Jan 14, 2026 Planning Advisory Board

[1) Call to Order]

[00:00:12]

AND ROLL CALL. NON-VOTING BOARD. SCHOOL BOARD. REP. MISS LOCKHART IS ABSENT. MEMBER.

BARONE HERE. ALTERNATE MEMBER. COOPER HERE. MEMBER CHRIS IS ABSENT. MEMBER. FOWLER. PRESENT.

MEMBER. MAYOR. YEP. MEMBER. SCHULTZ HERE. VICE CHAIR. KEPLER. PRESENT. CHAIR.

COUGHLIN. PRESENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? NO, SIR. OKAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I HAVE NO SLIPS. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, APPROVAL OF THE

[6) Approval of Minutes]

SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A CORRECTION. HANG ON. YEAH. OKAY. ON PAGE TWO. YEAH.

PAGE TWO. TWO ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SECOND PERIOD THERE, THE PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS THAT THE PLANNING PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTED TO THE STAFF WILL NEED TO DETERMINE IF A LANDING ZONE WAS CONNECTED. I THOUGHT WE SAID THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY DO THE ASSESSMENT AND LOOK AT IT AS OPPOSED TO THEY NEED TO COMMENT. THAT THEY'RE GOING TO. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. I WILL HOPEFULLY IN A TIMELY FASHION. SO SO WOULD YOU SECOND IT? SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT? ABSOLUTELY, YES. AND DO YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OR WE NEED TO CALL THE ROLL ON THIS ONE. NO, YOU CAN DO IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? VERY GOOD.

[7.A) An Ordinance Amending Section 44-8 - Definitions, Chapter 44 - General Provisions, Adding Section 46-46 - Airport Planning and Site Specific Development, Chapter 46 - Administration, Procedures and Enforcement, Amending Section 58-681 - District Purpose, Section 58-682 - Uses Permitted, Section 58-683 - Conditional Uses, and Section 58-691 - Maximum Declared Distance of Runway, Division 23, C4 Airport Commercial District, Chapter 58 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples for the Purpose of Updating the Code of Ordinances; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener's Error; Construction; Publication and an Effective Date.]

SECTION 58 683 CONDITIONAL USES AND SECTION 58 691 MAXIMUM DECLARED DISTANCE OF RUNWAY.

DIVISION 23 C-4 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. CHAPTER 58 ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERROR. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. CHAIR. WELL DONE. SO I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT RIGHT NOW THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE ITEM. SO YOU ALL ARE SITTING AS THE CITY'S LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. THE ROLE OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IS TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS AN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS DOES AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S COMING HERE. AND IT'S REQUIRED TO PRIOR TO GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 21ST FOR FIRST READING. SO WITH THAT, I'LL OBVIOUSLY THE AIRPORT ITSELF HAS KIND OF BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS, SPECIFICALLY SEVEN YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, WELL BEFORE MY TIME. BUT WHERE WHERE THIS ORDINANCE STEMMED FROM WAS THERE WAS A SITUATION IN WHICH THERE WERE SOME CONCERN AND SOME DISCUSSION ON A UTILIZATION PLAN, AND WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIFIC PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED. ANDREW AND MYSELF PUT TOGETHER A LEGAL MEMO, AN OPINION LETTER THAT WE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL IN MAY STEMMING FROM THAT OPINION LETTER. THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY A RESOLUTION THAT WAS ENTERED INTO BEFORE SUMMER BREAK BASED ON THE THREAT OF LITIGATION. THAT RESOLUTION WAS THEN RESCINDED IN OCTOBER, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE ORDINANCES. NOW, THIS ORDINANCE IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS I HAVE PERSONALLY MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NA AT LEAST SEVEN TIMES, THREE TIMES BEFORE WE RESCINDED THE

[00:05:05]

EVERYTHING UNDERLINED IS BEING ADDED. EVERYTHING STRUCK THROUGH IS BEING DELETED. WE CAN GO PAGE BY PAGE. I CAN GIVE YOU THE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT EACH SECTION DOES. BUT I ALSO HAVE MISS MARTIN HERE AND MR. DICKMAN HERE BECAUSE HE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FEELING OF THE BOARD IS, BUT I THINK A PAGE BY PAGE APPROACH, PROBABLY EVEN THOUGH IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE LONGER, WOULD BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WOULD HELP US UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON A LITTLE BIT BETTER. UNLESS SOMEBODY OBJECTS TO THAT.

THAT'S HOW I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE GO THROUGH. IF YOU WANT TO DO A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW AND THEN START PAGE BY PAGE, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AS WELL. AND YOU AND MISS MARTIN CAN WORK OUT WHO'S TELLING US WHAT. OKAY, MR. CHAIR, JUST A CLARIFICATION. WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE PAGE BY PAGE, OR SHOULD WE HOLD OUR QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THAT? WE CAN TRY TO DO IT PAGE BY PAGE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO FORGET WHERE WE WERE. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. BUT IF IT GETS TOO BOGGED DOWN, I MEAN, TRY TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND GET RIGHT TO THE POINT AND AVOID SPEECHES. IF WE CAN DO THAT, I THINK A PAGE BY PAGE APPROACH WOULD MAKE SENSE WITH THE QUESTIONS AS WE GO. SURE. AND JUST AS FOR INFORMATION, I'D BE HAPPY TO HOLD MY QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END IF YOU'D THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE BETTER. BUT. BUT I'LL BE GUIDED, OF COURSE, BY YOUR JUDGMENT. IS THERE ANY OTHER PERSON THAT WOULD COMMENT ON WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO QUESTIONS, PAGE BY PAGE, OR AT THE END? YEAH, I THINK, AS YOU'VE SUGGESTED, A BASIC OVERVIEW INITIALLY AND THEN GO THROUGH PAGE BY PAGE. IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE, I THINK IT'LL BECOME OBVIOUS THEN. OKAY. OKAY.

GOOD. THAT WORKS FOR YOU. THAT WORKS. YEAH. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE BEST WAY IS, IS DO A QUICK OVERVIEW AND THEN WE CAN GO PAGE BY PAGE AND ASK QUESTIONS POP UP. WE'LL JUST TAKE NOTES.

AND I DO WANT TO JUST MENTION THAT THERE IS THE ELEMENTS AND POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE PULLED UP ON SCREEN. AND I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS ALSO THE MAIN REASON WHY THIS ORDINANCE WAS NEEDED. FOR CLARITY, BECAUSE OF DURING OUR OPINION, WE REALIZED THAT THESE POLICIES WERE OUT THERE. AND AS YOU UNDERSTAND, AND MR. DICKMAN WILL BEAT A DEAD DRUM IF NEEDED. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES MUST STEM FROM THAT. SO ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STRICT COMPLIANCE IS BY LAW WHAT THE CITY HAS TO DO. SO WITH THAT, THE QUICK OVERVIEW. AND THEN WE'LL START ON PAGE TWO. UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON PAGE ONE IS DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT GOT US IN SOME OF THE CONFUSION TO BEGIN WITH. SO WE ADDED DEFINITIONS THAT I THINK WILL HELP CLARIFY WHAT PLAN THE CITY'S ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT. WHEN WE GET TO THE SPECIFIC CODES, AS WE GET INTO THE MEAT OF THE ORDINANCE, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, AND THEN THERE IS A PROCESS FOR SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH WITH LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEN AT THE END OF IT, WE DID COORDINATE WITH THE NA ON THE ACTUAL ZONING DISTRICT OF THE AIRPORT, WHICH IS THE C4, AND THERE WERE SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD INCLUDE IN THERE. SPECIFICALLY, SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL USES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, SUCH AS MOVIE THEATERS, ETC. SO WE FIGURED WHILE WE WERE IN THIS ORDINANCE, IT WAS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA TO KIND OF CLEAN UP WHAT WE COULD. AND THAT IS REALLY THE HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW, BECAUSE I THINK ONCE WE GET IN, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A LOT OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROCESS AND VERY CLEAR GUIDELINES ON HOW TO MOVE THESE ALONG THROUGH THE CITY. AND WITH THAT CHAIR, UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST PAGE, WHICH IS REALLY JUST THE RECITALS AND THE TITLE, WE COULD START ON PAGE TWO, WHICH IS WHERE THE DEFINITIONS BEGIN.

YEAH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON PAGE ONE. JUST, JUST TO, TO FOR MY UNDERSTANDING. SORRY. AND THIS GOES TO SENATE BILL 180 ACTUALLY. AND I LOOK AT THE TWO FIRST WHEREAS CLAUSES IT SAYS WE ARE TO UPDATE AND AMEND THE CODES ET-CETERA. AND THEN IN THE SECOND WHEREAS CLAUSE,

[00:10:06]

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UPDATE AND AMEND, ARE WE NOW RUNNING INTO AN ISSUE WHERE SENATE BILL 180 MIGHT SAY THAT WE'VE INTRODUCED MORE RESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS IN THIS AND THEREFORE ARE PRECLUDED FROM FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS? SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, BUT ANYTHING RELATED TO 180 OR 250 OR JUST CLEAR SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE THERE'S A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ME AND ANDREW AT OTHER MEETINGS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY. THIS IS OUR PROPERTY. I THINK AS A LANDLORD, WE'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ON OUR PROPERTY. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO BEAT THAT DRUM UNTIL A COURT TELLS ME OTHERWISE. SO I WILL REVISIT THE FIRST AND SECOND.

WHEREAS I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A GOOD POINT, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO I DO APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP, BUT AND I'LL REVISIT IT BEFORE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. SURE. AND I RECALL AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT LEAST ONCE AND MAYBE 2 OR 3 TIMES, YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT YOUR INTENT WAS JUST TO CLARIFY RATHER THAN AMEND. AND THAT'S WHY I RAISED THE QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON THAT. JUST BEFORE WE GET INTO IT AGAIN, I'D JUST LIKE TO GET TWO POINTS OF CLARITY. ONE, IS THAT THE CORRECT NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND? SO BECAUSE I SEE IT APPEAR, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S A CITY OF NAPLES, IS THAT THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY FOR THE OWNER OF THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND? AND I ALSO BELIEVE THERE'S A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF CITY OWNERSHIP, WHICH IS UNDER THE AIRPORT. AND I'D LIKE, IF POSSIBLE, IF SOMEBODY COULD PULL THAT UP FROM, FROM THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE. SO WE CAN SEE THAT PIECE IS SORT OF NOT QUITE OWNED BY THE CITY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. IT DOES. MISS MARTIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, BUT SO TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, YES, CITY OF NAPLES OWNS THE LAND.

SECOND QUESTION IS THERE IS A SMALL SLIVER THAT BACK IN THE 80S OR 90S, THE NA BOUGHT FROM THE COUNTY USING FAA FUNDS. RIGHT NOW THAT IS A RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE, GREEN SPACE.

AND I BELIEVE A PORTION, VERY, VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE OBSERVATION DECK IS INCLUDED IN THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF MISS MARTIN CAN BRING THAT UP. SO IT'S A I BELIEVE IT'S A SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. NO, SHE'S GOT HER ARROW ON. THE ZONING LATER ON. SO ANYTHING THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE LINE OF. FLIGHT. THROUGH THE CITY OF NAPLES. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REASON FOR ASKING THAT THERE IS SOME TERMINOLOGY RELATES TO GIVING AUTHORITY OR NOT GIVING AUTHORITY FOR EXPANSION FOR THINGS LIKE RUNWAYS. AND I KNEW IT WAS CLOSE TO THE RUNWAY, BUT I PERSONALLY WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS CLOSE TO. OKAY, LET'S START WITH PAGE TWO. OKAY. SO. AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHEN WE'RE DRAFTING ORDINANCES, I THINK DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT. I THINK DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT IN A LOT OF ASPECTS, BUT SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH TERMINOLOGY, AIRPORT TERMINOLOGY, DIFFERENT PLANS, ETCETERA. SO THIS IS SOMETHING IRONICALLY, ALTHOUGH IT'S ONE PAGE THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH OUR AIRPORT COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL ON, JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE FLORIDA STATUTES, THERE ARE FAA RULES.

THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONES PRESENTED TO YOU ARE THE ONES THAT BEST SUIT WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE. SO I CAN READ THEM IN ENTIRETY, OR WE CAN. NO, I JUST DO NOT READ THEM IN ENTIRETY, BECAUSE I WAS HOPING YOU'D SAY THAT. WE WE CAN ALL READ, BUT I THINK IF PEOPLE HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THE APPROXIMATE PARAGRAPH YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, THEN WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AND MOVE ALONG. SO I WILL HIT ON THE FACT THAT I THINK IS EVERYTHING UNDERLINED ON ALL THESE PAGES. THAT'S ALL NEW, CORRECT? OKAY.

THANK YOU. THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ORDINANCE, ANYTHING THAT'S UNDERLINED IS BEING ADDED.

ANYTHING THAT'S STRUCK THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER AIRPORT CLEAR ZONE, WE CAPITALIZE CLEAR ZONE. SO YOU COULD SEE A STRIKETHROUGH OF THE LITTLE C AND THE LITTLE Z. AND THEN HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREAS IS BEING CAPITALIZED AS WELL. AGAIN, IN ORDINANCES WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH DEFINED TERMS, THOSE TERMS ARE USUALLY CAPITALIZED. SO LEGAL WRITING WORKS. SO WE

[00:15:03]

GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT. YES. YEAH. A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST ONE ON THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION THING. IT DOES SAY THE WORD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHOULDN'T IT BE THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? I'M SORRY, ARE YOU LOOKING AT AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN? THE THIRD ONE. THE BOTTOM LINE. IT SAYS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I SAID, SHOULDN'T IT BE THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT DOES REFER TO THE CITY LAND. IT DOES CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S THAT'S ANYTHING BUT. BUT IF IF THE CITY THERE ISN'T AN AIRPORT. IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC WORD THAT WE WANT TO USE. I GUESS THE QUESTION THERE ISN'T COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S ALL.

THAT'S ALL. YEAH. BUT ARE YOU SAYING CAN WE ADD THE VERY TOP? IT SAYS THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO LET'S JUST BE CONSISTENT IS ALL I'M SAYING. YEAH. THAT'S ALL. SO THE REASON IT'S CAPITALIZED IS BECAUSE WE ARE REFERRING TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES. AND IF THE BOARD IS OKAY WITH IT, WITH ADDING THE WORD CITY IN FRONT OF THAT. YEAH. AGREED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE OTHER ONE I HAVE HERE FOR THE THIRD SENTENCE DOWN THE NOTE THAT. YEAH, THE WORD THERE FOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT OR PROJECTS. IT SAYS PAVING PROJECTS. WHAT'S A PAVING PROJECT? DOES THAT INCLUDE JUST TARMAC OR DOES IT INCLUDE JUST A PATIO. DOES INCLUDE EXTENDING THE RUNWAY I MEAN I GUESS ON WHAT PAVING PROJECT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 10,000FT■!S IS A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. CORRECT. SO PAVING I MEAN, AT LEAST WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN WE DRAFTED PAVING, IT'S NOT EXTENDING THE RUNWAY.

IT'S REPAVING, RESTRIPING MAINTENANCE. ANYTHING EXCEEDING 10,000FT■!S WOULD HAVE TO COME, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO PROHIBIT THE FAA FROM DOING THINGS IN A QUICK TURNAROUND THAT THE FAA REQUIRES FOR SAFETY, FAA REGULATIONS, ETCETERA. SO WHEN WE THINK OF THE WORD PAVING, WE THINK OF EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ALL THINKING OF, WHICH IS REPAVING, ASPHALT, ROADS, ETC. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, PAVING INCLUDES EXPANDING THE TARMAC. IT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, THOSE OTHER, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL RUNWAY ITSELF. I MEAN, IF IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, HE SAYS IT INCLUDES THE RUNWAY ITSELF. IF IT'S EXTENDING TEN OVER 10,000FT■!S.

RIGHT. PAVING PROJECT, THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS A GREATER AREA THAN 10,000FT■!S WOULD. SO THATS WHY THERE WAS A PROJECT LESS THAN 10,000. AND THEREFORE IT MAY NOT HAVE TO GO TO THE PROCESS WILL GO THROUGH EXACTLY. HOWEVER, WHEN WHEN WE DISCUSS EXTENDING THE RUNWAY, I WILL MAKE A NOTE THERE. BUT AS WE GET THROUGH IT, I THINK YOU WILL SEE THERE'S LANGUAGE HERE ABOUT CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL WHEN IT COMES TO EXTENDING THE RUNWAY, ETCETERA. THAT GIVES THE CITY PROTECTION. AND LET ME JUST REITERATE WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY. YOU PICKED 10,000FT■!S BECAUSE THERE EMERGENCY REPAIRS REQUIRED THAT SELDOM EXCEED 10,000FT■!S. BUT WE CAN'T THOSE HAVE TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY. THIS IS ADDITION TO THE 10,000FT■!S IS CONSISTENT WITH E

[00:20:01]

SO WE JUST LOWERED IT TO 60. IT'S LDN OR DAL. I CAN I CAN MAKE SURE I CLARIFY THAT. THE ABBREVIATION IS JUST LEAVING MY BRAIN RIGHT NOW. BUT I'LL MAKE SURE I GET THAT CLARIFIED. OKAY.

BUT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL MONITORS THAT THE AIRPORT PROVIDES YOU, THEY GIVE YOU STUFF CALLED CELL OPEN AND CLOSE FRIEND DB AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED LMAX DB AND THAT'S. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT SOMEHOW IS CONVERTED TO WHATEVER THIS MEANS BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEAN, MAYBE IT'S OBVIOUS, BUT IT WASN'T TO ME.

THAT'S ALL. NO WORRIES, I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, THE LDN AND DAL ARE ARE THE ABBREVIATIONS THEY USE AND I BELIEVE THE PART 150 STUDIES ETC. SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY IN OUR CODE. BUT I VALID POINT. THANK YOU. SO NOW THAT WE'RE ON PAGE THREE I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO MORE. YES. ON PAGE TWO. YEAH. ON THE THE SO IT WAS ALREADY TURNED IN THERE. BUT WE'VE GOT HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREA MEANS EARLIER SURROUNDING NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. WHAT ABOUT IN NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. IT'S SORT OF LIKE BY READING THAT MY INTERPRETATION EXCLUDES THE AIRPORT ITSELF. IT COVERS THE HIGH IMPACT AREA FOR NOISE OUTSIDE OF THE AIRPORT, THE SURROUNDING AREA. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE AREA WITHIN THE AIRPORT ITSELF? SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I GUESS I WOULD JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD BE A HIGH NOISE IMPACT AREA ON THE AIRPORT ITSELF. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IF I GO OUT AND CITE SOMEONE FOR A NOISE VIOLATION, I'M REQUIRED BY CODE TO DO IT FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. RIGHT? YOU CAN'T CITE SOMEONE FOR A NOISE VIOLATION FROM THEIR OWN PROPERTY. THERE ARE HANGARS. THERE'S WORK. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND IT'S ALL COMES UNDER THE ONE OWNERSHIP, BUT THERE COULD BE WORK AT ONE END THAT'S CREATING A, LET'S SAY, CONSTRUCTION OF SOMETHING, CREATING A NOISE. AND OUTSIDE OF THAT CONSTRUCTION AREA, BUT STILL WITHIN THE AIRPORT, LET'S SAY AUTHORITY, THE AIRPORT AREA, THAT NOISE COULD BE UNACCEPTABLE OR IT COULD BE CLASSED AS IMPACT. I JUST FEEL IT'S I DON'T SEE THE REASON FOR EXCLUDING IT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S GREAT THAT WE'VE GOT SURROUNDING AREA, EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IT NECESSARILY DOESN'T DETERMINE THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WOULD BE EXCLUDED. THE AIRPORT ITSELF. I KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, BUT BUT RESPECTFULLY, NOT REALLY. JUST BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW THERE WOULD BE A NOISE IMPACT AREA ON THE AIRPORT

[00:25:06]

IS THAT CORRECT, OR IS THERE SOMETHING ON TOP OF THIS UTILIZATION BECAUSE YOU USE THE TERM BEFORE THAT, THE OVERALL UTILIZATION PLAN SHALL BE THE SAME AS THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND THE THE LAYOUT PLAN? I GUESS SO THE ONLY THING WE WE REFERENCED BEING THE SAME OR BETTER QUALITY IS THE THE DETAIL OF THE MAPPING, NOT THE PLAN ITSELF. THEY'RE THEY'RE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLANS. SO THAT LAST SENTENCE SAYS THE DETAIL OF THE MAPPING SHALL BE THE SAME OR GREATER QUALITY AS THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, BECAUSE THAT'S THE QUALITY. AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A SNIPPET IN OUR ORIGINAL MEMO THAT COUNCIL SAID THEY WANTED TO SEE FOR UTILIZATION PLAN. AND IF THE AIRPORT'S ALREADY PREPARING IT FOR THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, I DON'T SEE WHY THEY COULDN'T USE SIMILAR IMAGING AND STUFF. NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THE THE AIRPORT LAYOUT, WHAT MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A UTILIZATION PLAN AND THE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND. THERE'S A QUITE A BIG DIFFERENCE ACTUALLY. THE LAYOUT PLAN IS A SUBFOLDER OF THE MASTER PLAN. CITY COUNCIL IS NOT REVIEWED OR NOT INVOLVED IN THE APPROVAL OF THE LAYOUT PLAN. THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN IS A CITY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT THAT WE ARE, BY CODE, REQUIRED TO REVIEW. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I JUST YEAH, IF I MAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR MASTER PLAN, THEY HAVE IT ONLINE AT THE. IT'S IN AN APPENDIX. THE THE LAYOUT PLAN IS AN APPENDIX OR MASTER PLAN. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT IT'S DONE BY A PROFESSIONAL GROUP WHO USE AERIAL MAPS WITH OVERLAYS OF EXISTING FOOTPRINTS, MEASUREMENTS, THINGS THAT ARE

[00:30:04]

HERE IS I WILL READ THIS IS INTENDED TO AND THEREFORE WILL NOT SUPERSEDE OR OTHERWISE AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ANY DOCUMENT APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE FAA OR THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. WE ARE NOT HERE TO DO ANYTHING THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED FROM DOING. WE ARE HERE TO SIMPLY CLARIFY A PROCESS. SO IF THERE ARE OTHER REGULATIONS OR STATE LAWS AT PLAY THAT PREEMPT CERTAIN REGULATIONS, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR IN THE ORDINANCE THAT OUR INTENT IS NOT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED TO DO, SIMPLY TO CLARIFY AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THE FIRST ONE WE TALK ABOUT IS THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS A. AND IF IF WE COULD IT THE THE THE MOST OF THIS IS ON THE NEXT PAGE. SO I WILL GO TO PAGE FOUR. WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN BEING PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. ESSENTIALLY IT SAYS IT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL EVERY 20 YEARS BECAUSE THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AGAIN IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS, A FUTURE PLAN LOOKS FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, FUTURE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AIRPORT, ETCETERA. SO THAT IS A 20 YEAR HORIZON DOCUMENT, AND THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL ON A 20 YEAR BASIS. AND THEN WE LAY OUT THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING THAT WHERE IT GOES TO, THE CITY MANAGER HAS TO BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL WITHIN 120 DAYS, ETCETERA. AND THEN WE LAY OUT THE THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR THAT PLAN. ANY QUESTIONS? UNSURPRISINGLY, I HAVE A SORT OF A COMPLICATED QUESTION AS AS WE LOOK THROUGH SECTION 4646, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PROCEDURE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN OF PROCEDURE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, AND A PROCEDURE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN PETITION. AND IN WITH RESPECT TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. THERE'S NO REFERENCE IN THAT PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE, AT LEAST TYPICALLY IN THE PAST.

AND SO TAKING BACK TO WELL, AND SO THAT'S AN OBSERVATION. AND ALSO FURTHER OBSERVATION IS THAT IN THE SITE PLAN PETITION, THE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IS INCLUDED IN THAT PROCEDURE. AND THOSE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS. AND I'LL HAVE ANOTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTION IN A LATER SECTION CONCERNING THIS. BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT PROCEDURE WAS CHOSEN, WHY THE PAB IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRST TWO OF THOSE THREE, PLEASE? AGAIN, WE WE WERE JUST ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO. SOME OF THESE VERSIONS, NONE OF THESE VERSIONS INCLUDED PAB FOR THE UTILIZATION AND AIRPORT PLAN. BECAUSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T REQUIRE PAB APPROVAL. HOWEVER, THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE. IF YOU ALL WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF THE MASTER PLAN UTILIZATION PLAN, AND THAT IS DEFINITELY A COMMENT WE WILL TAKE BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, I THINK WE DO, YOU KNOW, JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE

[00:35:03]

IF YOU MAKE THAT A RECOMMENDATION AND PUT IT TO THE IT'S UP TO THEM. YEAH. NO, PUT IT TO THE BOARD HERE TODAY. YOU CAN GET A RESOUNDING YAY OR NAY. SO CALL FOR A CONSENSUS.

YEAH. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD REJECT US HAVING THE REVIEW RESPONSIBILITY. NO. OKAY.

GOOD. SO WE'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT AS PART OF THIS GOING FORWARD. OKAY. SO. I GUESS THE WAY THAT I'M KEEPING NOTES AND I'LL BUT UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO ANYTHING BEING SAID, I'M JUST TAKING ALL OF THIS AS RECOMMENDATIONS, JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO STOP AND PAUSE EVERY. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO ADD JUST TO THAT POINT BECAUSE, I MEAN, AFTER WE'RE DONE REVIEWING ALL OF THIS, WE'RE COMING TO A CONCLUSION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. CORRECT. OR SO YOU ARE RECOMMENDING. CORRECT. YOU ARE YOU ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ESSENTIALLY AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF THIS ORDINANCE OR DENIAL, OR YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IT WITH RIGHTS. SO INSTEAD OF COMING UP WITH, OKAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO ADD THIS TO ALL, WE KIND OF HAVE TO GET TO THE END POINT BEFORE WE DO THAT, RIGHT? EITHER WAY. YEAH. OKAY. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, YES, WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, I'D LIKE TO, IF I MAY JUMP AHEAD BECAUSE THAT'LL HELP ILLUSTRATE THE POINT I'M MAKING. NOW, IF WE LOOK AT LET'S SEE, IT'S DIVISION 23 C FOR AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT PAGE THAT IS, BUT IT'S UNDER USES PERMITTED. THAT'S SECTION 58. HYPHEN 682.

YEAH OKAY. IF YOU LOOK AT SUBSECTION B OF THAT, IT IT SAYS I'M SORRY. IT'S EIGHT DASH 58 682. AND THEN SUB B OKAY. AND SO AND SO THIS WILL HELP CLARIFY THE POINTS THAT I WAS MAKING EARLIER, PROVIDED THAT AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN FOR ALL AIRPORT PROJECTS IS SUBMITTED, IS FIRST SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE C4 SECTION REQUIRES THE SUBMISSION OF THOSE PLANS TO THE PAB FIRST. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR UP THAT INCONSISTENCY BY POINTING IT OUT EARLIER IN 4646. THANK YOU. SURE. OKAY. GOOD COMMENT. GREAT I APPRECIATE THAT. SO ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GET TO AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN. OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHATEVER GREG WAS LOOKING FOR, THERE'S A WORD THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT AIRPORT PROJECTS. IT'S CAPITALIZED ON. ONE OF THAT SHOULD BE IN THE DEFINITIONS OR SO IF WE GO TO DEFINITIONS, AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND OR PROJECTS CAPITALIZED IS THE DEFINITION.

OH OKAY OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. GOOD. SO ARE WE OKAY TO MOVE TO. WE'RE OKAY I JUST HAVE I'M SORRY. I JUST HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION. UNDER AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN, THAT'S SUBSECTION B. IN 4646. IF WE LOOK AT WE DISCUSSED THE PROCEDURE SECTION AND THEN THAT'S SECTION ONE. THEN UNDER THAT SECTION TWO CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND CRITERIA. AND THEN UNDER THAT. AND THIS IS A VERY SMALL POINT I APOLOGIZE FOR RAISING IT. BUT IT SAYS ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATED AND KNOWN WHEN THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN IS SUBMITTED HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF C4 AIRPORT, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND THE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT, AS WELL AS ANY ADDITIONAL RELEVANT ORDINANCES, AGREEMENTS AND REGULATIONS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NA, WOULDN'T IT? OR SHOULD WE SPECIFY THE LEASE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THIS COMPLIES WITH THE LEASE AS WELL? I MEAN, WE CAN I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE READ THE LEASE, BUT IT'S IT'S NOT A PAGE AND A HALF AND ALL IT SAYS IS YOU MUST COMPLY WITH RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, ETC. I DO. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT

[00:40:01]

SO NO SORRY. WHAT WAS. BACK HERE OKAY. OH YEAH OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION. WHY IS THE MASTER PLAN NOT GOING TO BE DONE EVERY 20 YEARS? I MEAN, THAT IS I MEAN, PEOPLE WON'T EVEN BE THERE FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST 20 YEARS IS HUGE. I WOULD THINK THAT WE'D WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE, SEVEN. I MEAN, ABOUT EVERY 20 YEARS IS I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING COULD SURVIVE ANY KIND OF PLAN THAT LONG. I MEAN, THE WORLD JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. SO AND OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY THINK IT'S THEY THINK IT'S THE SAME, THEN ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS GO THROUGH, HEY, IT'S THE SAME AS IT WAS LAST TIME. I MEAN, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A JERK, BUT 20 YEARS IS THERE'S NOTHING IN THE WORLD THAT'S EVER HAS A PLAN FOR 20 YEARS. SO. SO SOMETIMES IT'S A GOOD COMMENT, BUT BUT THINK ABOUT THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, LIKE THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE DO NOT UPDATE EVERY 5 TO 7 YEARS. I THINK IT'S A HORIZON DOCUMENT. IT'S A 20 YEAR. YOU'RE LOOKING 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU PREPARE THIS AND THIS. THIS PLAN HAS BEEN REGULARLY SUBMITTED EVERY 20 TO 25 YEARS SINCE THE AIRPORT INITIATED, I BELIEVE IN THE EARLY 90S. IT WAS THE FIRST PLAN, SO WE WERE JUST STAYING IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE PROCEDURES HAD BEEN. ADDITIONALLY, THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT THE FAA PREPARES FOR THE FAA AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIAL GRANT FUNDING. THIS IS NOT A $50,000 PLAN. THIS IS A SEVEN FIGURE PLAN THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT TOGETHER. AND WE JUST AGREED ON THE 20 YEARS. I THINK THAT WAS FAIR BECAUSE THE IDEA IS TO HAVE THIS MASTER PLAN EVERY 20 YEARS, UTILIZATION PLAN BIANNUALLY, SITE SPECIFIC WHEN NEEDED. IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING IN SITE SPECIFIC THAT NEEDS TO MODIFY THE MASTER PLAN OR THE UTILIZATION PLAN, YOU CAN TRAVEL ALL PLANS TOGETHER, BUT AT A MINIMUM IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED EVERY 20 YEARS, SO IT MAY VERY WELL BE UPDATED THROUGHOUT. JUST LIKE IF SOMEONE IS DOING SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO UPDATE ALL THE PLANS AT ONCE, THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY CAN HAVE COMPANION ITEMS, BUT AT A MINIMUM I WOULD NEED TO BE 20 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW, 20 YEARS. NOTHING IN THE WORLD THAT'S EVER LASTS. THE PLAN FOR 20 YEARS. I MEAN, EVEN EVEN EVEN EVEN A COUPLE OF YEARS. SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, AND IF ALL YOU DO IS SAY IT'S THE SAME THING AS LAST TIME, THAT'S OKAY. BUT AT LEAST SOMEBODY HAS GONE THROUGH AND SAID, YOU KNOW, MODIFIED WHATEVER HAPPENED IN THE, THE X NUMBER OF YEARS THAT HAPPENED THE TIME YOU DO THE UPDATES, THAT'D BE MY COMMENT. THAT'S ALL. WITH ALL THE SERIOUS TALK, I HAVE A LITTLE LEVITY IN MY BUILDING. WE ARE PUTTING IN NEW ELEVATORS, AND THERE WAS AN ELEVATOR COMMITTEE AND ELEVATORS LAST 20 TO 25 YEARS. AND SO THEY SAID YOU DIDN'T SERVE ON THE ELEVATOR COMMITTEE, SO I VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE ON IT. NOW, WHO WILL JOIN ME IN 20, 25 YEARS TO DO THIS? THAT WAS INTERPRETED AS SAYING, I WANT YOU ALL TO DIE BECAUSE IT'S AN ELDERLY BUILDING. AND PEOPLE, I THINK 20, 25 YEARS IS AN ETERNITY. THERE'S SORT OF A FEELING THAT I'M NOT QUITE SURE ABOUT 5 OR 7, BUT THE COUNCIL SHOULD AT LEAST LOOK AT IS WHETHER 20 YEARS IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT. TEN FEELS I'M JUST SPEAKING PERSONALLY LIKE A MORE REALISTIC NUMBER. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE POINT THAT MY LIFE CHANGES EVERY FIVE MINUTES, SO I DON'T KNOW. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU POINTED OUT THAT THIS PLAN IS EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE TO TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE. SO I THINK THAT'S A FINANCIAL DECISION THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE. ONE RECOMMENDATION MAY BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS EVERY SEVEN YEAR. BY LAW, YOU HAVE TO DO AN EVALUATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONSISTENT STILL AND RELEVANT STILL, AND IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY. SO YOU'RE NOT REINVENTING THE WHOLE PLAN, BUT YOU'RE ANALYZING THE MASTER PLAN TO SEE IF IT'S STILL RELEVANT. I THINK WOULD MEET OUR NEEDS, AND I WOULD PICK TEN YEARS JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN AIRPORT. IT'S NOT GOING TO DISAPPEAR OR APPEAR THAT QUICKLY. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASSUMING TO IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REDO THE WHOLE THING, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A TEN YEAR HORIZON, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH AND SAY THAT YOU COULD ARGUE IT COULD BE TEN, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME, IT COULD BE 20 YEARS. BUT BUT THE POINT IS, IS THAT IT'D BE NICE TO KNOW THAT, HEY, WE HAVE EVEN DONE WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN

[00:45:05]

WE WANTED LEGITIMATE CRITERIA THAT COULD BE ANALYZED. AND I BELIEVE WITH ALL THE CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS WITH THE COUNCIL AND OUR COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF, I THINK WE'VE DEVELOPED CRITERIA THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT. GOT A QUESTION RELATING TO PROCEDURE POINT ONE? OVERVIEW IN THE SENSE OF GREAT FROM THE TIMING OF THE 120 DAYS. A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED OVER THE 30 DAY TIMING AFTER SUBMITTAL FOR ANY COMPLETENESS. MY CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE THIS FRAMEWORK FOR SUCCESS AS OPPOSED TO FAILING. AND MY CONCERN WOULD BE IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO FAIL TO MEET A 30 DAY TIME FRAME. I WOULD NO ISSUE WITH THE OVERALL 150 DAYS WITH THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO. SO WHETHER IT WAS 150 OR WHATEVER. BUT MY CONCERN IS 30 DAY MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY GENERATE WITHIN A, LET'S SAY, A GOVERNMENT OR A A COUNCIL ORGANIZATION. TO BE ABLE TO GET A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS MAY NOT BE REALISTIC. AND THEN ALSO THE TERMINATION OF A DAY. ARE WE TALKING WORKING DAYS, CALENDAR DAYS. SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN, IS THE TIGHTNESS OF THE 30 DAY THAT PEOPLE MIGHT MISS IT. AND THEN THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE THINGS. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. BUT THESE DEADLINES ARE ARTICULATED IN FLORIDA STATUTES. WHAT WE DO NOW, RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE APPLIES FOR SOMETHING, WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO RESPOND AND IDENTIFY ANY INSUFFICIENCIES. THAT'S FINE. IF IT'S IF IT'S A IT'S ALREADY A COMPLIANT THING, THAT'S NO PROBLEM. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WANTED TO DO THAT. AND I THINK WHEN YOU THINK OF THE 120 DAYS, THOUGH, AND THIS MAY HELP CLARIFY, IT'S 120 DAYS FROM WHEN THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED COMPLETE. RIGHT? SO LET'S SAY THEY SUBMIT, WE RESPOND WITH DEFICIENCIES.

THAT PROCESS ITSELF MAY TAKE 60, 90 DAYS UNTIL THEY GET AN APPLICATION THAT'S DEEMED COMPLETE. YEAH. NO ISSUE WITH THE 120. I THINK THAT'S CLEAR. YEAH. IT WAS JUST THAT 30 DAY I THOUGHT MIGHT BE A BIT TIGHT, BUT IF IT'S ALREADY A NORMAL THING THEN THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

SO. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THIS PAGE. AS WE SCROLL DOWN. YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS LOOKING FOR IN THE UTILIZATION PLANS. AGAIN, WE THINK WE'VE

[00:50:01]

ONE THING I DID NOTICE IN PROCEDURE, AND I'M JUST GOING TO INFORM YOU SO I CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE AS WE GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, I ACTUALLY DID CHANGE IT FROM 90 DAYS TO 120 DAYS, BUT I MISSED A 90 DAYS AT THE BOTTOM, SO THAT WILL BE CHANGED TO 120 DAYS JUST FOR CONSISTENCY. IT STARTED OFF AT 90, BUT WE WENT BACK TO 120. AND IT YOU KNOW, YOU STARE AT SOMETHING LONG ENOUGH. THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS YOU MISS JUST AS WE AS WE'RE ON THAT PAGE JUST ABOVE IT, YOU'VE GOT A REFERENCE TO RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS. I THINK THAT CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE A CITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE A CITY MANAGER, ALWAYS HAVE A CITY COUNCIL, AND BY LAW, YOU NEED YOUR, YOUR, YOUR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. BUT THE OTHER DEPARTMENT NAMES CAN EASILY CHANGE BECAUSE LATER IN THE DOCUMENT YOU'VE GOT LIKE WORKS DEPARTMENT. AND I THINK THEY MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO THE, YOU KNOW, CHANGE TO THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENT IN CASES, CHANGES OF NAMES OR WHATEVER. SO IT'S THE PAGE YOU'RE ON ON SCREEN. JUST IF YOU JUST GO UP TO THE EARLIER PAGE AND IT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT STOP THERE. THE SECOND LINE FROM THE BOTTOM, RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENT, I THINK THAT TERM COULD BE CARRIED ON FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS OTHER THAN, LET'S SAY, CITY MANAGER, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYBE PAB PURELY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A DEPARTMENT NAME CHANGE. WE DON'T GET CAUGHT. OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M ASSUMING, MISS MARTIN, YOU'RE KEEPING SOME NOTES TOO. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO. THIS OKAY, THIS CRITERIA AS WE WORK THROUGH SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCEDURE, I IDENTIFIED THE 90 DAYS TO 120. THIS CRITERIA AGAIN IS SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IS CRITERIA THAT YOU CAN ANALYZE. THIS IS I WOULD SAY THIS CRITERIA IS THE ONE THAT TOOK ANDREW, MYSELF, MISS MARTIN AND OUR AIRPORT COUNCIL THE LONGEST.

WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL AS WELL, BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE CAPTURED THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION FOR YOU ALL. IF IF YOU'RE INVOLVED IN THIS AND ESPECIALLY CITY COUNCIL. SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, THAT IS HOW WE DRAFTED IT. NO QUESTION. BUT A COMMENT IS IT SHOWS THAT THE WORK HAD GONE INTO THAT SECTION. IT'S YEAH, IT IS VERY RELEVANT THAT THE FACTS OF THE LACK OF QUESTIONS IS. YEAH, IS A GOOD SIGN. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT. SO MOVING ALONG NOW WE ARE THROUGH THE NEW SECTION 4646 THAT WE CRAFTED. AND NOW WE ARE TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE C4 AIRPORT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS A DISTRICT THAT ONLY HAS THE AIRPORT PARCEL IN IT. SO IT ONLY CONTROLS THE AIRPORT PARCEL. AS YOU CAN SEE, SOME OF THIS IS REALLY CLEAN UP CAPITALIZING DISTRICT. AND THEN AGAIN, I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO DO ANYTHING THAT WE ARE PREEMPTED TO DO. SO I INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE OR WE INCLUDED THAT LANGUAGE IN THE DISTRICT PURPOSE. IN THE BEGINNING, AS WE WORK OURSELF DOWN OR THROUGH, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, A REFERENCE TO AN OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WE WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT PLAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT SAID AIRPORT ROAD. WE THOUGHT AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IS IMPORTANT. CAPITALIZING PLANNING, ADVISORY BOARD, CITY COUNCIL. AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY JUST SOME CLEAN UP BECAUSE I WAS IN IT AND CAN'T REALLY. I JUST COULDN'T HELP MYSELF. WE HAD TO CLEAN UP WHAT WE COULD.

SO AS WE GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, STILL IN 58, 62, AGAIN, JUST CLEAN UP INSTEAD OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WE'VE NOW DEFINED NA. AND AGAIN, OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WE'RE REFERRING TO THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND MASTER PLAN. AS WE WORK THROUGH. A LOT OF THIS IS REALLY JUST CAPITALIZATIONS, BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO DO THAT. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE. ONE THING THAT WE DID ADD AS PERMITTED USES, AND THIS WAS BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION WITH NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVES, ALONG WITH MISS MARTIN. OBVIOUSLY, THE HUMANE SOCIETY SITS ON THE AIRPORT PARCEL, SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THE PET ADOPTION FACILITY, WHETHER IT'S HUMANE SOCIETY OR ANOTHER

[00:55:01]

SO THAT'S A SPECIFIC NUMBER. SO I MEAN, I DON'T I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S HARD TO BUT YOU KNOW, ONCE THEY IF THEY WERE ABLE TO BE APPROVED AND MAKE IT BIGGER THEN IT'S, IT'S STILL INVALID. THIS, THIS CLAUSE BECAUSE IT'S AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT, WHICH IS WHENEVER WE SIGN THIS THING. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S GOOD TO. DOES THIS ALL THIS FOOTAGE, IF THE ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, PUT A CLAUSE IN, YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S APPROVED TO EXTEND IT, THEN THIS WILL BE DONE AS PART OF THAT. AND WE'LL UPDATE THE THE FOOTAGE ABOVE. I MEAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS TO BE A DOCUMENT THAT FORCES YOU TO DO A CODE CHANGE EVERY TIME SOMEBODY HAS AN APPROVAL, BUT

[01:00:01]

AND THERE ARE OTHER PLANS THAT BEING WHERE THESE THINGS WILL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED NUMBERS WISE ON THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. THEREFORE, I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS. WE WERE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION THROUGH A DIFFERENT AVENUE WITH THE UPDATED PLAN.

SO I PLUS. WHEN WE WERE INITIALLY I WAS GOING TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC. BUT THEN AND I MAY BE SPEAKING OUT OF TURN BECAUSE I'M NOT AN AIRPORT ATTORNEY, BUT I'VE LEARNED A LOT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE WAY THEY IDENTIFY THESE RUNWAYS AND THE ABBREVIATIONS THEY HAVE FOR, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY IT JUST WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY CONFUSING IF I PUT THAT IN THERE. BUT AGAIN, GREAT COMMENT. AND IF THE BOARD'S WILLING I'LL JUST WE CAN TAKE THAT TO CITY COUNCIL AND SEE HOW THEY HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT. I JUST WONDERED IF ANY OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THAT 10,000FT■!S THING, WITH HOW YOU DESIGNATE IT IN THE CONVERSATION, BECAUSE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT. WHAT WHAT GETS DESIGNATED AS WHAT IF IT WAS REPAIRS OR.

BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT FOOTAGE AND IT'S A STOP WAY OR A RUNWAY, DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT? THAT'S A GOOD POINT. AGAIN, FOR SOME OF THIS. AND I THINK MISS MARTIN HIT IT IN THE BEGINNING WHEN IT CAME TO THE LANDSCAPING AND THE PAVING AND THE I MEAN, THIS IS SOME CODE LANGUAGE THAT WE, THAT WE USE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR CODE THAT WE WANTED TO BE BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE AMENDING OR CREATING A NEW PROCEDURE. WE'RE HERE CLARIFYING AND ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PAVING AND THE IN SOME OF THIS STUFF, WE WE DO BELIEVE IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR CODE CURRENTLY SAYS, BECAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING IS CLARIFYING THE PROCESS. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND THEN THAT IS YEAH, THEN THE REST IS JUST THE REMAINING SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE IN THERE, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS, ETCETERA. SO I HAVE AN OFF THE WALL QUESTION. SURE. OKAY. LOVE THOSE. AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT. KEEPING ME UP. WHETHER THE THAT PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATELY USED AS AN AIRPORT, I GUESS IS THE MOST CAREFUL WAY I CAN WORD THAT MY HUGE FEAR IN LIFE IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THE AIRPORT GOES AWAY. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE 6000 CONDOMINIUMS ON THAT PROPERTY? I MEAN, I IT YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WE DON'T LIKE AIRPORTS, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, THE TRAFFIC IN TOWN TODAY, I DON'T THINK WE LIKE 6000 CONDOMINIUMS ANY BETTER. SO ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THAT JUST A BEAUTIFUL GREEN, STRAIGHT PARK? I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. YEAH, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS IT'S EVEN IF, HYPOTHETICALLY, THE AIRPORT WENT AWAY, THE ZONING WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY GO AWAY. THE ZONING WOULD STILL BE THERE. SO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, A POLICY PROCESS, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT USE OF THAT PROPERTY. AND I IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE A VERY LARGE DISCUSSION. AND I GUESS THAT'S MY POINT, THAT WE AND THE COMP PLAN AS WELL, IT'S EASY TO BE AGAINST SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS. AND THAT'S JUST AN UNDERLYING CONCERN I'VE HAD ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION ALL ALONG. EVERYBODY IS NOISE FOCUSED, AND RIGHTLY SO. I DON'T HAVE ANY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY'RE MAKING A LOT OF VALID POINTS, BUT JUST BRINGING THAT AMOUNT OF PROPERTY INTO INTO THE DEVELOPABLE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NAPLES IS AN OVERWHELMING THOUGHT TO ME. BUT I THINK THIS, THIS THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS ORDINANCE IS MAYBE GETTING RID OF SOME FEARS OR WHAT IF SCENARIOS. SO IT IS MAKING IT ONE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE. NO, I LIKE THE ORDINANCE. I'M NOT AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. ANYTHING ELSE IS IS SUCH A BIG QUESTION. IT'S YEAH PROBABLY NOT FOR HERE. SO I DO HAVE A PUBLIC REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING FROM IT LOOKS LIKE JENNIFER HOLLANDER. ARE WE

[01:05:03]

JENNIFER, FOR A MINUTE. I THOUGHT WE HAD FINISHED THE END OF IT. NO, IT'S APPROPRIATE, CHAIR, TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE CAN FURTHER DISCUSSION. THAT'S OKAY. FINE.

JENNIFER YOU'RE UP. JENNIFER. OKAY. YOU WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO COMMENT, I PROMISE.

GOOD MORNING, CHAIR COUGHLIN. VICE CHAIR, CAN YOU JUST TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE. IT'S GOING TO BE THE RIGHT HAND BUTTON AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF PLEASE. JENNIFER HOLLANDER, COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NAPLES. GOOD MORNING. AS YOU KNOW, THESE DRAFT ORDINANCES WERE FIRST PRESENTED TO THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR COMMENT AT THE NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025 NA MEETING. THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS RAISED AT THAT MEETING, AND AFTERWARD, THE CITY ATTORNEY REACHED OUT TO US TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION AND HEAR OUR INPUT. WE APPRECIATE THAT OUTREACH AND MR. MCCONNELL'S EFFORTS TO REVISE THE ORDINANCES SINCE THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION. BUT I WANT TO BE DIRECT. OUR CONCERNS REMAIN THE SAME. FIRST, THESE ORDINANCES YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH TODAY STILL SEEM TO BE AN ATTEMPT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO STEP INTO AREAS OF AIRPORT REGULATION AND OPERATIONS THAT ARE GOVERNED BY THE FAA AND FEDERAL LAW. ALTHOUGH THE DRAFTS INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT APPEARS INTENDED TO INSULATE THE CITY, DISCLAIMERS DO NOT CURE PREEMPTION PROBLEMS. IF THE SUBSTANCE AND THE APPLICATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS STILL CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. SECOND, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THESE ORDINANCES IMPOSE A SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDED REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE PROJECTS CAN MOVE FORWARD, FOR EXAMPLE, AS TO THE AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN PROCESS, THE DRAFT ORDINANCES WOULD REQUIRE CITY STAFF TO RUN COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS, CIRCULATE PLANS TO MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS, ISSUE WRITTEN DEFICIENCY LETTERS TO THE NA IF THE PLAN IS BELIEVED TO BE INCOMPLETE, PREPARE SUMMARY REPORTS AND THEN CONDUCT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. ALL OF THAT TRANSLATES INTO STAFF TIME, ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY REVIEW AND SUPPORT, MORE HEARINGS AND INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE, AND THOSE ADDED COSTS WOULD ULTIMATELY FALL ON THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS. WHILE SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCESS MAY BE HELPFUL TO THE CITY, THE NA AND AIRPORT USERS AND OPERATORS, THESE PROPOSED ORDINANCES GO TOO FAR. THIRD, ADDRESSING MR. FOWLER'S EARLIER QUESTION, WE CONTINUE TO SEE CONFLICTS WITH RECENT STATE LEGISLATION, INCLUDING SENATE BILL ONE AND SENATE BILL 250, EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOME NEWER PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION MAY AFFECT HOW THOSE PROVISIONS APPLY. THE RISK OF INCONSISTENCY REMAINS REAL AND WILL INVITE CHALLENGE. FINALLY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AIRPORT USERS AND THOSE WHO OPERATE BUSINESSES THERE, THESE PROVISIONS INCREASE RATHER THAN DECREASE UNCERTAINTY. THEY ADD NEW APPROVAL LAYERS, ASSIGN NEW ROLES TO CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF, REQUIRE NEW FINDINGS AND PROCESSES. BUT THEY LEAVE MAJOR QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THESE PROCESSES WILL WORK IN PRACTICE AND HOW THEY WILL BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS.

AS A RESULT, PLANNING AND APPROVALS BECOME SLOWER AND LESS PREDICTABLE, WHICH MAKES IT HARDER TO MANAGE OPERATIONS AND PLAN INVESTMENTS. AND THAT UNCERTAINTY WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY AND THE RELIABILITY OF AIRPORT OPERATIONS. IN OUR VIEW, THE LIKELY RESULT OF THESE ORDINANCES WOULD BE YEARS OF CONFUSION, LITIGATION AND SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE, POTENTIALLY MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BE BORNE BY THE CITY AND ULTIMATELY ITS RESIDENTS. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO DECLINE TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THESE ORDINANCES UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CITY RESOLVES FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND STATE LAW CONFLICT CONCERNS AND CAN ARTICULATE A CLEAR, WORKABLE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS THAT WILL NOT DISRUPT THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF AIRPORT PROJECTS, THESE ORDINANCES SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NAPLES CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY ON A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS HOLLANDER. AND JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I HEAR, YOU REALLY HAVE FOUR ISSUES. THE PREEMPTION ISSUE, THE COST AND EXPENSE OF EXPANDED REVIEW, CONFLICT WITH FLORIDA LAWS, AND JUST THE GREATER UNCERTAINTY THAT YOU EXPECT AT THE AIRPORT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU SAID? EXACTLY? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING, PLEASE? YEAH. COULD COUNCIL ARE YOU WITH A PARTICULAR LAW FIRM? I'M NOT SURE WHO YOU REPRESENT, WHO YOUR CLIENT IS. I REPRESENT RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. NAPLES.

AND I'M WITH WOODSIDE, MILLER AND RUDNICK. AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? WHO ARE THEY? RESPONSIBLE? GOVERNMENT. NAPLES IS A 501 FOUR ORGANIZATION. OKAY, SO IT'S REGISTERED WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM YOU, MATTHEW? ERICA, ANY COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT THERE WAS MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. YEAH, I DO HAVE ONE MORE THING. I JUST WANT TO MENTION TO YOU ALL BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY SENSED IT. BUT YEAH, THIS JUST DID TAKE A LITTLE A LOT OF TIME. I HAD MEETINGS

[01:10:07]

AND THEN DURING THE WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ON THE 20TH AND THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE 2040 PLAN, WE DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY CLARIFY SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL. RIGHT? SO WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IT WAS NECESSARY TO KIND OF DO IT RIGHT NOW WHEN WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON THIS OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AWARE OF BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN ANTICIPATE COMING IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, THE REASON IS DIVISION FOUR IS THE AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THERE ARE SOME THERE IS THERE ARE SOME DEFINITIONS IN THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IS PUT ALL DEFINITIONS IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD LOOK FOR DEFINITIONS. SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME CLEANUP AREAS THAT WE NOTICE THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY CONFLICTING DEFINITIONS OKAY.

AND I WANT TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS IN RESPONSE TO MISS HOLLANDER'S COMMENTS. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO RELY ON OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO TELL US WHEN THEY THINK WE HAVE PROBLEMS AND TO RESOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS AND TRY TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I'M HEARING THEY THINK WE ARE AS FAR AS COSTS AND EXPENSE. I WE AS A BOARD HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HOW LONG APPROVALS AND THINGS TAKE IN GOVERNMENT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL. SO IT'S A TRICKY BALANCING ACT. BUT BUT IT IS OF CONCERN, AT LEAST TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, THAT WE TRY TO BE EFFICIENT. I'M NOT SURE WE MEET THAT DEFINITION, BUT WE WORK ON IT AS HARD AS WE CAN. AND I THINK THAT'S THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS OR COMMENTS FROM ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS GOING FORWARD. YEAH. MORE ECHOING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S IT'S IT'S GETTING THE BALANCE BETWEEN WE DO NOT WANT ANYBODY TO BE INCURRING ANY EXTRA TIME AND EXPENSE, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ENGAGED FOR ANY, IF YOU LIKE, INJURED PARTY TO, TO COME FORWARD. SO IT'S TRYING TO GET THAT BALANCE. I DO APPRECIATE, DESPITE MY NUMBER OF COMMENTS, I'VE HAD, THE LEVEL OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THAT'S BEEN DONE AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND IN THE REALM WHEN WITH AI AND GROK AND CHATGPT, WHEN EVERYBODY CAN BECOME AN EXPERT IN IN A PUB, WE DO NEED TO RELY ON OUR EXPERTS TO GIVE US THE ADVICE. AND I THINK AS BOARD MEMBERS AND CITY MEMBERS, WE NEED TO BE DOING MORE OF THAT RATHER THAN LESS OF THAT, BUT STILL PROBING AND ASKING QUESTIONS. BUT LISTENING TO THE REPLIES FROM THOSE NOMINATED EXPERTS. AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT ALI IS HAVING TO DO TO PUT ALL OUR COMMENTS IN IN WRITING. SO THIS ONE'S FOR ALI. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO THIS ORDINANCE IS I CAN TELL THERE'S A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO IT, BUT BY MATTHEW AND IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY COMING AT THE THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL. SO YOU KNOW WE'RE JUST REVIEWING THIS TO THEN HAVE COUNCIL YOU KNOW, APPROVE BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. BUT YOU KNOW, MY ONE QUESTION ABOUT IT IS, LIKE THE PUBLIC COMMENTER SAID IS ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING WITH THE AIRPORT PRIOR BEFORE THIS, YOU KNOW, BEFORE ANY OF THE NEW LANGUAGE WAS ADDED. SO. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION. BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THERE'S A LOT HERE AND I JUST DON'T I JUST DON'T KNOW IF ADDING MORE AND MORE LANGUAGES AND STEPS TO EVERYTHING IS GOING TO NECESSARILY CLARIFY ANYTHING. SO AGAIN, WE'RE WE'RE JUST THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. BUT I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GIVE YOU AN INDICATION OF WHERE I'M STANDING ON THIS. OKAY. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY. NO.

[01:15:06]

MEMBER. COOPER. YES. MEMBER. FOWLER. YES. MEMBER. SCHULTZ. YES. MEMBER. CHRIS IS ABSENT.

VICE CHAIR. KAPPLER. YES. CHAIR. COUGHLIN. YES. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIED. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE BOARD ON MANAGING TO WORK THROUGH THIS IN THE SHORT TIME. REALLY? WE'VE HAD. I THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE BETTER RUN MEETINGS FROM EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE, THAT PEOPLE SHOULD FEEL THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. THE COMMENTS WERE LISTENED TO. I COMPLIMENT THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THEIR OPEN MINDEDNESS AND THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, DREADING THAT THIS COULD BE A SIX HOUR MEETING. SO WE HAVE ONE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT BEFORE I WAS GOING TO SAY, CHAIR, I THINK THERE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AT THE END OF THE AGENDA AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE TRAFFIC STUDY. RIGHT? YEAH, RIGHT. LET ME ASK THE PERSON THAT'S JUST TO KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE MISS KORAN. MR. KORAN, ARE YOU COMMENTING ON THE AIRPORT OR ARE YOU HERE TO COMMENT ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY? IF YOU'D LIKE TO STEP FORWARD? I THINK I'VE GOT TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT RATHER THAN HAVE HIM HAVE TO SIT AROUND ALL DAY. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO PROBLEM THERE. BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU'RE ADOPTING ORDINANCES THAT WHEN THE CLERK HAD THE PUBLIC SPEAKER CARDS, YOU HAD NOT SUBMITTED A CARD. THEREFORE, WE DID HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THAT ITEM BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE. TODAY, HOWEVER, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT JUST ON THAT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO BACK UP ON THAT BECAUSE I AM A PROCESS, HEAVILY PROCESSED PERSON. MY CONCERN IS IF WE GET MORE INFORMATION NOW THAT THEN BECAUSE LIKE MR. MCCONNELL IS SAYING, THE DECISION WE PUT FORWARD RELATING TO THAT. SO THIS IS I WOULD SEE THIS MORE OF A PUBLIC COMMENT THAT HAD HAPPENED AT THE END OF A MEETING AS OPPOSED TO THE PRIOR TOPIC, BUT I'LL BE SWAYED. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDLESS EITHER NOW OR LATER. YEAH, WE'LL HEAR IT NOW AND GIVE YOU A BREAK. ALL RIGHT. SO

[01:20:03]

YOU MENTIONED OUR YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH A FAILED AVIATION ATTORNEY, MR. ANDREW BARR. IF YOU LOOK AT HIS TRACK RECORD AND INTO FORCING CITIES AND TOWNS, THEY'VE ENDED UP IN WORSE SITUATIONS THAN THEY'VE STARTED AND SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITH NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

SO, MR. MAYOR, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED IT, YOU'RE ASKING YOU MENTIONED RELYING ON EXPERTS. I SUGGEST THAT THE CITY PROBABLY VET THE EXPERTS BEING UTILIZED. YOU MAY NOT BE TRUSTING THE CORRECT PEOPLE SIMPLY. AND LASTLY, I WILL DEFINITELY CONTINUE TO PURSUE THE MATTER WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE THE JOB DONE TODAY. I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION. WE WILL SIMPLY JUST CONTINUE THE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO, OKAY. AND YOUR COMMENTS ARE OF RECORD AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. CHAIR, I GOT A QUESTION. DID YOU REFER TO MR. BARR AS FAILED? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

I HEARD IT RIGHT. THANK YOU. HIS TRACK RECORD SHOWS THE SAME. AND A QUESTION. CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR NAME AND THEN SAY WHAT YOUR POSITION POSITION IS WITH? I'M A BOARD MEMBER WITH THE RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. NAPLES, ARE YOU HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THAT ORGANIZATION OR YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS? NO. WITH ARJUN. THANKS. YEP. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. MATT. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY. JUST TO END THIS BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS DECISION WAS MADE. BUT THIS IS ALL PART OF THE RECORD. IT CLEARLY LAID OUT A PROCESS. CODES REQUIRED MASTER PLANS AND UTILIZATION PLANS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL DID NOT CHANGE THAT. THAT'S BEEN IN PLAY FOR AS LONG AS I MEAN WAY BEFORE ME. STARTING COMPREHENSIVE PLANS CLEARLY SAYS THE SITE PLANS HAVE TO APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL JUST WAS NOT BEING FOLLOWED. THEREFORE, WE'RE CLARIFYING A PROCESS THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. I'VE TRIED TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE, AND I UNDERSTAND I'VE SPOKEN TO CASEY MILLER, I GIVE IT I'VE GIVEN MY CARD TO MR. CABRERA.

NOT ONCE HAVE I GOTTEN A PHONE CALL. SO, I MEAN, PEOPLE CAN COME HERE AND SAY WHAT THEY WANT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND I WELCOME IT. BUT I STAND TALL AND I STAND STRONG KNOWING THAT ANYONE THAT WANTED TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS, I SPOKE TO. AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GET SOMETHING THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYONE AGREES 100% WITH, BUT IT'S THE BEST PRODUCT FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS. SO THANK YOU. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC OR ANOTHER ORGANIZATION COMING HERE, ONE OF THE BIGGER REASONS I JOINED THE PAB IN PARTICULAR, IS THE FACT THAT WE EXTEND THE TIME THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO SPEAK, WHEREAS SOMETIMES THREE MINUTES CAN BE TOO TIGHT. AND I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HER TO HEAR THE COMMENTS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY HAD TO MAKE A DECISION. I WOULD PREFER TO HEAR AS MANY COMMENTS RELATING TO A SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE WE'RE. WE ACTUALLY GET TO DISCUSSION POINT, AND THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT ON THAT, BUT APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON

[8.A) Traffic Study Update from the Public Works Department. ]

[01:25:07]

AND JUST MY COMMENT IS, IS HAVING GONE THROUGH THE THE DOCUMENT, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST FEW PAGES, I THINK CANDIDLY IT COULD IT REQUIRE SOME SOME CLARIFICATION AND SOME, YOU KNOW, SHARPENING OF THE PENCIL BECAUSE THERE WAS A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT SEEM A LITTLE CITY COUNCIL AGREED WITH YOU, OKAY. AND THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS. AND THAT'S WHY THAT GOT CONTINUED.

SO THERE THE CONSULTANT IS REVISING THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEY'LL BE REVIEWED AGAIN, PUBLISHED FOR THE MARCH AGENDA, THE MARCH WORKSHOP. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SIMILAR COMMENTS ON THAT BECAUSE THERE IS SOME SOME CLEANUPS. ONE MENTION ABOUT RELATED TO THE ORDINANCE WE'VE JUST BEEN READING ABOUT WIDE DEFINED DEPARTMENTS BY NAME WHEN THEY COULD, WHEN THEY COULD ALTER. AND A COUPLE OF, LET'S SAY, SPELLING WORDING, VERY SMALL ITEMS, SPECIFIC CHANGES LIKE THAT, AND YOU WANT TO SEND THEM TO ME, I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. AND THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD POSSIBLY INCLUDE THAT IN THERE.

JUST PLEASE DON'T COPY EACH OTHER. YEAH. PLEASE JUST SEND DIRECTLY TO ME INDIVIDUALLY.

AND EASY TO DO. YEAH. AND I WILL THEN SEND THEM TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THEN IF I COULD JUST JUST ADD THEN IN IN SECTION ONE, SUBSECTION THREE WHERE SMALL SCALE MINOR SCALE AND MAJOR SCALE ARE, ARE DEFINED, THOSE DEFINITIONS NEED TO BE VERY CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND REVISED BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF MAJOR INCONSISTENCIES THROUGHOUT. SO I THINK THAT'D BE VERY IMPORTANT TO DO THAT SECTION. THAT'S ONE. IT'S ON PAGE TWO ONE. AND IT'S THE MINOR, THE SMALL SCALE, THE MINOR SCALE AND THE MAJOR SCALE.

YEAH. AND THERE'S OVERLAPPING IN THOSE. AND AND THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS. SO THANK YOU. WITH RESPECT I'M NOT TRYING TO CRITICIZE I DIDN'T WRITE IT. THAT'S FINE OKAY. THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY OKAY. MOVING ON. NOPE. ARE THERE IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY. I'LL RETURN THIS TO YOU. AND BY THE WAY, I DID MARK THE LAST

[10) Correspondence and Communication]

SO MAKE SURE YOU CHECK YOUR EMAIL. THAT AGENDA HAS BEEN PUBLISHED. IF NOT, IT'S ON THE WEBSITE, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THOSE. BUT THERE'S THE PRESENTATION FROM THE CONSULTANT AND ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS. SO WE'LL SEE YOU CERTAINLY ON THE 20TH. YOU'RE LIT UP. OH NO, I JUST RELIT UP. JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE ON THE WORKSHOP. SO WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS. I'VE BEEN REFUSED BEEN THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY AND AND WONDER HOW WILL THE MEETING TRANSPIRE. AND WHAT I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN IS WILL THERE BE A STRUCTURE FOR DISCUSSION? WILL THERE BE A MODERATOR OR SOMEONE WHO LEADS THE DISCUSSIONS? HOW WILL THAT ALL WORK SO DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY WORKSHOPS ARE HANDLED HERE? YOU'RE ACTUALLY ALL GOING TO BE IN A CIRCLE, WE'LL SAY ON THE ON THE FLOOR OF THE NORRIS CENTER, INTERSPERSE COUNCIL AND PAB AND STAFF. THERE WILL BE A PRESENTATION FROM THE CONSULTANT FIRST, AND THAT PRESENTATION WAS PUBLISHED. SO THEY'LL GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION. AND THEN THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A MUCH MORE INFORMAL DISCUSSION, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS SENSE, BUT A DISCUSSION AMONGST PAB AND CITY COUNCIL THAT WE'VE ALSO IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'VE INVITED THE PUBLIC. THERE WILL BE SEATING FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL. THERE WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTIONS, BUT BUT IT'LL IT'LL BE BASED ON THE PRESENTATION. THE PRESENTATION WILL GUIDE THE DISCUSSION. BUT THERE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM BOTH PAB AND CITY COUNCIL ON A NUMBER OF TOPICS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THAT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE COMMUNICATION. JUST THE FACT OF, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY AS MANY PEOPLE ARE WHO CAN VOTE, WILL VOTE AT THE COMING ELECTION. AND ALSO TO PUT THE NOTICE OUT

[01:30:02]