[00:00:01]
>> THIS IS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 9TH, 2025.
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS. MORGAN.
>> I'M SURE I SAID MAY. [LAUGHTER].
>> I'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. HERE WE GO.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT MAY 14TH, 2025, CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, AND MORGAN, YOU WILL CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> BARBARA, WILL YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE?
>> I GOT IT REPLACED. [LAUGHTER].
>> MARANDA, ARE YOU GOING TO SAY ANYTHING TONIGHT? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT?
[3.1 Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of April 9, 2025.]
MOVE TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES TO OUR LAST REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ANYBODY.HERE'S WHERE I WAS DOING THE RESEARCH.
IF YOU LOOK DOWN ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE MINUTES UNDER FOUR, THE VERY LAST THING BEFORE YOU GET TO PUBLIC HEARING CLOSE, AS MEMBER GILLETTE NOTED, THIS PROPERTY IS NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR LIVE LOCAL ACT, BUT A GREAT CANDIDATE FOR BUD.
THAT'S WHEN I WENT BACK TO LOOK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS IN THE HIGH-RISK FLOOD ZONE.
THE ANSWER IS IT'S NOT, SO IT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR A FOOT IF OUR OTHER REQUIREMENTS ALLOWED IT.
>> IT'S NOT IN THE HIGH-HAZARD AREA, BEING RIGHT THERE ON THE BEACH.
>> NO. IT IS RIGHT ON THE STREET.
>> [OVERLAPPING]. PETE, I THINK IN APPROVING THE MINUTES, WE JUST WANT TO APPROVE THAT THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT WAS SAID.
THEN WE'LL GET TO THAT WHEN IT COMES UP. IT'S ALL RIGHT.
ARE YOU IDENTIFIED IN HERE? THE QUESTION I HAVE IS OVER ON THE THIRD PAGE UNDER BOARD BUSINESS, DID WE TAKE AN OFFICIAL VOTE OR DID WE HAVE TO TAKE AN ORIGINAL VOTE TO ELECT OR DEFINE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE MAKING UP THE SUBCOMMITTEE?
>> NO. CHAIRMAN COULD DO THAT.
>> ON THAT POINT, PETE, I'VE MARKED THAT TOO.
I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
>> WE FORMED THE SUBCOMMITTEE COMPRISED OF THESE PEOPLE TO MEET WITH STAFF TO DISCUSS PRIORITIES AND BRING THEIR SUMMARY BACK.
THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS REALLY MORE OR LESS THE PROJECT TEAM ON COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE NOT REVIEWING EVERYTHING.
THEY ARE THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
THANKS, MORGAN. PETE, I'M SORRY.
>> WELL, THAT WAS WHEN I WAS STARTING TO LEAD INTO. THAT ONE SOLVED.
LET ME JUST LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE HERE.
WELL, IF YOU GO TO THE LAST PAGE UNDER, IT SAYS, THE BOARD SET TO MEET FOR A WORKSHOP ON THE 23RD TO DISCUSS PRIORITIES FOR THE SUB-SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONCENTRATE ON.
>> NOW, THAT CONFLICTS WITH IF YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT.
>> THAT'S INCORRECT TECHNICALLY.
THE SUB-COMMITTEE WAS CONVENED TO TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
BUT I THINK RIGHT ABOVE THAT, I THINK MORGAN MENTIONED REDEVELOPMENT, SO IT COULD BE TAKEN BOTH WAYS.
>> WELL, ONE OF THE OTHER, THOSE PARAGRAPHS OUGHT TO BE STRICKEN OR CLARIFIED OR SOMETHING.
>> THE BOARD SET TO MEET FOR A WORKSHOP ON APRIL 23RD AT 3:00 PM TO DISCUSS PRIORITIES FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONCENTRATE ON.
WE DIDN'T BOIL THE OCEAN DOWN TO ONE AT THAT POINT IF YOU READ THAT SENTENCE.
>> WHAT'S RIGHT ABOVE IT? WHAT'S THE FIRST?
>> IT SAYS, MEMBER BENNETT EMPHASIZED THE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE BOARD FROM STAFF TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
[00:05:06]
>> MORGAN, CHANGE THE PARAGRAPH THAT PETE ORIGINALLY HIGHLIGHTED TO, AGAIN, SPECIFY COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
DOES THAT SUIT YOU AND WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WASN'T SURE WE REALLY SETTLED ON UNTIL WE GOT INTO THAT SPECIAL MEETING, THOUGH.
>> NO, THAT MEETING WE DID SPECIFY THAT WAS FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
THEN WHEN WE GOT TO THAT MEETING, WE WERE BEGINNING TO SET PRIORITIES FOR COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
>> YOU WOULD JUST SAY THE SECOND SENTENCE TO SAY THIS WORKSHOP IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23RD AT 3:00 PM, PERIOD, AND THEN STRIKE THE REST OF IT.
>>THE DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING.
>> MORGAN, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> YOU INDICATE HERE THAT I OPENED AND CLOSED A PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK I OPENED AND CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENTS, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN A PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK.
IN A PUBLIC HEARING, DON'T PEOPLE HAVE TO TAKE AN OATH AND DO ALL THAT?
>> I LIKE COMMENT, IS BEING MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE OPENED AND CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT HEARING.
>> BECAUSE WE CALL IT UNDER SECTION 8 PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> THAT IT FOR HERE? MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED?
>> THIS IS FOR THE MINUTES FROM THE [OVERLAPPING] APRIL 9TH MEETING.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 9TH, 2025, AS AMENDED.
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOVING ON TO THE MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP.
[3.2 Approval of Minutes for the Workshop of April 23, 2025.]
COMMENTS, ANYBODY?>> YES. UNDER CHAIR DOSTER INVITED BOARD MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION, I THINK YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY WHO THEY WERE.
>> WELL, I HAD MEMBERS PRESENT.
>> WELL, ALL SEVEN OF THEM ARE PRESENT.
IT SAYS BOARD MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.
>> FOR THAT MEETING, WAS BARBARA WERE YOU THERE OR PETE WERE YOU THERE?
>> YES, THIS WAS THE ONE ON THE 23RD, NOT THE ONE ON THE NINTH.
THE ONE ON THE NEXT WEEK, I WASN'T THERE.
>> WHY MAKE EVERYBODY STRUGGLE GOING BACK TO THE PREVIOUS MINUTES TO FIND OUT WHO WAS ON THERE? I THINK IT'S UNCLEAR THE WAY IT'S STATED.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST THEN?
>> THAT IT SHOWS EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE MEETING.
>> PETE, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT AT THAT MEETING, TOO, EVERYONE PARTICIPATED, NOT JUST THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS.
>> THEN JUST SAY, CHAIRMAN DOSTER INVITED THE MEMBERS OF THE PAB TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER CHANGES, ANYONE?
>> NO. YOU'VE GOT THE NEXT MEETING DOWN, THE MAY 7TH MEETING.
THAT'S ONE WHERE YOU JUST HAD THE COMMITTEE PLUS SOME OTHER RECORDS.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 23RD AS WRITTEN WITH THE ONE CLARIFICATION IDENTIFIED.
>> YOU CAN JUST TURN IT OVER TO HIM.
[4.1 PAB CASE 2025-0001: RON FLICK AGENT FOR FERNANDINA BEACH REALTY, INC., 3172 S. FLETCHER AVENUE (BEACHSIDE MOTEL)]
>> MARK, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH ITEM 1?
>> THANK YOU. MARK HEARSON, SENIOR PLANNER.
THIS IS PAB CASE 25-000-01 FOR [INAUDIBLE] AS YOU RECALL AT YOUR LAST MEETING,
[00:10:06]
MR. [INAUDIBLE] SPOKE TO THE COMMITTEE AND REQUESTED THAT THE CASE BE TABLED UNTIL THIS MEETING WHERE HE HAD WROTE TO STAFF TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO HIM FOR HIS REQUEST.WE HAVE MET WITH HIM AND WE ARE TALKING THROUGH SOME OPTIONS.
HE HAS REQUESTED THAT IT BE TABLED AS WELL AT THIS MEETING UNTIL THE JUNE 11TH MEETING TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE EVERYTHING WORKED OUT IN TIME.
LAST TIME HE DID NOT NOTIFY US OF WANTING TO TABLE THE CASE BEFORE WE HAD ACTUALLY PUBLISHED THE AGENDA.
THIS TIME, HE DID, AND WE PROVIDED THAT EMAIL IN YOUR PACKET.
THOSE WILL BE THE ITEMS WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH HIM.
WE HAVE SOME MEETINGS ALREADY SCHEDULED WITH THE CITY MANAGEMENT AND LEGAL.
>> FOR US TONIGHT, NOTHING HERE TO DISCUSS ON THIS?
>> NOTHING TO DO, IT'S JUST REALLY INFORMATION.
[5.1 PAB 2025-0003 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT REQUEST TO PROVIDE UPDATES TO THE WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN]
WE ARE TO THE WATER SUPPLY WORK PLAN.YOU GO TO TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
>> WELL, THIS IS CASE PAB 2025-000-03.
IT IS ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE UPDATED IN OUR WATER SUPPLY PLAN.
THIS IS A PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED FIVE YEARS AGO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT AND THE WATER RESOURCE ACT.
PART OF THAT IS, WHEN THE ORIGINAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN WAS PREPARED, IT IS REFERENCED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT THESE STATE STATUTES ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS, WHICH THEN TRIGGERS ANY AMENDMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT TO BE REFLECTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS IS REALLY MORE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN NEEDS TO BE FOR 10 YEARS, AND IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED EVERY FIVE YEARS.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE DRAFT THAT WE HAVE IN THERE, EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS REFERENCED IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IS NOW FROM 2025-2035.
EACH FIVE YEARS, WE WILL UPDATE THAT.
THEN WHEN YOU GET TO 3035, WE'LL HAVE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL GOALS WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT BASED ON THAT IN A REVIEW OF EVERYTHING, WE ONLY FOUND, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT B IN THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN, THAT WE HAVE THE GOALS THAT WERE ALREADY ADOPTED.
THE ONLY CHANGES WERE JUST THE REFERENCES TO THE NEW PLAN AND REFERENCED IN IT BE 2025-2035, AND THEN ALSO A REFERENCE ON ONE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES THAT NEEDED TO BE A FOUR INSTEAD OF A THREE.
>> [OVERLAPPING]. WHAT IS BEFORE US, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED ON YOUR PLAN.
>> THE STAFF REPORT. [OVERLAPPING] CORRECT.
WE JUST DID A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> JUST NOT THE WATER PLAN ITSELF AT ALL?
BUT I DID IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR INFORMATION, WE STILL WOULD TAKE YOUR SUGGESTIONS.
I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MEMBER STEVENSON, AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA, UNDER THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IS A LONG NAME, SO WE USED JUST THE INITIALS, HE SUGGESTED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THAT WE GO AHEAD AND SAY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, AND THEN USE THAT ACRONYMS AS WE GO THROUGH, WHICH IS A GREAT SUGGESTION.
>> THE OTHER ONE IS THE NORTH FLORIDA REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN.
>> I HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT AS WELL.
>> MARGARET, DOWN ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THERE'S SJRMWD.
IT WAS JUST THE LETTERS [OVERLAPPING] HAD REVERSED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THE STANDARDS GUIDE, BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, FIRST USE, WHOLE NAME, PARENTHESES, INITIALS, SUBSEQUENT USES INITIALS IS THE RULE.
>> IN HERE, THERE'S SOME OF BOTH.
>> THIS WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE, SO IT WAS JUST BASICALLY BEING UPDATED.
SOME OF THE THINGS WERE ALREADY EXISTING, BUT LET'S TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE NOW.
VICTORIA GUADAGNINO, IS WITH US, WITH THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, AND I KNOW I PROBABLY SAID THAT WRONG.
[00:15:02]
SHE'S HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ACTUAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN.A LOT OF THE INFORMATION COMES FROM OUR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, AND SHE DID A LOT OF THAT WORK ON HAVING THOSE NUMBERS AVAILABLE IN THIS NEW PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MARGARET, I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE.
I NOTICED LOOKING AT YOUR CHART.
YOU CAN PULL UP THAT CHART THAT'S ON HERE.
>> IT STARTS AT 2025, 2030, 2035.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GROW AT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE POPULATION? NONE OF THESE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED GOING FORWARD.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THAT IS, OR WHY IT IS?
>> WELL, IT SAYS IN 2030, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GROW ANYMORE, WE'LL ONLY GROW BY TWO PEOPLE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY LOSE TWO PEOPLE.
>> SEVENTY-SIX TO 78, NO WE GET TWO MORE, AND THEN WE LOSE.
ARE THEY EVEN CLOSE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> VICTORIA GUADAGNINO, I'M THE UTILITIES ENGINEER.
THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR 2025 ARE DIRECTLY FROM OUR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT.
OUR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT ONLY GOES UP TO 2029.
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ST. JOHNS, WE WERE JUST COPYING OVER THE NUMBERS FOR 2030 AND 2035.
2030, IT IS A SLIGHT TYPO THAT DOES NEED TO SAY SIX INSTEAD OF EIGHT AT THE END OF IT SINCE IT IS A DIRECT COPY OVER ACROSS THE CHART.
EACH TIME WE DO THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, WHICH WE WILL BE REDOING, LIKE I SAID, IN 2029, IS A WHOLE NEW SET OF DATA THAT WE ARE POLLING FOR THE ROUGH ESTIMATION OF POPULATION.
>> EXPLAIN WHAT CONSUMPTIVE USE MEANS.
>> CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT IS THE AMOUNT OF WATER WE ARE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW FROM THE AQUIFER SYSTEM AND PRODUCE OUT TO THE CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY AND ALSO THE COUNTY RESIDENTS THAT USE OUR WATER SYSTEM.
>> THAT'S THE 1.4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY NUMBER?
>> THAT'S ABOUT HOW MUCH WE ARE DOING NOW.
ACCORDING TO THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT WE CAN DO HIGHER THAN THAT.
TECHNICALLY, WE ARE A BIT LESS THAN WHAT OUR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT LETS US DO BUT WE LIKE TO HAVE THAT RANGE IN CASE THERE'S AN EMERGENCY OR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS, AND OUR PLANTS ARE ALSO ABLE TO MEET AND GO ABOVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN GENERAL TOO.
>> I'M ASSUMING THAT AS POPULATION INCREASES THAT WE ALSO WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF WATER?
>> WHY WOULDN'T THE POPULATION THEN BE IMPORTANT, AND THIS ONLY IS IN THE AREA THAT'S OUTLINED?
>> IN THE SERVICE AREA OUTLINED, YES, SIR.
>> WHICH INCLUDES ALL OR PARTS OF OFF-ISLAND.
>> IT DOES NOT GO OFF ISLAND AT ALL, SIR. NO, SIR.
>> ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT GET WATER AND SEWER OFF-ISLAND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT?
>> NO, SIR. EVEN PART OF THE ISLAND IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN OUR SERVICE AREA.
>> IT'D BE SAFE TO SAY THAT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE POPULATION IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT THE USE IS GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD?
>> WE DO NOT FULLY KNOW WHEN WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, IT'S ESTIMATIONS BASED OFF OF HOW IT'S BEEN GROWING AS OF THE LAST RECENT UPDATE, AND WE LOOK AT A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT POPULATION INCREASES.
WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE ST. JOHNS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO DETERMINE THE FINAL NUMBERS FOR THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT.
>> DO THEY HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE CURRENT USE THE WORD CAPACITY OR WHAT IS THE CURRENT WATER SUPPLY THAT WE HAVE, AND IS THAT IMPORTANT?
>> YES, SIR. WE ARE ALWAYS REPORTING BETWEEN ST. JOHNS'S ON HOW MUCH WE WITHDRAW AND ALSO DEP.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE INFORMATION REPORTED.
I THINK ST. JOHNS'S IS MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY THAT WE ARE REPORTING TO THEM.
THEY ALSO HAVE AREAS AROUND FLORIDA IN GENERAL THAT THEY ARE MONITORING THE WATER LEVELS.
>> BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS IN THE AQUIFER OR WE DO?
>> THEY HAVE ROUGH ESTIMATES BASED OFF OF THE AREAS THAT THEY KEEP UNDER CONSTANT SUPERVISION.
THEN WE ARE REGULATED BY THEM AND I BELIEVE BOTH THE MILLS ARE TOO.
THEY HAVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH IS BEING WITHDRAWN WITHIN THIS AREA.
>> I'M ON ASK YOU SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING POPULATION OR LARGE INCREASES IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
IS THERE ENOUGH WATER THERE TO SERVICE THE TWO MILLS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND TAKE OUT A LOT OF WATER EACH DAY. IS THE MILLS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE MILLS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT.
THAT IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY THE WATER THAT THE CITY OF FERNANDINA SELLS AND PULLS OUT.
[00:20:02]
THE MILLS HAVE TO DO THEIR OWN.>> THERE'S BEEN A STUDY THAT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SORT OF RELIES ON THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH BEFORE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE POPULATION GROWTH. I CAN'T THINK OF IT.
>> IT GETS THE HIGHEST NUMBERS ABOUT 16,000 FOR THE CITY.
YEAH, WE WERE GROWING IN THE FEW HUNDREDS PER YEAR BASED ON THAT ASSESSMENT.
>> THAT ASSUMED NO CHANGE IN IF WE WERE GOING TO ABSORB ADDITIONAL COUNTY PROPERTIES INTO IT WAS BASED ON NOW AND THAT WAS ONLY WHERE YOU RUN INTO THE PROBLEM IS, WE HAVE A PRETTY LARGE POPULATION THAT'S NOT HERE ALL YEAR.
WHEN YOU START DOING IT JUST BASED ON POPULATION, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT REALLY MEANS.
IT REALLY GETS DOWN TO. RIGHT NOW WE'RE AUTHORIZED UP TO 4.08 MILLION GALLONS A DAY.
>> FOR THE MILLS AND AND THE CITY?
>> THAT'S 1,500 MILLION GALLONS A YEAR.
>> IS THIS POPULATION NUMBER THAT'S PEOPLE, NOT HOUSES OR?
>> IT'S BASED OFF OF PEOPLE, WHICH THEY USE THE CALCULATIONS OF ALL THE AMOUNT OF PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA, INCLUDING VACANT IN USE ON VACANT PROPERTIES.
IT'S A SERIES OF CALCULATIONS THAT WAS COMPLETED BACK IN 2023, I BELIEVE, WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THIS TO FIGURE OUT THE POPULATION ESTIMATIONS.
>> YES. THAT IS INCLUDING COUNTY PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED INTO OUR SYSTEM.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, DO WE MEASURE FEEL LIKE THIS IS COVERING US WITH ENOUGH.
[OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME.
>> DO THEY MEASURE THE PORTABILITY OF THE WATER?
>> IT IS ACTUALLY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA WHO KEEPS TRACK OF THE PORTABILITY OF THE WATER.
WE TEST OUR WATER MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK, TESTS ARE RAN DAILY, SOME ARE WEEKLY, AND THEN THAT IS REPORTED TO DEP.
IT IS A SYSTEM THAT WE ARE ENSURING THAT EVERYTHING IS POTABLE FOR IT? AND ALSO, IN ADDITION TO IT, WE ARE CURRENTLY WE'RE LOOKING AT A NON POTABLE REUSE SYSTEM AND WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT IS BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THE AQUIFER BECAUSE THAT WILL REPLACE IRRIGATION IN SOME AREAS.
SPECIFICALLY THE GOLF COURSES.
>> NO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK ANYTHING ELSE.
>> BASED ON WHAT YOU SEE TODAY, DO YOU SEE THE LONG TERM WATER CONSUMPTION FOR I'LL CALL IT THE CITY, HOWEVER THAT'S DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE BOUNDARIES THAT WE SUPPORT.
IT ACTUALLY MAY GO DOWN WHEN WE START USING THE WASTEWATER RECYCLING, LIKE FOR THE GOLF COURSE OF ONE, IS THAT GOING TO BE ENOUGH OFFSET TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR POTABLE WATER THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE AQUIFER?
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE GOLF COURSES RUN OFF OF THEIR OWN WELL SYSTEM AS WELL FOR IRRIGATION.
HOWEVER, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE WELL SYSTEMS ARE INTACT ON THAT ONE.
BUT IT WILL BE LESS WATER THAT IS BEING WITHDRAWN FROM THE AQUIFER IN TOTAL AS WELL.
>> THE THREE WELLS AT THE GOLF COURSE AND ARE NOT INCLUDED.
>> NO. THAT'S NOT INCLUDING THIS ONE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE TO PRODUCE THEIR OWN CONSUMPTIVE USE REPORT EVERY FIVE YEARS TO 20 YEARS DEPENDING ON. WHAT'S GIVEN TO THEM?
>> DO ALL THE GOLF COURSES DO THEIR OWN?
>> I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT AMELIA RIVER.
I KNOW THE CITY'S GOLF COURSE DOES THEIR OWN.
WE HAVE BEEN ASSISTING WITH IT AS WELL.
WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT OTHER POTENTIAL PLACES TO SEND THE REUSED WATER AS WELL, NOT JUST THE PURSES.
>> DOES ANYONE ST. JOHNS RIVER IS THE ANSWER.
THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD COMPILE SOME DATA AS TO WHAT THE TOTAL WITHDRAWAL RATES ARE CURRENTLY OUT OF THE AQUIFER BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVING A PERMIT TO EVERYONE.
I'M ASSUMING EVERYONE HAS TO GET A PERMIT IF YOU WANT TO.
>> ON A WIDER SCALE, YES, SIR.
THEY ARE THE ONES TO LOOK AT THAT.
IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE CITY, WE KEEP THOSE RECORDS OURSELF AS WELL.
>> I GUESS THEY MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
>> YES, SIR. WE DO HAVE TO MEET THEIR GUIDELINES AS WELL AS DEP GUIDELINES FOR IT.
>> WELL, I KNOW IN OTHER AREAS OF FLORIDA, IF YOU LOOK AT AERIALS OVER SAY,
[00:25:02]
A 20 YEAR 10 YEAR LIFESPAN, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF PONDS, LAKES THAT ARE NOW DRY.I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF ANYONE'S LOOKING AT THOSE KIND OF IMPACTS LOCALLY AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE POPULATION, BUT I'M SURE THE COUNTY HAS THEIR OWN WELLS?
>> FOR THE WATER COMPANIES OUT THERE. I'M NOT FULLY SURE.
>> I WOULD ASSUME [OVERLAPPING].
>> MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ONES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
>> FOR SUPPLYING WATER TO THERE?
>> YES, SIR. ST. JOHNS IS ONLY ONE OF FEW WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS IN FLORIDA.
THERE IS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, 5-7 WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.
>> THEY WOULD ONLY KNOW FOR THE NORTHEASTERN SECTION OF FLORIDA.
>> THE CONCERN I HAVE OR MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION MORE THAN A CONCERN, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, PARTICULARLY FROM THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BUT ALSO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, BUT ANYTIME YOU BUILD SOMETHING, IT IS THEN IMPERVIOUS.
RECHARGE IS A BIG PART OF HOW THIS WATER BECAUSE CURRENTLY, MOST OF IT THAT COMES OUT OF THE TAP THAT'S USED FOR IRRIGATION, WHETHER IT'S YOUR GOLF COURSE OR WHETHER IT'S YOUR HOME GOES INTO THE GROUND, AND THEN THAT'S RECHARGING, GOING BACK INTO THE AQUIFER SO THE ISSUE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS THIS BOARD AND THE COMMISSION AS WE AS WE GROW BECAUSE MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT YOU HAVE THEN THE LESS OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS WATER TO GO BACK DOWN TO THE AQUIFER.
>> DO WE DO ANY STUDIES OR LOOKING AT SALTWATER INTRUSION?
>> ONE OF OUR TESTS THAT WE DO RUN IS TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE PULLING WATER IS THE LEVEL OF SALINITY IN IT.
ACTUALLY, THE WATER WE'RE PULLING FROM, THE LEVEL OF THE AQUIFER IS WE CARBON DATED OUR WATER A FEW YEARS AGO, HASN'T SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY IN OVER 10,000 YEARS.
>> THAT'S HUNDREDS OF FEET BELOW SURFACE.
I DO NOT HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I'M SORRY.
BUT WE PULL FROM ONE OF THE LOWER ENDS OF THE AQUIFER.
>> THERE'S LOTS OF QUESTIONS, LOTS OF CONCERNS.
IF WE WANT TO GO IN DEPTH ON THIS, WE CAN HAVE VICTORIA BACK AND MAKE IT AN ISSUE TO TALK ABOUT.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY.
>> THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT COME UP.
OVER THE YEARS, I'VE ALWAYS HEARD, WELL, WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF WATER FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, AND IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE AND NOT A PROBLEM.
BUT, I THINK, IN SOME CASES, I KNOW IN PLACES OTHER PLACES IN FLORIDA, THEY'RE STARTING TO WORRY ABOUT SALTWATER INTRUSION INTO THEIR WATER SUPPLIES, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW, ARE WE DOING ANYTHING AT ALL? WE DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP ONE DAY AND GO.
I DON'T NEED ANY SALT TO THIS ANYMORE.
IT COULD BE A CRITICAL ISSUE, AND I DON'T KNOW.
THERE'S NO THE SHALLOW WELLS HERE ARE TYPICALLY MORE, I'LL GIVE YOU THE ONLY EXAMPLE I CAN IS IN OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE A PARK, AND THEY HAD A WELL.
WELL, THAT WELL TURNED OUT TO BE JUST AS SALTY AS EGANS CREEK.
THEY HAD TO SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN.
THAT THERE IS A LEVEL OF INTRUSION, BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE TRUE WHAT ONE OR TWO NORTH FLORIDA AQUIFERS, WE PROBABLY HALF THE NORTHERN PART OF THE STATES DRAWN FROM.
QUESTION SORRY. WHEN DOES THE NEW REQUIREMENT THAT WE WILL DISCHARGE NO GROUNDWATER OR WASTEWATER INTO A LAKE OR POND OR WHATEVER IS THAT 20?
WE HAVE TO BE FULLY ON, LIKE, ACTIVE WITH THE NEW REUSES.
>> WE HAVE TO CAPTURE ON OUR LAND, ALL THAT WATER?
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE LIKE I SAID, 2032 IS WHEN THEY'RE REQUIRING US TO BE DONE BY WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PLANNING PHASE RIGHT NOW TO REWORK OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN ORDER TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS.
>> THAT'S REFERENCED UNDER SECTION 6.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE CITY, WHERE WHERE WE ARE AT THAT IN THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW. IT TALKS ABOUT THAT.
>> YES, SIR. THE WATER SUPPLY FACILITY CAPITAL PROJECTS ALTERNATIVE.
>> ALL WE'RE APPROVING ARE THESE FOUR THINGS.
>> I GET THAT, BUT THIS IS AN INFORMATION THING.
[00:30:02]
WE DO PLANNING. THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO US.>> THAT'S WHY I'M TALKING OF YOU WANT TO.
>> LET'S HAVE HER BACK IN AND TALK IN LENGTH.
WE GUYS ALWAYS WANT TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
MIKE AND OUR RECLAIMING WATER OR BROWN WATER ARE WE DOING ANYTHING IN THE CITY THAT'S REQUIRING NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO START PUTTING THAT PIPING IN OR DOING ANYTHING ALONG THOSE? BECAUSE MY GUESS IS IF WE'RE GOING TO RECLAIM THE WATER FROM THE WASTEWATER FACILITY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RUN SOME PIPES OUT.
WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY OF THAT YET, I DON'T THINK, HAVE WE?
>> WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT FEASIBILITIES OF STUFF.
THERE WAS SOME PIPES LAID A WHILE BACK.
WE'RE CHECKING TO MAKE SURE IF THEY'RE STILL IN GOOD CONDITION.
IT WAS FORCING ON THE HORIZON THAT THIS WAS A POTENTIAL THING THAT WAS GOING TO COME THROUGH DEP.
IT HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD A FEW PIPES LAID OUT TO GET US AT LEAST TOWARDS THE GOLF COURSE.
WE'RE CURRENTLY CHECKING IF [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DO HAVE SOME PIPES ON THE ISLAND FOR RECLAIMING.
>> YES, SIR. BUT SINCE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN USED, WE NEED TO VERIFY THAT THEY ARE STILL IN GOOD SHAPE, AND THEY ARE STILL UP TO CODE WITH DEP.
>> THEN ON ANY NEW SUBDIVISIONS THAT WE WOULD APPLY WATER AND SEWER TO, IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO HAVE THEM PUT IN THOSE LINES NOW.
I'M ASSUMING WE DON'T DO THAT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BRIEFLY BEEN DISCUSSED.
IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE FEASIBILITY, HOW MUCH WATER THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PUT OUT FOR REUSE AND HOW MUCH THE GOLF COURSES USE.
AT THE MOMENT RIGHT NOW, WE ARE DOING ABOUT TWO MILLION GALLONS PER DAY OF TREATMENT FOR WASTEWATER ROUGHLY, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF FLOW PER DAY, AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WE HAVE, THERE'S A BIT OF VARIABLES TO THAT.
WE WILL HAVE TO SEE AS WE GET FURTHER ALONG, BUT WE HAVE, LIKE I SAID, BEEN LOOKING AT OTHER POTENTIAL PLACES TO BE SENDING THE REUSE WATER.
>> MOST OF THAT'S GOING ON OUR CURRENT CITY GOLF COURSES?
>> THE CITY GOLF COURSES IS THE FOR SURE AREAS THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION.
THAT IS PART OF WHAT THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN LOOKING AFTER THEIR CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT UPDATES AS WELL.
>> I DO BELIEVE THERE'S SOME PIPES ALONG BAILEY.
ANY POTENTIAL ON BAILEY. GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S THE RE USE PIPES THAT WE LAID DOWN WAS ALONG BAILEY ROAD TO TAKE IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GOLF COURSE.
>> HOW MANY ACRES OF THE CURRENT TWO CITY GOLF COURSES.
DO WE KNOW OFF HAND? MUNICIPAL IS 300 ACRES.
>> I DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER ONE.
>> I DON'T EITHER. I HAVEN'T SEEN A NUMBER.
>> WELL, THE TWO COURSES IS A BIG LIKE YOU JUST SAID 300 ACRES.
THAT'S A LOT OF AREA THAT YOU COULD DO THAT FOR THE RECHARGE.
>> ANY POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG BAILEY.[OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DO ANYTHING IN OUR PERMITTING TO REQUIRE SUBDIVISIONS, THEN WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT? IS WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A SUBDIVISION, GO AHEAD AND PUT THE RECLAIMED WATER PIPES IN SO THAT THE CITY CAN HOOK UP ONCE WE GO?
>> THERE'S A BIT OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO THAT, THAT WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT FOR THAT.
FIRST OFF WOULD BE HOW MUCH YOU WOULD DETERMINE TO CHARGE FOR IT.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, WHAT MOST PEOPLE DO FOR IRRIGATION IS IT'S ALREADY SET TO THEIR METER THAT THEY CURRENTLY USE OR THEY BUY A SEPARATE IRRIGATION METER.
WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY WANT TO PUT IN IRRIGATION NOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENTS THEN TO EVENTUALLY SWITCH OVER TO THE REUSE, AS WELL AS ENSURING THAT THE PIPES ARE WITHIN THE DEP STANDARDS FOR IT AND UNTIL THE TIME THAT IT'S PROPERLY IN USE, THAT IT WILL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT WAY IT'S BE ABLE TO USE.
>> WELL, A NUMBER OF PLACES IN FLORIDA ALREADY DO THAT, CORRECT? I THINK THE VILLAGES DOES IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOME PLACES HAVE ALREADY SWITCHED REUSE. YES, SIR.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
>> SOME PLACES HAVE FULLY SWITCHED TO REUSE OR NON POTABLE RECLAIM WATER, WE HAVE NOT FULLY GOT THERE YET.
AS I SAID, WE'RE STILL IN THE DESIGNING AND PLANNING PHASE OF THAT AND LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY, BECAUSE THEN THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE THE COST ESTIMATE TO IT AND HOW MUCH WE CHARGE FOR THE USE OF THE REUSE.
>> GOING BACK TO WHAT VIRGINIA SAID, IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY PERVIOUS SURFACES AND HAVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
IF WE'RE DOING SOME OF THESE THINGS, THEN THAT'S GREAT.
BUT IF WE'RE NOT DOING IT, THEN ALL WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING ALL THE WATER BACK ON THE STREET.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT OVER TIME.
WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
>> I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT AS YOU ALL START TO YOUR PLANNING WITH THIS REUSE PROJECT STARTS TO COALESCE AROUND ACTION ITEMS, THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PAB FOR MAYBE INCLUSION, AND I GUESS WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR COMP PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT WATER REUSE, BUT THEN IT WOULD ALSO BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE
[00:35:03]
WOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC WOULD THAT BE HOW YOU WOULD [OVERLAPPING].>> CORRECT. ONCE THEY DETERMINE WHAT PROCESSES WE'RE GOING TO USE AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK AND THE FUNDING, THE FEES AND EVERYTHING, THEN WE WOULD INCORPORATE CHANGES TO THE LDC TO REFLECT THAT.
>> I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED THAT STAFF.
>> THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE THINKING OF MAKE SURE THAT YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE ALWAYS DON'T WANT TO BE TRYING TO CATCH UP.
>> LET ME ASK. YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT IS THERE'S A COST ELEMENT THAT ALSO ENTERS INTO THIS.
IS THERE ANY OF THE PLANNING THAT GETS AT LEAST FROM A CITY STANDPOINT, LOOKING AT WHAT CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE GOING TO REQUIRE IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES? ARE THOSE GOING TO ALL COME FROM INCOME FROM THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, OR ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT OF OUR TAX BASE?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING INTO IT.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH ENGINEER COMPANIES THAT FOCUS ON FEE SIDE TO SEE HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST EITHER FOR THE UTILITY USAGE, HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST US TO BUILD.
WE HAVE A SET ENGINEER WHO'S ON CONTRACT FOR DESIGNING AND PLANNING OUT OUR REUSE SYSTEM.
WITH THAT COST HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION, AND WE ARE LOOKING ALSO FOR THE BUILDING SIDE OF THE REUSE SYSTEM TO TRY TO GO FOR GRANTS IN ORDER TO TRY TO SET OFF SOME [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THAT IS IN [INAUDIBLE] FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, YOU ARE LOOKING AT REALLY THE WHOLE THING.
>> WE ARE TRYING TO THE WHOLE THING NOW BEFORE IT FULLY IS IMPLEMENTED.
THAT WAY WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE GOING AND WHAT WE NEED TO EXPECT WHEN IT'S TIME FOR THIS TO BE UP AND RUNNING.
>> THAT'S IN MY MIND, THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THAT'S DOING PROJECT MANAGER, THE WAY IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
>> MARGARET, WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM US?
>> WELL, LET ME JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING THAT ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS REVIEWED THIS.
LIKE VICTORIA MENTIONED, THEY ARE THE KEEPERS OF ALL THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMITS FOR NOT JUST US, BUT OTHER AREAS.
JUST TO LET THEY HAVE REVIEWED THIS DRAFT AND THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
BUT WHAT I NEED IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPROVAL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES TO THE COMMISSION.
>> THOSE ARE THE FOUR ITEMS THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THIS IS SO WE'RE STILL IN THE LANDSCAPING?
>> NO, WE'RE NOT IN LANDSCAPING.
WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
THEY ARE UNDER GOAL 4 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT, OBJECTIVE 4.03 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES.
THE CHANGES AS INDICATED, POLICY 40.0305.
THE NEXT ONE IS OBJECTIVE 4.12 WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN, SPECIFICALLY, POLICY 4.12.02. WERE THOSE IT?
>> I WANT TO AMEND WELL, MAKE IT, BUT I WANT TO AMEND IT.
YOU CAN SECOND IT AND THEN I CAN AMEND IT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO A MINUTE TO ADD THE NOTE TO ADD OR TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WERE IDENTIFIED DURING THIS DISCUSSION AND TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE WELL, I'LL SAY THE ACRONYMS THAT WE'VE GOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> YEAH. WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE THOSE REVISED BY THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE NOW THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE WHAT YOU SENT WITH HATS CHANGE THE CONDITION.
THE SECOND STANDS, AM I CORRECT?
>> I HAVE AGREED TO THE CHANGES THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> ANY OPPOSED? MARGARET. TELL US WHAT WE ARE NOW NEED TO APPROVE ON LANDSCAPING.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
TELL US WHAT WE'VE COVERED AND WHAT WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT OR WHAT WE ALL HOPE IS THE LAST.>> WELL, AT YOUR LAST MEETING, WE HAVE A LENGTHY DISCUSSION CONCERNING THIS PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS THAT CAME FORWARD AND THEN WENT TO COMMISSION AND THEN CAME BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
WE WENT OVER ALL THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THE STRIKE THROUGHS AT LENGTH AND DISCUSSED THOSE.
[00:40:01]
WHAT WE DECIDED WAS THAT AT THIS MEETING, WE WOULD BRING IT BACK WITH THE CHANGES IN A DIFFERENT COLOR WHERE YOU COULD CONCENTRATE ON THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANTED FROM YOUR FURTHER DISCUSSION.THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IN JUNE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK WITH EVERYTHING YELLOW AND HIGHLIGHTED FOR YOU TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE COMMISSION AND THEN IT WILL GO FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE YET TO LOOK AT.
ASSUMING WE'VE HAD TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, WHAT DO WE THINK?
>> I THINK IT'S GETTING CLOSE.
>> YEAH. I HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING.
>> LET'S JUST TAKE A PAGE OF TIME SO EVERYBODY'S GOT ANY QUESTIONS. FIRST PAGE.
>> WE'LL START ON THE FIRST PAGE.
ANYBODY WITH AN ISSUE ON PAGE 1?
>> WE'RE JUST TRYING TO EMPHASIZE NATIVE, WHICH IS WHAT FROM YOUR DISCUSSION.
>> STUFF AND BLUE PLUS WHATEVER.
>> THEN THE NEXT BLUE OR GREEN ON MINE IS ON PAGE 3.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS JUST SOME CLARIFICATION TO HAVE THE SENTENCE READ PROPERLY.
>> YEAH. I THINK WE'RE OKAY THERE.
WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING ANY OF THE SPECS IN TERMS OF POSITIONING OF PLANTS AND STUFF PART OF SERVICE.
>> CAN YOU USE THE PAGES IN THE WHOLE THING?
I'M SORRY. I DON'T. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHERE I AM TO. I'M ON THE FINAL PAGE.
>> WE ARE UNDER JUST GO DOWN UNDER FOUR DECIMAL 0501.
THERE IT SAYS YOU TALK ABOUT CITY CONTINUE.
CITY CONTINUES TO OFFER A FREE NATIVE TREE EXCHANGE PROGRAM FOR THOSE WISHING TO REMOVE AN INVASIVE TREE FROM THEIR PROPERTY.
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT.
THERE ARE EVASIVE TREES THAT WE DON'T CARE IF THEY STAY OR NOT.
IN MY MIND, IF IT'S INVASIVE, IT OUGHT TO BE KICKED OUT OF THE COUNTY.
QUITE FRANKLY, BUT IF THERE'S SOME TREES AROUND THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP ON THE SITE, WHAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT?
>> WELL, OF COURSE, IF IT'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEN WE REQUIRE THEM TO REMOVE THE INVASIVE SPECIES.
THIS IS JUST SAYING THAT THE CITY STILL OFFERS THAT PROGRAM THAT IF YOU AS A HOME OWNER HAVE AN INVASIVE PLANT, AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE IT, WE HAVE THAT PROGRAM IN PLACE.
WE DON'T GO AROUND. WE DO ON THE GREENWAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MR. BENNETT, IT'S MORE SO AS AN INCENTIVIZATION TOOL FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REMOVE INVASIVE SPECIES FROM THEIR PROPERTY.
>> WELL, I GET THAT, BUT ON THE OTHER END, IF IT'S A NEW SUBDIVISION, THEY REQUIRED TO GO TO REMOVE ALL INVASIVE TREES.
>> I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE GOING BACK TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT IS A GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, BECAUSE I'M WONDERING WHY ARE WE KEEPING SOME INVASIVE TREES AROUND? WHY DON'T WE JUST GET RID OF THEM IF WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
>> ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS WE CAN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED, WE CAN'T REALLY CONTROL THAT.
THAT'S WHY YOU PUT THIS IN AS AN INCENTIVIZATION.
>> BUT UNDER NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD REQUIRE.
SHOW ME THE PAGE NUMBER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M ON PAGE 5. MARK IT'S THE PAGE THAT HAS THIS CHART.
>> I LOOK AT THE WHOLE. THAT'S PAGE 47.
>> I'D BE 47 OF YOU IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL.
>> ITEM C, THERE ARE TWO CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THAT WAS SOME OF THE WORDING IS JUST TO BE SURE THAT WE MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY THAT AS FOR FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES, BUT ALSO THAT THE MATERIAL IS USE OF NATIVE PLANTING.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> ITEM C. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
SAYS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR FLORIDA FRIENDLY OR ZERO SCAPE LANDSCAPE PRINCIPLES,
[00:45:04]
MATERIALS, AND USE OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS.>> THERE'S SOME STRIKE THROUGH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR [INAUDIBLE] FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES.
WE ADDED THAT WORD SET OF LANDSCAPE PRINCIPLE MATERIALS.
USE OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS.
THAT NEEDS TO STRIKE THROUGH. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT DID STRIKE THROUGH THE M, BUT IT JUST DIDN'T GET AT ALL.
BUT YES. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> THE REST OF THAT IS ALL TAKEAWAY.
THAT'S JUST TAKEN OFF THE POINT SYSTEM.
>> THEN WE MOVE OVER TO MARK I SAY YOU, IT'S AT 4.05.05 MINIMUM.
>> I NEED TO BACK UP ONE LITTLE AT LEAST GO PAGE 51.
>> WELL, YOU GOT TO GO TO 51 IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE.
>> GO BACK TO PAGE 49, WHICH IS JUST BEFORE YOU GET TO FOUR DECIMAL 0504, IS JUST ABOVE IT.
MARGARET SAYS, PROPOSED CHANGES TO LDC SECTION SUBSECTIONS FOUR DECIMAL 0503, REMEMBERED AS E AND F. WHERE IS F? I NEVER FOUND AN F. THERE'S AN E.
>> I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> SEE, THESE ARE PAGE NUMBER ON HERE.
>> EXPLANATION HERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH. I SEE THE EXPLANATION.
>> IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, EXPLANATION PROPOSED CHANGES [INAUDIBLE] OF IT.
AS NUMBERED IN E AND F. YOU FOUND IT?
>> D IS A IS A NEW NUMBERING OF IT AND E.
>> F JUST BE STRICKEN OR NOT. WELL, DO YOU NEED?
>> I THINK IT SHOULD SAY RENUMBERED AS D AND E. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS SHOULD BE.
>> BECAUSE IT'S BEEN RENUMBERED.
>> NOW THAT CHANGE IN THE TWO LETTERS.
I DON'T HAVE THAT ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
>> THEN IT SAID IT'S RENUMBERED AS E AND F SERVES SOLELY TO USE PLAIN LANGUAGE DIRECTED FROM THE CITY COMMISSION.
LIKE I SAID, I WASN'T ORIGINALLY INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE CREATION OF THIS DOCUMENT, BUT WE COULD JUST CHECK ON SEE WHAT THE RENUMBERING WAS.
>> I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE LAST NUMBER AND THAT IS E, WHICH IS THE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT.
THAT WAS BASICALLY JUST FIXING THE SHELLS IN THE MASS, THERE WASN'T ANY FISCAL CHANGE OUTSIDE OF JUST.
>> WELL, IF YOU GO ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE, THERE'S ONLY A D AND AN E. E IS UNDER MAINTENANCE.
>> BUT THERE'S NO F ANYWHERE ON THIS DOCUMENT.
>> IF WE GET THROUGH THIS TOO, MARGARET, I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE MORE CHANGE OF SUBSTANCE HERE.
WELL, TWO. IF WE GET THROUGH THESE, I'M ASSUMING OF COURSE THAT YOU'LL GO THROUGH IT AND YOU WILL PROVE IT, AND IF HE'S WILLING, [NOISE] WE'LL DEPUTIZE PETE TO PROOF IT.
>> I WILL JUST SAY THIS EXPLANATION HAS BEEN HERE WITH THE COMMISSION.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S BEEN THERE FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS.
>> I WANT US TO GET THIS. [OVERLAPPING] IF HE'S WILLING TO GO PROOF THE FINAL VERSION, [OVERLAPPING] I THINK I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
>> WE HE CHANGES RIGHT UP THERE.
BUT I THINK STILL WHEN WE GO THROUGH IT WE WOULD LIKE TO.
>> SHE'S ALREADY, IN MY MIND, ALREADY DONE A HECK OF A LOT OF STUFF TO FIND LITTLE STUFF.
>> MARGARET, WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS IN JUNE AS A FINAL TO BE APPROVED?
>> YES, MA'AM. JUST WHERE WE'RE ALL CLEAR.
[00:50:08]
EVEN WHEN WE BRING IT BACK FOR APPROVAL, WE WILL MAKE ASTERISKS BY IT OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU'LL KNOW THAT THESE ARE THE NEW CHANGES NOW.BECAUSE THERE SHOULD JUST BE A COUPLE BECAUSE ALL I'M HEARING IS A FEW LITTLE THINGS.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE GREEN INDICATES THAT THIS WAS A CHANGE.
>> SOME WAY TO SHOW US THIS IS WAS A CHANGE, IT COULD BE THE YELLOW OR WHATEVER.
>> DIFFERENT PART OF THE RAINBOW.
>> [LAUGHTER] WE'LL HAVE A WAY THAT WORKS.
WHAT WE'LL DO IS THE GREEN NOW, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT, WE'LL CHANGE IT TO THE YELLOW.
>> THEN THE NEW ONES CAN BE GREEN, WHICH ONLY SHOULD BE ONE OR TWO.
>> NONE OF US WANT TO SIT THERE WITH TWO OR THREE PAGES TRYING TO SIFT THROUGH.
>> WELL, I'D SUGGESTED THAT TO KELLY, AND SHE SAID, WELL, WHEN IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION, ALL THOSE CHANGES HAVE TO BE REFLECTED.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY SAY WE PAY FOR A PDF READER THAT I COULD READ AND SEE WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE FROM IT.
THAT IT WOULD ALL BE DONE FOR ME. THAT THEY WON'T PAY FOR THAT.
I PUT IN AN INVOICE FOR ALL OF US TO GET UPDATED SYSTEM.
>> THE ONLY CHANGE ON PAGE 51 IS THE ADDITION TO THE WORD OF.
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S GOOD THERE.
>> THAT WAS ADDED BASED ON THE CONVERSATION OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE TO LEAVE THE EXISTING PLANT.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT SECOND SENTENCE.
>> NOW, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'M PICKING ON.
IF YOU GO TO 405-05, ANYWAY, IT STARTS OUT IT SAYS, USE OF EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE E HAS GOT TO BE CAPITALIZED.
>> IT'S NOT. [OVERLAPPING] IT'S STRIKE THROUGH.
>> YEAH, I SEE IT NOW. EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL IS PREFERRED OTHER THAN INVASIVE SPECIES MAY BE COUNTED.
THE SENTENCE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
>> MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS MEETING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION.
>> IT'S INFERRED OR APPLIED, WHATEVER.
>> EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL IS PREFERRED.
>> BUT ISN'T IT SAYING THOUGH THAT IF YOU'VE GOT NATIVE PLANTS ON YOUR SITE, YOU CAN IDENTIFY IT AND COUNT THAT AND SAY, I'VE ALREADY GOT SOME OF THEM IN THERE ALREADY GROWING, AND I WANT TO COUNT THOSE TOWARDS MY REQUIREMENT?
>> WE DO THAT NOW, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO EMPHASIZE THAT IF YOU KEEP THIS EXISTING MATERIAL WITHOUT CLEAR CUTTING THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN USE THOSE, YOU CAN COUNT THOSE TOWARDS YOUR REQUIREMENTS.
BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONVERSATION WAS, HOW CAN WE EMPHASIZE IN THE ORDINANCE TO USE EXISTING MATERIAL? IF IT'S NOT INVASIVE.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE IT DOESN'T NEED ANYTHING MORE THAN A COUPLE OF PARENTHESES.
IF YOU JUST SAY USE OF EXISTING PLANNING MATERIALS IS PREFERRED, PUT IN PARENTHESES OTHER THAN INVASIVE SPECIES, WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW.
YOU DO THAT MAY BE COUNTED TOWARD.
>> MAYBE COMMAS. MAYBE A COMMA RATHER THAN A PARENTHESES.
>> WOULD IT HELP THE CASE TO SAY EXISTING PLANT MATERIALS IS PREFERRED, EXCLUDING INVASIVE SPECIES?
>> YEAH, COMMA, BUT EXCLUSIVE.
>> YES. THAT MAY EVEN BE A BETTER.
I THINK I LIKE THAT ONE BETTER.
>> I'M GLAD YOU WEREN'T AROUND FOR MY COMPREHENSIVE EXAM.
>> I THINK WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE WORD OTHER THAN TO [OVERLAPPING] EXCLUSIVE OF.
THAT CEMENTS EVERYTHING WE'RE ALREADY SAYING ABOUT NOT DOING INVASIVE SPECIES ACCEPTANCE.
>> NOT TO CLEAR CUT THE PROPERTY.
>> THE FINAL CHANGE IN GREEN IS 4.05.07.C NEXT TO THE LAST LINE.
>> THAT TO ME IS JUST A TYPO WHERE THAT WAS PROBABLY ALREADY IN THE OLD DOCUMENT.
>> THEN THE NEXT ONE, THERE WAS ONE MORE ABOUT THE UNDERSTORY TREES.
PERMITS USE OF UNDERSTORY TREES.
>> THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT WE WERE.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE WAS ONE.
>> WHAT'S THE ASTERISK NEXT TO THE 4.05.07, THE RED ASTERISK?
[00:55:01]
>> THAT JUST MEANS THERE WAS A CHANGE.
THAT SHOULD COME OFF THERE. WE JUST MISSED THAT TAKING IT OFF.
>> FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, PURELY FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT AND WHAT THEY'VE GOT TO SEE, IF YOU INCREASE THE SIX TO NINE, THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS, PARTICULARLY ON MU8?
>> TRYING TO HAVE THAT REDEVELOPED.
>> I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A STICK OF.
YOU'RE SEEING THAT ONE AS A DAY TO DAY ISSUE?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, MARK? YOU'RE MU8 EXPERT.
>> [LAUGHTER] GOOD FOR ME. I AIN'T GET A MEDAL OR A PLANT.
>> I'LL BUY YOU COFFEE AT THE COFFEE SHOP.
>> DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR UNDERSTORY TREES?
THAT'S ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I DID WHEN I HAD A CONVERSATION AGAIN WITH MEMBER STEVENSON, AND WE ARE GOING TO.
THE WAY WE INTERPRET IT NOW IS THAT UNDERSTORY TREE HAS TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF TREE.
THEN IT DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF SHADE TREE.
IT'S A TREE THAT'S NOT DEFINED AS A SHADE TREE.
BUT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND MAKE IT FOR THE USER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR UNDERSTORY TREE.
>> BECAUSE IT CAN BE AN INVASIVE TREE.
>> NO. NOT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN THE UNDERSTORY IS THOSE INVASIVE TREES GET IN UNDERNEATH IT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITION.
>> WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT AND PERMITS USE OF UNDERSTORY TREES. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THAT?
>> LEAVE IT ALONE. JUST DEFINE WHAT UNDERSTORY TREE EQUALS.
WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF A TREE AND A SHADE TREE.
THAT'S ALREADY IN EITHER THE COMP PLAN OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I THINK IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I TALKED TO MARGARET AND OUR [INAUDIBLE].
IT'S LIKE TRYING TO GET YOUR HANDS AROUND JELLO, DEFINING WHAT AN UNDERSTORY TREE IS.
WELL, THE CRAPE MYRTLE WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD DEFINITION.
IF YOU GO DOWNTOWN, YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO GO ALONG AND REPLACE ALL THOSE CRAPE MYRTLES ON CENTER STREET WITH OAKS.
YOU WANT TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING LIKE A CRAPE MYRTLE.
IT'S A LOWER. IT'S GOING TO BE A TREE THAT'S NOT GOING TO MEET.
WE DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT A SHADE TREE IS, HOW TALL IT IS, WHAT RED IS AND SO FORTH, THE UMBRELLA.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE A SOLID DEFINITION HERE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO FOOTNOTE THAT.
>> I THINK IF YOU DO THAT DEFINITION, I THINK THAT'S FINE.
GILLETTE & ASSOCIATES WHEN THEY'RE DOING, THEY KNOW WHAT AN UNDERSTORY TREE IS.
>> DEFINITION OF UNDERSTORY TREE, WHERE IS IT? IT DOESN'T EXIST PER SE, BUT WE'LL HAVE.
>> THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE, WE'LL MAKE THESE CHANGES, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN JUNE FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION.
>> WHEN WE APPROVE IT, IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN WHAT FORM? HOW IS IT SENT TO THEM?
I THINK IT MIGHT BE AN ORDINANCE.
IT'S EITHER IN A FORMAT OF A RESOLUTION. I CAN'T REMEMBER.
>> ORDINANCE. THEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IT'LL HAVE AN EXHIBIT, AND THIS WILL BECOME THE EXHIBIT TO THAT ORDINANCE.
BUT SOMEWHERE IN THAT SAY THAT THIS AS IT HAS BEEN CHANGED, PROTECTS AND PRESERVES NATIVE TREE SPECIES AND NATURAL LANDSCAPES.
NEXT BULLET POINT, FOSTERS AND ENCOURAGES MAINTENANCE OF NATURAL DESERT.
IN OTHER WORDS, TELL THEM, BEFORE THEY GET INTO IT, WHY WE DID IT.
>> I'M JUST ADDING WHAT'S HERE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THIS IS WHAT THIS ACCOMPLISHES, WHERE THEY CAN SEE IT BEFORE THEY GET INTO THE BODY OF IT.
IT'S MORE LIKE AN AI BULLET POINT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING IT IS.
BUT I WANT THEM TO SEE [OVERLAPPING] UP FRONT WHY WE DID THIS AND WHAT IT'LL ACCOMPLISH.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT PARAGRAPH THAT'S RIGHT AFTER THE OLD CHART, RIGHT?
>> I'M REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE BEGINNING AND JUST BULLET POINTING THESE ITEMS, SO THEY WILL SEE BEFORE THEY GET INTO IT WHY WE DID IT AND WHAT THIS ACCOMPLISHES.
>> JUST UNDER PARAGRAPH OF 4.05.01?
>> THERE'S AN EXPLANATION AFTER EACH SECTION THAT WE CHANGE.
WE CAN TRY TO HAVE THAT SIMPLIFIED COVER SHEET.
>> YOU ONLY PRESENT THE FINAL COPY.
THAT'S ALL THAT WE'VE APPROVED.
THEN ALL THE BACKUP INFORMATION IS BEHIND IT.
[01:00:01]
IF THEY DO WHAT YOU'RE NOW SUGGESTING CHANGES TO THIS, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY.>> I UNDERSTAND YOU THINK THAT, BUT I I'M NOT DOING THAT.
>> IN THE ORDINANCE, WE ALSO SAY, WHEREAS THE COMMISSION [OVERLAPPING] FOUND THAT.
THERE'S EXPLANATION IN THE ORDINANCE.
>> THEY WILL HAVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE HAD.
>> ALL THE MINUTES, EVERYTHING ARE IN THERE.
>> I WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE DID THIS.
WHEN THEY'VE SENT THINGS BACK TO US, THEY'VE SENT IT BACK LIKE, WHY DO WE HAVE THIS? I WANT THEM TO KNOW WHEN THEY GET THIS, WHY WE DID IT, WHAT IT DOES, AND WHAT IT ACCOMPLISHES.
>> IT'S LIKE YOU WANT THE PURPOSE.
>> WELL, THE IDEA IS TO HAVE [OVERLAPPING] YOU OUGHT TO HAVE A ONE PAGE SUMMARY.
>> WELL, THAT'S FINE. THEN LET'S DO THAT.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE, BUT A ONE PAGE SUMMARY, IT WOULD BASICALLY GIVE THEM THE KEY POINTS OF IT IF THERE'S [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT AT OUR JOINT MEETING.
THEY WANTED THINGS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, THEY WANT IT TO BE SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE DOING THIS AND WHAT IT DOES FOR US.
>> THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION. THEY WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS OUR LOGIC.
I SAY OUR LOGIC REALLY IS ALSO, WE'RE INTEGRATED WITH THE STAFF.
IT'S REALLY COLLECTIVELY THE PLANNING COMMUNITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR THING.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO JUST MORE OR LESS DROP IT ON THEIR DESK AND SAY, THERE YOU.
>> I JUST HAVE ONE THING JUST TO NOTE.
WHENEVER STAFF IS PREPARING AGENDA ITEMS FOR, SPECIFICALLY, THE CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS, THERE ALWAYS IS A SUMMARY SHEET THAT GOES BEFORE THE ORDINANCE AND ALL OF THE EXHIBITS THAT DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE MENTIONING.
IT LAYS OUT THE SUBJECT, THE ITEM TYPE, THE REQUESTED ACTION, AND THE SYNOPSIS OF THAT REQUESTED ACTION.
THEN IT GIVES YOU BASICALLY JUST WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED.
THAT'S ALREADY DONE WHEN IT GOES TO CITY COMMISSION.
>> WHEN THEY, THE COMMISSION, PULL UP THEIR DATA PACK, YOU CAN GO DOWN AND PICK.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO LOOK AT ALL 400 PAGES.
YOU CAN GO DOWN LOOK AT ITEM BY ITEM.
TAKE IT OUT AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT THEY'VE GOT AND THEN SAY, YEAH, I'M HAPPY WITH IT.
>> WE WANT THEM TO READ THROUGH DETAILS.
BUT THEY DO HAVE A SUMMARY WHERE YOU CAN GO AND LOOK AT A GLANCE AT WHAT THAT ITEM IS AND WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS JUST TO KNOW THE BASICS OF IT.
BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD READ THROUGH AND GO THROUGH THE FINE DETAILS AS WELL.
>> WELL, THOSE PACKETS ARE USUALLY 4-600 PAGES ON A BIG ONE.
YOU GOT TO BOIL THE OCEAN DOWN FOR THEM.
THAT'S PARTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
BUT I THINK JUST TAKE A LOOK AT EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE SEEING TODAY.
THEY, IN TWO WEEKS, THEY'LL HAVE THEIR MEETING AND SEE THIS WON'T COME UP NEXT MEETING.
>> YEAH, PROBABLY JULY MEETING.
>> THIS IS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, MR. DOSTER.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> WELL, ANYTHING THAT COMES UP THAT'S GONE THROUGH THE PAD AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND YOU CAN JUST LOOK AT THAT PACKAGE AND SEE.
>> DO YOU NEED A VOICE VOTE OR A VOICE GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK OR ANYTHING?
>> I GUESS SHE'S GOING TO HAVE A FINAL AND THAT'S THE ONE WILL GO THROUGH.
>> MAYBE ONE MORE LOOK AND [OVERLAPPING] GIVE A REPORT.
>> IT'LL BE THE LAST LOOK [LAUGHTER] HOPEFULLY.
>> BECAUSE IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO MISS A WINDOW TO TAKE IT.
BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO BUNCH THEM TOGETHER AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED A LITTLE BIT.
>> THAT WAS WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN THAT JUNE MEETING, RIGHT?
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS? ARE WE GOOD FOR NOW? MARK, STAFF REPORT?
>> MARGARET, IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> COME ON, JUST SAY SOMETHING.
>> WE COULD TALK ABOUT SAND DUNES.
WE COULD SOON. I SENT YOU A NOTE ON THAT.
>> SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
WELL, THEY TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, YOU SAID THAT WASN'T IN A HIGH HAZARD AREA, THE PROPERTY.
WHERE IS THE HIGH HAZARD AREA SHOWN ON THE MAP? I KNOW THERE'S A MAP. THERE'S GOT TO BE.
>> ABOUT TWO BLOCKS DOWN IT IS.
>> DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA AND ADVERTISED?
>> I WANT US TO LEARNING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE IF WE GET INTO THE PUD THING, AND THEN SOMEBODY WANT TO.
BECAUSE NICK BROUGHT UP THE POINT OF IT MIGHT BE A FIT FOR PUD NOT FOR.
[01:05:07]
>> VICTORIA, THANK YOU FOR COMING.
>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE HIGH HAZARD AREA IS.
>> I CAN SHOW YOU THAT REAL QUICK.
>> I MENTIONED MARGARET OR [OVERLAPPING] MORGAN CAN PULL THAT UP FOR US.
>> IF YOU COULD PUT ON OUR AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME, JUNE, A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUD AND WHAT IS THIS HIGH HAZARD AREAS?
>> WELL, HE JUST MENTIONED SOMETHING.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OCEAN IN A HIGH HAZARD AREA. THAT'S ALL.
JUST INTUITIVELY, I DON'T KNOW WHY OTHER THAN IT'S NOT ON A 60 FOOT BLUFF OR ANYTHING.
>> NO, WE'RE NOT. HE TOOK IT BACK UNTIL I FIND OUT THE HIGH HAZARD AREA.
>> I CAN SIMPLY SHOW YOU WHERE IT'S AT ON THE MAP.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.