshore mobilization can proceed prior to 9/15/13 and the landing of the offshore pipeline on the beach prior to 9/15/13 is permitted. Pipe and equipment staging on the beach will not be allowed before 9/15/13. 2. Renourishment will proceed from south to north renourishing the Naples, Park Shore, Clam Pass, Vanderbilt and Barefoot beaches. All renourishment activities will be complete by 6/1/14. This equates to an 8.5 month renourishment cycle. 3. A permit modification will be supported by the Conservancy of SW Florida to begin renourishment on 9/15 and complete all renourishment activities by 6/1 the following year. Recommendations: 1. Seek a permit modification to allow beach renourishment from 9/15 to 6/1 of the following year. 2. Options will be developed and presented to the BCC for their decision making as funding; schedule coordination and scope definition is resolved. A16' A061,11, 2012 Pelican 6a�y ServicespivWon Board Regular Session 6c: Administrator's Report. Beacff Renofuishment Page 5 of 13 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1612 A16' Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013/14 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples beaches. OBJECTIVE: A conceptual plan has been developed that addresses various options and costs for the next major beach renourishment in Collier County. The renourishment is currently scheduled for FY 2013/14. Staff is requesting direction and approval from the BCC on how to proceed. CONSIDERATIONS: The BCC directed staff in the 2011 joint Collier County and City of Naples workshop to maximize the interval between major beach renourishments. To accomplish this, past beach performance was analyzed, the coast was modeled, hot spots identified and options developed that incrementally increase the scope and cost to maximize beach renourishment. The Conceptual Plan and the Conceptual Design Report are attached. The four options developed are: • Option 1 — Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $1 OM on the beach. This sand placement would only restore the damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of this project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any Jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. • Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue with the six year design project life that most likely can be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address the Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address the beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctors Pass. • Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand at a cost of approximately $24M on the beach. It would also include: The removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); the renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (100K CY's at $2.8M) which has lost 200 Linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. • Option 4 — Execute a ten -year project that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment with an estimated cost of $31M. This plan will increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as the construction width in sections as required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctors Pass is included to minimize erosion on the down drift beaches. In addition to renourishment of the Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples beach, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park beach, the rebuild /repair of Barefoot beach, removal of groins in Park Shore beach, the jetty spur to Doctors k ! f d April 11,;2012 PelicilA Bay Servicbs Di isic� oar Regular Session 2 6c. Admiht6trdt6r's Report. BeaffRenburisfifnerf C bh J2012 Page 4 of 13 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5of6 In addition to the renourishment of Vanderbilt, Park Shore and Naples Beaches, this option includes renourishment for Clam Pass Park Beach, rebuild /repairs at Barefoot Beach, the removal of groins at Park Shore Beach, a jetty spur for Doctor's Pass and it addresses additional hot spots by adding critical mass through increased sand placement. A FDEP permit modification is required for this option. Sneaker Nicole Johnson, Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Committee recommended the Executive Summary? (andlor any other similar presentations) clearly identify the cost savings associated with each Option. Mr. Moreland moved for the Coastal Advisory Committee to recommend that Option 4 be executed. Additionally, proposing the Option 4.A which includes the scope of work proposed in Option 4 and the concept of the County providing stockpiles of sand at strategic locations to assist in the renourishment of "lint spots" or other renourishment emergencies that may come to light over time. The project incorporates concepts of "Scope Management" as necessary. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 8 — 0. A161 16 ,�prio 111, 2012 Pelican Bay Services pilsion Board Regular Session 6c Adr6istfator's Report. Beach Renourishment C C Jch�012 Page 3 of 13 VI -1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4of6 excerpted MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE from: Naples, Florida, February 9, 2012 VIII. New Business 1. Conceptual Plan /Schedule Collier County Main Beach Renourishment Gary McAlpin provided the document "TS Fay FEMA funding renewal discussion" dated February 9, 2012 as a primer to the item. a. Backup Material Gary McAlpin noted the item contained backup material and presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve the Conceptual Plan for the FY2013114 beach renourishment of Barefoot, Vanderbilt, Clam Pass, Park Shore and Naples Beaches" dated February 9, 2012. He provided an overview of 4 options available for the major renourishment project for City of Naples /Collier County Beaches proposed by staff (based on previous input from the Coastal Advisory Committee): Option 1— Execute the TS Fay FEMA design This would place 175,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $1 OM. This sand placement would only restore damage from TS Fay and not extend the life of the project whatsoever. It would not address any hot spot locations and would not include any jetty work to stabilize the beach. Only a minor permit modification for the extra nourishment would be required. Option 2 — Execute the 2005/2006 design This would place 482,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at an estimated cost of $19M. This would continue the six -year design project life that most likely could be extended. This project would not maximize the renourishment cycle and does not address Clam Pass or Barefoot Beach renourishment needs. Additionally, it does not address beach hot spots, the groins at Park Shore or the need for a jetty spur south of Doctor's Pass. Option 3 — Execute the 2005/2006 design with beach and hot spot enhancements This would place 612,000 CY's of fill sand on the beach at a cost of approximately $24M. It would also include: removal of the groins at Clam Pass ($400K); renourishment of Clam Pass Park Beach (30K CY's at $950K); and for the repair /rebuild of Barefoot Beach (IOOK CY's at $2.8M) that has lost 200 linear width of beach over the last 15 -20 years. This approach does not maximize the renourishment cycle and continues with a six plus year design that has the potential to be stretched to a longer life. It does however begin to address significant hot spots that have been identified through beach monitoring and modeling. Option 4 — Execute a ten -vear proiect that maximizes the renourishment cycle This option would maximize the time between renourishment events with a 787K CY renourishment for an estimated cost of $31 M. This plan would increase the beach height (5 feet NAVD or 6.3 feet NGVD) as well as construction width in sections required to increase critical mass to resist erosion and produce a true ten -year beach renourishment. A jetty spur on Doctor's Pass is included to help minimize erosion on down drift beaches. !. $ April X1'1 t 2012 P4Ij�an Bay�3erviS,es Dprisiors.Board Regular Session 1612 6c. Adminislfatoi's Report, Beach R c�urisfiment Page 2 of 13 4 "j9 In addition to the $16,500,000 identified for the basic beach renourishment project, funds have been budgeted for the Wiggins Pass Channel Straightening project($1,700,000); and the Marco South Beach renourishment /structure rebuild project($3,000,000). Additional renournishment, hot spots, groin removal, and the jetty spur at Doctor's Pass will require additional funding. These funds could come from: the FDEP State Cost Share program; FEMA Tropical Storm Fay ($5,000,000 to 7,000,000); Fund 183 - -Beach Park Facilities ($10,000,000+ -) and /or the Catastrophe Reserve ($5,000,000). The Beach Fund does not have enough money to accomplish the scope of work directed by the City Council and the County Commission. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are the life of the renournishment plan, and the funding thereof. Funds are accrued on a ten year funding cycle, however the amount accrued is not sufficient to fund a ten year or maybe even a six year cycle. When we renourish in FY13/14, eight years will have elapsed since the last cycle, and already a number of beach sections are inadequate for our residents and tourists. Visit the area just south of the Naples Beach Hotel for instance. As we discuss allocation of TDC funds, the beaches must receive more resources to protect one of our most valuable assets. 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. A16' April 11, 1012.6,elican Bay Services Division board Regular Session Al6c. Admi�tistraioYs Report. Beach Renourishment 1612 Page 1 of 13 From: McAI inp Gary To: HambrightGail Subject: FW: Funding Beach Renournishment Date: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:57:16 AM Importance: High Gail, Please distribute to the CAC, TDC and Leo. CAC and TDC Board members- - I am distributing Mayor Sorey email at his request. This is intended to be a one way communication. Due to Sunshine Laws, please do not respond back to me or to each other. This will be discussed at the next CAC meeting on 3/8/12. Gary McAlpin - - - -- Original Message---- - From: John Sorey [mailto;jsoreyenaplesgov.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:19 PM To: McAlpinGary Cc: Bill Moss Subject: Funding Beach Renournishment Gary: I have had an opportunity to reflect on some of the comments from the last TDC meeting and would like your review and comments on the following. Once completed, please add to my comments and share with the CAC and TDC, and Mr. Ochs. The comments must be done quickly, as I would like this to be an agenda item on the March 8th 2012 CAC agenda. As we have communicated multiple times, the scope of the next beach renourishment is unknown and will depend on the funds available. We should permit a true ten year design which is anticipated to cost approximately $30,000,000. This will provide the most flexibility and is consistent with the direction from the BCC and the Naples City Council which was to maximize the time between beach renourishments while maximizing the economics of the project. At the last TDC meeting, Mr. Hill appropriately questioned the reserves available for the next beach renourishment. He cited an availability of $25,000,000 based on the financial information provided by you in the TDC packet. I know based on our various discussions in the past, that this is "carry forward" which represents unspent monies from existing projects and set aside reserves. We must do a better job of communicating these numbers in the future. My understanding is the reserves are $23,951,950 and consist of the following: Catastrophe Reserve - -- $5,000,000 as required by the BCC Major Renourishment reserve $12,000,000 Pier Reserve $79,000 which is inadequate and should be addressed. Reserve for FDEP reimbursement $3,400,000 Currently earmarked for FY 2013 Projects $3,026,950 As indicated, of the $23,951,950 reserves identified, the only current source of funds available for beach renourishment is $12,000,000. If only the $12,000,000 was available, we would have funding in FY13/14 to duplicate the 2005/06 project. This is not acceptable and is inconsistent with our guidance. As you indicated, you expect the basic renourishment project cost after anticipated savings to be approximately $16,000,000. In FY13/14, I understand you expect reserves and unspent project funds to be $16,500,000. This funding is without any state or federal monies and does not accomplish BCC or City Council direction to maximize the time between renourishments. ResnickLisa April 11, 2012 Pelican Bay Services Division Board Regular Session 6b. Administrator's Report. Cobble;tone�at i Drive Page 1 of 1 16 A 16 From: John Chandler Dohnchandler219 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:22 PM To: ResnickLisa Cc: Keith J. Dallas (keithdallas @comcast.net) Subject: Cobblestones at North Pointe Drive Lisa, At the 4/11 Board Meeting, I would like us to have a brief discussion of the merits of installing cobblestones as part of the revised crosswalk that we are planning to install across Pelican Bay Blvd at North Pointe Drive. I just learned that the Board of Directors of San Marino has asked the Foundation to remove the cobblestones from the crosswalk that was recently constructed adjacent to their community. They claim that the cobblestones have had no impact on reducing the speed of traffic approaching the crosswalk and that the noise from cars crossing the cobblestones is an irritation to their residents. John Chandler ,+ Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South L A01pr i Naples FL 34104 February 13, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: January 9, 2012 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 BY:........ ............... Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: SI X2112 Item # 1 L-(= Z 14 I "l Copies to: The next meeting is March 12, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division - Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 161'L Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee + '4%k 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 January 9, 2012 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 2:00 p.m. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Manuel Gonzalez - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Dale Lewis moved to approve the agenda as submitted Second by Betty Schudeh Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 12, 2011 Change: I. Call Meeting to Order should read: "2:00 p.m. " Betty Schudel moved to approve the December 12, 2011 minutes as amended Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report— Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $244,893.30 • Improvements General Open P.O. $101,643.74 • Available Capital Outlay $519,000.00 • Devonshire Project $278,000.00 — The Project was approved by the BCC Darryl Richard noted: • The contract is currently under review by Risk Management, Purchasing, and Legal Department • Hannula was notified of the Bid Award • NTP will be issued the last week of January Manuel Gonzalez stated that Hannula is prepared to start the Project at the end of January (per Dale Hannula.) A17 1612 A17 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reviewed additional information on the Devonshire Project: • Construction Contract is 120 days • Upon completion of the Project Schedule the Committee will receive the Schedule (via email) • Pre - Construction meeting will be scheduled with the Contractor • Staff and Scott Windham will advise Residents of the Construction Schedule 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) • The following materials will be replaced within the following week (Thursday January 18th) — Cabbage Palm in Median No. 3 — Bougainvillea in Median No. 10 • Recommended reducing the Maintenance frequency during the slower growth months Dale Lewis reported an issue with garbage blowing along Radio Road from Waste Management trucks. Staff will notify Solid Waste Management of the garbage issue. Pam Lulich noted that leaves and debris are blowing into the ROW and Medians from Berkshire Lakes. She suggested that the HOA should be responsible to remove the tree limbs after trimming the Eucalyptus Trees. Darryl Richard requested Betty Schudel assist in coordinating a meeting with an HOA Board Member to discuss the tree limb issue (prior to commencement of the Devonshire Project.) The Maintenance Report continued: o Analysis on Soil, Water, and Tissue samples is underway to determine the appropriate Fertilizer blends Staff reported the Water tests indicated the reuse water has a PH content that is too high for the Plants (on some of the roadways.) Additionally stated Sulfur is being used to lower the PH. Dale Lewis suggested utilizing water from the mixing chamber in combination with the reuse water to reduce the PH level (as needed.) o Hannula Fertilizer recommendations — Application rate of (4) per year of 50% slow release Fertilizer — Utilize (3) types of Fertilizer — (2) Applications of a blend to green up the turf — Add a liquid Fertilizer in with the spray application to boost the turf — The MSTU is responsible for the cost of the chemicals — No additional cost will be incurred for labor (by Hannula) 2 16112 A17' Maintenance Follow up items • Recommended taking tissue samples of the Xanadu and Crown of Thorn (Livingston to Airport) • Dry turf was observed (east of Devonshire) due to issues with the irrigation pump o Recommended postponing any action until the Devonshire Project is complete Dale Lewis requested a recommendation on a short term fix to improve Radio Road (2 islands) in the Tina Lane area as it appears dilapidated. Betty Schudel suggested removing the Crown of Thorn and installing Lantana. Scott Windham proposed the following: • Simplify the species of Crown of Thorn and fill in the bed with the plant • Install White Bougainvillea, Yellow Lantana, and Juniper layer Dale Lewis moved to rely on Scott Windham (Windham Studio) to fix the Medians to look like part of the Project and as soon as possible and cover the cost by the MSTU. Second by Betty Schudel. Discuss took place on the motion. The Committee expressed the following suggestions or comments: • Betty Schudel - To remove the Crown of Thorn (in the dead areas) and add Juniper and Lantana • John Weber — Install weather tolerant Plant Materials • Dale Lewis — Deemed the installed Plant Materials will never mature • Jerry Parillo — Questioned what will be done with the Crown of Thorn that will be removed Staff posed to group the Crown of Thorn together in the Plant bed in lieu of removing them. Scott Windham replied: • An evaluation will be performed on the Crown of Thorn • The healthy plants will be grouped in (1) bed with Juniper • Additionally the Xanadu groups will be evaluated as 50% are stunted The motion was amended to include: `fiver the direction by Scott Windham all salvageable Plant Materials will be reused Motion carried 5-0. Dale Lewis questioned if Windham Studio needed additional monies for the additional Projects. Staff suggested increasing the Windham Studio allocation by an additional $2,500.00. Dale Lewis moved to allocate (Windham Studio) $5,000.00 in that status. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. 1612 A17' Greenway Entry Scott Windham reviewed the proposed Greenway Entry Plan • Install a Paver path to meet the sidewalk • Pavers will match the median tips • Arbor will be approximately 11 ft. Jerry Parillo perceived that a commemorative sign should be installed noting that the Project was funded by the MSTU if FPL did not contribute monies to the Project. The following suggestions were made for the location of a sign: • Install a plaque below the Rich King Sign • Install a sign similar in size to the reuse water sign • Engrave the commemorative message into the Benches Staff stated quotes will be provided at the February meeting for the Greenway Entry Project. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment - None VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented nor amended The next meeting is February 13, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 4 6, e' A A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N — — — — — — — — — s 0 W O V M N A W N O W O V O) N A W N O W W V m- A W N— O O OD V O) N A W N� O m m C C D v m O m m D C Z C m r y p D O M E O D D < m m� X ttncn �� D v� m�0 =G) zr m =z- r�; -mm tziiczn D0 �m�cn�TDmm=m� DSi°�cD mmmmm ry o - - zw zw Zm��po M, mm -� �p 0M zo�a —MX 9 < >WM D r nm <? � p -n T� ZAcpp ;; m�m5 D D O C)DD vi cm O7 cu c�mDrn z mC �"zm ZZ N 1�1Z1m� tnD�Dzorr Ozz ��zm�ymmx6K mCQG)m�m�ZmG)G)Zfi��X -O0O rnm n zcncn cD� �� r�Z �Dn�mm.nn<�� Cc c) izmm to p ��D z -<O ma oo mm Dm m n0�mm OmOO ,Om— K Z c�� Z m z nzz�� Z�� cmmm zzOG)�Dc�Mz�� z OA O m m 0Op�D ccnn� - DZ'p �c nm m �m�m�c G) r-- X X nm NN D D Cl) �� 2 WmzmnD m��m z mm O r m z m (nm 0DO� X � n K G)z < K KrmM m z m z D n I4►169I69169I69 69169IfAlEnlv)140169 fA t9 fn fA fA 69 fA 69 fA fA fA fA fA fA fA 64 fA fA 14w1<Ajv) fA fA 69 69I69IE» fA <A <A fA _ N W O J N a1 Q1 t0 N A J J M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fA l fn l fA fA 169 1 fA 14.4 A fA IfA fA W INCD co CD m m 6911.914A fA W N � J W2a A COl) (D OOD A A O Ni O A O 07 O N O A ., A 84 N N N Ut W C�TI A J A 2 W 0 0 0 0 O O 0 C) O U) N O A (It A N 0 0 0 0 C) ' O' O O O O' O O O O A 4 A O A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U) �iF CT O Un O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O N N O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A O A O 1 (A w 69 w fA fA fn fA fn fn fn fn w w fn fn 69 fA fAF"iwlfA fn fA fA 69 J co 00 A A A A t A A A A A A J J A � 3 A N W 8 W Oo y N W O 00 IV a (D CO ? 00 O C O O O CD o° to W O OO W ' O O N . . . J , J VA . Vt Vn O O m 69 fA fA fA fA m n n d w d w m m 0) (o ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z O O O O V O O A V) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 in 69 b9 fA to N (D 3 m W N N 3 m W N 00 :'. W J Un J — W A CJ1 7 O 0 O � (D m O O N W A O -4(n O O a) O a) <D W J N On O A J CJ( O A W O w N 00 00 W O (D O J O A W (D O O cn O O O O w lfAlfn fA fA w fA fA <A fA fn fn fA fA fn fn fA 69 w fA fA 00 0�0 Oo A A fA fn 69 691 A17 1 A A A t A A A A A A D N N N N C N Q N d N N O O ET -0 co W cn Cn Ut O 0 O O J V1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — 0 0 O_ O O_ O_ � 3 0 y C r Cn fn y 8 y N N w d' a a y m d v v 2 7 GD C fD o° o C. O O O m a A m 0 g 0 O m 69 fA fA fA fA m n n d w d w m m O ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z N _ N m m m j' O D CD co O (D (D (D y (D (D n n m 3 (D O O O O 9 (D (n 0 y y CD (D (D 3 m W N N 3 m W A W A O :'. W x 3 Un CJ1 7 O 0 O � (D m O O � J 3 .p O A N (D (D pw ) <D O O O O O O O O O O O Ol O O W O O O N N O O O O O O" i11 fA fn 69 691 A17 1 ffl fA fA 0c0 00 W W A O W ::z v 2D 'U", H a C � O � A � N co W fA A A A t A A A A A A D N N N N C N Q N d N N O O ET -0 co W cn Cn Ut O 0 O O J V1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — 0 0 O_ O O_ O_ � 3 0 y C r Cn fn y 8 c «, fD 7 7 7 7 7r Q N W W A W (.J W O W W a a y m d v v 2 7 C' C J fD o° o C. O O O c c o Q d O O m 69 fA fA fA fA n n n d w d w m m O ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z N _ N m m m j' O D CD co O (D (D (D y (D (D n n .0.. ,0... 3 (D O O O O 3 (D (n 0 y y CD (D (D 3 ffl fA fA 0c0 00 W W A O W ::z v 2D 'U", H a C � O � A � N co W fA � s d � } 24 p D m � 3 0 m A A A t A A A A A A N N N N C N Q N d N N O O ET -0 co W cn Cn Ut O 0 O O J V1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — 0 0 O_ O O_ O_ CD d d 0 y C r Cn fn y 8 O fD 7 7 7 7 7r Q N W W A W (.J W O W W a y m d v v 2 7 3 3 C O (D N J 0) (D O A 07 W A A m m� fD 0 0 .1 1 c(D n� C)cnMOX (D O (n (n n n n G) N 7 j O c c o Q d N o o m C C CCD' W n (D (Oil y n n d w d w m m z ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z N _ N m m m j' O D CD co O (D (D (D y (D (D n n .0.. ,0... 3 (D O O O O (D (n 0 y y CD (D y CD m W N N W W A W A O :'. W On J Un CJ1 7 O O O O O O 0 O N (D m O O S C e► C O A N (D (D A_ ) <D O O O O O O O O O O O Ol O O W O O O N N O O O O O O" i11 A Vt O A O O- O O) O 00 A OJ W W - N 0 0 0 0 O W 00 O (D O O O O (n (n J O O O N O N (r A W N -+ C>7 W O O O O O W O O O O O O O O co v O A f- N v J vD Vt N � s d � } 24 p D m � 3 0 m A A A A A A A A A A t A A A A A A N N N N C N Q N d N N O O ET -0 co W cn Cn Ut O 0 O O J V1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — 0 0 O_ O O_ O_ CD d d 0 y C r Cn fn y 8 O fD 7 7 7 7 7r Q N W W A W (.J W O W W a y m d v v 2 7 3 3 C O (D N J 0) (D O A 07 W A A m m� fD 0 0 .1 1 c(D n� C)cnMOX (D O (n (n n n n G) N 7 j O c c CT a m a a a a y ^ Q d N o o m C C CCD' W n (D (Oil y n n d w d w m m z ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z N _ N m m m j' O D CD co O (D (D (D y (D (D n n .0.. ,0... 3 (D O O O O (D (n 0 y y CD (D y CD m A A A A A A A A A A t A A A A A A O (T O O1 U7 U( V1 O O O O O O O O_ O_ O O cn Cn Ut O 0 O O J V1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O — 0 0 O_ O O_ O_ 14 8 O W N N (D W W W W A A W W A W (.J W O W W OD .O. O A A O O O J W O O W N N O OA O O O O A N A N A N A A W J N co QI W O U) U( (T O) O (D N J 0) (D O A 07 W A A 0 0 .1 1 c(D n� C)cnMOX N O O) (D (D (D y O (D (D (D (D C O �• TI O (D y CD-w O N O W C c p' O r n N S 7 C C CCD' W n (D (Oil O O D Cn 2 y (yD CD j> 3 0 0 3 ^o ^o r N a \G \G Z y C (D C) y j' O D CD (O N L y O (D y j d (A 3 0 N 7 (D (n 0 C 7 N S O 3 m S y (D 7 N W CD (O d (D ^ O y (D 1V' 7 + N CD (D 7 O f) (D. S C e► C N (D 691 69 fA fn fA 69 fA fA 69 fA fA fA to to 69 69 fA fA 69 69 fA X a v Al c Z O °D W -L v 0 co ic cAl N C 14 to W N O O) O 00 J Cr W y O) O N O W 00 W 00 N O (D O hi O O J O J W O O Ot O) (D O N (D O N O OO J O A O) W 3 (o O Ui N C) O A J O W 0 O (O N 00 A O N O O) O O O J O 69 69 fn fA fA 69 69 fA (A fA fn fn 69 d3 fA w fn 69 69 fA fA f) e► C N 0 OD A W N O) O J _ — m Ol A Ol O O A 0 J W N W 'O N O) J N A (n O O (D W O J O W 0) A C) (n (n J O O O N O N (r A W G fw) C>7 W O O OO C) 0 O 0 O W 07 ? W O O co O O W O O O O O O A co N X a v Al c Z O °D W -L v 0 co ic cAl N C or A17 161L; Date: February 10, 2012 CURRENT SCHEDULE PROJECTION Radio Road MSTU - Devonshire Landscape & Irrigation Project Activity Date NOTICE TO PROCEED ISSUED FOR MATERIAL PURCHASE AND UTILITIES LOCATES PRE - CONSTRUCTION NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR CONSTRUCTION 140 DAYS OF CONSTRUCTION Final Completion February 8, 2012 February 15, 2012 February 20, 2012 February 20 —July 9, 2012 July 9, 2012 [END CONSTRUCTION] 5 . 161 MAINTENANCE REPORT A 1'7 To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: February 13, 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: • Hannula replaced the warranty one dead Cabbage Palm in median # 3 east of Airport Rd and 30 Silhouette Bougs in median # 10 west of Livingston Rd at the large Live Oak Trees. • Hannula has reduced maintenance services as recommended by county staff and WSI during the winter months to prevent cost overruns. • Fertilizer strategies discussed included the following: • Following soil and reclaim water testing and analysis, the County has had Florikan develop a new custom fertilizer blend which addresses the medians. This 8 -2 -12 Florikote, Collier Palm Blend general fertilizer with minor nutrients will be used for trees, palms, plants and turf. • County will stay with 2 applications /yr of the new100% slow release fertilizer. • Following the committee's approval last month, Hannula has begun incorporating liquid fertilizer in with the spray applications to boost the turf whenever pesticide applications are done. • Other follow up items from last month: ■ Hannula still needs to replace the `Dead' Laurel Oak in median 26 with a Live Oak. • Hannula has the following additional spray and liquid fertilizer requests: ■ The Crown of Thorns need to be treated for fungus. They will treat with T Methyl Fungicide 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@\vindliamstudio.com \vindhamstudio.com ,,v,,vxv. -,vindhams tudio.com go 161e, A17 ■ The Bougainvillea need to be treated for worms. They will treat with Provaunt ■ Treat the sod with M -Pede for fungus. • FPL easement Greenway entry landscape update: ■ WSI submitted the final planting plan, paver layout plan and pergola details sheet to staff in order to be included in the FPL consent package for submittal to and review and approval by FPL. • Medians 18 -23 (Circle K to Tina Lane): ■ WSI has prepared a refurbishment plan and related plant quantities for Hannula to remedy the Crown of Thorns deficient medians as authorized by the committee in the last meeting. 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 @windhamstudio.com xk cv\v.urindhamstudio.com 2 "7% m C) ° CD w C.) CD o (n 0 CD 0 Cn CD CD CD CD X O . O Cn -O _« O 3 0 C_ o 0 CO �CD It ��, sv o ° m CD ° * w -° FD7 0 C: n � o CD 0 CD FD a a K < C: 'O N O n `< W O_ ' ^O (c CD O 3-0 O C1. n CD (n (n CD CD O X O_ N. (D 0- �. O O (2 CD (n N 1612 K 1 CO CA CO CO �c m w r OcnCnU'(r r D -0 C/)m r� — G)oo 3 0 z-u Z T l n W CO C/) r- c- m -n go ° ° x c CD <o N w O w 33Ej- n O n = o 0�.o W 0 O CD o o _O 1 j 1 N G5 C: N Cn _ O CD CD CD _ N O O O O O 7 C — X _ O (z n O 3 O ° z w CD 0 w CD " cn a fA X CD S m � CD n c = = � c_ CD o� aD nQc m CD o o O (n C_ ° co sv � CD m 0 Do 0 0 CD `< z r ( 0 C/) O 3 m = M. (D CD z sv �- CD n w 0 3 O z w (n CD A17 (n N ou c N 0 < O 3 D co _o o � , ° wm w 3 3 � z w C/) 3 z CD o C/) 1 IV coa m m m c m W 2 n m 3 o r z sn CD —ZI r_ U) i U) 1 CO CA CO CO Cn w CA CQ (Q (Q (Q (O -0 (a 70 CD Sv fv A? a? w n W CD -^ O O O O O O n O O O O 0 O n O _O 1 j 1 N Lu N co O N O O p _ O 7 C — X = X X X X N CA ,Cn Cn (n -0 QQ-QQ N Cal W W W N 4P O C3 C3 (A O O O O O 0 n n O n Z Z Z m ZZ�.ZZ' (n CD O. Mulhy Grass Green Island Ficus Silhouette Bougainvillea 12 A17 , RADIO ROAD MEDIANS 19 -23 PLANTING REFURBISHMENT PLANT PHOTOS 2/13/12 ,-F ;.. , � -ate,_. Ilex Shillings Gold Mound Lantana Parson's Juniper N e �D I C7 m %CI n D i m z --1 N m I d a N m 0 m I w knt VX� � N� i (" I h b h I y yh N •yy l y ro b � b O � a N h �I O2 m 10 41 C� n ,� � t t i n iJ MATCHLINE STA, eel uik&w 1 vc, - � - I �� - 10, 189 +03 1612 A17 i-4 - • r _ V - r- MATCHLINE STA, r = ar �rr- � r•''to � r + �rn mro r ' c c r°ir o'r � �`•, '. i ,�� Eai N T�� ma n �W A N pA � i I q ' ill i1 '�• !cl Z2... ZW C' � � T y yp A"1 pNy .� T. y cNi ~p p� (D7 fS f pv, - tv Os U m� o L< D'ro mr A p� .., Z a ra �< �y za `r rri m p �t eo rr„ �a 2C = ^ D m l n�N�g 8 W, -'► , ~. m � n o-I �— Oi =g r I m m n yZ nA Z_ i "-- SW a H Z 22 A •� A N _ --- - - --_. _ m o � `� m rE, �o, °a % <r my m r•- x rr r-� C N i -4 �g nt1 rZ s Q � p� z � 3> r .�. < a N ' t 41 C� n ,� � t t i n iJ MATCHLINE STA, eel uik&w 1 vc, - � - I �� - 10, 189 +03 1612 A17 i-4 - • r _ V r a + �rn a I !cl rl � z T .� T. Os U m� o 41 C� n ,� � t t i n iJ MATCHLINE STA, eel uik&w 1 vc, - � - I �� - 10, 189 +03 1612 A17 i-4 - • r _ V 1 � C+ i oe T � Z t n co CN m Q r �n I N I cn ro ro 3 v M f7 M 2 H 31 d a 1 m w �r �Q a 3 T r ➢t �y r b o d � ooh o a tv V 'r N h O� o � � N .► W N !� 1— �� yy Air 2r DD 1�p ter X10 r D Rim ;021 g, �Z aAA Z zs K �4_ z i mAC n m -0Eeu Zy w 7 Z 1 � D-V n ZN 52% A+At Z Ny S D o d � goi a r, m>' 2c, �:,jt r !*1 t g2< ov i reD r3 rn rn ... ° Z or r c v Z rt a r�i rri rl -i dp ry za y= r o° /CC,.0 -0-4 �- �ri o'q Z a Aj O HA �'• Z Z Dr O art o Ad C a m � 22 r i-I d -z r'= = A mA > ITl .d r -9 y G1 fn �n -a L r Z AM $ c") rt Ci rZ Gl { ~ H N D in p� yj �e yA � �m Dyim�l PI 1 m a a Sto y f7 ►py y P 1 A � �s!� � �N�11e{o�u -zi r^� �C � C.) V1 -1 y O rt y n a as m may L rn 2 2rAi mD r � zip ..c< °= x m m A _ m r -+� Of �� y ' c ee i c �^ : �c�i = v mrrimS a ' '� •� y z a r t7 y'y� C Z= m p ' n fqp) r � C1 th rr- 'r %b 1 (1 �y OD m o y N cn "' Q ru ru t`• a +a� b °off b Z 71 Kr z d h D o � I � T O r -3 m 7 m C1 l z < r t7 �F C r T Z y Z A x Y Z r � N � � 0 1612 A17 MATCHLINE STA. 193 +27 fi -..r, l4 ,.. .. .� •.. ... ...Y -. r.. .. ... .... ... ..� ... �, 6 W -%1A _.... i O ` m o - "5 - ;s a 'Cr o M �- � Z ry W ttt .O' J ! [1 m V, Z m n m ` r Ir`;y -� ..___„__,-- __.� /a MATCHLINE ST �x 19� I � I ` j E +A! I J � T' SW i IN 0�� 1 r. % 0q 0z �1 mm r t _v i m 1� 2 zo 'o � 0 C p v O i ROm I oma am @z o z n i II� MAZ M om N 111 y m O � a � QD m 7 y 1� I 7 97 0 1612 A17 MATCHLINE STA. 193 +27 fi -..r, l4 ,.. .. .� •.. ... ...Y -. r.. .. ... .... ... ..� ... �, 6 W -%1A _.... i O ` m o - "5 - ;s a 'Cr o M �- � Z ry W ttt .O' J ! [1 m V, Z m n m ` r Ir`;y -� ..___„__,-- __.� /a MATCHLINE ST �x 19� I � I ` j E +A! I J � T' SW i IN 0�� 1 r. % 0q 0z �1 mm r t _v i m 1� 2 zo 'o � 0 C p v O i ROm I oma am @z o z n i II� MAZ M om N 111 y m O � a � QD m 7 y 1� I 7 97 o n crN C) d r VI m I N I N N N � a I jig m_ N tp a K ° o m c C > < m C C �o *7 p C 7 i7 N r- � � Z - 11�17D -� C•: A D L'1 ";" t -, I >y(1 A 1 wy r1 5� IRH a O b Cm _ N C(7n a y A ZZC yrn C-) c, N 2H HyA [ ' Cz dviih O -0 ny ^q'n �te7a AD S r� xr'1 F ,= t r r Z -Z b= " p= S i p r•+ ri a I =f<+ C> 'D -ai -_rte °r° s� rn c)-4 �� C r e x� n� � az =rn Mri A r C ea A, AAr CJ� yr,r 2C _4 pZ z !' '0 , �Cyy m - = C1 Wei XA -4 =0 Z fx'1 70 j rn� tnA �m7 �.. �o'' r ne �rri z �a r Lit, zA >>o K-4 .oz A r -1 D M _ A =� _9 t z ZD wig e A � r_z z� n �y Cj�si D�y D N Z G N Rn Y ft n IF b y n y a h a c y a0 it a b v\ b E Z CO N 1 z 'a a > " ° z y a n > 0 �u 1 m x� s X MATCHLIN OCEANS cn a BLVD m j Z - C _A Z Z ^S' f N U CD � D \ O m I' 1 O it 4 8 Ln v % ZZ jig m_ a K c C > < m C C �o *7 p C 7 i7 C•: A � 5� MATCHLIN OCEANS cn a BLVD m j Z - C _A Z Z ^S' f N U CD � D \ O m I' 1 O it 4 8 Ln v % ZZ N �I 3 � ' II Q SIT I� y p, i I � I f 0, t' .�i I4 i m D kh"7 V) — 1, { 00 � I I I - -____ - -- — 4- - -�4`� ft i� m m D - (5 � i 4kw ls-�k4� (tic. I 2�A 17 TA. 197 +48 1 A` N) S it I 198 " ', t m s I, �a 3 , � II f — I I 19,9 �. rc 0z �< ZM 6m, i mxzz� t f �1 0 < - y i I y -n�m y � 1 a if Tpm ;r, C ! 0m - nl Z I 0 Q mo s f �zDvW 200 7 N� IG 9� c:, e 4 t \r s— MS ---- 4I* ?C m 4 fj�� 201 ,N F .j. MATCHLINE STA, 201 +65 9 - (-1�-(z jig m_ a N �I 3 � ' II Q SIT I� y p, i I � I f 0, t' .�i I4 i m D kh"7 V) — 1, { 00 � I I I - -____ - -- — 4- - -�4`� ft i� m m D - (5 � i 4kw ls-�k4� (tic. I 2�A 17 TA. 197 +48 1 A` N) S it I 198 " ', t m s I, �a 3 , � II f — I I 19,9 �. rc 0z �< ZM 6m, i mxzz� t f �1 0 < - y i I y -n�m y � 1 a if Tpm ;r, C ! 0m - nl Z I 0 Q mo s f �zDvW 200 7 N� IG 9� c:, e 4 t \r s— MS ---- 4I* ?C m 4 fj�� 201 ,N F .j. MATCHLINE STA, 201 +65 9 - (-1�-(z 1612 A17 ' to N D t � o m ID MATCHLINE STA, 201 +65 3 !b <cmi py g't z -AM -a Z MZ (1 /) A y yQ ymc � z w yam n C n mN �'vR1i =nl�o CNH itn D ?� # —'i N t z 1 It t `. L2 pi _ 202 I lz r F i c, y o r I 9 r y> Mrn A -ly cDia CxC v n-yi (� . III �. D a8a r x � b y Zx O� � AL ~ m �Ifl I CO t .�.. _ m^t 11 "�1 I �m �rmi va �/ t c x m m z t -, `° > y a z y < °-ma z D U • -till mo In rn M. v m v Hz •_ y� L1 -..A A �z a -t r x 22a ) %0 1jj\ i1 �� x m v d zx r t , v -t py2 m -' H 2A A m V `- ``44N l o oo �, t lol Ily` 4l MAPLE LANE _ r= 203 -+ 't fi r Zr A aAI Sfmmi = AO N9 2 r 11 it I qm I OCEANS BLVD ZF yc Y j C SING Wi 4 I I W N H �1 p I=TI W � i 9 CI' 204 o 4� CD �7 }� TINA LANE ----------- - r ►1 , _ r I 205 /7 DO) 5 nl - r-rj - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L�: I MATCHLINE STA. 205 +85 h n � a b tI Ln ON y a > ebb �C Oo5 M. n^O�` ro N T Y O f �1 W N H �1 p I=TI W � i 9 CI' 204 o 4� CD �7 }� TINA LANE ----------- - r ►1 , _ r I 205 /7 DO) 5 nl - r-rj - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L�: I MATCHLINE STA. 205 +85 h b tI a ebb �C < M. O V l �1 A W N H �1 p I=TI W � i 9 CI' 204 o 4� CD �7 }� TINA LANE ----------- - r ►1 , _ r I 205 /7 DO) 5 nl - r-rj - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L�: I MATCHLINE STA. 205 +85 1618 01 A17 Mitchelllan rom: scribner0l@comcast.net ent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:51 PM 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: 2/2/2012 8:51:27 PM. • Would you andlor. any organizations with w>�ioda for are affiliated lienefit `fi'dn decisions or i {Sherwood 5 director/ 7 years ;Sherwood master director 2years� A17 Gradaute of DeVilbiss HS in Toledo 1977. Attended the Cleveland Institute of Art and Toledo University wi maior In Fine Arts . 0 Vork history Artist / illustrator and conceptual artist in strategy planing for worldwide corporation, igital visual Maps for employees. 1996 -2004 Childrens Book illustrator ,17 Books published by R� louse Inc. illustrated in toy and game field creating original paint By numbers and 3D kits for Fundij IN. of General Mills 1980- 1995 Award winner for PBS victory garden design early 1990's. I have a rterest in Native plantings and methods of best practices for Florida. I belong to Florida native plant nd Naples Botanical Gardens. I am currently a professional photographer creating fine art digital he f flora and fauna of Florida . q 0 40 MW�,U i �. lit +aril m ( irilIlit t • +)tnrni4:ittntv-s %mAication for A(i%i.nrti ( onimittee,., B(,ards Natne:_z e-vir y/ 9. Home Phone: .2 3 ,14 Home Add ress:-k6 y't j a H 11 L �,� E k La�� a Zip Code: Fax No. Business Phone: e-mail address:�b$C Place of Etnploynteat: t i' Board or Committee Applied for: —Rikulo Category (if applicable): — Example., Commiuion Distr"Developer, eovironmeumliM Jay pars" a& How long have you lived in Collier County: Years_ f s Months Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes ✓ No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No ✓ If so, what Is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No ✓ if yes, expiate: Do you now serve, or have you ever served, an a Collier County board or committee? Yes t✓ No If yes, please fist the committees/boards: Rozhn Q! ^Uh t TA.) Please list your community activities (civic clubs, nelghborhooA associations, etc. and posid %,h5 L-0 1-ffribikl�f issaw 11 e •{�Ay i� Cf'et.l' Education: TN- VMOwt MymiaAo 5mgL— Otjwg-�my Pfau eeaeei..y od/Wov! bf%� rwj�NPe ew.c TMs eIPP rio.N d<jerweNN>o Sue Fib" Fxoclidw Maswr ro do S-W ojCrrww Cores kAmem 3301 Edw Ttwiewl rmlq It+OPLm PL 31112 Mw wk* Parr jmt your o OMfiow to (1391SS2 -3611 or ewual(ar .�. tir.oN .._v_ J;y. _i. •r. Tbawk you* V#jMj reslat to saw the Mum ojCollirr Couwo� . Board of County Commissioners 3381 East Tamhuni Trait NNpies, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8097 Fax: (239) 252 -3602 .{Application for Advisory Committees/Boards Name• A. z • `t/,� 3� 4 )t$ Home Phone: Home Address..D$ dCt4ntQ iL • Zip Code:_ FAX No. Business Phone 3 s 6s,�, 'e-rnil uddre�s: r5�JG�� ff wa �, Place of Employment~ C87v�, Board or Comnatttee A.pp4ied fo Category (if applicable): i laaampte: C"-do -O D-Tkt, Developer, eav -waUq, LW p...% etc. How long have you lived is Collier County: Year / MMON Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yea No Do you currently hold public office? Yes 1f +b what is that ofllcs? • Have you ever bull convicted of a,ay ogellse against the Law? Yes No 4- � If yes, explatar Do you now serve, or have you ever served, oa a Cdior County board or committee? Yes. No V you, plow list tbo -- mmigas:lboardos — _ • '��OtB1y��'y�/�Ir� 77�b. y�r�} ��/ isjo� +.w.IsdaS.�1°Fbw.,.dksatieh�AG **Aged ofC"UO CMU@JNa"M Vol AWTie.iaw! D" NOV, AM year w4cl qer to (13!),131,!602 areweX tv la+nlc r►xA► � b fsvre aYs etakewr efCNMer Grardt • 161 A17 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. O �?' (FBI T!-;7F° Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive Southlt %? Naples Fl. 34104 BY± ....................... March 19, 2012 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 2012 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 Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle ✓ Coletta The next meeting is April 9, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction a tenance 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 ; Jr-( -x-2112 Item S: um 2 Copies to: 161t A17a Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee s 1%-� 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 13, 2012 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 2:00 p.m. H. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Helen Carella, John Weber, Jerry Parillo County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Scott Windham - Windham Studio, Dale Hannula - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty - Juristaff III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: LV A. Advisory Committee Appointments Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9, 2012 John Weber moved to approve the January 9, 2012 minutes as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report— Gloria Herrera reviewed the following: (See attached) o Operating Expense Open P.O. $84,803.49 o Improvements General Available $240,181.54 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the Current Schedule Projection for the Devonshire Landscape and Irrigation Project: (See attached) o Preconstruction meeting is scheduled on Wednesday (2- 15 -12) o Anticipate NTP February 20`1 o Utility locates were called in by Hannula (on Wednesday 2 -8 -12) 0 140 days of Construction (by Contract) Dale Lewis questioned if the Contractor exceeds the 140 days of Construction what the ramifications would be. Staff replied liquidated damages would be applicable (by the Contractor.) 1 16 a A 17 VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT A. Hannula Pam Lulich relayed the following Maintenance Items (as reported by Manny Gonzalez): • Crown of Thorn are receiving treatments for fungus • Slow blooming Bougainvillea are being sprayed for worms • New time release Fertilizer (8 -2 -12) will be utilized - Fertilizer is sulfur coated to lower the PH around the plants • Incorporating additional Fertilizer around the Royal Palms Phase H -B Plans - Refurbishment Plans (Windham Studio) Staff presented the Plans prepared by Windham Studio for the Circle K area. Dale Lewis expressed dissatisfaction that the Median corrections have not been completed within the 30 days as cited by Manny Gonzalez at the January meeting. Scott Windham responded the Median work delay was due to the following: • The package of Plans is more extensive and outlines - The Plants that will be removed - The location for Plant placement • Extensive field time was required to determine the number of healthy plants (Crown of Thorn) to be preserved (requested by the Committee) Dale Lewis asserted that the Committee should have been notified of the delay so that they were able to provide accurate information to HOA's and the Public. Scott Windham reviewed the proposed Radio Road Median Plans, Plant List, and Planting Refurbishment Plant Photos: (See attached) Sheet No. 2B -9 (page 1) o Transplant (approximately 30) healthy Pink and (approximately 50) Yellow Dinni Crown of Thorn into other areas - Unhealthy plants will be disposed - Gold Mound Lantana will replace the transplanted Crown of Thorn in the center Median - Install Juniper in the east Median Tip Sheet No. 2B -10 (page 2) o Intersection will be filled with Yellow Dinni Crown of Thorn (approximately 100) Sheet No. 2B -11 (page 3) • Muhly Grass will replace the Xanadu • Traveling Eastbound — (Median 21) - Utilize (48) healthy Pink and (30) Yellow Dinni Crown of Thorn transplants - Add Ilex Shillings and Parson's Juniper Sheet No. 2B -12 (page 4) o Remove all Xanadu • Add Silhouette Bougainvillea • Utilize healthy Crown of Thorn transplants 2 1612 'A 17 Sheet No. 2B -13 (Paw ) o West Median Tip - Utilize healthy Pink Cadillac Crown of Thorn transplants to fill in the area (approximately 120) Scott Windham requested a quote from Hannula for the proposed Plant Materials on the Refurbishment Plant List. (See attached) Dale Lewis questioned if areas that were disturbed during the Project will be re- mulched. Scott Windham replied that the existing Mulch will be utilized and subsequently a top dress of Mulch will be applied. Dale Lewis moved to allocate $1 5,000.00 plus or minus 10% Contingency (to Mulch the Project.) Second by Betty Schudel, Discussion ensued on the existing Crown of Thorn and life expectancy for the suggested Plant Materials. After much discussion it was clarified that the Crown of Thorn is not performing as expected and all Crown of Thorn will be removed with the exception of (2) Designed areas: o Healthy Yellow Dinni Crown of Thorn (Median at Sable Dr.) o (1) Tip of Tina Lane (the east end) Note: Healthy Crown of Thorn transplants are included in the (2) Designed areas. John Weber moved to accept the Proposal by Windham Studio (Landscape Plan Phase II -B Radio Road) Second by Jerry Parillo. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Betty Schudel noted that this would be the final attempt to salvage the Crown of Thorn based on the poor performance of the Plant. A vote for the previous motion to approve monies for Mulch was taken: Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Dale Lewis requested the timeframe needed for Hannula to complete the work for Phase II -B Project (after the County procedures are complete.) Staff stated the following timeline: • Contractor quote is required ( Hannula) • Subsequently a P.O. will be issued Gloria Herrera stated the P.O. can be issued promptly after the Contractor quote is received. 3:06 p.m. Jerry Parillo left. After discussion it was concluded that the Project will be complete in 60 days. 3 1612 A17 3:07 p. m. Jerry Parillo returned. B. Windham Studio — Scott Windham reviewed the Monthly Maintenance Report: (See attached) o Replacement of dead Laurel Oak in Median 26 with Live Oak — Status Incomplete Staff requested a quote for the Live Oak Tree replacement Greenway Entry Scott Windham reported the Plans were submitted to FPL - Status pending approval by FPL. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT- Windham Studio A. Devonshire Refurbishment — Previously discussed V. B. VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Advisory Committee Appointments After discussion it was determined that Toni A. Scribner is not eligible to apply for the Radio Road MSTU Committee as she resides in Radio Road East jurisdiction. John Weber moved to recommend (to the Board of County Commissioners for approval) the reappointment of Betty Schudel and Dale Lewis. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:21 p.m. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes ap roved by the Committee on 2— I as presented or amended The next meeting is March 19, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Growth Management Division — Construction & Maintenance 2886 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 0 1612 A17 O W W V 0 Lft A W" W+ O (ND ONO V O O A W N O (O ao V O) N A W N+ O (O OD V O) N A W N+ 10 70 6IAm �oo m� mZ cD 0�m IjN =Z02 9� ;�Gm'� D <?�T m mm ZOO zz m �mDzp nzzc� nT1MOOM22- z(„xxZZ mm4,8D <<T-m1 -mi T� rON c r:U rNn 2m T.DfM .Z�7 m.�nn mm tiro ��TT Zm�� p p NT �� 'mOO2 goa'm G v D nm nsODvnxX. c00x� m m D D co) Cm co cam Dm z mi -i zm zz cn� ��TT �-y-iZ r- � O z z m z X m m � T o K m m m � z N T T m D D O O C X z A o N(n6n c �O M� �r0T� 4z Dc) mm n<��gogo Cc m m 0 n v z O m o Co z z m m Z m m � p m m m Z m 0 p D� D i cc) z D� y m z O O mm p00 D mm� DzW00 �1CrmZ�6mmm mXX m q r D c 0 n m r 0 v D n 0 �� 0 z m r X m n x 0 D o U) n i m r m zm < Cl) m ��mm -i 0 n cn z > 0 11." 119 169169 69 169 169 140 1,9 140169 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69 f9 (9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Nf 6fl 169 f9 f9 69 69 1f91(9 69 f9 69 69 V A A N N+ to V N (n W N N O V N W W (O W N O A N N N N -+ W� N A V V (A M O O U W O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O Cn N O A V N A N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O A A A O A O 0 0 O O O O O U 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O Cn N cn O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N O N O O O 0 0000 A O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O A A A O A O f9169 69 1 e 169 1 f Icn 1 to 169 f9 f9 f9 69 f9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 v 1140169169 60 69 69 69 A Li. f9 fn f9 1l. A EA N N 00 co O m N N O O O W N O O O O O O O O W m O 4) O n 169 1691(0 691(9169 W O O O O O O O A 69 69 69 69 V— V W QI A W (n O O m W O (n N A O A W O O O O O A W V (D W O O v O O A (D v A ID W (o w (0 O Cn 0. W C. CD CD CD (D � i i O O W J D) W co O v W N N (D W W W W W W O 00 W W W W A W W W A O A N A ? O O O J O O O O O N C7 W N N N (D y O N (D fD flJ (D C T (D CD M A (O S 0 N D). N. 7 3 (� ? y S N r 3 Y) to ffl 69 69 69 fA fn 69,69 69 69 40 49 69 69 69 1&) f9 f9 69 f9 69 69 (fl 0) _ N O) � N V N OD —.!LA) W W fb A W V N N OD — N W 00 W N O O N N W W m 0 (n t0 W (n O N OD O O V N O W W W O W V O (D O O (n V N W O O O 0 0 0 O E9 14A 169 69 60 69 69 f9 69 69 69 69 69 69 V) 6A f9 f9 69 69 69 W W W NA < N O O m W� 0 3 m Q p 3 m V O O O O A W V (D W (O N n N 0 N 0 0 (D N 00 O0 tN 0 m • O C. CD CD CD (D � A A A A A A A A A A A N A A A A A A V O O 9 V A W N N (D W W W W W W O 00 W W W W A W W W A O A N A ? O D) W (o Cn m N O O N U N (2 W V W Q) W n N A D) 6) V A 0 N A oD W A D -ml M i N C7 W N N N (D y O N (D fD flJ (D C T (D CD M A (O S 0 N D). N. 7 3 (� ? y S N r 3 Diu a ! 2 > ; < N 3�0 _. m d 0 3 m Q p 3 m <y T N N N N (n C CD CD O m m O O 00 U ca � D) D) N D) D) w (O N n N 0 N 0 0 (D N 3 m 7) m • r O+ CON) CD CD CD (D � A A A A A A A A A A A N A A A A A A N (J) (n N N m N N N (J) N O N N N V (n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o_ o_ o_ o_ 0 0 0 0 O O O_ O O_ C) 9 � W N N (D W W W W W W O 00 W W W W A W W W A O A N 0 O D) W (o Cn m N O O N U N (2 W V W Q) W n N A D) 6) V A 0 N A oD W A D -ml M i N C7 W N N N (D y O N (D fD flJ (D C T (D CD M A (O S 0 N D). N. 7 3 (� ? y S N r 3 ID O C= -O -Op C N (D (gyp S d S n CD N W N C W W W A C) W N V 4 O) J a O O O (n O Cn (n O N W W O O 3 c � t 3 n N N 691(9 6n (9 69 69169 a 3 CD 7 a Co a 0 O 3 3 3 (D 7 i 69 69 69 (A (A �a v 0 to C 7 7 7 7 7 y O. r (n fn � M N W Cn 3 3 3 3 m m mm� cn CD CD d O j O a A y 69 69 69 (A (A m m o 5' z ro < c < D m m m O D r r CD A N w W N 40 W N (O A Oo O) fA OU) W U t0 I-4 0) N N D) D) 0 v 0 to C 7 7 7 7 7 y O. r (n fn N cL S ('p N W Cn 3 3 3 3 m m mm� cn CD CD d >> o o > ID m a c c (D -a aaaa o y y �. Cn O N W T N N N N (n C CD CD O m m O O 00 U ca � D) D) N D) D) w (O N n N 0 N 0 0 (D N 3 O W O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O+ CON) CD CD CD (D A A A A A A A A A A A N A A A A A A N (J) (n N N m N N N (J) N O N N N V (n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o_ o_ o_ o_ 0 0 0 0 O O O_ O O_ C) 9 O 00 00 W N N (D W W W W W W O 00 W W W W A W W W A O A N A m A O A A O N N O U 0(D O O O V "" W O O W A N A M N A A W V N W O D) W (o Cn m N O O N U N (2 W V W Q) W n N A D) 6) V A 0 N A oD W A D -ml M N C7 W N N N (D y O N (D fD flJ (D C T (D CD M A (O S 0 N D). N. 7 3 (� ? y S N N .0... v. N N N (D ID O C= -O -Op C N (D (gyp S d S n CD N W N W W W W A C) W N V 4 O) J a O O O (n O Cn (n O N W W O O N A N A V (D 00 0 0 O O O O O O V Cn 00 W O O D N OD 0 0 C) O O O A N O A O O Cn O N V W N A A Cl i W CO 0 0 0 0 O j O O O V O O O N O N O W+ A O O O O O O O O O O CO (o A O A O V O U W m m o 5' z ro < c < D m m m O D r r CD A N w W N 40 W N (O A Oo O) fA OU) W U t0 I-4 0) N N D) D) 0 v 0 to C 7 7 7 7 7 y O. r (n fn N cL S ('p N W Cn 3 3 3 3 m m mm� cn CD CD d >> o o > ID m a c c (D -a aaaa o y y �. Cn O N W T N N N N (n C CD CD O m m O O 00 U ca � D) D) N D) D) w (O N n N 0 N 0 0 (D N 3 O W O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O+ CON) CD CD CD (D A A A A A A A A A A A N A A A A A A N (J) (n N N m N N N (J) N O N N N V (n N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o_ o_ o_ o_ 0 0 0 0 O O O_ O O_ C) 9 O 00 00 W N N (D W W W W W W O 00 W W W W A W W W A O A N A m A O A A O N N O U 0(D O O O V "" W O O W A N A M N A A W V N W D) W (o Cn m N O O N U N (2 W V W Q) W n N A D) 6) V A 0 N A oD W A D -ml M N C7 W N N N (D y O N (D fD flJ (D C T (D CD M (O S 0 N D). N. 7 3 (� ? y S N N .0... v. N N N (D ID O C= -O -Op C N (D (gyp S d S n CD N v— -0 3 3 v 3 m 3 C o (D wynPi�Z ��v? a. A. CO y o Z (o O 0 (o rn C y o -o O N (D N co 3 7 K O N 7 N O) Cl) 7 O n 7 _d y S O) 3 OD O to @ 7 fD N A Q CD V CD O 0 u G LD' S (D I'll f9 69 69 6o 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 "'69 69 69 69 69 6A w fn _ N ((D N oo W A W OD V N N N O A m W A (n W A co N O O co `4 O J O J J O W cD O ") O (n W O (n A O N U V O A <D O Cn N O O m O OD A 8�1 O U OD O CD A O O V O 0 D) © O O (D f9 f9 W (9 69 (n W (9 (9 W W 6, W E9 ffl 69 69 69 69 69 (9 69 G Q 3 Z CID °a w cn CD OD N Cl) C C W Cn A A m m (n O A N V N N Cn O O O W A V O N N O co N O) ow d W O N U Cn O O O O N O N Cn O N W C U W O O W O O O O w O W A V O W O W O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O+ CON) Q 3 Z CID °a w cn CD OD N Cl) C 16 1 A 17 RADIO ROAD MSTU - RICH KING MEMORIAL GREENWAY; BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT FPL - CORPORATE REAL ESTATE - WEST AREA Right of Way Consent Process STEP - 1 STEP - 2 STEP - 3 STEP - 4 S. 1612' A17 MAINTENANCE AND STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee CC Darryl Richard, Pamela Lulich Collier County ATM From: Scott Windham Date: March 19, 2012 RE: Radio Road Monthly Maintenance Report, Devonshire Status, Medians 19 -23 Status and Greenway Entry Status 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 maintenance action items. It also contains status updates for the Medians 19 -23 Planting Refurbishment and Greenway Entry FPL application. Upon field review, in general, the project areas look healthy and well maintained. A few observations are as follows: MAINTENANCE: • Hannula sprayed the Firebush for Aphids with Bandit (Merrit) in median 15. • WSI directed Hannula to cut off irrigation in median 15 for Crown of Thorns and Bougainvillea. • Hannula is had soil tests done from medians 15 -20 and water tests which is being evaluated by Pam and Scott for Fertilizer adjustments. • Hannula would like spray Atrizine for the broad leaf weeds in the turf. WSI to discuss with Pam, but feel it's too warm for the spray. • Hannula is to continue selectively pruning the tall canes on the Euphorbias to tighten up the plants as a lower foliage mass. • GENERAL DIRECTIVE: Hannula is to cut water to the Crown of Thorns and Bougainvillea throughout entire roadway to the greatest extent possible with the exception of a few areas with zone overlap with turf. • Continue to regularly pick up dead fronds from medians • Remove Magnolia stakes • Replace a few Ms Alice White Bougs with Silhouette where they do not match • Remove remaining Cabbage Palm stakes • Hannula pointed out two PVC stakes in the median tip pavers by the circle K which may be trip hazard. WSI to look into function with staff. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 P.O. Box 1239, Bonita Springs, Florida 34133 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 161e- A17 1 DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD REFURBISHMENT: • Hannula trimmed back all of the Viburnum hedges and removed them between Santa Barbara Blvd and Belville. (There are no Comcast or Century Link utilities in this area) • Hannula, WSI and staff met with Century link to discuss utilities locates parameters and to strategize the final demolition of the Viburnum and Mahoganies because the locates show the Comcast and Century Link lines running right beneath the Viburnum and Mahoganies. Hannula used an air spade to attempt to expose the utilities for a better understanding of their depth and alignment. When I left the meeting, no lines were unearthed at a 24 -30 depth. • It was proposed by Hannula to flush cut the Viburnum shrubs and then grind the stumps with a small grinder in order to not disturb the roots which may be wrapped around utility cables down low. This will be done to a sufficient depth to accommodate planting the Asian Jasmine. • Mahogany removal will begin on Mon, 3/16 starting at Santa Barbara moving south. MEDIANS 19 -23 REFURBISHMENT STATUS: Hannula started the median planting refurbishment project on 3/12 and should be 100% as of this meeting. The transplanted Euphorbias and Xanadus moved well and we are hoping for success. Better Roads will be milling and striping Radio Road from Livingston Road to Airport Road beginning Sunday March 18th, 2012, 6 pm. The work should last 2 weeks. All irrigation in this area will be shut off at night (6:00pm- 6:00am). RICH KING GREENWAY ENTRANCE (FPL Application): • WSI completed the FPL application, revised the plans and emailed them to county staff to submit to FPL for review and evaluation. We are now waiting for their response. They are allowed up to 6 weeks to process the application. Please email or call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect LA000 -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 @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 2 70 1612 � Q18 Z440 fZaid Est M.S.T.U. Ak," Cao*. � 2885 5. H a 1l1' t Nom, Ft 34104 Minutes February 1, 2012 MAR " 4 N ti C I. Call Meeting to Order BY-.— The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:02 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 —t,✓ Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn — Juristaff Fiala Hiller Henning III. Approval of Agenda Coyle ✓ Add: V. Referendum Results and renumber balancC,016tgennda items VIII. B. Cecil's Postcard Estimates Tom Depouw moved to approve the Agenda for February 2, 2012 as amended. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 4, 2012 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approve the January 4, 2012 Minutes as presented. Second by Renato Fernandez. Change: V.B. Design Plan 4LP107, last sentence, from "scathe that height" to "stay at that height" Sue Chapin amended the motion to approve the (January 4, 2012) Minutes with page 2 stating under Dayna Fendricks responded there are varieties that would "stay at that height" rather than "scathe that height." Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion Miwi ales: unanimously 5 -0. 1 t2 Date:J (2-. Z item* 1 ln-rz 2 TA V 1 Copies to: 1612 A18 V. Referendum Results The ballot question on the Radio Road East Municipal Services Taxing Unit area to obtain a loan from one of the local financial institutions on the Presidential Preference Primary Election had passed. Dale Johnson congratulated the Advisory Committee and Staff on the referendum results. Public presentation meetings held at various developments were instrumental in getting the referendum passed. VI. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report — Addressed after VI. B. B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard distributed a draft "Radio Road East MSTU Taxable Value, Ad Valorem Extension Projections and O &M" spreadsheet provided by Mark Isackson. (See attached) A conference call was received from Commissioner Henning. He congratulated the Advisory Committee and inquired what he and the Finance Department could do to assist further. Michelle Arnold recommended obtaining bids from the banks for the loans and project bids to identify costs simultaneously. If the project bids are less than required, they will borrow less and if project bids are more the project will have to be scaled back. Tom Depouw asked Commissioner Henning why the County charges the MSTU for ROW lane closures, when the MSTU is already taxing them to make the County look better. Michelle Arnold noted the issue would require a "Waiver of Fee Submittal" directed to the BCC for approval for waiving it. She stated all the MSTU's pay for the ROW lane closures and share the same feelings. After further discussion, it was decided a "Waiver of Fee Submittal" will be submitted to the BCC for reduced ROW Lane Closure Fees. Commissioner Henning recommended the Advisory Committee write him a letter requesting the MSTU only be charged the actual cost for the ROW Permit. Tom Depouw moved Dale Johnson draft a letter to the BCC in regards to the permit fees; as the Advisory Committee feels they are excessive. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Staff will bid project out and submit the 100% Design Plans to ROW for permitting this week. (See attached) It was noted an adjustment in the Bid Schedule would be made for Median 9 and kept in the plan as (NIC) not in contract. 2 1612 a18 Staff will confirm schedule and utility ROW Permit with Dayna Fendrick. Advisory Committee requested Staff provide a schedule projection. A. Budget Report Gloria Herrera distributed the Radio Road East MSTU - Fund 166 Report dated January 4, 2012. (See attached) • Ad Valorem Tax Available - $125,555.76 • Operating Expense Available - $35,196.12 • Reserves Available - $131,900.00 It was noted the Budget Amendment will be made at the time of the loan. Tom Depouw suggested the loan be setup as a "Draw" rather than borrowing money all at one time only to deposit in the bank and pay interest on money not currently being utilized. Staff will research. VII. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design — Urban Green Studio Dayna Fendrick reported receiving comments from the County Engineers on the Design Plan and will provide responses. Staff will review Specifications shown on page LP601. Pam Lulich will provide fertilizer analysis and application rates. Darryl Richard recommended submitting a ROW Permit, costing $1,200 41,500, at this time Urban Green will provide alternate line items for a 6" and 12" crown on filler in the medians. Staff reviewed the following steps to proceed: ➢ Respond to ROW feedback. ➢ Urban Green to finalize plans. ➢ Apply for ROW Permit. ➢ ROW Permit completed in 2 weeks. ➢ Request Utility Variance, if required. ➢ Prepare Bid Documents ➢ Project out to bid Sue Chapin moved to authorize expenditure, not to exceed $3,000, for the required permitting fees in order to send the project to bid. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 Dayna Fendrick provided the Radio Road East MSTU Opinion of Probable Cost dated January 30, 2012. (See attached) VIII. New Business None IX. Old Business 3 X. A. Liaison Report —Radio Road MSTU 16112 No report at this time. B. Cecil's Postcard Estimates Sue Chapin expressed her dissatisfaction with the timing of the service delivered by Cecil's Copy Express. A copy of Cecil's Copy Express Estimate dated December 20th and an invoice dated January 18' were provided. (See attached) The postcard mailing was to be mailed out by January 13 and was sent in error to different mailing addresses by Cecil's and not mailed until January 18. She stated the timing was critical to early voting. Staff reported on January 13, Cecil's mailed out the postcard to the wrong taxing district. It was then mailed to the right district on January 18. Sue Chapin moved because of the mistakes made by Cecil's Staff negotiate a reduction of $310 be made on Cecil's Copy Express invoice. Second by Renato Fernandez. Discussion was made on the dollar amount to be negotiated. Tom Depouw moved Staff negotiate a 50% - 25% reduction on the invoice amount. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Public Comments None 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 These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on 2 as presented or amended X The next meeting is March 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 1612A18 RADIO ROAD EAST MSTU REFERENDUM Yes (For Bonds) Si (a favor de los Bonos) 679 (71.62 %) No (Against Bonds) No (No en favor de los Bonos) 269 (28.37 %) v a y 161 ?_ A16 v �o x { N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N r 00 r Y r r r Y r r r 0 to 00 V o1 to A w N Y 0 T 1A N { fD T T T T T T T T T T T T N N N N Y r Y r r Y r r Y N r O to OD V 01 V1 A W N r < C d C D -i A A W W W w W W W W W W N W r lD 11 to W N Y Y N W +� d W V N (n 00 lD 00 O O O o Y w to N tD V1 to 0) r r Ol Y 00 O O �D tD Orn 00 In Ln to 01 V O A 00 A A Ot Ol A O O V to A w 00 Y to r V o w w V 00 Y m rn w w tD 00 w w to 00 x Q: w fl. Q1 0 O Cl Cl O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 rp UY to to In to In In In to A A A �7 O O O O O o O O O m m A O O O O 0 � O 0 0 0 0 rn 0) m x a m (D < :3 v () N N r r Y Y Y r r Y Y Y r O tD 00 V Ql Ql Ln Ul l!1 U'I V7 In to U'1 01 V tD O �l V O 00 W O O o O O O O pO o O O pN C O 0 x to rD N � d rD ; C C Y Y (D W W W W iD in 0 tD lD Ln iD V fD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O D Ul Q 0 C O d M O x � N r r r r r Y Y Y Y r r fD O tD W V M M to A A A In A H 3 00 O N tD tD N O In tD i--s 00 O (n In tD Y Y 00 W Ln j m 005000000000 X CD C) D 3 H m 0 Dv N O 1 N Y r Y Y Y r N Y r r r (D 0 O tD 00 V V Qt Cn to A to A n V V V 00 O N A O A t' 00 fD f'f o Y V 00 W N A V V N 00 O N A Ol 00 A O A 0 C. 00 N to O• C = ( Q Ln G 0) (D N c D fD p 7 7 N N C Q r r Y Y Y Y Y Y r Y Y Y v 0 8 ogo0 � a) to 0 o�� 7C n rfl Z3 a F), D ru V V V V V V V V V m p J 00 00 0 00 00 90 00 00 W In D C V V V V V V V V V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O O Q Ro 00 0o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q1 to V In In n Cn Cn In O SO O O lD O ppO O O O O OO pO O O O co O O O O O O O O O O O w o m C w O Q i0 0o A:Al cNn Ori 00 J N. al N O 01 K T O r o V ow w 0 Ln -tn Ln * -j 0 N A 01 00 A C) m 0 0 W N 00 w 4- w CL O d CO N r V to W N N Qt N �4 In V V A M N N CO O r Ql 0 0 0 00 W l0 00 aC3` n .� w N r A O w A to A 0o .L2 (D Y tD to lD r V V W w w O P,6010 ROAD EAST MSTU Opinion of probable Cost 30- Jan -12 1612 A18 Key Botanical Name Common Name S edfliication Quanta Unit Unit Cast $ Total compacted to 3" finished depth. $ 53,260 Roc -Kloth #RK WHT -4300, overlap fabric 12" at edges 7 77,958 S SF $ DeWitt #APBs 6" x 1" x 6 ", 11 gauge T TBD by Contractor Model #95340 Master Mark Terrace Board 5 5,213 L TREES Pro -Euc Mulch by Forestry Resources 2 CF bags, 3" min. watered -in depth, all planting bed 1 15,217 B BAGS $ areas (30,421 co Tri- Circle Paver #671106 (Caramel /Antique Concrete unit pavers, roadway Red /Charcoal) or equal, Herringbone pattern at 45 9 992 S SF $ 16 -18' ht, 8 -10' spr, 6' CT, 6" cat, FG, single trunk, full #114606 (Antique Red/Yellow /Charcoal) or equal. BS Bursera simaruba Gumbo Limbo balanced head, structurally sound branching habit. FL #1 grade does not apply. See more detailed specs on 52 EA $ 400 $ 20,800 detail A4. CD Coccoloba diversifolia Pigeon Plum 12 -14' ht, 6 -7' spr, 6' CT, 3" cal, FG, full head 30 EA $ 350 $ 10,500 CE Conocarpus erectus "sericeus" Silver Buttonwood 10 -12' ht, 6 -7' spr, multi -trk, min 5 trunks, full head .28 EA $ 150 $ 4,200 PALMS CA Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm 25 gal, 34 ht, single trunk 24 EA $ 350 $ 8,400 PS Pseudophoenix sargentii Buccaneer Palm 25 gal, 6 -7' ht, heavy trunk, matching form 19 EA $ 500 $ 9,500 RR Roystonea regia Royal Palm 8 -10' gw, 22 -25' oa ht, heavy trunk, full head 42 EA $ 400 $ 16,800 TM Thrinax morrissii Key Thatch Palm 25 gal, 4-5 ht, double trunk,full 25 EA $ 250 $ 6,250 TR Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm 25 gal, 6 -7' ht, single trunk, full 35 EA $ 200 $ 7,000 ACCENTS BRA Bromeliad Aechmea Blanchettiana Orange Bromeliad 3 gal, 15 "x15 ", spaced as shown 42 EA $ 20 $ 840 BRI Bromeliad Alcantarea Imperial Imperial Bromeliad 3 gal, 15 "x15 ", spaced as shown 12 EA $ 50 $ 600 BRF Bromeliad Neoregelia'Fireball' Fireball Bromeliad 1 gal, 9 "x9", spaced as shown 94 EA $ 10 $ 940 BRJ Bromeliad Neoregelia'Jill' Jill Bromeliad 1 gal, 9 "x9", spaced as shown 50 EA $ 10 $ 500 BRS Bromeliad Neoregelia 'Super Fireball' Super Fireball Bromeliad 1 gal, 9 "x9", spaced as shown 24 EA $ 8 $ 192 STR Strelitzia reginae Orange Bird of Paradise 3 gal, 18 "x18 ", as shown 16 EA $ 12 $ 192 SHRUBS BHJ Bougainvillea "Helen Johnson" Dwarf Bougainvillea 3 gal, 14 "x14 ", 3 'oc 1025 EA $ 9 $ 9,225 MUC Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass 3 gal, 18 "x14 ", 4' oc 445 EA $ 8 $ 3,560 SAM Sabal minor Blue -stem Palmetto 15 gal, 34 ht, as shown 31 EA $ 150 $ 4,650 SRS Serenoa repens "sericeus" Silver Saw Palmetto 7 gal, 24 "x24 ", full, 5' o.c. 149 EA $ 50 $ 7,450 ZAP Zamia pumila Florida Coontie 3 gal, 15 "x15 ", 3' oc 1204 EA $ 20 $ 24,080 GROUNDCOVER ERL Ernodea littoralis Golden Creeper 1 gal, 9 "x15 ", 30" oc 2831 EA $ 4 $ 11,324 HED Helianthus debilis "Dune Supreme" Beach Dune Sunflower 1 gal, 9 "x15", 24" oc 2445 EA $ 4 $ 9,780 HYL Hymenocallis latifolia Spider Lily 3 gal, 15 "x15 ", T oc 1916 EA $ 9 $ 17,244 MIS Mimosa strigillosa Sunshine Mimosa 1 gal, 4 "x12 ", 30" oc 968 EA $ 4 $ 3,872 TRA Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine 1 gal, 6 "x12 ", 24" oc 6213 EA $ 4 $ 24,852 Subtotal $ 202,751 MISCELLANEOUS Crushed Shell IFilter Fabric Anchor Pins Landscape Edging Mulch Pro -Euc Mulch Pavers, added where not existing Crushed and washed, free of dust and sand, 1/2" $ 43,775 minus, by Superior Stone or Florida Aggregate Source, 4 425 T TON $ or approved equal. Shell to be raked smooth and $ 6,516 compacted to 3" finished depth. $ 53,260 Roc -Kloth #RK WHT -4300, overlap fabric 12" at edges 7 77,958 S SF $ DeWitt #APBs 6" x 1" x 6 ", 11 gauge T TBD by Contractor Model #95340 Master Mark Terrace Board 5 5,213 L LF $ Pro -Euc Mulch by Forestry Resources 2 CF bags, 3" min. watered -in depth, all planting bed 1 15,217 B BAGS $ areas (30,421 co Tri- Circle Paver #671106 (Caramel /Antique Concrete unit pavers, roadway Red /Charcoal) or equal, Herringbone pattern at 45 9 992 S SF $ degree angle. Border: Tri Circle Soldier Course #114606 (Antique Red/Yellow /Charcoal) or equal. 103.00 $ 43,775 0.40 $ 31,183 1.25 $ 6,516 3.50 $ 53,260 7.25 $ 7,192 Site Preparation & Grading Per details & contract ocuments, ro o- i ing o 175,268 SF $ 0.10 $ 17,527 depth Additional Fill 6" Median Crown 414 CY $ 20.00 $ 8,280 Mobilization Per FDOT guidelines 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 Maintenance of Traffic Per contract & FDOT guidelines 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 Performance & Payment Bond 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500 As- Built/Record Drawings 1 LS $ 1,200 $ 1,200 Subtotal $ 190,433 RRIGA71ON See Breakdown attached Subtotal $ 261,191 A. BASE BID TOTAL $ 654,375 10% Contingency $ 65,437 BASE BID GRAND TOTAL $ 719,812 Additional Fill Bid Alt 12" Median Crown 409 CY $ 20.00 $ 8,180 BID ALT TOTAL $ 662,555 10% Contingency $ 66,255 BID ALT GRAND TOTAL $ 728,810 RRIGA71ON See Breakdown attached Subtotal $ 261,191 A. BASE BID TOTAL $ 654,375 10% Contingency $ 65,437 BASE BID GRAND TOTAL $ 719,812 Additional Fill Bid Alt 12" Median Crown 409 CY $ 20.00 $ 8,180 BID ALT TOTAL $ 662,555 10% Contingency $ 66,255 BID ALT GRAND TOTAL $ 728,810 W N N N N N N N N N N > > > >» » 3 O W W V M C" A W N" O W W V M C" -;N- W N" O W W V M CT D- W M Mm DD mm chi =0 v � O �DOXmDD <mm�r� mm< zMM z D0 DOcnm � D� m �,Zo cn �< -<wU) zm�� o ��< cnmm�ncn 0 mmo m mO 0m z`-� �D`m cmn m mcmnOOmm mom= < cn mm cn ; cm G�°' nQ 0 mU)�� cn�zor� �n Ozz rz m� cn M- -a Z,��J��;v� �X�000 nZ ZU)U) c Dm �U) �� v m Cnm > >00 c�zZmm >z �n-u z �0 z� Z IT10 pp�D �OmZ�� Dz O� O zm� 0� omXT�mmmDX r- C) �J c W zzOD m��mX � C U � m M 49 49 49 49 49 {A 49 49 4fl 4f9 4fl 4fl 49 404 4 4 4 9 4 4 4fl EA 4 G 4 G EA 49 49 49 4A 49 49 49 b9 ffl 3 N C N W N N N Cn � N � � ()1 Cn C2 W 00 -4 -A W O W J V (D N v Cfl N 00 00 to Q (D W— CD CD CD Cn Cn W W O W -4 V Cn O V v N N CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn O O O Cn Cn C31 O Cal O O O' Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O CO CD (D O CO O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 O O O CJ1 CJ1 Cn O Cn O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O 00 co 0000 O 00 O O O 49 49 49 4.9 49 49 49 40 4fl 40 49 4fl 4A 4fl fig 4fl 1W vw 4fl 4fl 4fl 4fl 4 G 69 49 69 49 ffl -09 -69 0 O 3 i O i i N i O i CA O O d7 69 4fl 49 49 49 49 49 40 49 40 49 49 49 H9 fi9 69 4fl 4R 4fl 4fl 4fl 4fl 4 G tq 4fl GG 4fl 4 G 4 G 4fl m x m D -� N N N Q W N N O n Cn CP rt= W -4 W to N 00 -4 0) O Cn C Cfl -P� Cn 00 W O CA CC) V �I CO j CJ1 i � O i i i V CO O i O v O i i i i i O i Cn CO i Cn N C) .!A N � W O O v N C " -I N N O O .P A O N— cn O O 4fl H9 4fl 09 49 49 49 4fl 49 fA 49 w 69 49 49 49 49 4fi 1401 4fl 464 4fl 4fl 4fl ffl 69 4A 4A 4fl 4fl 4 G W 1 WIVI�IV Cfl N W N O O 1 Co O Cn CO �I J O W cn O Cn N 00 Cn O Cn O O O v O O m tD CO O CC) O O O �J O O O W Cn O Cn O O h m O O O V w O m O W N Cn N CO J (fl D O °f rr N � � 0) Cn CO W � N Cn O A F T (D fl. cr O c Qa� Z m O A) N CY) O N � c W aD W— N O O cn CO M— O N W M cn O O O O m-Chl 0 0 co O O O Cn Cn CO O O W O O O W C31 OD O O -� O O O 00 00 0 00 N W 1 WIVI�IV Cfl N W N O O 1 Co O Cn CO �I J O W cn O Cn N 00 Cn O Cn O O O v O O m tD CO O CC) O O O �J O O O W Cn O Cn O O h m O O O V w O m O W N Cn N CO J (fl D O °f rr N � � 0) Cn CO W � N Cn O A F T (D fl. cr O c Qa� Z m O A) N CY) O N � c O 0 D n: T O E• 3 fA N N D �1 OD x 0 Z O O x O v, CD CL '. a w 3 m W E M N N 0 m fD W W V 7 G ;° y < 3 fD m a) 3 CL CD O v m d X r 3 O 7 3 m X CD (o y (D O W A t0 00 O 1+ to Efl V O O O Cn W 00 T T T T v N N 1 T T N O T COO OOo N 5H CD CD CD a w w w N (D (D (D D w a cr (D W A O .a A (D to C) w C) -a N 4A CD V C1 O l31 4A N CO co V O 161P A18 N i W < w o cD z w 0) O_ O O A W W V N 01 8 N w CT O CA (O O— O CC) O X CD (o y (D O W A t0 00 O 1+ to Efl V O O O Cn W 00 T T T T v N N 1 T T N O T COO OOo N 5H CD CD CD a w w w N (D (D (D D w a cr (D W A O .a A (D to C) w C) -a N 4A CD V C1 O l31 4A N CO co V O 161P A18 O N N X Q 0 A 0 v a m v < C w z ` Z 0< U TI a) 'L' N CD CD N fA y' C 0 7 IUD CD N v cn C2 CD ,nOp� 0 p Z � 0 3 Z n :3 CD CD o m NCA N Cll — (nfflmr�C�� w CD m v CD m y 3 c = y 0. N :: w o v, D v v go cn CT CD m l< < o c�D -n 7 N CD 7 O N N — CA CD 3 3 v cn cn cn cn Cn Cn 0 0 0 0 D O D N (D W W W (D W w " o cn cn o rn o O CO — W v EA to EA EA EA EA EA fA fA fA fA EA fA fA CD cn N � w O .A co O O O A EA EA W EA EA W 69 {A H9 EA EA EA {A EA s su Q Cn CO �I Cn Cn O O v O O O A N O � O O N N X Q 0 A 0 v a m v ' "• SANTA BARBARA BLVD , Q., �.. 5°A o m O..• ' pt�T.rn yr -D-I = r •r — - m , r • PLANTATION t^ . � 't 2i e D O•;'s '/' rz.d,4 X11 C 3 � - y Y I •:Y J 3k �..- � •. p y _1111 Ly W i+• �p w ; � SABAL LAKE Mv- rn D r a p �por' :Y3 D 7 -71 Z v, . C M D q D m o, ML2 r _or > Z ml J�w ,A y z SAN ARV DRNf N ...� - MADISON PARK BLVD I / .. Z ` ZIx -' co o 1 N m m m D �s v O _z Z. 4 Sir RI NDOD LANE o m _ '•T lift D n . Z to 0 C , le a m x z - r X m N °z �t w? rn y`w,ar in• �,w�.� its ,� o w m i z C) � P S = Z m O� V7 D � W 3 Ln r rn C) �o r OD 7v p0 Z � 0 Z v �Z3 —DI = Iw,D W Ozv�i fn ,--L pZO D D mv=rn � Z mvm D 70 wNp�� NN >—Ip SrV)D� n T D r�i OAO N�.3.C: e .1"i�°v r Z Z ont� D Z rn 3 Dim � �3 rn �a z o� S 3 � 3 O m z Z � rn rn Lf) 1612 A18 n c I O 3 w r v � ,� �, ;•. a e�7 : 8/1 � ; a o G emo S�m� 3N�a °no�v '-I�n za•,+sn oor,_ni Q nrnz v °� vp � ` gV�� g ��W i = TNZ� °1��0o "AWno'� gm �yo"gy' /�. Ypn Fi py�Z rm�Z wmp� ��D`. A�vCRI Yp33� 1n'fn-C3 WInTC� � l 1 as ni .`.,cAe� Sm`°�z wa?z $omIG $i�� W O 1n O ti O Lf iv C V��z WCP� mm��ppy^ ° pZ °NOm r rt °�+s °ylm2 J2 r p M cD t�N �p$iti o T� 3 v o 1 A G rn > rn rn D rn 0 p m 2 �w0D 0 s m 7 zwgz F (,Dw n0 in YI Y m 0 °n (D n v 2) O 0 00 Lf -n C O � O z H rn O 5� rn V I G G G G v - EA 000000000O1O1L"L" o m W N O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K Z� p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z� m G7 G7 G7 Ll L7 .,n ,n Gl G7 .n G7 G] Ll G7 U, W Ln W O Ln (n w O X .�. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L-� Pn•� n L� n nn �T nn nn .-I. .�. .�- � •:.i � .-I. .'�. .�. � .-i. .�. .�. � D �' D D � D D D D D � D D � D y a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m�� m m m m m m m m z z z z z z z z z z z z z z m m m m m m m In v v v v v�� •v �� v Z� D O v v v v� t v v v v v O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N M 0 � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zz C m m � ^� D Z � O O Z (D o Q X W xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x° � Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X85 d X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X °o 0 0 S>_ O D Z � p n r) Lrl D.. rn � D� Z O D � z 7o D � D � D O Z O z V) D W m � � n v D O O rn rD^ V �1 V ■ ■ C ■ rn w � O N W r � cD t�N �p$iti o T� 3 v o 1 A G rn > rn rn D rn 0 p m 2 �w0D 0 s m 7 zwgz F (,Dw n0 in YI Y m 0 °n (D n v 2) O 0 00 Lf -n C O � O z H rn O 5� rn V I G G G G v - EA 000000000O1O1L"L" o m W N O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K Z� p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z� m G7 G7 G7 Ll L7 .,n ,n Gl G7 .n G7 G] Ll G7 U, W Ln W O Ln (n w O X .�. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L-� Pn•� n L� n nn �T nn nn .-I. .�. .�- � •:.i � .-I. .'�. .�. � .-i. .�. .�. � D �' D D � D D D D D � D D � D y a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m�� m m m m m m m m z z z z z z z z z z z z z z m m m m m m m In v v v v v�� •v �� v Z� D O v v v v� t v v v v v O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N M 0 � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zz C m m � ^� D Z � O O Z (D o Q X W xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x° � Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X85 d X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X °o 0 0 S>_ O D Z � p n r) Lrl D.. rn � D� Z O D � z 7o D � D � D O Z O z V) D W m � � n v D O O rn rD^ V �1 V ■ ■ C ■ rn D rn 0 p m 2 �w0D 0 s m 7 zwgz F (,Dw n0 in YI Y m 0 °n (D n v 2) O 0 00 Lf -n C O � O z H rn O 5� rn V I G G G G v - EA 000000000O1O1L"L" o m W N O O O O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K Z� p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z� m G7 G7 G7 Ll L7 .,n ,n Gl G7 .n G7 G] Ll G7 U, W Ln W O Ln (n w O X .�. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D L-� Pn•� n L� n nn �T nn nn .-I. .�. .�- � •:.i � .-I. .'�. .�. � .-i. .�. .�. � D �' D D � D D D D D � D D � D y a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m�� m m m m m m m m z z z z z z z z z z z z z z m m m m m m m In v v v v v�� •v �� v Z� D O v v v v� t v v v v v O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z N M 0 � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Zz C m m � ^� D Z � O O Z (D o Q X W xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x° � Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X85 d X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X °o 0 0 S>_ O D Z � p n r) Lrl D.. rn � D� Z O D � z 7o D � D � D O Z O z V) D W m � � n v D O O rn rD^ V �1 V ■ ■ C ■ 0 S>_ O D Z � p n r) Lrl D.. rn � D� Z O D � z 7o D � D � D O Z O z V) D W m � � n v D O O rn rD^ V �1 V ■ ■ C ■ d a6 ax 3 Z rn n �o n p 70 � O D< D �a� o Z N� o m os ohm 8o m u� n ° m rs �o O t3 , �G v z D 0 r V) TI oD D 3 C z z 0 x o � 0 0 z zLn o D m S Z v m O a m y FiS � O A � � ti 3 � � A �n � T � $ � A 3 A v� ➢ 1 m p � � � H 3 in v1 Z W. ti H A N R n n O A m� 5 4 1O g g n g= a d g R_ a n n n u z z z n 3 e a R S a _ -� sr oEr T dad = a a 91 T N@ 3 F O vi 4 3! a O tt a° 3 3 F o n n 3 D Z v m z 0 1612 A7R II i m at I I � > z zae x I X \ m •off II F I In � Z m cZi II i I rn I y 'i i ii I I I I, o I i I'� I II. ' j I 1 TT �,I ,• I I �y I I I J z �IIII x i � � I `I I III •' ` � �� ' YY W n rn I I •I I Dv•, rn o I � G I!I m I ! '+ I ,I Y� i I; I z i 1 0 r m T X MATCHLINE SEE SHEET LP102 I'. lg f D z 3 n � O z g' o _ m -,5 .. rn oa �E o a Y no ° N 0 -2 �+a ;o O >X 0 O U D D —� U) C z Z 0 o�0 �z � D 0 z m m UO s V m NJ o � 3 r N a 3 g m m m mgg -n y1 -1 j A N o D m p o n m m C 3 a 3 o -,. ''S� m o R R MATCHLINE - n a m 2 3 - w N__ = I I. 3 o R c O O W N Q O Eva o, c� p- - m@ 3 F= T �C - m p Qom' �n <° D � � RE m o� n= � n 3 D z ° n)n D� m m m G) ° D p� 16h2 A18 I v V I I I 'JOGC 1{ I vao N 1 I I 9C �O tr \ m m N I I I 'cam �o •:\ =$z I 'Al t col 4.7 ;:\ N I{ -I I i 13N ,vv rn I \ I I I I I Ii rn I r ({ I I I MATCH NN� /i /! �I I it I j o SEE SHEE -r L 03 n rn O m rn m rn V) m m cn SEE SHEET LP101 MATCHLINE I I pw I { ono I = I I. 0. wvwll I` O O W I v V I I I 'JOGC 1{ I vao N 1 I I 9C �O tr \ m m N I I I 'cam �o •:\ =$z I 'Al t col 4.7 ;:\ N I{ -I I i 13N ,vv rn I \ I I I I I Ii rn I r ({ I I I MATCH NN� /i /! �I I it I j o SEE SHEE -r L 03 n rn O m rn m rn V) m m cn 3� F N T $ A 3 A > m p - I II n 1��111 II II �d I' Vl�f� i a g ° CI= a 3° H, W m 3- 3 3 g g a 3 ° 3 5. Z 0 to r C) 0 a w 16f2'A]F I I I SEE SHEET LP 0 �, � u IIIMATCHLiNE II ,I Z � ( m � 4 �y 'O I I i i f! I I gQ3 z �!Io II W 7o Ln O 1i I 11, m m 70 dZi•X z I O I 9D - I II 1��111 II II �d I' Vl�f� i I I i 8B WN 4D I 9D - II 1��111 II I i 8B WN via i 1 I 1 W N I I ! �I X11 I F !� !I MATOUNE II SEE SHEET LP104 n 0 1��111 II n 0 i F g _r P� 3 m n ?�$ z O goy z 0 o a p tea - vm D O Z >o r oD D C 0 n o 0 0 v Z Z O D m T 0 7.1 m Z R m nn y°G�✓•,'i �pn3 FS��a inLT�${p3��z 3av9i mRo� � � F s iss 3 3 m rt m rp��'s lu fi E 3 2n. 3 VIII ®��:�► 06 r = v 3 T@ N 3 3 3 i d T p 3 n 3 Z v Ln m m M z v D p] � w � I G'm 2°u o N, p cm/� D Ln V L�� uuullrii Ln °0 m N IM) m 30- - `a O Iy o p. °p �I D I ; ti \m �m I m o I I rn I rn z I — I% i m � r II I'•I 1 co I �I D D GPI r I 0 DI Am_ X O _ I �� I rn m I I D i °z r 1 I� m ® i ca I 1 zs•os +zaz'y :�d:�' ' � I : I I �- 1 � 1 v 11 m �I I D I rn I I I ! III I A QI II m I � I V) i 00 a p A I I I I I 1 �! I I II III D �� 1 I ` I I I I �JI/I III I � m 2g I I I m % Nw Gv II x p� I F 00° I I p I� ,, Iy I , m° II I 1�0 I I II F VIII ®��:�► ZL � p vpi � T�$ p A 3 A v� D► m O �' Z1" ' Z I -'s 8, a s z z z n Q 3 R s$ a S i tnn�+ 3 g O In =m O T Le S v 3° 3 a ° 3 D z v m m M z v a m 1612' A18 ' Z I Y u i tnn�+ V \ N Y 1 ( III I -� I' M //✓ i I I I' I I v n N u=rn IN Ln I � � I Ln 0 � I o I I! I r II I Q I Z I Y w i v Ln � � I I Q I 0 \ 0 I f7 Z 1 AlNO I � � � I ENO I '1 m j i' I 1 / 77- F T SHEET LP106 i// �i!i 16112 fj ffSll r "�' � 9. w. Sa. 9+. u+. II1�iS��iS�MN3pN3p -1iSJM ti ti o u4 tlSe � � 3 3 m {9�; A n g 3 g 3 e 0 3 3 J 3 r3a 3 „a q a 3 ° ry n 3 fj i U WIN I� e e ob _ir�i "Fi Y Z � n n " z o O D =J �O Io o� o0a gp m NTs �o 0 ati g z �z m� 0 0 v X r 0 n -n TI E3D Ln D L) C z x u oa O 0 v z z 0 � D m m rn C� G s V = I-A m C) m V ➢ W Gi O p. 3 CM� p y So "z o. e Ti �E E r� - a 3 S v� 4 T N@ 3 O O in y p �n v Ll 1331 aI� 3 m ^ m m m W ~ 3 3 v_ 3 3 m 3 c ry a g, n 3 FT 3 o l a o = 3 S F l o 3 n � n 3 D z 0 m m C) z 0 ➢ o 1612 A18 w iJ, j1. SEE SHEET LP106 i II j MATCHLlNE' LA I Aa Z p0 � � I Ili I I I Io•-� Ta III y �1 I I ' I II G° p I 1 p I I I� asJ I ,;% \ 1 1 1 l i ; W z I 000 1i' �� 1- rn N �p m >I 11 11 I I N I X )CAN I I u, v 111 1� I II ill of � II► i I -- I it = • w I i t I ' �t' flit z i o I, ® I m I'i 1 II W I I `I I I I I I it a +r p 111 it /+ + 1.i I p j Z II !1 II j m 1 I m I I 1 y Ii O I I I I 1 i III 1 : o i I I 1 T T n I Il I i II \ IoI I x� I I! II ff o I I I D ! 1 1 1s 01 O Z a II I 11 II I� I MATCHLINE SEE SHEET LP108 �Y D Z n O D A np m O Vgr� R� roF O 9s 'o3 � o�mgo m a � p3 �3 Oq 32 �1 fH O z D � O r vD T A D >°Ln 3 V) F 37 C 0 Z 0 x o� o 0 0 z m T rn -o m S s W. � rn C 00 D � D Z v m m m z 0 11 Poo m C�" r m T l 161'P A1R i i y 3 5 N m a _ a g a o5. b. 51 72 o - q n d d� _ 3 ;. N. 6 �Er ar vgp F D Z v m m m z 0 11 Poo m C�" r m T l 161'P A1R i i C >z Nn n O O z y O _� o n � A n a° O m t3 o� 3� 0 Z� °O r N > E3D °n —un{ 3 C 0 s Z© 0 TI N o 0 z V) D m T rn A N rn z n s '8 �T v 2 I." m C) m 110 44Z D � rn � O F S In 3 fl � � A vpi � T � $ � A 3 A v9i ➢ � m p � � �p -V 3 " N T 3$ Q` -° = =QD a �o $ �Er 3 a R QR S 3 3 gF R Fr 3 3 3 3 M M a99_ N F K l a - n 3 z Ln m 6) z 0 D- SEE SHEET LP108 — I MATCHLiNE I I I I I \i I w o I ' 0 I I t I I I I I I i i I I I I � n I I W i i I I I I � z lI O I I � I I i I ' I I n =o "T 10 0 I I O X I I � p�S ilw I� �I I I I m Z I I I 00 I Z O n m� MgTC � ';10 ��•i I � � o 1612 A18 '4 I I I I I I � O I � I I I I I I I I I I 1110 I I I li I I I I m I I I I I m I a I I i N i i m i I ♦ ` II 1� I YS z 0 19 U) z 033 Z 'TT rT ,6 c 0 > O m > V) -n m > un > C O Z rn CA D 0 V) m O > i S', 1. SEE -SHEET LP109 Wwwww sk st a a R MXTCHLINE Ar U; .1 Z. g R a 0 0 m F m @ sp 0 3, R R Z 3 ag I 5-> Ln a m m G) m z 0 f61'2 A1R 0 X 41 I m o 1100 o. m 0 z 7" 777 SEE -SHEET LP109 MXTCHLINE Ar f61'2 A1R 0 X 41 I m o 1100 o. m 0 z 7" 777 D Z nO D m m m G) Z 0 1612 p18 \ ° SEE SHEET LP110 -; MATCHLINE =r' o o Z 5. __ -_ v n A I p0 L 1 I Z L�Oi O T � _4 - _ i S __________________.. °s B t�Y I 1- I _ _ I II I } I F I C: m =� I m FvT m d / D Z nO D m m m G) Z 0 1612 p18 \ ° SEE SHEET LP110 -; MATCHLINE =r' o o Z I A I p0 L 1 I Z L�Oi O T m i __________________.. m t�Y I 1- I _ _ I II I } I F I C: m =� I m FvT I / I 261 +00 \ � 262 +00 \ \ O- x t \ I I DAVIS BOULOAR�D I r p ° z _F I I I i _ I I I W f1 O N ° =r' o o Z I A I p0 L m N mmw Z L�Oi O T m i __________________.. _ _ _________ _ ___ _ - I - I / / 261 +00 \ � 262 +00 \ x DAVIS BOULOAR�D W f1 O N P F�; ob �2 +s 3 Z r O O g T' z o � m V) oa �F v zm g� m n W o V p p4. O r O v, D T D 6 un D —{ C f� 'o J I V) D O 0 m 0 o m A Dm s Y , C) f D r:R U nOn N°mD o q a bg a� Os Im i �i1 ZP� Va1Ap p° x 829 E — m a goo c �• �A mP � p �z o� gip° g k3j1j 0 o mo g� z 3 D N 8p�QQ2h pn�n p �FP �o3 �GCi„ii 3p tz � �F ��p2 3 HF �A Or.•� °o i y m OFF F �I o gz £ q �x F Os O`� i �i1 ZP� Va1Ap p° x m og of '.4 1� �a z ys� T €� 0 z C r3 p �z So�S No �° g k3j1j 0 rp� Aoo °z�°' R z 8��om �o P o�i> 08 Arc K° m 5 oz c g§ NO m a„ 1n z -y1 M IO yyy�yySr,5� a �A� O Dy O ❑OQ41 Q EM �oN 3 � n zp�Q Os O`� i �i1 ZP� Va1Ap p° x z � ❑ O R O O O O �L ys� T €� 0 z C r3 p �z 16 112' A 1P = s pMpHU �9p cy AD W �O (D S n z c z x � CL lu > 21 s � - 03 o c o on d F 7 ON ys� QQ� C r3 o� kiN 4 z� g k3j1j 0 z = s pMpHU �9p cy AD W �O (D S n z c z x � CL lu > 21 s � - 03 o c o on d F 7 eg k� n p ong m 0 raF O zE �m �s o�� r onm o$ rn Vp� s° rn �a o� �2 O r O D D V / C 0 2 D o � o � n m m D D z z � m Z G� P s g v 2 rn N � D 2 L=L T 1 1 Y 11 -I F _ z ° rGH F 1 Isom . I I W v zo $ o 2 L=L T 1 1 Y 11 -I z ° 1 Isom . I I W v zo $ o W o mo og E z m� zv ao o a z m$ ngp�p p�mOggm� a o = o a �a m �� po i dill I 00 loco C 1� 7 3 r 3 °5zci PR�n Ole °z mi °c o oF� a�� mG O 0 D / 3�s= o� o J: 0 3°zco � oA� O �q�n2 � tom $ F °o o� gig a °n �m vi pw m $ 1 1 pys0P. O 2 �� p O Sz. $ Q 16112 A I P 0' Z 4 (D R 3w 03 � nA m� F piR N °o g� IN > 3 r3 z pz S R 8g o� m p n Wg S� c�i9$6> Rpmv�m oOF ;main PP�§ ° F�a�° a�pso gOn 0n°�3� p2 3ppN� g o T C�� mmo F � o Q � o ILA s=� 2 Fg i °0 2s �g la z ° 1 I I W v zo r UM P p�mOggm� 3 . I I i 1 i dill I loco C 1� M1 \ p �N� � 6a 7 W. m � P I i I I " 90 Yw n� I cziS o a°m z e � PN F �Y n � Egg •..mc� 4 > � 3 � coq n �gFgio i '�z fps �rtl� z iFo; U z r a� sg= 8_�� 2 'az. �m 0' Z 4 (D R 3w 03 � nA m� F piR N °o g� IN > 3 r3 z pz S R 8g o� m p n Wg S� c�i9$6> Rpmv�m oOF ;main PP�§ ° F�a�° a�pso gOn 0n°�3� p2 3ppN� g o T C�� mmo F � o Q � o ILA s=� 2 Fg i °0 2s �g la z ° 1 I I I I i 1 i dill I C 1� M1 \ p F,' I i I I Yw n� I e � PN x �Y n tn G ^s:yn v,�.w iw •..mc� 4 0' Z 4 (D R 3w 03 � nA m� F piR N °o g� IN > 3 r3 z pz S R 8g o� m p n Wg S� c�i9$6> Rpmv�m oOF ;main PP�§ ° F�a�° a�pso gOn 0n°�3� p2 3ppN� g o T C�� mmo F � o Q � o ILA s=� 2 Fg i °0 2s �g la 161' A IP S 6 II y m` 3 Q m o n4 oe ASR � m � �Q 3z 9 a D I m I n 1 0 � p a de@ a Q U 3' y 'B. R R @ � R if ��dpp is q: Q a. . m m - @ n § s 3 a 3 3 ME ^s 9 s U 3 g a 4 � ar pQq� r s 3n _ Jp X 35 Q$ m 81„ R i n S� -1 z z 2 3 3 3 3 3 m m 4¢ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 p P 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 S 3 g �4 X 3 39 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ^3p�s 3 N aide ;f3% Po4 n ��3A ^> a o > 3F� n o n a F o F = n n n n n n A F F 3 .4 IS n w n? 2? °N�' ^' a� n° a S van o . y2ad w K d ri d ^n n 3" £ 5 a '^ £ F m F F F ]3 ;�no$r, D I m I n 1 0 161'2 A tP m n c m z2 D 1/1 3n 1 n 0 AnnD 1 91 D nmY D D{n 191 9 ^-1 ni-0, �-X mg 8 y Gy-� D ° Z z>, �n F mzm 03m OOT Om O SvZfOO r ymy �. Zmn CDCD nA Z°7�. A�9 �gp mOmmA v 3 Om � L1 p m 9 m�0 vm FO(� O Sn Na -iADA {33C0OD 1A9n O mnmm AD AFi A �j.r.1113 °O z nos ~� OA O� Oz �ZO tmfCOIZ� O yy>D m Vl O A Z 0 �n ---I� m D z Z Z O r z m -A,9I 9 ZZ O v. ff�� pCn n� Oo�ma v OvxQ z Z� Z� p mO Z c nmpp 3 y� yT A Zp61nDn niD 5. ('72 a CL)O Zmmm O,mD Cnl 0 NR y� Vvi O 0GmA m Z� n �L .�- Orr�1�C p1A>> iy D� A� OnZp1n z T3v� �O� Nm`+W nr Ap3 ?= 9v m �n10 TSOap p m0 nl• Z� p T �'� A 9 2 T D:DD' O T r O ss m 9 D 9 1 m vl m m m A -i 9 �"� A A K A A m0'p�n... °j�.0 01n ^p A c�^ao O9ZO �b� S mS xmo m m �O nri �r mf. y� pOZ m mD�Fto Oin =inp�C�C2 C E. V1 Q 3 T m m ... p ,n.., y > Z m Aa 9 y v z v Z 1 T .n m F 3 A ? A n1 A K 2 m-i `n 2Z1AOA CS-i 8 3Kj t°il 2 �y A A-i m 1ilAZ N� S Z. Onmm 3 s O A C ln0 °OC1 S4v V10a Dom m� NO O av qz,. 0 D� F 2.00 z0 m(��'�1N�O O zO ��9�.�Pzm -Z1 'p N2n1ti o�Z� A m Or mZ�m �iz�Z qj CECIL'S COPY EXPRESS 5959 PINE RIDGE RD. NAPLES, FL 34119 Phone: 239-353-4285 Fax: 239 - 353 -1775 NAME /ADDRESS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS FINANCE 3299 TAMIAMI TR E. STE 700 NAPLES, FL 34112 -5749 1612 A I P 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 $897.24 =Q Printing and -OftkW Rid Bone: 239- 353 -4285 1 -4 Color Printing • High Spe &r- ..(;1W5b1j7t1I Color Banners - Siens - Direct to Plate 4 Color Prncess BILL TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMM ISIONERS FINANCE 3299 TAMIAMI TR E. S'fE 700 NAPLES, fl_ 34112-5749 161P A1$ Invoice DATE INVOICE # 1/18/2012 33051 SHIP TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS 3301 TAMIAMI TR. E. NAPLES. FL. 34112 i �4(f NAPLES BONITA SPRINGS The Marquess Plaza (next to Comcast) Signal Center (old 41) 13040 Livingston Road #14 • Naples, FL 34109 25091 Bernwood Dr. • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone: (239) 353 -4285 • Fax. (239) 353 -1775 Phone: (239) 947 -2030 • Fax: (239) 947 -2223 marvin@cecilscopyexpress.com www.cecliscopyexpress.com signs@cecilscopyexpress.com 13241 IP.O. NUMBER TERMS REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. 4500134007 1 8/2012 1118/2012 QUANTITY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1.700 PRINTING POSTCARDS 1/1 RADIO ROAD FAST PROJECT 0.07353 12500 VOTE REMINDER/ DARRYL 1.700 PRIMING ADDRESS AND BARCODF 0.04 68.00 1.700 MAILING POSTAGE 0.245 416.50 RECEIVED N. �P " F,41 JAN 2 0 2012 c-- laAvo 11 too -Larj- FINANCE MzKor en te r�1 C� V & Z we do more win I than just copy! Total a S609.50 i �4(f NAPLES BONITA SPRINGS The Marquess Plaza (next to Comcast) Signal Center (old 41) 13040 Livingston Road #14 • Naples, FL 34109 25091 Bernwood Dr. • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone: (239) 353 -4285 • Fax. (239) 353 -1775 Phone: (239) 947 -2030 • Fax: (239) 947 -2223 marvin@cecilscopyexpress.com www.cecliscopyexpress.com signs@cecilscopyexpress.com 13241 1612 A19 ' Vanderdift 8"eA McS.714. Advisory Coftmmtee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 March 1, 2012 AGENDA 111ak _ .± tjii U I. Call Meeting to Order ,B • II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 2, 2012 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 Fiala E✓ Hiller Henning i Coyle Coletta The next meeting is April 5, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTERMisc. Corres: 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL We: items. conies to: 1612 A19 V"dadidt 8"eA M.SeTake ,Adviso y G'oomamittee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 February 2, 2012 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:01 p.m. A quorum was established. 11. Attendance Members: Dick Lydon, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Michael Price County: Darryl Richard —MSTU Project Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Gloria Herrera - Budget Analyst Others: Maria Jost —CLM, William Sjostrom - Public, Darlene Lafferty— Juristaff Ill. Approval of Agenda Add: IX. A. Attorney General IX. B. Vacancy - Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee Dick Lydon moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 5, 2012 Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of January 2, 2012 as submitted. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report Charles Arthur questioned if the $1,800,000.00 was in Escrow (at Fifth Third Bank.) Staff responded with the following: • The Escrow monies were not reflected in the SAP System when the Budget Report was generated • Staff received confirmation that the FPL monies are in the Fifth Third Escrow Account • The Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited) reflects (approximately) $5,700,000.00 Cash Balance • Staff perceived the monies will be recognized as Carry Forward on October 1 st • Staff will advise the Committee of the payment date and amount of payment (FPL) via email 1 1612 A19 Gloria Herrera reviewed the Budget Report: (See attached) • Available Operating Expense $396,906.13 • Uncollected Ad Valorem $189,869.64 • The requested Breakdown Per Phase is reflected in the Budget Report VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Maria Jost reported: o Routine Maintenance is underway o Irrigation check was performed today Bruce Forman reported vehicle damage to shrubs on the corner of Heron. VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur — Discussed under Vlll. A. VIII. Project Manager Report A. ATM Department - Darryl Richard reviewed Quote by Hole Montes Inc. for CEI and Landscape Inspection FPL Underground Conversion Phase I Costs: (See attached) Summary of cost • Total $165,544.00 • Services include Observation during Construction and to advise County Staff Pre- Construction Services - Task No. 1 o Estimate $7,916.00 o Task No. 1 provides detailed Photo and Video documentation of the existing Project site prior to Construction Professional Fee Schedule o Hourly Rates are based on time and materials o Staff will closely monitor the hours worked on the Project Discussion ensued on the Hole Montes Inc. Quote. Charles Arthur questioned the need to supervise FPL on the Project. Staff stated: o Hole Montes Services will protect the MSTU by assisting FPL in avoiding the Asbestos line o The Senior Inspector is Asbestos Certified (Hole Montes) The Committee perceived it as FPL's responsibility if the Asbestos line was struck and not Vanderbilt Beach MSTU. Darryl Richard responded: • A component of the Escrow and Clerk of Finance Agreements to issue payment to FPL is a third party will confirm the Red Line Drawings • Backup documentation is required (by the Clerk) to disperse payment Jerry Parillo deemed that the detailed information required by the Clerk is beyond the Asbestos issue. The Committee perceived that an unwarranted layer of cost was added to the Project as FPL was hired to bury the lines. Staff noted the Asbestos line spans the entire length of the roadway. 2 1612 A19 Discussion continued, it was noted that an additional Agreement was entered into with the County that is above and beyond the Tariff and additional review is needed to determine if the Inspection requirements are excessive. Jerry Parillo read verbatim from the Escrow Agreement Section No. 4 Progress Milestones- Notice of Completion as follows: 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. After much discussion the following was concluded: o Staff will meet with FPL to confirm inspections provided by FPL to avoid duplication o Staff will confer with Mark Sunyak to determine the minimum requirements for Asbestos monitoring B. Public Utilities Department — Mark Sunyak — Previously discussed under VII. A. IX. Old Business A. Attorney General Michelle Arnold stated that the County Attorney's position (based on direction from the BCC) was to proceed with the Committee's request to obtain the Attorney General Opinion "only' in the event that the (FPL payment) issue is not resolved with the County Clerk. Noted the issue is viewed as resolved as the Escrow monies were deposited per the Agreement. Discussion took place on future Project Phases and payments by the Clerk. Staff stated the following: o FPL uses a procurement process to obtain Bids o Scott Teach provided information to the Collier County Clerk on a similar Project (Scope of work and Cost) that was prepaid by the Clerk in Sarasota o After a brief review the Collier County Clerk stated the Sarasota Clerk relied on the Tariff to issue the prepayment o The Collier County Clerk deems that the language in the Tariff does not authorize the Clerk to issue prepayment to FPL for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Charles Arthur noted that the Tariff overrides the Clerk's opinion and reiterated the need to obtain the Attorney General Opinion. Staff stated the following: o The Committee needs to petition the BCC to proceed with the request for the Attorney General Opinion 3 1612 A19 o The County Clerk advised Staff that a section of the area is located on State property and the State may provide an exemption or authorize prepayment Bruce Forman recommended to advise the County Attorney that the prepayment issue is not resolved with the County Clerk as there are (3) additional Phases to the Project. Staff will confer with the County Attorney on the unresolved prepayment issue (based on the (3) additional Project Phases that will require prepayment.) Discussion took place on the Bud Martin Memorial and the following suggestions were made: • Install a Bench and concrete pad on the corner of Bluebill Ave. and Vanderbilt Dr. • Install and dedicate a sidewalk to Mr. Martin on the east side of Gulfshore Dr. (upon completion of the Utility Project) B. Vacancy — Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee Staff announced the deadline for applications is February 10tH X. Update Report A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman — None XI. New Business XII. Public Comment —None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:27 p.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee WAWJ These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on _ as presented or amended The next meeting is March 1, 2012 at 2:00 P.M. ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL 4 1612 A19 W N� O W O V M O A W N" O W 0 -40 0 A W N"OW W V M N A W N"OW= V M O A. W N W o m m ° m o mm O om m T c D Dczn D m O O o c z m O� Zoo � M< j <� m C Dmmz(°(° zz �m-i D�- rZ�c-- imoozz -Moo -I �� mm� x W «T� �m�rD-�-_IO m�DCn m =m,z >22bmonn -<mmmTo°��TTCm�i -={vp aC0-n�� > �00�zmCCo0nv<mc D�c�zc?mmO��zcnmmMm00M�m�m�DD O(��c- Im'nDC�mm0v czicnmp7j 6)zm000cnmc) --iXX ��D�pOr m 0Oo a '��P-j m Or m -< mm -i�zcnm= zf?°m>>Ooco Omm DNS z_"<G)mG) K ocmn �W z� 0c��m� mp�XXKKo �z�m -0 z mzcn zzz zmmm -a�m z 00 -0 xv o zyc m00 p��X Cz OG)D�c�m��D D nv O m O T NKr D aj T m X T mcnm r o O• X r- ccn m nD ryc 0o mzn §m -ni �m m ? rm n Ord cn C r � o mD Im W 0 0 D O m fn 6) to a 69 69 69 to 69 (9 69 69 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 EA 69 69 69 69 to 69 N 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 6) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 6) 69 69 6) 69 69 69 to 69 69 6) 69 69 ts) 69 .69 69 N N V— j W N A A N N CD C9 V �1 N A 00 O W< W O A � On O V O A � � � Ul O p. O U1 (n O to Cn U7 N W W O O O N 0 N QD W W (n 00 (D tp O 0 (n 0 O m O O o 0 (D O O A (n W O Cn W (P N O N O O (n O O v W A W 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o� 0 o 0 o 0 o 0000 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o o o g o o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o" O 000 o o o 0 o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o 0000 o o o o 0 o o 0 o o O O O d4 69 to 4A E9 to 69 69 N 69 d/ 69 69 6) 69 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0000 0 ' 0000 O00000 0 00 O 00 (p O O o w v, 3 Cl) Ul Ch v N O W N v 0) 00 t0 O O i i i i i ' 1 (D (D O (n ' ' N O O 7 ' N 00 ( ' - i.. 0 i i. i i.. i y t0 co 00 0 N OO d/ 69 69 M (A 6) 69 69 M 6) to 69 69 W 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 W 69 69 69 69 69 69 (A 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 6) 69 69 6A 69 m k 00 0 0 N s 0) O N W W N O O A O W CO N (T N W GJ OO .�. A a r- A CO -1 N A (n O) A W -I D) O) -co A 00 (Y) OD -I 00 00 .-. N A 01 V to W (n co A O W O W U7 v N (O O N O W 00 t0 to — O (D �l O' ' i0 A A' ' O (n V (D O O W� O O O A W 0 0 0 O 00 w W W CD �I (O O N' A tD A y V N 00 A cn 00 N o O (n O (D O 00 O O t0 j (D 00 O O 69 to 69 N 69 to 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 6) 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6) 69 69 69 6) 69 69 6) 69 69 69 to 69 69 6) 69 69 ts) 69 .69 69 3 Z v 3 Z X o p � ,r --I C) W 3 N CO) C N N W W W< W L l (ND A O A U W W P1 V A 0 0 (r Cn O N s A Cn A (n O O N N aD (O W 0 (n 09 N W pp O pp O V 00 (n A O A W N O o 0 0� N� m v W (n p0 -.• OD ID V O ORpO)A00009 O O A O -1000) o (n(no0 N O O O V 000 0 0 O _ O (D(4 N W o 0 0 0 -1 O O V O OD O O O 00 O O o O A M O O o O -4 ( pO A00 0000N OOO O 0000 0 ' 0000 O00000 00 O 00 (p O O 3 Z v 3 Z X o p � ,r --I C) W 3 N CO) C N r- O r 00 ()7 M d' 0 6 0 0 r C- O N Iq CO O m O O M It d CD r O O Lr M O (D O 1` 00 -a O 00 (D r M (f) r N d7 c CD 00 a Efl fii EA EA 69 69 69 69 69 u) (f3 Efl EA (A EA (fl ca EA 0 —0 M O N O 00 O O O e O O LO 00 CO r O O O N O r O W 0 O 666 Y N co O r co O co OM 0 O 00 M O 00 = O N r r (17 M 0 co r <T C m e 4) Q' Ef} to 60 E1). 69 69 69 (fl fA v!) 60-169 69 69 64 69 69 69 E co co (n C0 O LO O O � N � 0 < LO r- M O N O N 00 't co r- cr IT M M M O O M .. �# Q O O O O O O D U O M N '� IT O U Q O M M O M M I1 M M M M Co Cr) N Q. Z O r r O r r (D (7 r r r r r r O O O O O O -- O O O O O O Q 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 V- It �t U O uj U- (n U r U) — a) CL 4) ' a) fa a) N O — CL L (n O a) U) a) U) — Z3 M c 06 U U — U- /� m 06 CD L Y •L .N L L (0 V LL Q o U O a) 7 C U U .� 'i (a 11J^ T— — U U (0 Q L a) - O (n a) U)wLL —1 LL 0� a� (°n o L - a) U Y (n U -a E Z C (a cn R O O .c 0 0 Z U o i t U E O ca p U Q Q Y O O C �_ L L In 4) a) O O tUn O d O p +3 (n cu a) ! > (n > UUUWIiwwtL. z D�Un> 1612 A19 O O O N II Q R U m t� R f LO W O (O O I C O 1 0 U,)- I o 1 - CO V N c r op O > r >- OLo O LL O O ci R o a c E 7 > C > >> °'Q w N N N N o wR m to E H H H O v J x F O N F CS tL O O LO ll m O Q `- O w a a LO L M d N 00 O C 00 O N Y69 Efl (A r N M W w 112 O ma- dW F- r � r ti Q1 f� i� 00 M 00 O O O v ao L N (o O m N O O Q) O N N N N N � w N N IT LO IT O o a� - > c y m c y a) Q Y @ o E m w m N > c Z E c x Tm Q O R> p O 7 f/1 E~ J� R o U- �O.0 Q ��Qrn O m m O O O ------------ r r r M M O O O O O O N N O O O O f� M M O O O O r r- O O M M O O O O U U,) M M O O 1612 A19 O O O N II Q R U m t� R f LO W O (O O I C O 1 0 U,)- I o 1 - CO V N c r op O > r >- OLo O LL O O ci R o a c E 7 > C > >> °'Q w N N N N o wR m to E H H H O v J x F O N F CS tL O O LO ll m O Q `- O w a a LO L M d N 00 O C 00 O N Y69 Efl (A r N M W w 112 O ma- dW F- r � r ti Q1 f� i� 00 M 00 O O O v ao L N (o O m N O O Q) O N N N N N � w N N IT LO IT O o a� - > c y m c y a) Q Y @ o E m w m N > c Z E c x Tm Q O R> p O 7 f/1 E~ J� R o U- �O.0 Q ��Qrn w a a LO L M d N 00 O C 00 O N Y69 Efl (A r N M W w 112 O ma- dW F- r � r ti Q1 f� i� 00 M 00 O O O v ao L N (o O m N O O Q) O N N N N N � w N N IT LO IT O o a� - > c y m c y a) Q Y @ o E m w m N > c Z E c x Tm Q O R> p O 7 f/1 E~ J� R o U- �O.0 Q ��Qrn N N IT LO IT O o a� - > c y m c y a) Q Y @ o E m w m N > c Z E c x Tm Q O R> p O 7 f/1 E~ J� R o U- �O.0 Q ��Qrn a w a 0 m C N O N m U N LL C. N M N T O N r T r N N T C> O N M r T V CD 0 O O � M N C Q M 161 ?_ A19 rM `- ,O M 0M V' 10 000 00�000'd'O 'cY c0O V- r` lt) m 11 F- O cD 0 O O co c0 O O r O V• V' O O) V• CO r T 0 0 O O O 00 Cfl 00 O rO OOrMO i9MO NM(DDO MN Cl) V LO 0) tt Ct N00M Cl) n 't CD r` O O DO 1� O f t N F- V a M O CO CO v 00 M Cfl O N ti O V L C •'� Cn N O O Cl) (U Mn C\f W CON op v� ��0 vC0 O C- y O rV� FY d M U C d L � W U `� 7 O v tt M OD M N W C dl O O m v > V Q c0macm V M cm cc V_ C0 M uJ a C 0 •C ,e�..p >> c d m m •F (V d v a C O CO V v t C O U m L m .O m a O C M M CL U> 0! "'' m M c a m LL s M M C M d C� 0 X p U .0 m 1X4 •d F- tL O M a 3 O M am. d LL� `. tli M tM "' F- LL d d >. m e w Cmd � d > N M d tM M� Q' C O O N 'i � N R' LL C CU 0 CIS M U LL N> d d) N d +0 w0 r0.. a m L L L 6 ti� VO• N L9 M MO OOODO OCMOO m U :Q o N C a M o m °' c�� m 0) CA W J L m (U C M w N ti O N COO• N It Lo in.n-O0 c ` LL _F - F- F- O r > M O O c a• -a+ M O m Cl) O co OIt O (O 00 CA 06 M M L6 6 O U > cn r N M 00 'MV'OO M O O M v W N (O C N O V' 00N O v It N O N N CO Ln v CV 0) M Cn Cl) O CY) N V• f` (D .� ... v v t2 CN V' r C O 06 t O O LO CO O M M N CS � � d c p N M M O O O O OVct j r A O r- M c0 00 6 O O la0) fO � L p O � 00 N O O O Cl) O C0 O ' O O l °04 uioo a � O CD CC) to O V M N (O V N N N ' v LO r O 0D N IX O NC � C L UD N a CY) O tY Cfl Cp m O Cfl N M C6 c a d} d} d} d3 d). d 00 Cl) O p a) M r •ct (n O Cl) V' O O LLD M O N N N N n O O O CC 00 C7 h In L() cC) r` LO O CO lfl O M Cl) O M N M Cl) O O M O 00 r- O 0 N� N LO M Cn Cn O CC OC I� CO CO Lc) ... v r � CC) O V) 00 la O (2 N Cfl ti O CV d• LO r CO Cn N O (A N Cl. t` � ... v CC N r r n N COO CNO _6 LO LO LO r (0 O N v n LO ^ N Lr, d> d3 d3 6"* fh d3 M (O O r' O' O •� M N V" t 00 N CA N 0 O n LO LO N O N j It r n m O a) 0) N t r O OD O O CO L(E M O a) CO Q N N O r M p 00 c0 M O0 V O Cl) C4 LO M A O r- W M CO t0 O 0 N CIJ N M CCMa) d•Cfl v! q r A O V 00 It O W tON ONN A N - t Cl) CY) CO O o LO N � V Cn Cl) Ln Lfi Ln v m (D N m LO Ci N d) d) W m F- M �` J i) F- V a M 0 w+ d L Q O T +� = L C •'� Cn N O 0 '�- a ca (U Mn M T O O T V (V ,O i ci V y E L •i rV� FY d M U C d L N C Q> .a.. U `� 7 O U N M> Q U dl O O m v > V Q c0macm V M cm m M C T oVm uJ a C 0 •C ,e�..p >> c d m m •F (V d O c a a C O U •L M- 0 C O U m L m .O m a O C M M CL U> 0! "'' m M c a m LL s M M C M d C� 0 X p U .0 m 1X4 •d F- tL O M a 3 O M am. d LL� `. tli M tM "' F- LL d d >. m e w Cmd � d > N M d tM M� Q' C O O N 'i � N R' LL C CU 0 CIS M U LL N> d U a � Q "' m d m N d +0 w0 r0.. a m L L L = A 7 m�� O r. O C W y 0 d m m U C m MW .y, O O O L L L L N Q = 0 0 m m v c d 0 L `m C N s � C> w 4°-'. w ❑ O M m U :Q o N C a M o m °' c�� m r.. w i... lU Y CD m '0 0 L d ,C ,LL 0 `� d C 7 m a) m a C N M M a _U 0) C m •O. O '0 a CL6 fL6 J L m (U C M w A C0 7 7 7 w L clO C 0 F- 0 CV.) c X C7Q W m�Q W OJ WCnm_�to -i ` LL _F - F- F- w O 7 O m O > M O O c a• -a+ M O M F- U > cn Q S (D F- m U C 1612 Alg MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 2012 TO: Darryl Richard FROM: Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 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. William Sjostrom 25 Bluebill Avenue Naples, Florida 34108 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 6. Mitchelllan ombsjost@yahoo.com entFriday, February 03, 2012 10:29 AM oor : 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: 2/3/2012 10:28:31 AM. �, _� 1 William S'ostro 39- 249 -6995 ._ 5 Bluebill Av OWE ales PYp 34108 a :815- 670 -3733 siostaawahoo.co [Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T. of indicate Not Indicate is 1612 A19 ,�4_ a �Q s €� t � iC��t1i�.;iA':��1e�' ��,r.�at�s r<.s�:`� �i :�i i i�_�5�1 �:,. ��R� -��3 iti • o � apt• iR;�",t�5��r'� :;`e? v��c�� 1612 A19 B,! t. i Not Indicate j ast Rockford Il 12Years Park Commisioner,4 Years Community College Trustee, 4 years Township Trustee Napleles St Johns B &G, Habitat for Humanity,20 Years Kiwanis. A Northern Illinoi 112 years Facility Director,8 years small busness owner, 10 years VP Indepentent Oil C • 0 2 CEI AND LANDSCAPE INSPECTION VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU FPL UNDERGROUND ONVERSION PHASE 1 COSTS HM FILE NO.: 2011.059 REVISED 1/27/2012 Pre - Construction Services -Task 1 PHOTODOCUMENTATION Personnel Hours Rate Total Principal Engineer 4 $195 $ 780 Project Manager 12 $148 $ 1,776 Senior Landscape Arch. 6 $135 $ 810 Senior Inspector 40 $85 $ 3,400 Administrative Assistant 10 $65 $ 650 Reimbursables Total: 500 Total: $ 7,916 On -going Construction Services - Tasks 2.1— 2.7 and 3.1 (except part m) — 3.4 Personnel Hours Rate Total Principal Engineer 4 $195 $ 780 Project Manager 24 $148 $ 3,552 Senior Landscape Arch. 6 $135 $ 810 Senior Inspector 160 $85 $13,600 Administrative Assistant 10 $65 $ 650 Reimbursables $ 1,500 Total: $20,892 $20,892 x 7 Months = $146,244 H:\ 8200\ P. - Marketing\ 11 \GHH\VanderbiltReachMTSU\Phase 1 Costs revised 120127.docx 1612 A19 1612 A19 Concluding Construction Services -Tasks 2.8.2.9 2.8 SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION, 2.9 FINAL INSPECTION Personnel Hours Rate Total Principal Engineer 4 $195 $ 780 Project Manager 8 $148 $1,184 Senior Landscape Arch. 4 $135 $ 540 Senior Inspector 20 $85 $1,700 Administrative Assistant 12 $65 $ 780 Reimbursables 400 Total: $5,384 Asbestos Incidences - Tasks 3.1m (uer occurrence) Personnel Hours Rate Total Engineer 2 $155 $ 310 Asbestos Engineer 4 $130 $ 520 Technician 4 $80 $ 320 Air Test 50 Total: $1,200 $1,200 x 5 Occurrences = $6,000 Summary Pre - Construction Services $ 7,916 On -going Construction Services $146,244 Concluding Construction Services $ 5,384 Asbestos Incidences 6,000 $165,544 HA820MA- Marketing \11 \GMVanderbilt Beach MTSU\Phue 1 Costs revised 120127.docx 10. ki Hao CA o co qg � rt 00 W C, 00w �c 00 0 °00 °000 °0 10 10 10 �10 10 Id 10 10 CCRAPAR� 00 0000000 1612 A19 � � w C t� kq �o dzoyn �A @ V1 ts7 b d c� IA 2 A19 7r 7r m T Q N 7C N 7r N 7L' N 7r N 7r N 7r N 7C" N N 9r N N 7r T Q W N w f+ C N C W N N lD N w N -! N Q1 N Ln N A N I j W N N r) N N F-� O a p O. 7 m N w w n 7 C C O Q m OCi _• O S .p C N rD G .ZI 7 w Q tr 7 N N 7 - 7 O 3 m r) M rNF cu (D m<< K 3 r = Q O 7 7 C N Ol S O C OCL 1 z v v O Q z C d .D O ? O a %°* o o m cu 3 v c o° D M o a s 7' v ° 0 ° a s= a d m S m ro 00 3 N m d =i+ -1 W O O vN+ D 3 O p (i. p i.. v m 7 7 W O C a 0 0 = 0 r �1 O N H Q 7 M 10 rmT. 3 N m m 3 0o 3 N 7 to N N. O O N m fu •_*, N C 3 0 ,y rr � C 3 N ° v M � O 7 W 0 N w W O N W W W W W W 7 W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N m N A W N N N N -^ F•-+ N N N .O F� 1-, 00 00 V Q1 U'I A W N N O m z! O O S, O p p p m m 0 m Do O O O O m (D m D 3 00 m TI � D Q D < < < < < m A D co rD rD (D o cr : m m 7 m ° m Q m Q m o m G G G 0q m - W N (D O O 3 _ m N O O O O< N Q Q L ' - N N 7 Q O "• m M " -O ° O7 v S rrDD '* m m v O v N N. j r<D v m p n0 S DO = vi n' O 7r 7r "� Q Q O 0 S 7 Q 3 v 3 Ort ,< .7N. O 7 O rN. rD O n y < Z 0] C C. O O I y 7 rr Q K x N m Q- rD 7 .O v '* "'� 3 C .-C n m = OQ 0 ° fs w 7 D v< 0 m v7i rt - ^ 7 7 n °< ° O m v 7 r 7 - rD O �. v = C 0 7 n `O m 3 'O 7 7 S n y 0 �: O O rr j '6 7 p OA = 3 O ?' n " SmY 3 n '^ O m O OD v7i 3 O O v 7 _. .Nr m m 7 < O v O 3 ° M. G7 a m O (D m n O n vC. 7 v 3 'O m "O N - o O" m m m N N d - A O O i O 7 m N 7R O O O DA O 9 rt C O a _ 0 m -< Q m 'G O, n M O m S O ,=r ° O < 3 O 7 N Q 3 0 0 m ONC N m (3D 7 7 7 iii rN•r ° °� 3 w N n @ =* 3 1 rt r rt (D v 3 D) N 7 O 7 7r OJ �^ Q .9 r1 C n�*, m < m " < v7i < 3 �, O. Q � 0 rn ° 0 7 7 3 OA m r3i (D "6 m 3 7 N n < n 7 n < O 7 rt N n 0 -p (D 3 N H 0 3 ,N•. C 3 O rm., arti LA. ^y W M ,G C. a N �= S 7 C 7 OG m N. rt N r m m w p p c M 'O N 7 F N Q cu 7 N N O S < 7 O < m ° `O TS ON (D t11 T r 00 O C. cu OQ '* < v p O ri 7 C- M CL 7 S (D CU n _0 cu N O p_ uN, n a O < � m O c < O CL vvN •° Ol � v O 7 v -' N m p 3 D rt m m O S < m O C O 0 = N rt fu < 7 rt K rt n n N Cr O m m C S Q m 'O D rr O v O n N po 3 S 3 O m C m Q m N 7 rt rD W v .. rD O 7 j n m N D D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m 6 s a- 0' 0 0 <_ <_ v m Cr m m C7 0' v v C7 v v a o T A CD m m m m m m m m 7 m 7 7 m m m m m m m m m? C 'O 'p 7 'O � � � a- 'O � y O (D 53. � O O O O O O 7 7 0 0 0 O O O O O O 2. A m < < < < < a . O O < < < < < < < < < < < m C O Q O_ Q Q Q 3 Q w, Q Q a. Q a Q Q Q Q Q '< M Q m Q m Q m C. m C. CT m 0- m m C, rD d fl; w m C. m C- m C. m C. m C. m C. m O_ m a m Q O N m g o o m o n n g 3 3 3 v - i 0 0 0 ,;, < s 7 7 s° O 3 O 3 m m* 3 m m 7 7 7 m i s 3 O 'm. 'm+ m 7- 7- 7 s 7 m m { 7 7 m m 3 7 7 3' 7 7 H 7 7 7 7 7 m m m F-' W m 7_c m 7c W m m rt m rr W 00 OC Ov rt m m m 0D N << CL x ❑. v 4 i c G< 7 2 m ° v m <v a < <v =_ < _ _ Q m m m m m° m m m m cr O m DSi i 3 w 0 N N N S S ...h m m m -p 0 0 � 0 N N N rt 0 m ❑. rD 3 3 m m 031 m m O T 0 N C• N n m v Q w w .0 M M = C H v m N m a n D- M a d o M * ° N N ' 3 On O O- r•t r-. rt rt rD -3 N tvi T m N w v v m� m n m 3 m 0 3 3 3 fl 0 3 3 3 3 S m m m D 7° m rD m S 00 0G OC n O 3 T r O 3 v O m 7 d * 3 M O D .! O n C 00 m 7 7 (D d � G M 'v m V m 'a m "D m N F w w w w= 0 0 0 O w -,j"i -lI A li O O p C m m O m O O Z n (nj Z n (�1 0 O O O m m m n C m D < D ^' m D < m � D < D < u' C C -I C C D -< D < D < D < D < D -< m m m C O ° V) < N < v, < v, v, = O D = D = r = D = D N N N { << D 3 Z { Z z< Z z z? Nmm m m m� 2 A19